/sci/ - Science & Math

bumping with mushroom cloud pr0n

>>2011
>>People who dont speak english on 4chan trying to discuss important topics
i seriously hope you guys dont do this

two words OP

anitmatter-bombs

>>3471024
are non existent, is what you should have finished that with.

most expensive scarecrow of all times
zes I'm referring to cold war

>>3471027
>2011
>still trying to poorly troll
I seriously hope people don't do this.

>>3471029
NO BUT HAF YOU SEEN ANGELS AND DEMONBS THAT MOVIE WITH TOM HONKS THE ANIALATION OF ANTIMATTER IS IN THAT MOVIE

>>3471035
I am willing to bet the soviets dropped a bomb or two on a village at one point.

>>3471041
Anti-matter weapons would be far more effective, efficient and able to have a varying yield per warhead.

I refuse to see anything by dan brown. I hated the davinci code so fucking much. Like, on an exponential level.

>>3471014
>I have been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I never truly felt shamed to be an american except here.

Why that in particular? We caused more death and destruction than that on other occasions, such as firebombing Tokyo, or Dresden in Germany. Why should the method of destruction, the fact that it was a single bomb instead of hundreds of bombs, make a difference?

>>3471046
>Be Soviets
>Disregard basic human rights in the name of military industrial complex
>??????
>CAPITALISM!!!

>>3471055
>Anti-matter weapons would be far more effective

Effective at doing what? Atomic weapons are already more powerful than they would ever need to be. In fact, the explosions are TOO big to be useful for almost any application.

>>3471069
blast yields are quite acceptable
the problem is following fallout

tsar bomba not mentioned yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

This is some scary stuff. I hope when these weapons are used in war again earth can still support humans.

>>3471059
You raise a good point.However, I think because it has to do with it being one type of bomb, and the amount of destruction that happened all at once. Carpet bombings are terriable but people still have some chance to get out of the way, and the conventional bombs only have a small area of effectiveness. Although the reason Tokyo was burned to the ground is the same reason Hiroshima was flattened, and so many used to die in earthquakes there. All wood buildings.

>>3471084
read whole article?
shit was the only one of it's kind
but yes, we can make far more powerful bombs than TSAR
in fact they actually wanted to make ti 100MT instead of "only" 50

>>3471069
effective in size to destruction ratio, destroying all life in blast radius, effectiveness in crimes against humanity, ect ect.

>>3471093
Improvements in efficiency make a similar effect from a small mass possible.
Also, you believe the largest warhead in current service is declassified?

>>3471084
Mostly for show, although the Soviets did like their bombs to be of larger yields because their delivery vehicles were pieces of shit.

I heard they wanted to build like a 300mt weapon on a boat that would go around the ocean, and incase the Soviets ever fell in a war with the west they would blow it and basically kill everything on earth.
This_is_why_we_can't_have_nice_things.dll

Japan is a great example of why there shouldn't be nuclear power.

>>3471112
What the fuck are you talking about? Nuclear power is safe, people should have the foresight to understand potential hazards and overestimate saftey than under and hope it never happens. That plant failure was humanities fault not nature or nuclear.

>>3471112
There aren't words to express my contempt for you'r stance on nuclear power. Thankfully I am having a good night and kicking back with a drink so no rage dump.

>>3471107
300MT weapon wouldn't kill everything on earth
all nuclear weapons combined would not kill everything on earth for fucks sake

>>3471085

But firebombing does happen all at once. The effect is the same - to erase entire cities. And there really isn't much chance to get out of the way, either, when several square miles are engulfed in fire at once. The LOW estimate for one raid on Tokyo was 100,000 civilian deaths, and it was probably a lot higher than that.

>>3471135
>all nuclear weapons combined would not kill everything on earth for fucks sake

No, but they could kill all the humans.

>>3471135
Just heard it was speculation, I don't remember the details, I have been looking for the source.

>>3471107
Soviets had better missiles.

>>3471132
My thoughts exactly.

>>3471156
Uh, no, they had WORSE missiles. That's why they went for fuckhuge warheads instead of just hitting the target precisely.

>>3471150
Maybe. Not that guy, but I doubt it. Modern civilization would be fucked though.

>>3471055
Modern nukes have "dial-a-yield" technology as is.

Insomuch as efficiency, that only happens if all the antimatter can contact the matter to annihilate, they'd have to be atomic-thickness sheets that come into perfectly symmetrical contact at the exact same time.
Also as for efficiency, it'd take much more energy to create a true antimatter weapon.

The ticket is to use antimatter-catalyzed fusion warheads. Theoretically, you can stage a fusion warhead to have yields in the gigaton range... if you were crazy enough to do such a thing and willing to put up with a positively huge warhead.

>>3471104
>Also, you believe the largest warhead in current service is declassified?

Probably. Beyond a certain size, it's pointless to make a bigger explosion from a single warhead.

>>3471150
No, they couldn't.

>>3471163
I hope you don't mean the full tech specs. THAT shit is NEVER declassified - we don't want tinpot dictators using the plans.

Sure, some basic design overviews are declassified, but the real tricks of getting a decent yield most certainly aren't.

>>3471159
Sure it wasn't just the propaganda potential?

>>3471159
Any data supporting your bald claim would be appreciated.

>Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.

Your grandfather made have lost his life if we didn't drop the bombs.

>>3471150
that's a nope
you're overestimating world's nuclear arsenal and underestimationg humans. Just becasue it would end modern civilization as we know it doesn'r mean all humans would die like sheep

>>3471104
The largest weapon in the US arsenal is the W53 which can yield 9MT. They're in storage though and not ready for active deployment, at least officially. Those are city killers.

The US switched to mostly pretty low-yield devices with a dial-a-yield capability in the 1980's. The W88 (our newest warhead) has a max yield of 475KT. We did this because our guidance is pretty good and we don't need huge nukes when we hit our targets.

The Soviets/Russians have less accurate weapons, so they tended/still tend to go with bigger blasts to compensate for accuracy issues.

>>3471162
jesus, a gigaton....... WHY!?

why would it have to be sheets though, couldn't you just combine Protium and anti hydrogen at the same time using a fusion or fission device as the catalyst for the reaction?

>>3471186
Antihydrogen is hard to get, bro. Not to mention hard to KEEP.

>>3471185
Ever heard of "Iskander"?

>>3471182
>Just becasue it would end modern civilization as we know it doesn'r mean all humans would die like sheep

Not like sheep, no. I imagine we'd die more like rats. Who is it that you imagine surviving an all out nuclear war?

"The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five."

- Carl Sagan

lol MAD, lol

>>3471171

Yes, of course. I just meant that fact that they exist.

>>3471135
found it

The weapon is allegedly a giant cobalt bomb, along with a dead hand switch, which in case of a first strike by the US resulting in a loss of leadership in the Kremlin, would activate a retaliatory strike and detonate the device. The cobalt would create a fallout hazardous enough to make life on earth's surface nearly impossible.

I should note that I can't find anything else on the cobalt device like yield or location, however the dead hand switch is still active.

>>3471178
Good point.

Well, I'm researching and the R-7 was the first ICBM rocket (Russian), so they were definitely ahead at least at first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka
>The R-7 was 34 m long, 3 m in diameter and weighed 280 metric tons; it was two-stage, powered by rocket engines using liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene and capable of delivering its payload at around 8,800 km, with an accuracy (CEP) of around 5 km.

It seems that later on, the Tsar Bomba was made obsolete by better rockets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomba#Analysis
>Thus certain bombs were designed to destroy an entire large city even if dropped five to ten kilometres from its centre. This objective meant that yield and effectiveness were positively correlated, at least up to a point. However, the advent of ICBMs accurate to 500 metres or better made such a design philosophy obsolete. Subsequent nuclear weapon design in the 1960s and 1970s focused primarily on increased accuracy, miniaturization, and safety. The standard practice for many years has been to employ multiple smaller warheads (MIRVs) to "carpet" an area, resulting in greater ground damage.

>>3471202
all nukes in the world combined are able to level and burn area of the size of Arizona. Now look at the world map to see how big is Arizona compared to the rest.
The fallout and contamianton are things people CAN survive
getting the picture yet?

>>3471212
>The cobalt would create a fallout hazardous enough to make life on earth's surface nearly impossible.
Yeah, no. Also, this device does not actually exist anyway. The Russians toyed with some dead-hand switch systems that require no human intervention, but have never activated it (supposedly). It seems they had/have a system that can be activated when chosen, but it either no longer exists or is not active. Just too damn crazy to turn the thing on and leave the button out of human control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)#Current_use

>>3471195
I know it decays pretty quickly, we would have to find a more stable way of keeping it. Which would mean containing it in the same conditions it exists in naturally.
Read, not this universe

>>3471186
Well, if we start getting involved in space wars, the lack of atmosphere to cause an overpressure wave might be compensated for with fucking massive warheads.

I'm not talking fights with aliens, I'm talking within our own solar system. If we ever needed to mass produce fucking giant warheads, my plan would be to put solar panels in orbit near the sun to run fucking giant accelerators to produce antimatter. Ships carry antimatter in central storage then pump it into the staged fusion warheads to "arm" them before firing, like how powder charges are loaded behind modern artillery shells to increase range.

The antimatter is temporarily stored in the warhead until it reaches its target and then uses the annihilation reaction to catalyze the initial fusion.

You don't need handwavium, FTL, and aliens to make up a compelling scenario for war in space.

>>3471223
It was alleged. Also you probabl heard it on the history channel. It was 30,000 tons of fizzle material which is basically impossible. Still crazy though.

>>3471228
>Read, not this universe
Not really. You just need hard vacuum.

>>3471238
>. It was 30,000 tons of fizzle material which is basically impossible.
Yeah, the history channel is bullshit now. "Ancient Aliens", cryptozoology, alien abductions. Fuck.

>>3471234
In space, kinetic weapons gain a new appeal for the same reason that nuclear weapons lose them - no air.

>>3471234
Neat idea, but wouldn't the time it takes to move from sun to earth be enough time for the anti hydrogen to decay? Or are you assuming we have a way of storage without decay?

>>3471249
Damn straight. Sometimes you might want to accomplish the kill with hard radiation from some kind of "shaped charge" nuke, not just from impact.

A guided weapon with a shaped charge nuke might be more flexible at long range than a simple railgun though... depending on the speeds at which the railgun could fire. This is, of course, ignoring X-ray lasers.
Man, even "primitive" space weapons are so badass.
>>3471255
Yes, I'm assuming we have some means for storing antimatter long term but that it's not compact.

>>3471245
all of them are, and my last vestige of hope natgeo has fallen to this wave of stupidity as well. My only hope is PBS and its far to fucking boring to be bothered to figureout when Nova is coming on.
Holy fuck even discovery Science is fucking BS. Mostly just ZOMG THIS BUILDING IS BIG!!!11!

>>3471261
Further, (veering into insanity/megalomania here) if I were made absolute ruler of mankind; one of my top priorities would be to construct a fleet of warships to patrol our solar system. No real reason, it's just nice to have as a propaganda piece/last ditch insurance policy during any potential first contact.

>>3471261
You are talking like detonating a device in motion so it spreads radiation over an area of space?

>>3471234
>Well, if we start getting involved in space wars, the lack of atmosphere to cause an overpressure wave might be compensated for with fucking massive warheads.


good point. The epicenter of the blast is the smallest destructive area, so I can see where "metric fuckton" scale weapons are useful.

>>3471272
No, you use a shaped charge to blast/irradiate an enemy ship. Hopefully, bremsstrahlung in the hull will help to kill the crew. I'm not so stupid as to think you can "salt" an area of space with radiation. Hell, space is chock full of radiation anyway.

>>3471289
I was born too early (unless those transhumanist/life-extension guys are right) for my time. I'd love to be some kind of officer/tactician in even an interplanetary navy.

If we live long enough, everyone look out for the lawyer/business magnate that's calling for Lunar/Martian/Europan independence.

>>3471213
Interesting (same as the one you are replying) I found that the CEP (circular error probable) of current US LGM-30 Minuteman is 150m however there were more precise as well - I can't find a list of them I remember I found one with 120m while current Russian is RT-2UTTKh Topol M with 200m CEP

- but it all depends on the range and flight properties (maneuvering etc.). Say if a missile has 10 000km range it's CEP will be bigger then if it had 1000km range. Even if at 1000km range both were equally precise. So it's very hard to say. Also maneuvering decreases CEP even though it boosts reliability. Also some of the Soviet/Russian systems are mobile which I suppose further decreases quality of the missile but increases survivability/stealthiness.

It seems that both weapons are as efficient as it gets. Just US focus on attack/precission of attack while Rusian/Soviet focus on other parameters, yield, maneuvering, stealth... Not sure which one is better or worse.

>>3471221
>all nukes in the world combined are able to level and burn area of the size of Arizona.

[citation needed]

Arizona is less than 300,000 km^2. A single bomb can directly affect well over a thousand km^2, and that's not even counting radiation. Are you going by size of the actual fire ball? Because I promise you that you won't survive being just outside that radius.

>The fallout and contamianton are things people CAN survive

On what basis do you say that? That's a metric fuck ton of radiation, all over the planet.

>>3471305
> Just US focus on attack/precission of attack while Rusian/Soviet focus on other parameters, yield, maneuvering, stealth... Not sure which one is better or worse.
I don't know the current state of the tech. The discussion seemed to be about the historical comparison - whether the US had more precise rockets than the Russians while they were developing the Tsar Bomba. I'm not sure. But it's not currently relevant anyway - huge warheads are obsolete for both sides now.

>>3471290
But you could salt an area, say in the early stages of interplanety travel. There is a Chinese ship coming back from a supply run to the moon, we want to kill the crew, so blow a device in the van allen belt to increase levels so that the ship wouldn't be able to withstand it. Of course this idea would potentially trap us on earth.

>>3471305
And hopefully, we'll never truly know which method is more combat-effective.
>>3471300
Battlestations, Battlestations! All hands to the rad-shielded acceleration couches. Med techs, prep all personnel for fluid immersion.

>>3471314
>A single bomb can directly affect well over a thousand km^2,
"directly affect" isn't the standard here. The idea is "kill all humans".

>>3471318
I doubt this would actually work. The radiation isn't THAT bad, bro, and the cloud of particles would keep expanding without limit anyway (density would get very low).

>>3471321
Kill all humans, eh?

>someone had to do it

>>3471326
You shut your hole meat bag. Im gonna kill all humans

>>3471325
Exactly. Salting, even if it did marginally increase the radiation in a given area of space, would be pointless because of the distances involved (inverse square, FTW) and the need for adequate rad shielding against background radiation in space.

You have to directly blast them with a nuke, it's the only way.
>>3471327
We love you Bender!
Shut up baby, I know it.

>>3471325
I know I just had an idea in my mind, and I am just happy I communicated it correctly or you had enough intelligence to understand what the fuck I was saying.

>>3471332
:)

>>3471046
Wouldn't be surprised. Soviets "Accidentally" released more than a few weaponized biological agents on isolated populations.

funny how we outlaw biological warfare, but nuclear options are perfectly okay.

>>3471321
>"directly affect" isn't the standard here. The idea is "kill all humans".

Ok, so you survive the initial blast in the outer radius with nothing but flash burns and some hearing loss. You now have radiation poisoning and nowhere to go. How are you going to survive?

>>3471380
That level of effect will probably be enough to kill humans, sure.

The question is whether you can get that level of effect or worse over the entire span of human-inhabited land. No, intuition won't cut it - we'd need to see numbers and projections of how big such a level of effect is for an "average" nuke, and how many nukes there are.

I'm pretty sure that after a large-scale nuclear exchange there would be some amazonian tribes in Brazil (or similar elsewhere) that hardly notice.

>>3471359
Nukes don't go off and potentially kill everyone, just everyone in a given area. Bioweapons have the potential to spread... at least some do.

I had to do a presentation on biological warfare in my virology class, my professor and the entire class were terrified. I mentioned that it'd be a good idea to use anthrax and a relatively immobile insect vector to "salt" given areas in order to channel the flow of refugees from city centers. Rocky Mountain spotted fever-laden ticks would do nicely as the insect vector. You contaminate areas selectively to channel civilian evacuees out of cities when they flee the less harmful but more psychologically influential hemorrhagic fevers you drop.

You should ideally plan to use the fleeing/infected civilians as obstacles to tie up enemy troops in crowd-control and humanitarian operations. The real kicker is that you use something with a reasonable incubation time like some kind of latent flu that induces a cytokine storm to actually do the mass-killing.

Between civil unrest, tensions between the enemy's people and soldiers, casualties due to panic, and outright deaths from the bioweapons you can do quite a bit of damage.

>Word got out to my immunology professor, who jokingly called me a "sick bastard" when we were hanging out at the genomics center waiting for sequencing results.

>>3471390
and how many nukes are going to be used
silos and subs need to rearm

>>3471403
Right, a realistic large-scale exchange isn't going to be nearly as bad carefully taking all the warheads in existence and placing them strategically and then setting them all off at once.

But I doubt even THAT will kill of ALL humans.

>>3471014 "I have been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I never truly felt shamed to be an american except here."

really? Ive been to Hiroshima as well and, although Im not American, I am European and I too felt uncomfortable at first. ( Japanese usually assume your American if your white ) But when I saw how the people dealt with it.. with the memorial park of peace and all, its pretty amazing imo. They really try to turn something horrible into a lesson for everyone, you shouldnt feel ashamed!

>>3471463
Is it morbid that I have this guy's autograph? (pic is not my autograph, I have a signed copy of his book)

Stranger still, I have the autographs of every living member of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki crews as of 1995.

>>3471481
The bombings were a necessary evil. Invading Japan would have been worse, and the military junta of Japan was fanatic about not surrendering. It's sad, but I cannot say a different decision should have been made in their situation.

Also, just a reality check: The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than either of the nuclear bombs, and yet it doesn't have nearly the same level of public stigma. Why?

>>3471481 Not at all imo, I think its good that there are people with such interest in these things. It was horrible, but it should never be forgotten.

I have lived in Tokyo for a while, and most Japanese dont even have grudges against Americans. They understand very well that it was a time of war, and honestly, as much as I love the Japanese, they are probably one of the cruelest opponents one can have, and they know it.

>>3471409
>But I doubt even THAT will kill of ALL humans.

Me too. But it's not entirely implausible that isolated groups of initial survivors would indeed die out, due to general uninhabitability of the surrounding landscape.

And even beyond radiation contamination, there is the indirect ecological impact to consider. Even if it doesn't kill off all humans, it would almost kill off a lot of other stuff, with what I imagine would be chaotic consequences in pretty much every biome. Who knows what long term effect that would have on post-civilized humanity's ability to survive?

>>3471499
>>3471503
Thanks for the support.

I've heard it said that Japan had offered surrender but that it came with conditions. The bombs were necessary to shock the junta and the people into realizing their total defeat and accepting unconditional surrender.

>>3471515
>I've heard it said that Japan had offered surrender but that it came with conditions.
It's more like "they responded to a demand of surrender with a huge laundry list of unacceptable conditions", but yeah.

Here's a lot more detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

>>3471522
(cont)
That's about events leading up to the final surrender, rather than responses to earlier demands, but it gives you an idea of what each side was saying and thinking about it.

>>3471515
What really gets me is that even AFTER the bombs, and the Emperor HIMSELF spoke to the people on the radio, which IIRC had never happened, and proposed surrender, there was a military coup attempt to prevent the surrender. Against the Emperor. And given how they felt about the position of Emperor, that says an awful lot about the ruling military junta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempted_military_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat_.28August_12.E
2.80.9315.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident

>>3471515

thats true. I dont support any bombings in any way really, but the Japanese would'nt ever have surrendered. At that time the Emporer was still considered to be the direct descendent of the Gods, so if he told you to go... well, you didnt have much of a choice, and if you choose not to go you didnt end up in a good position either. Have you seen Letters from Iwo Jima by any chance?

>>3471544
It's very telling that even the power of the atom didn't convince those fucks.

>>3471549
>At that time the Emporer was still considered to be the direct descendent of the Gods, so if he told you to go... well, you didn't have much of a choice
True. But the miltary junta attempted a coup when the Emperor wanted surrender. The Emperor may have responsibility for quite a few things, but he wasn't the real warmonger, it seems.
>>3471544

>>3471544

The thing is that the Emporer wasn't controlling anything, there were others that decided the war from the beginning. I dont remember exactly how and what happened, but I learned this in history class a while back. The Emporer himself was nothing but a puppet since the start

>>3471565
> The Emporer himself was nothing but a puppet since the start
Perhaps. But the extreme respect and reverence given to his position makes the coup attempt quite startling. It was probably greater than the British respect for the Queen.

>>3471463 Its not that its when inside the peace museum I felt the worse. When you see the relics of the blast, the recreations....The shadow of the man is what got me I think the worst. Nagasaki also has the best ramen in all of japan.

>>3471584
War is a terrible thing.

>>3471499
Because the firebombing was conventional. Also please correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that our first large scale attack on Japan to begin with?

>>3471589
I'm actually not sure. I just know the firebombing of Tokyo was really brutal business.

>>3471587
very true. This is what pisses me off when these fucks say just nuke the whole middle east. Or Iran and basically everyone else there wants to nuke Israel. Top have such hatred as to want to inflict that kind of hell on other humans says a lot about our species.

>>3471595
>>3471589
Good source for anyone who wants to know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#United_States_strategic_bombing_o
f_Japan

>>3471601

Yes, there's a movie about this, Grave of the fireflies. Its an animation but very touching, made me cry a lot.

But then again I cry in almost every movie :D

>>3471595
The Doolittle Raid, on 18 April 1942, was the first air raid by the United States to strike the Japanese Home Islands (specifically Honshu) during World War II. By demonstrating that Japan itself was vulnerable to American air attack, it provided a vital morale boost and opportunity for U.S. retaliation after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. The raid was planned and led by Lieutenant Colonel James "Jimmy" Doolittle. Doolittle would later recount in his autobiography that the raid was intended to bolster American morale and to cause the Japanese to begin doubting their leadership:

The Japanese people had been told they were invulnerable ... An attack on the Japanese homeland would cause confusion in the minds of the Japanese people and sow doubt about the reliability of their leaders. There was a second, and equally important, psychological reason for this attack ... Americans badly needed a morale boost.

The firebombing of Tokyo happened on may 26, 1945
Pic related

>>3471624
Yeah, sustained, actually effective (for more than propaganda and morale) bombing only began once we had the islands from which to base proper heavy bombers.

That's not to belittle what Doolittle did, but his handful of medium bombers didn't truly do that much damage to Japan.

>>3471641
Sure. It was meant to be a mental victory - shattering the illusion of the Japanese mainland being untouchable.

It's hard for people to understand the power because they have nopthing to compare it to. It's like saying light moves at 300'000km a second or telling them how big the universe is. They're like.. yeah that's fast or that's big.. but they don't really get it.

I've seen info-graphics about the size of the universe dozens of times. I still get a bit holy shit when see one and remember just how fucking big the universe is.

>Be July 4th Baby
>Never have fireworks
>Hear of Tsoma Bomba
>Want a 100 megaton bomb as my ultimate birthday firework (fuck 50meg, go big or go home)
>MFW this will never happen

I need a hug

>>3471650
Yup, morale is an important weapon. (I'm the guy above you, btw)

Can I say that despite this thread's veering off into history that is most certainly not science, we /sci/entists do an excellent job of deconstructing and discussing history logically and civilly.

I don't think there's any other board that could do what we do, even when we're not being scientific.

>>3471675
When we're not up to our nostrils in trolls, sure.

It is interesting that it barely took a century to get from horses (in terms of military technology) to blowing up entire cities in an sort of biblical fashion.

>>3471715
True.

And IMO we're past the brink where we might have ended our civilization - we survived the Cold War. Now globalization is kicking in.

>>3471721

I am sure there are more ways to end our civilisation than through outright war.

We have the means to do it, but we have not had them long enough.

>>3471735
Environmental devastation could still be our undoing. It all depends on how developing nations develop their economies. If they choose to do so in the same manner as China and India... it could lead to ecological catastrophe.

I'm generally of the opinion, though, that we're mostly out of the woods on the threat of all-out nuclear war. I just hope we get our collective shit together as a species, develop sustainably, and start expanding off-world in an economically useful sense.

Maybe Fermi's right and the galactic federation gives you a prize for not having had a nuclear war.

>>3471409
Also, Anti-Ballistic Missiles.

>>3471735
>>3471721
don't forget the singularity

>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
>>3471181
And people still say the atomic bombings were "wrong"

>>3471903
See its weird, saying that the bombings were wrong. Conventional logic shows that they were done to avoid heavy ally deaths, and also a little to save the civilian population that would have fought to the death for their home country. Sure it was wrong that civilian were also taken out in the bombing. Hiroshima's target wasn't even of military importance (it was a bridge) Nagasaki's was a military target. That's beyond the point. I start to get the wrong feeling when you look at history and see ulterior motives, such as flexing in front of the Soviets. That's where I take issue. Japan was basically defeated and we sucker punched them to show off in front of Stallion. However, this point was never really taught, and the bombs still did a lot of good to help end the war. If they didn't we still had a couple more ready to be dropped at a moments notice.

>>3472251
Stalin*

>>3472251
>Japan was basically defeated
Apparently the ruling military junta of Japan did not agree. Or they just preferred letting their people die and hoping the allies got tired of it.
>>3471544

wiping columbus off the map sounds like a good plan