The reason radon "only applies" to smokers is that it is a odorless, colorless, radioactive gas that is almost completely harmless until inhaled. The inhalation of radon brings the radiation source close to lung tissue that could be affected.... and in smokers' lungs, that tissue is already compromised and more susceptible to mutation.You claimed that there was no measurable harm caused by nuclear fallout, and I just cited one source against your unsupported claim. In response, your entire post was simply an attack on my source. That is logically invalid, since it is a classic genetic fallacy to attack a claim merely on the the basis of its origin. A donate button does not invalidate the study. Calling their method "p-hacking" and then posting a comic strip to mock it is perhaps the only way you can dismiss their claim, but a statistical argument is, in fact, the only way to address your claim that there was no measurable harm from fallout. In fact, there were detectable levels of sr-90 in the bones and teeth of children in my generation after those bomb tests, and there were deaths that correlated with elevated levels in teeth, your dismissal of the claim on grounds of the amount being "miniscule" notwithstanding. If you don't like that study, I suppose I can always fall back on good old Wikipedia:Nuclear fallout.
While you call it a "comic" that's XKCD--he uses a comic format to explain a lot of scientific stuff. As for Wikipedia, look at what it says about your source:
We have only two data points showing harm from low level exposure:
1) The thyroid cancers after Chernobyl--but the expected deaths didn't show up. Something's strange there.
2) Radon exposure from uranium mining--but strangely the risk only applies to smokers.
-
Features
Nuts and Bolts of Nuclear War (split from Ukraine Reaction thread)
- Thread starter Copernicus
- Start date
I have no concerns over russia intentionally launching full scale nukes... I have grave concerns of russia unintentionally launching full scale nukes out of sheer incompetence, based on their "keystone cops" tactics displayed in Ukraine so far.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
Don't confuse Putin with Russia. This war in Ukraine was his idea. Most Russians and Ukrainians thought he would mainly just annex Luhansk and Donetsk to add to his collection of Ukrainian territories. This invasion came as a complete surprise to the majorities of people in both countries, not to mention a great many Russian soldiers who found themselves charging into Ukraine with guns blazing. It was all supposed to be a bluff being pulled off by their chess-playing genius of a president.
Now, would Vladimir Putin launch a nuclear strike on the US and Europe? The consensus seems to be that he wouldn't dare. Just like he wouldn't dare launch a full scale invasion into Ukraine and he wouldn't dare target Ukrainian civilians. Before he disappeared, how many times did our Russian friend here tell us that Russians don't target civilians? So, nothing to worry about.
It's just strange that there's no effect observed other than in smokers, not merely a lesser effect.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
You are equating two very unequal things. The Russian Pig knew that Ukraine posed no threat to himself but that he certainly posed a threat to Ukraine. So, he invaded. How does this even begin to equate with his similarly launching nuclear weapons against the west? It isn't even close. Nuclear arms possessed by NATO and the west are an unmitigated reality. He will not use them for the same reason Hitler didn't use chemical and biological weapons, namely, because they would begin landing on him, an undeniable reality. The Russian Pig is no different, he knows the difference between reality and propaganda.
Again, the Russian Pig has you exactly where he wants you which gives him free reign to destroy Ukraine.
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
You know launching nuclear weapons against the west will end catastrophically. I know launching nuclear weapons against the west will end catastrophically. What makes you think Putin knows launching nuclear weapons against the west will end catastrophically? Or if he cares?
FFS, there are people in the west who think a nuclear war can be limited, and that it can be won.
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
1976 documentary on how a nuclear war might accidentally start:
It's an excerpt from Bruno Bozzetto's Allegro Non Troppo, a brilliant parody of Disney's classic, Fantasia.
It's an excerpt from Bruno Bozzetto's Allegro Non Troppo, a brilliant parody of Disney's classic, Fantasia.
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
Heisenberg risked his life protecting Jews? I didn't know that, and it isn't mentioned in this interesting video. Heisenberg had Jewish friends and was himself called a "White Jew", and hated Hitler, but he was pro-Germany. Even after the War he expressed regret that Germany had lost the War and he seemed to endorse the Nazi concept of a superior race.
In October 1941, while chief scientist of Hitler's atomic research program, Heisenberg met with Niels Bohr who was of course thoroughly anti-Nazi. This famous meeting is a famous mystery, and was even made the subject of the play Copenhagen. Was Heisenberg hoping Bohr would reveal secrets of the Allies' nuclear program? Did he want (as Heisenberg later claimed) scientists to unify in opposition to nuclear weapons? Did he just enjoy discussing science with his great mentor and father figure? The meeting remains mysterious and controversial. An important relevant fact is that at that time neither Heisenberg nor Bohr thought that an atomic bomb, even if possible, could be built in time to affect the War. Kathy ("Kathy Loves Physics & History") gives her opinion in the above-linked video: While Heisenberg's meeting with Bohr was ostensibly treasonous, it was done with the full knowledge of the Nazi elite and was a test of Heisenberg's loyalty and suitability to serve as a propaganda agent.
The video is 38 minutes long, but Kathy speaks very quickly and covers a LOT of ground. (It touches on a variety of matters: Greta Garbo's role in rescuing Denmark's Jews, the fact the Heisenberg and other German scientists were held captive by the Allies in 1945 with their conversations recorded, and so on. In addition to being one of the greatest physicists ever, Niels Bohr was a brave hero.) If the topic interests, the video may be a good watch.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Sounds like the Sagan / Teller relationship, two men at odds though it wasn't about racism for these two, rather about nuclear war. Teller always claimed that a nuclear war could be won while Sagan said it would plunge the planet into a nuclear winter, meaning there aren't any winners. Teller was always jealous, I believe, how everyone recognized Sagan and often asked for his autograph while Teller went unrecognized. I think it hurt Teller's ego.
I never really thought about this way, but this is really the most important aspect of Mutually-Assured Destruction: the promise that, no matter what, the guy in charge is gonna get it.
I hope that Putin understands that there is nowhere he can hide to escape death in the event of a nuclear exchange. NATO probably know his whereabouts at all times, just as Russia would know POTUS's location at all times. He could hop into a sub and sail to the middle of the Arctic Circle and there would still be someone tasked to kill him. (Hell, even the Russians would probably kill him at that point.)
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
The problem is "tactical" nuclear weapons. If Putin nukes a city in Ukraine, with just one nuke, is the US or NATO going to reciprocate and nuke a city or a military base in Russia? And more importantly, does Putin think that US or NATO will do that? If Putin calculates that he can get away with using nukes in a limited manner, he might just do it.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Read the book or watch the movie Failsafe.
There have been several actual close calls on nuclear war.
There have been several actual close calls on nuclear war.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
He was taken into custody by the Brits. He refused to reveal any information on the Nazi nuclear program.
IMO both Heisenburg and Von Braun should have been hung at Nuremberg.
Post war in the USA Von Braun always claimed he was never a Nazi. Plenty of pictures of him in uniform at his rocket faculties. Lifespan of his slave workers at the pants was around 6 months. He wanted to get into space and did not care if it took building the terror rockets that hit the Brits and using slave labor to do it. He and his group surrenders to the Americans rather than be captured by the Russians.
IMO Heisenberg is no better. The same post war rationalization. He could have escaped to the Brits or Americans.
Von Braun was working on an ICBM and Heisenburg an atomic bomb. Both ammoral self serving scientists. Both clearly understood the conseunces of their actions and how ther cretions woud be used and the reasons why..
Yes, that makes sense.
Before nuclear weapons, Putin is likely to try chemical weapons. Biden suggested today that NATO would respond "in kind".
Ukraine war: NATO will respond in kind if Vladimir Putin uses chemical weapons, Joe Biden says
The US and its allies are concerned Russia might deploy chemical weapons in its war with Ukraine. Mr Biden says "the nature of the response would depend on the nature of the use".
news.sky.com
Doesn't "in kind" mean responding with chemical weapons? That seems like a bluff. Would the same apply to tactical nukes?
I like to hope that Biden is being deliberately vague here so that Putin isn't entirely sure of what NATO would do.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Hitler used guided, crude by today's standards, missiles as terror weapons. If he had a nuke does nayone think he wound not have used it on London?
The chemocal weapon argument does not apply.
The chemocal weapon argument does not apply.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
I agree with the point that Putin is no braver than any of us when it comes to facing death, maybe even a little more frightened. However, none of us can escape death, and we all know that. Putin's situation is a little different from that of a normal world leader in that his own survival likely depends on somehow getting out of this corner that he has painted himself and his country into. He always had enemies who would like to kill him, but now he has managed to create an exponentially greater number. A lot of Russians have close ties to Ukraine and may even be Ukrainians by birth (e.g. the Russian general who recently made the news in the West by not sounding enthusiastic about what was happening in his native country). That's why he has a massive campaign going to hide the truth from people in his country. He is desperate for some way to come out of this looking clean. If he is going to die for his blunder anyway. I don't think he has any qualms about taking the rest of humanity with him. He obviously doesn't have a lot of empathy or sympathy for other human beings.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
That is the MAD prnciple. Right now it is limiting the NATO response in Ukraine.
Putin reinforces it by periodically referring to nuclear weapons and we are left to wonder if the guy is suicidal or not.
Putin reinforces it by periodically referring to nuclear weapons and we are left to wonder if the guy is suicidal or not.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,074
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
His missiles were just expensive and pointless toys. His conventional aircraft were far more destructive and far more dangerous, and had he abandoned rocketry and pilotless aircraft, and instead spent the money and resources on more of his conventional aircraft and their ordnance, he would have done far more damage.
The V weapons failed in their attempts to terrorise, and represented a futile desire for vengeance that cost him more than it cost his enemies.
And he had (from day one) the ability to use chemical weapons against cities, but didn't do it. Which strongly suggests that deterrence was effective - he was happy to use unconventional and highly destructive weapons, but was absolutely against doing so if it implied retaliation in kind. He explicitly talked about secret weapons "with which we cannot be attacked", and right up until the first air raids on Berlin, apparently believed that Berlin was safe from such raids due to the great distances and strong defences that his enemies would have to negotiate.
He might have used nuclear weapons had he been able to build them - but only if he was certain that he was safe from retaliation in kind.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
The issue here is over the use of smaller tactical nuclear weapons rather than the larger strategic warheads on ICBMs. The problem is that such weapons would create the same horrors as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but on a smaller scale--firestorms, radiation sickness, etc. He is also considering the use of chemical weapons, which Russia has experience from in Syria. Any use of such weapons would likely produce a huge reaction in the West, which occurred on a much smaller scale when it happened in Syria. Back then, the US did respond with missile bombardments a couple of times. Biden has a team looking at how to respond, if Putin decides to use the WMDs. The problem, of course, is that any response from NATO could escalate to a worldwide nuclear catastrophe.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Back in the 80s at Lockheed there was always uncalssified militray jounals laying around.
The analysis I read of simulations and war games was that the side loosing first would use tactial nukes inevitably resulting in a full scale strategic exchange.
If Putin is rational and not suicidal his periodic raising of nuclear weapons is to keep NATO off balance and hesitant. One of his spokesmen said nuclear weapons are not off the table if they are existentially theatend without providing details.
If Putin actually believes a small scale nuclear war can be waged and won then we may be headed for serious troubles.
Russia is a huge country. Maybe he thinks he can survie it and in the lng run Russia will prevail. Obviously he does not care about the destruction of his econom here and now.
Right mow I expect Putin is experiencing extreme emotional and psycholocal stress and presuure. To me unimaginable. Anyone can break down. Putin presents a public image of extreme self control and stoicism.
During the Cod War there was always a sense of impending doom in the background. When the Berlin Wall came down all that dissipated for me. Now it is creeping back.
We joke and impune Putin here, but the possibilities are serious.
The analysis I read of simulations and war games was that the side loosing first would use tactial nukes inevitably resulting in a full scale strategic exchange.
If Putin is rational and not suicidal his periodic raising of nuclear weapons is to keep NATO off balance and hesitant. One of his spokesmen said nuclear weapons are not off the table if they are existentially theatend without providing details.
If Putin actually believes a small scale nuclear war can be waged and won then we may be headed for serious troubles.
Russia is a huge country. Maybe he thinks he can survie it and in the lng run Russia will prevail. Obviously he does not care about the destruction of his econom here and now.
Right mow I expect Putin is experiencing extreme emotional and psycholocal stress and presuure. To me unimaginable. Anyone can break down. Putin presents a public image of extreme self control and stoicism.
During the Cod War there was always a sense of impending doom in the background. When the Berlin Wall came down all that dissipated for me. Now it is creeping back.
We joke and impune Putin here, but the possibilities are serious.