Nuclear Holocaust, host planet destroyed

[Tom O'Neil]

A virus that kills its host without finding another one and dies in the process itself; would it be considered of value? How different would mankind be if we did that to ourselves by destroying the planet with nuclear weapons. Man has already shown that it is willing to use nukes, so therefore is mankind of no use in the universe if it does not rid itself of these irrational weapons?

 

Tensions are running high in the South China Sea and America has at the helm a highly irrational President so its no wonder that deep underground bases exist! Is it possible for the elite to live long enough underground to one day see the light of day and start over for a race to the stars?

 

Or is man doomed like a virus?

 

 

 

[fiveworlds]

Probably doomed. What do you want us to do about it??

[LabRat1]

Probably doomed. What do you want us to do about it??

I say start colonizing other celestial bodies xD

Or lets bring back hippie culture

[geordief]

One of the dangers is indeed that elites think they may be able to survive the outcome.

 

Is there a way to convince them otherwise?

 

By the way ,we cannot destroy our own planet or all of its inhabitants - only ourselves and our civilization.

 

The planet can cope without us.

 

Viewing ourselves as viruses does not seem to me to be helpful.

 

The best argument is what shits we show ourselves to be by not leaving a future for our children .

Edited March 13, 2017 by geordief

[Phi for All]

The Norwegians resisted their own Hitler after WWII, and now have one of the most sophisticated and enlightened societies on Earth. Negative examples can have a profound impact. Surviving the discovery of fission weapons can be seen as a test of the very things that make us human: high intelligence, cooperation, and communication.

 

We're in an age where, for the first time, we can think about leaving the planet. Sooner or later it will occur to the general populace that we can't be a divided species when we start to colonize offworld. Human hostility + a system's worth of resources isn't a good equation for Earth. Education would seem to be the key.

[geordief]

The Norwegians resisted their own Hitler after WWII,

I can't find this . What happened? What are you referring to?

[Phi for All]

I can't find this . What happened? What are you referring to?

 

Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian fascist like the man in the American White House, and for sucking up to Putin Hitler and helping him dominate the Norwegians, they removed Quisling from office after the war was over and hung him.

 

We don't have to help the virus spread.

[geordief]

 

Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian fascist like the man in the American White House, and for sucking up to Putin Hitler and helping him dominate the Norwegians, they removed Quisling from office after the war was over and hung him.

 

We don't have to help the virus spread.

I wouldn't call that "resistance" though. Presumably Quisling was a sitting duck after the war( he was apparently arrested along with his ministers one day after the German surrender) and just tried (presumably) for treason.

 

All the resistance (and suffering) was during the war. The way I read your post was that there was military activity after the war had ended.

 

There was no military campaign in Norway after Germany had capitulated ,was there?

[LabRat1]

A virus that kills its host without finding another one and dies in the process itself; would it be considered of value? How different would mankind be if we did that to ourselves by destroying the planet with nuclear weapons. Man has already shown that it is willing to use nukes, so therefore is mankind of no use in the universe if it does not rid itself of these irrational weapons?

 

Tensions are running high in the South China Sea and America has at the helm a highly irrational President so its no wonder that deep underground bases exist! Is it possible for the elite to live long enough underground to one day see the light of day and start over for a race to the stars?

 

Or is man doomed like a virus?

 

 

 

We can also learn from history. Previous mass extinctions, though natural, have led to the end of most life forms and our rise...maybe due to the nuclear war rats or moles somehow survive and finally then we can expect a "The Incredibles" trailor.

[Sensei]

If there would be no nuclear weapon, recent russian attack on Ukraine, almost certainly would result in conventional war between Europe/USA and russia, like it used to be in the past, prior making atomic bombs..

There is no way russia could manage to win conventional war, even with part of European countries.

Now everybody are afraid of counter-attack, using nuclear weapons, in the last stage of war, which paralyzes their reactions.

Reaction should be strictly targeted at people responsible for aggression, not at entire country population (which always suffer the most while conventional/nuclear war).

People should not be afraid of getting rid of politicians which can kill entire human race, large population of some nation,

or starting senseless war for nothing (like in the above example, attack on Ukraine. Russia needs more land? Needs more resources? Ridiculous).

Edited March 13, 2017 by Sensei

[Phi for All]

I wouldn't call that "resistance" though. Presumably Quisling was a sitting duck after the war( he was apparently arrested along with his ministers one day after the German surrender) and just tried (presumably) for treason.

 

All the resistance (and suffering) was during the war. The way I read your post was that there was military activity after the war had ended.

 

There was no military campaign in Norway after Germany had capitulated ,was there?

 

I pointed out that they resisted their own Hitler and went on to form a better society, as a way to support my argument that we don't have to allow ourselves to be destroyed by the "virus" in the OP. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

[dimreepr]

Or is man doomed like a virus?

 

 

 

 

A virus is, arguable, the simplest form of life that is unable to choose its actions; man/humans is perhaps the most complex form of life, that is, arguably, able to choose it's actions.

 

If your premise is true, then the complexity of life has little impact on choice.

[Tom O'Neil]

 

A virus is, arguable, the simplest form of life that is unable to choose its actions; man/humans is perhaps the most complex form of life, that is, arguably, able to choose it's actions.

 

If your premise is true, then the complexity of life has little impact on choice.

bingo,

Great statement! With Trump who I believe was not chosen by the majority who is irrational; this shows man's systems are not complex and choice is a myth. So in this respect a human virus represented as the President has the power to destroy the world without our choice!

Edited March 13, 2017 by Tom O'Neil

[Nature Geek]

Man has already shown that it is willing to use nukes, so therefore is mankind of no use in the universe if it does not rid itself of these irrational weapons?

The idea that mankind is of some use to the Universe implies a purpose and purposefulness of the Universe for which I find no evidence.

 

Mankind's usefulness is only to itself. That should be more than enough motivation for us to behavior.

 

I grew up through the 50s and 60s. I find the comparable threat of nuclear annihilation to be relatively low now.

 

There are plenty of other threats to our planet and our species, climate change being top of my list at the moment. But I suspect, even with how bad that may be, that humans as a species will survive it.

[geordief]

 

 

I grew up through the 50s and 60s. I find the comparable threat of nuclear annihilation to be relatively low now.

 

With new actors does that not increase the risk and muddy the predictability?

 

Does not the election of a president of the US like what we now have also factor in as an increased likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons **?

 

 

Both he and Putin have seen fit to let everyone know that their deployment is not anathema.

 

 

There are also non state actors to consider (=non state terrorism).

 

 

True, Climate Change is less "sexy" and perhaps a greater risk (certainty?) but it does little to alleviate the problems associated with the (yes,needed) possession of nuclear weapons(and the danger of AI being in the chain of command) .

 

**I accept there are other more "useful" weapons in the arsenal of the military which would be used first but even a tactical nuclear attack from whichever side would surely concentrate minds very quickly -unless the attacker was inspired by an irrational ideology like IS and happy to hasten the hour of their "martydom"

There are also non state actors to consider (=non state terrorism).

[Raider5678]

With new actors does that not increase the risk and muddy the predictability?

In the 1960's there was a constant fear that a nuclear war would start. Not like now, where it crosses your mind occasionally. No, it was constantly on the radio, people were talking about it, and a lot of people actually thought the world would end.

There were close calls were nuclear weapons were almost launched, but the dread of a dead world somehow managed to keep humanity from annihilating itself.

As radical as I see Trump, I don't see him stupid.

If he launches nukes he's as good as dead. And he knows that.

I don't think he wants to spend the rest of his days in an underground bunker hoping radiation doesn't leak through.

[Argent]

I don't think he wants to spend the rest of his days in an underground bunker hoping radiation doesn't leak through.

How true. Deprived of the opportunity to lose other peoples money; unable to lead an ostentatious lifestyle; denied the chance to flaunt his narcissistic personality in the media. That's no way to live.

[geordief]

How true. Deprived of the opportunity to lose other peoples money; unable to lead an ostentatious lifestyle; denied the chance to flaunt his narcissistic personality in the media. That's no way to live.

And if you are wrong and it is a risk ** he is prepared to take we have no way to make amends for allowing this to come to pass.

 

I feel complacency allied to statistical likelihood and the passage of time may lead us down the cul de sac.

 

Inter governmental organizations need to be reaffirmed and given resources and authority -not a cynical undermining.We sink or swim together here ,as in the Climate Change question.

 

** even the dumbest and most malevolent of leaders are unlikely to choose nuclear armageddon as their first choice but may still see it as a fall back option. As DT said "why can't we use them?"

Edited March 15, 2017 by geordief

[Nature Geek]

With new actors does that not increase the risk and muddy the predictability?

 

Does not the election of a president of the US like what we now have also factor in as an increased likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons **?

 

 

Both he and Putin have seen fit to let everyone know that their deployment is not anathema.

 

 

There are also non state actors to consider (=non state terrorism).

 

 

True, Climate Change is less "sexy" and perhaps a greater risk (certainty?) but it does little to alleviate the problems associated with the (yes,needed) possession of nuclear weapons(and the danger of AI being in the chain of command) .

 

**I accept there are other more "useful" weapons in the arsenal of the military which would be used first but even a tactical nuclear attack from whichever side would surely concentrate minds very quickly -unless the attacker was inspired by an irrational ideology like IS and happy to hasten the hour of their "martydom"

There are also non state actors to consider (=non state terrorism).

 

I think the threat of nuclear weapon use is greater than it was in the 50s and 60s, when the US and Russia dominated. As you mention, there are more actors now, both state and non-state. I certainly don't put it past the North Koreans or some terrorist group to lob a missile at someone.

 

I'm actually a little surprised it has not happened yet.

 

And while that would be bad, it would not be armageddon or nuclear holocaust. I think the possibility of a full out nuclear exchange among the superpowers is remote.

[geordief]

This archived footage has just been uploaded. Cuddly ,aren't they?

 

 

Keeping us all safe.

Edited March 17, 2017 by geordief

[dimreepr]

This archived footage has just been uploaded. Cuddly ,aren't they?

 

 

Keeping us all safe.

 

You can't un-open Pandora's box, so there's no point in our side not having them if the enemy does (what else would stop them using it?), equally there's no point in worrying about it unless you can physically stop it happening.

Edited March 19, 2017 by dimreepr