Scared of Nuclear War

[John D. Brey]

The alternative surely isn't. Do you have any better advice?

2 Peter 3:10-13.



John

 

[The Hammer]

After watching the movie, Day After, I have been consumed by a fear of nuclear war. The fear will pass soon but it is something that I wonder if I should do more about to stop if anything.

Some say there is nothing I can do and I should just not worry at all about it.

What is your take? Can individual citizens do much or should we use our time for doing stuff that we have more control over?

In the age of widespread nukes should a country completely avoid conflicts with other nuclear powers?

Outside of our control. Just relax and do what you can to be a better person.

 

[Viker]

After watching the movie, Day After, I have been consumed by a fear of nuclear war. The fear will pass soon but it is something that I wonder if I should do more about to stop if anything.

Some say there is nothing I can do and I should just not worry at all about it.

What is your take? Can individual citizens do much or should we use our time for doing stuff that we have more control over?

In the age of widespread nukes should a country completely avoid conflicts with other nuclear powers?

I recommend watching a Brit movie called Threads.

I remember The Day After from back in the 80s. I, too, had some heavy consternation about nuclear war. Some time after watching, a scheduled local tornado drill almost flipped me out. I didn't know about the drill and that it was just for tornado preparations. The sirens almost sent me into a panic attack. I was thinking about The Day After and not about tornadoes.

I think the likelihood of full scale nuclear war is minimal to nearly none. I don't fear it much anymore. That could just be me assuring myself.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Individually, common people may be powerless. Collectively, we are not…

Home page -

 

[AnnaCzereda]

The fear of a nuclear war is nothing else than the fear of your own mortality. No matter what you do and how much you are afraid, some day and in some way you will die. There is no such a thing as pleasant death. Dying of cancer or suffering years lying in your bed unable to take care of yourself is as terrible as dying with a bang albeit less spectacular.

Accepting death, embracing your own mortality is liberating.

As far as international conflicts go... sure it's better if they can be avoided. But it takes two to tango. If only one side wants peace, it is not enough unless one is ready to surrender all. It's like with the war in Ukraine. Yeah Ukraine could have peace but only on condition it gives up its independence.

The Day After is a cool movie. It leaves some feeling of uneasiness but you will get over it.

 

[Kfox]

After watching the movie, Day After, I have been consumed by a fear of nuclear war. The fear will pass soon but it is something that I wonder if I should do more about to stop if anything.

Some say there is nothing I can do and I should just not worry at all about it.

What is your take? Can individual citizens do much or should we use our time for doing stuff that we have more control over?

In the age of widespread nukes should a country completely avoid conflicts with other nuclear powers?

During a war, thousands of conventional bombs have been dropped on cities. If 1 nuclear bomb is equal to 2000 conventional bombs when it comes to explosive power, how is dropping 1 nuclear bomb on a city any worse than dropping 2000 conventional bombs?

 

[Windwalker]

Nukes are a two way weapon and no sane person would be willing to go the mutual destruction route en masse.

Why do you assume those who have them are sane? "If I can win, then we all die!", is not an uncommon feature of mad leaders. You trust Kim Jong-Un will act rationally if backed into an unwinnable situation? You trust Putin will "do the right thing" and surrender?

 

[Stevicus]

During a war, thousands of conventional bombs have been dropped on cities. If 1 nuclear bomb is equal to 2000 conventional bombs when it comes to explosive power, how is dropping 1 nuclear bomb on a city any worse than dropping 2000 conventional bombs?

Radioactive fallout, I think, is the main difference. The destructive power is bad enough, but the lingering radiation that comes in the aftermath is the real killer.

 

[F1fan]

During a war, thousands of conventional bombs have been dropped on cities. If 1 nuclear bomb is equal to 2000 conventional bombs when it comes to explosive power, how is dropping 1 nuclear bomb on a city any worse than dropping 2000 conventional bombs?

And it is the delivery of 2000 bombs with many hundreds of planes that can only target cties one at a time, while just a few dozen planes can carry dozens of attacks on that many cities at once.

 

[Kfox]

Radioactive fallout, I think, is the main difference. The destructive power is bad enough, but the lingering radiation that comes in the aftermath is the real killer.

While true; the dirty atomic bombs dropped during WW-2 did have an awful lot of radiation; but things have changed since then. Clean nuclear bombs don’t have that type of radiation (I believe the neutron bomb was the first of such clean nuclear weapons). It is my understanding that if a clean nuclear bomb has the explosive power of 2000 conventional weapons; it will also have the approximate radiation fallout of 2000 conventional bombs as well. Assuming that the case, do you see any difference?

 

[Kfox]

And it is the delivery of 2000 bombs with many hundreds of planes that can only target cties one at a time, while just a few dozen planes can carry dozens of attacks on that many cities at once.

So the problem is Nuclear bombs make the destruction of cities easier?

 

[F1fan]

So the problem is Nuclear bombs make the destruction of cities easier?

Vastly easier. That is why they are called a deterent weapon. The use of them solves nothing in the big picture. The debate is if anyone starts to use nuclear weapons on a small scale how long before it leads to total committment?

There has been debate about whether putil will use small nukes in Ukraine, but the consensus is that they would be useless in open battlefields, and only useful on cities. But then that wipes out any point on fighting for that territory. So not useful. Would he use large nukes? Only if his intent is a suicide by WW3.

 

[Kfox]

Vastly easier. That is why they are called a deterent weapon. The use of them solves nothing in the big picture. The debate is if anyone starts to use nuclear weapons on a small scale how long before it leads to total committment?

There has been debate about whether putil will use small nukes in Ukraine, but the consensus is that they would be useless in open battlefields, and only useful on cities. But then that wipes out any point on fighting for that territory. So not useful. Would he use large nukes? Only if his intent is a suicide by WW3.

Suicide by WW3 can be accomplished by conventional weapons also because whatever damage is done by large nukes, can be accomplished by conventional bombs also

 

[Stevicus]

While true; the dirty atomic bombs dropped during WW-2 did have an awful lot of radiation; but things have changed since then. Clean nuclear bombs don’t have that type of radiation (I believe the neutron bomb was the first of such clean nuclear weapons). It is my understanding that if a clean nuclear bomb has the explosive power of 2000 conventional weapons; it will also have the approximate radiation fallout of 2000 conventional bombs as well. Assuming that the case, do you see any difference?

Possibly. I've heard others say that the projections of "nuclear winter" and so forth might be exaggerated. It also depends on how many nuclear weapons are actually detonated and whether or not the powers using them are using the "clean" version.

One of the assumptions about nuclear war which was prevalent during the Cold War was that even a small exchange would "automatically" result in an all-out, massive exchange of nuclear weapons. The Day After played out the classic Cold War scenario of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, with US field commanders exercising their authority to launch nuclear artillery on the advancing troops, which leads to retaliatory nuclear strikes on NATO targets, which then leads to a worldwide nuclear alert. That's when General Beringer at NORAD calls out "Alright. Flush the bombers, get the subs in launch mode. We are at DEFCON 1."

Moreover, I would point that 2000 conventional bombs are nothing to sneeze at either, and it's safe to assume that there'd be lots of those dropping as well. And it wouldn't be just one nuclear bomb, but potentially hundreds, or even thousands on a global scale. We can only project what kind of environmental damage that would cause, even if we completely set aside the question of radiation. There would be no more industry, no more transportation or communication infrastructure. There will likely be survivors and perhaps some semblance of human society will remain and rebuild civilization.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why do you assume those who have them are sane? "If I can win, then we all die!", is not an uncommon feature of mad leaders. You trust Kim Jong-Un will act rationally if backed into an unwinnable situation? You trust Putin will "do the right thing" and surrender?

I mentioned sane. Not insane ones.

 

[Kfox]

Possibly. I've heard others say that the projections of "nuclear winter" and so forth might be exaggerated. It also depends on how many nuclear weapons are actually detonated and whether or not the powers using them are using the "clean" version.

One of the assumptions about nuclear war which was prevalent during the Cold War was that even a small exchange would "automatically" result in an all-out, massive exchange of nuclear weapons. The Day After played out the classic Cold War scenario of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, with US field commanders exercising their authority to launch nuclear artillery on the advancing troops, which leads to retaliatory nuclear strikes on NATO targets, which then leads to a worldwide nuclear alert. That's when General Beringer at NORAD calls out "Alright. Flush the bombers, get the subs in launch mode. We are at DEFCON 1."

Moreover, I would point that 2000 conventional bombs are nothing to sneeze at either, and it's safe to assume that there'd be lots of those dropping as well. And it wouldn't be just one nuclear bomb, but potentially hundreds, or even thousands on a global scale. We can only project what kind of environmental damage that would cause, even if we completely set aside the question of radiation. There would be no more industry, no more transportation or communication infrastructure. There will likely be survivors and perhaps some semblance of human society will remain and rebuild civilization.

The same thing can be accomplished with conventional bombs. Remember; far more people were killed by the conventional bombing of Tokyo than from the Atomic Bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima during WW-2

 

[Stevicus]

The same thing can be accomplished with conventional bombs. Remember; far more people were killed by the conventional bombing of Tokyo than from the Atomic Bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima during WW-2

Then I guess Sherman was correct when he said "war is hell."

 

[Kfox]

Then I guess Sherman was correct when he said "war is hell."

True! But unfortunately sometimes it's unavoidable.

 

[idea]

We fear the wrong things - statistically speaking, junk food kills more people than nukes.

Lots to fear, along to celebrate, as it has always been.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The same thing can be accomplished with conventional bombs. Remember; far more people were killed by the conventional bombing of Tokyo than from the Atomic Bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima during WW-2

And yet it was the unprecedented destructive power of the atom bombs which caused Japan to surrender unconditionally