I'm more worried about genetically tailored viruses and chemical agents that could be released completely anonymously. Mutually Assured Destruction breaks down if retaliation is impossible because you can't tell who did it.
Humans are fricked unless we give up war, end of discussion. Weapons will only become more powerful, insidious and tempting as our understanding of the universe increases. We have to hope our leaders in turn will become wiser at the same rate but somehow I doubt it.
>What's the implications of that?
Ayylmaos gonna have to start working overtime zipping around in their tic tacs turning off nuclear weapons before we woopsie daisy ourselves headfirst into The Great Filter
air defence stuff like missile interceptors is one thing but there are many ways to deliver a nuke. I don't think it's possible for any country to block every avenue
Nuclear armageddon is a made up concept. Destroying a bunch of military bases and major population centers doesn't turn the entire fricking world into le spoopy grimdark Terminator timeline and the effects of nuclear "winter" are outshone by a fricking volcano.
>As the number humans with nukes increases the probability of an nuclear armageddon tends to 1.
Consider this. Nuclear weapons are prohibitively expensive to manufacture due to energy consumption during refinement. Even more so for Plutonium based weapons. Even once the raw material is sourced and refined (something that can take an entire nation making a national effort decades to accomplish) the weapon must them be assembled and tested (for without testing you are merely rolling a die). Aside form the main critical mass you will require other components at a minimum electronics and explosives as well as a casing. All of these most be in proximity with a radioactive mass. For nations who are or were surperpowers they utilised a tritium component to assist in detonation and that component expires roughly every ten years, but so do many other components such as the electronics sitting next to a source of radiation for ten years effects many different materials, so your detonator, explosive and control circuitry will degrade. These two elements, the fact that manufacture is inherently prohibitively expensive and not just that but that only a decade later the device must effectively be rebuilt mean that only a tiny number of co-operatives whether nations or corporate entities could ever actually afford them and only a small subset could maintain them or deliver them to a distant target. Mass individual ownership of nuclear weapons will never occur. The resources do not exist. Joker or at least the version you post is portrayed by a vegan anti gun actor and the 'clownworld' meme was propagated by Russian subversion channels and targeted any and all western institutions but never e.g. Putin or Russia.
We have n=2 nukes used in anger in history, there's not enough data to make an real conclusion. IF you were to draw conclusions from this data you would see the probability of nuclear weapon usage is actually negatively correlated with the number of users, such that if only one country has nukes they will almost certainly use them. But you shouldn't conclude that either, because they are plenty of conflicts between nuclear/non-nuclear and nuke/nuke counties that have had no nuclear weapons used at all. I will conceded that if nuclear weapons usage reaches below the nation-state level, that by shear chance the likelihood of an accident or suicide by nuclear counter-strike does possibly increase.
nuclear armageddon is just a spooky modern expression for widespread misery and suffering.
something of the sort probably already happened during the "bronze age collapse", whole societies simply disappeared, we don't have much info about it, so we can really only conjecture why. that's life, species come and go, sometimes they collapse and rebuild, sometimes they completely disappear.
They are not correlated
What, they don't necessarily all know another?
No it doesn't moron
You're in PrepHole, you know? I would do it just to prove you wrong.
I'm more worried about genetically tailored viruses and chemical agents that could be released completely anonymously. Mutually Assured Destruction breaks down if retaliation is impossible because you can't tell who did it.
Humans are fricked unless we give up war, end of discussion. Weapons will only become more powerful, insidious and tempting as our understanding of the universe increases. We have to hope our leaders in turn will become wiser at the same rate but somehow I doubt it.
>What's the implications of that?
Ayylmaos gonna have to start working overtime zipping around in their tic tacs turning off nuclear weapons before we woopsie daisy ourselves headfirst into The Great Filter
let me play with the spicy rocks you damn aliums
No, that is strictly verboten by the Upper Orion Arm council.
USA will likely have some anti nuke tech figured out at some point, if not already
What if the US decides to nuke the world by voting? something like "if just one american decides to nuke the world so it be, period"
Radioactive fallout scrubbers? Quite a miraculous thing to invent.
there's no way someone would be stupid enough to try to export such a decisive technological advantage outside their country
air defence stuff like missile interceptors is one thing but there are many ways to deliver a nuke. I don't think it's possible for any country to block every avenue
Nuclear armageddon is a made up concept. Destroying a bunch of military bases and major population centers doesn't turn the entire fricking world into le spoopy grimdark Terminator timeline and the effects of nuclear "winter" are outshone by a fricking volcano.
>As the number humans with nukes increases the probability of an nuclear armageddon tends to 1.
Consider this. Nuclear weapons are prohibitively expensive to manufacture due to energy consumption during refinement. Even more so for Plutonium based weapons. Even once the raw material is sourced and refined (something that can take an entire nation making a national effort decades to accomplish) the weapon must them be assembled and tested (for without testing you are merely rolling a die). Aside form the main critical mass you will require other components at a minimum electronics and explosives as well as a casing. All of these most be in proximity with a radioactive mass. For nations who are or were surperpowers they utilised a tritium component to assist in detonation and that component expires roughly every ten years, but so do many other components such as the electronics sitting next to a source of radiation for ten years effects many different materials, so your detonator, explosive and control circuitry will degrade. These two elements, the fact that manufacture is inherently prohibitively expensive and not just that but that only a decade later the device must effectively be rebuilt mean that only a tiny number of co-operatives whether nations or corporate entities could ever actually afford them and only a small subset could maintain them or deliver them to a distant target. Mass individual ownership of nuclear weapons will never occur. The resources do not exist. Joker or at least the version you post is portrayed by a vegan anti gun actor and the 'clownworld' meme was propagated by Russian subversion channels and targeted any and all western institutions but never e.g. Putin or Russia.
Nothing to worry about, fren.
We have n=2 nukes used in anger in history, there's not enough data to make an real conclusion. IF you were to draw conclusions from this data you would see the probability of nuclear weapon usage is actually negatively correlated with the number of users, such that if only one country has nukes they will almost certainly use them. But you shouldn't conclude that either, because they are plenty of conflicts between nuclear/non-nuclear and nuke/nuke counties that have had no nuclear weapons used at all. I will conceded that if nuclear weapons usage reaches below the nation-state level, that by shear chance the likelihood of an accident or suicide by nuclear counter-strike does possibly increase.
2 used in anger
+2000 used to brag and maybe to get a little of new data
nuclear armageddon is just a spooky modern expression for widespread misery and suffering.
something of the sort probably already happened during the "bronze age collapse", whole societies simply disappeared, we don't have much info about it, so we can really only conjecture why. that's life, species come and go, sometimes they collapse and rebuild, sometimes they completely disappear.