I’m getting rather concerned about all these “nuclear war isn’t that bad, actually” takes from libs
They can only ban so many Russian athletes from sporting events before their frustration overflows
You mean you actually care about the world going up in an atomic hellstorm?But what about freedom and liberty as held to my own strange and self-destructive definition?
We had to irradiate the village in order to save it
It’s kinda like “Climate Change is not so bad…”
Better city planning
Suburban sprawl as a nuclear defense strategy is a new one to me lmao
it was a limited consideration in the 50s, but basically bolted on the side of robert-moses-core with the odd rootcellar called “fallout shelter” as a marketing gimic in new developments.
round about 1:07 in everyone’s favorite nuclear documentary is an example
That’s actually not that new. I think that was part of it.
It is important to remember why cities were building highways through the fifties and sixties; why the federal government was promoting low-density suburban development and why companies were moving their corporate head offices to campuses in the country: Civil defense. One of the best defenses against nuclear bombs is sprawl; the devastation of a bomb can only cover so much area. Shawn Lawrence Otto wrote in Fool Me Twice[.]
deleted by creator
oh you widened your city 50 miles? i’ll just stuff a few extra warheads in this here missile and make sure i saturate the whole thing 🥰
deleted by creator
Well sure the the obscene yields do help destroy suburbs, but another reason they exist is to ensure military targets are hit. ICBMs used to be inaccurate by a couple miles, so increasing the blast radius ensured that didn’t matter. Now, ICBMs are more accurate and the world generally fields less powerful bombs.
That is supposed to mean “lower density cities”, I guess. So first of all, that is bad urban planning. Secondly, I don’t think that it helps so much, buildings and stuff are still there.
Not to mention the stuff we put in our houses and make them out of is like 20x more flammable than back then.
Destroying critical junctures for energy and transport infrastructure won’t be a problem so long as fewer people are in the immediate proximity of the blast
I’m sure the new Applebee’s and it’s gargantuan parking lot will certainly shield the $1 Margaritas from any significant amount of damage
Look if Joe Brandon is gonna doom us all, at least let me get my appletini on 💅💅💅
THE PARKING LOTS WILL SAVE US
Also incredible America-Brain
Maybe they’re referring to how cities act as huge heat sinks because of all the concrete?
“TIL Nuclear Winter is almost impossible in modern times”
Cockroaches don’t tolerate low temperatures, so if humanity dies, cockroaches die too (except in tropics).
fair enough. Then the only other explanation is that this post was written by a sentient fungus
almost impossible
prerequisite firestorms extremely unlikely
Lahaina survivors have entered the chat
This sort of nukable, mixed use urbanism is illegal to build in most US cities.
Why can’t more people be like Philomena Cunk and cry just knowing that nuclear bombs are still a thing?
It’s literally me
lol I saw someone suggest nuclear war may only kill as few as 10,000 people. What??
“well, you see, 99.9% of Russia’s nukes don’t work,. of course all our nukes work, but we don’t consider Russians to be ‘people’ so they aren’t added to the count”
Have you considered the world deserves to die for not sufficiently supporting Ukraine in this time of need
Humbly requesting you add pronouns. I almost thought you were serious.
If you’re worth talking to, you have your pronouns on display
Reminds me of when my
- fan friend was enthusing about how American missile defense would protect us from incoming Russian ICBMs. He was saying this in the context of wishing we’d done a Highway of Death to Russian forces nearing Kiev and how we could’ve gotten away with it.never mind that Russian missile/rocket tech is better that the US, and always has been lol
Honest to god had a nuclear engineering chud argue to my face that China would lose a hot war to the US because “they don’t spend enough to keep their nukes working”. Literal nuclear grade copium. I laughed at him
No amount of hubris is too much for our friends with lower yield ideologies.
Come on, let’s have a nuclear war. It’s not that bad. It’s just the immediate destruction of all major population centres of the developed world and fallout that will haunt survivors for generations. It’s no big deal! Stop being such a chicken about it!
deleted by creator
well fuck my ass and call me a rotiserrie, here i thought the one thing i’d be guaranteed in my nuclear apocalypse would be the end of global warming!
may as well throw all these missiles away if they can’t even cool this place down a bit after killing 8 billion people
The reality is: Nobody is sure, any nuclear bombing is species-wide suicide at worst, an insanely pointless gamble at best. The vague consensus seems to be it would take a maximum 100 warheads to irreversibly destroy ecology worldwide, some suggest it would only take a few modern warheads. I suggest we do all we can to not fucking find out.
B E T T E R City Planning!!!
Turns out stroad hell was a nuclear defense tactic all along
If the only people left in Amerikkka are gonna be the people who choose to live out in the exurbs, I think I’m okay with being vaporized
I’ve studied nuclear weapons. I’m no physicist but I’ve read pretty extensively on the after-effects.
These people are fucking stupid
Do they address why they have smaller yields? Because targeting systems are much more advanced. That’s it. That’s the reason. It’s like arguing it’s better to be shot in the heart with a single round rather than blasted with buckshot in the center of the chest. You’re still fucking dead.
I have a PhD in nuclear physics from a top 10 science guy university in the world, and I don’t believe nuclear armageddon is a problem. And I’m also not interested in discussing it (just so that no one comes with bs talking points, I’ve seen enough). I’m just saying this so that you don’t stumble on your own delusional bubble too much.
You don’t believe in science. You believe in TV. You haven’t read a single peer reviewed paper on the matter, let alone papers that have a different point of view. So spare me your condescending bullshit.
Now go ahead and downvote me so that you can sleep better at night after having excluded me, the infidel. Just remember that many people out there have degrees, educated and read 100 times on the matter than you and disagree with your delusions on the matter. Enjoy four faith in TV.
babe wake up new site taglines just dropped
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Your posting power is unmatched, comrade.
Me when the TV gods fail me:
a bit?Your post is totally useless and needlessly hostile.
It’s a copy paste from another thread where someone says he has a phd in particle physics and says this about climate change
deleted by creator
Yeah
deleted by creator
I simply wouldn’t claim intimate knowledge of scientific consensus in a field I don’t study extensively
deleted by creator
urban planning
“Buh? why are you dismissing my Bookchin redditor friends as ‘satanic holocaust PMC’? Actually urban planning is a respectable academic discipline”
People have to remember, it’s not so much cities themselves that could be targets in a nuclear war. The first to go would likely be military bases, international airports and seaports (pretty much anything that can launch and support military equipment and personnel), and the hundreds of missile silos that dot Missouri and Montana.
Secondary targets would be industrial centers like steel mills and chemical plants, and railroad yards. Communication hubs and tech centers might be hit as well.
Most of these things just happen to be in major cities, but the cities themselves aren’t targets, and people living in suburban and rural areas aren’t necessarily safe.
(Of course, all this is based on outdated Cold War-era nuclear exchange theories that may or may not have changed. The communication hub thing for example: the Internet was originally created as a means of decentralizing communication in case of a nuclear attack. So take everything I said here with a grain of salt.)
See the problem is most east coast and a lot of West Coast cities have major military installations inside of them or very near them. Additionally, military targets are only the first wave of all out nuclear war, major civilian targets are chosen to weaken logistical networks and slow recovery. So if you live in a city with a large port, rail way, interstate, or airport. Than your probably fucked.
This is all part of unclassified plans from the cold war you can find on the Internet. There’s a million YouTube videos about what an all out nuclear war would look like based off those documents. Given nuclear technology hasn’t seen any major improvements sense these plans were written, it’s probably safe to assume they’re still mostly valid.
The two nuclear bombs dropped by the US on Japan were pointedly targeting mass civilian population centres, I don’t think you can rely on them being targeted with any real strategic logic, they are the tools of the genocidal and the deranged.
he
I sure hope Australia doesn’t decide to dock nuclear-powered submarines a few km from me
