Human extinction.

[a.woollam]

At the minute, we can create nuclear fission. This is the thing that powers the atom bomb. It's where we take a single Hydrogen atom and rip it apart which causes a huge release of energy hence the bomb.

Fission uses large atoms, usually plutonium or uranium, but anything bigger than iron can be used theoretically

I didn't know that, I try to forget that nuclear weapons exist if I'm honest so know very little about them. Now that you've mentioned it, it does sound a bit daft. Am I to presume then that the "H-Bomb" is named after a DT fusion reaction which can happen through the energy produced by uranium fission based on the name?

Yes a fusible core surrounded by fissile material. the fission kick starts the fusion, the materials used vary

Controlling the reaction is the key

 

[Damocles]

I didn't know that, I try to forget that nuclear weapons exist if I'm honest so know very little about them. Now that you've mentioned it, it does sound a bit daft. Am I to presume then that the "H-Bomb" is named after a DT fusion reaction which can happen through the energy produced by uranium fission based on the name?

What's going on with you Damocles?

Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. I have never studied the physics of nuclear weapons because every time I try to, I am so annoyed by their existence that I lose concentration then need a stiff drink. Nuclear weapons existing is a -100 in our species score as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually getting pissed off just by thinking about it. The idea that a teeny percentage of our species got together to design a weapon that could most efficiently exterminate a large proportion of our species, saw what it could do, and STILL sunk money into its development literally infuriates me to the point where I'm convinced that a majority of people on the planet must be insane to accept this as a normality. It's the dumbest thing ever. Worse than any other act in the entirety of human history. Not the initial creation; I mean the funding after the creation. As I say, I'll stop now because I'm getting pissed off but yeah, try to ignore them.

 

[Skashion]

Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. I have never studied the physics of nuclear weapons because every time I try to, I am so annoyed by their existence that I lose concentration then need a stiff drink. Nuclear weapons existing is a -100 in our species score as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually getting pissed off just by thinking about it. The idea that a teeny percentage of our species got together to design a weapon that could most efficiently exterminate a large proportion of our species, saw what it could do, and STILL sunk money into its development literally infuriates me to the point where I'm convinced that a majority of people on the planet must be insane to accept this as a normality. It's the dumbest thing ever. Worse than any other act in the entirety of human history. Not the initial creation; I mean the funding after the creation. As I say, I'll stop now because I'm getting pissed off but yeah, try to ignore them.

Fair enough.

 

[SWP's back]

Damocles, could it not be argued that without Nukes and MAD that it's very likely a conventional war between west and east would have taken place in the 50/60's with a likely deathtoll higher than that of WWII?

 

[i kne albert davy]

Damocles, could it not be argued that without Nukes and MAD that it's very likely a conventional war between west and east would have taken place in the 50/60's with a likely deathtoll higher than that of WWII?

I should say that's pretty much right without the Atomic weapon the USSR and the Western allies would probably been at it hammer and tongs in the sixties the thought of no winners if nuclear weapons were used kept the people at the top slightly sane,the problem arises if some country who doesn't care about winners starts chuckin em about.

 

[Damocles]

Damocles, could it not be argued that without Nukes and MAD that it's very likely a conventional war between west and east would have taken place in the 50/60's with a likely deathtoll higher than that of WWII?

I'm not sure I agree with the basis of that logic.

The idea of MAD is that one side could provide a more than "fair" destruction to the other side within hours. Thus nobody shoots at each other as then both would produce at less "fair" outcome for each other. Obviously, I'm quite callously using lives as a metric of fairness.

As Shock 'n' Awe has shown later, conventional weapons are just as useful at producing this effect. In fact, I'd argue that modern conventional forces with funding could "outkill" a single nuclear weapon within 12 hours thanks to the fuel air bomb, chemical weapons and other such devices of minor destruction.

Whilst nuclear weapons had their place in the theory of MAD at the time, the stockpiling of which was basically a dickwaving contest and any military with sufficient funding and determination could have produced that modern military logistical advantages back in the 50s and 60s. We had all of the necessary ingredients for it then, outside of funding.

 

[pauldominic]

I didn't know that, I try to forget that nuclear weapons exist if I'm honest so know very little about them. Now that you've mentioned it, it does sound a bit daft. Am I to presume then that the "H-Bomb" is named after a DT fusion reaction which can happen through the energy produced by uranium fission based on the name?

What's going on with you Damocles?

Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. I have never studied the physics of nuclear weapons because every time I try to, I am so annoyed by their existence that I lose concentration then need a stiff drink. Nuclear weapons existing is a -100 in our species score as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually getting pissed off just by thinking about it. The idea that a teeny percentage of our species got together to design a weapon that could most efficiently exterminate a large proportion of our species, saw what it could do, and STILL sunk money into its development literally infuriates me to the point where I'm convinced that a majority of people on the planet must be insane to accept this as a normality. It's the dumbest thing ever. Worse than any other act in the entirety of human history. Not the initial creation; I mean the funding after the creation. As I say, I'll stop now because I'm getting pissed off but yeah, try to ignore them.

That's why history is important

I even worked on vanguard, victorious, vigilant and vengeance.

It's called mutually assured destruction and the most dangerous point was the cuban missile crisis.

After that, Moscow and Washington had a secure hotline and the world was secure during the cold war

 

[pauldominic]

Damocles, could it not be argued that without Nukes and MAD that it's very likely a conventional war between west and east would have taken place in the 50/60's with a likely deathtoll higher than that of WWII?

I'm not sure I agree with the basis of that logic.

The idea of MAD is that one side could provide a more than "fair" destruction to the other side within hours. Thus nobody shoots at each other as then both would produce at less "fair" outcome for each other. Obviously, I'm quite callously using lives as a metric of fairness.

As Shock 'n' Awe has shown later, conventional weapons are just as useful at producing this effect. In fact, I'd argue that modern conventional forces with funding could "outkill" a single nuclear weapon within 12 hours thanks to the fuel air bomb, chemical weapons and other such devices of minor destruction.

Whilst nuclear weapons had their place in the theory of MAD at the time, the stockpiling of which was basically a dickwaving contest and any military with sufficient funding and determination could have produced that modern military logistical advantages back in the 50s and 60s. We had all of the necessary ingredients for it then, outside of funding.

Indeed Damocles 100% agreement.

The defence agenda has moved on which is why we as a nation should never economise on it.

It is the first duty of Government after all is said and done.

 

[pauldominic]

Damocles, could it not be argued that without Nukes and MAD that it's very likely a conventional war between west and east would have taken place in the 50/60's with a likely deathtoll higher than that of WWII?

I should say that's pretty much right without the Atomic weapon the USSR and the Western allies would probably been at it hammer and tongs in the sixties the thought of no winners if nuclear weapons were used kept the people at the top slightly sane,the problem arises if some country who doesn't care about winners starts chuckin em about.

Agreed is all I can say.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

We appear to be living longer, but weakening as a species, while those organisms that COULD kill us seem to be strengthening. Not sure how long it might be before those two trends collide to devastating effect, but it seems inevitable.

That would be worrying if it wasn't complete nonsense. Human health is increasing by every single metric

Please do not confuse weather with climate!

We live longer NOT through the growth and strength of the human organism evolving quicker than the deadly organisms in our surroundings are finding ways to kill us, but because the Western World has discovered antibiotics in recent years. When the evolution of deadly organisms outstrips our ability to deal with them through medicine, then we face serious problems as a species, because we are weakening the underlying immune systems of large swaths of the human population, while the rest does not even have access to the new medicines we are trying to produce to fight the new, and NEXT, super bugs.

From The Guardian: What a way to go
10 scientists name the biggest danger to Earth and assesses the chances of it happening

Professor Maria Zambon is a virologist and head of the Health Protection Agency's Influenza Laboratory:

"Within the last century we have had four major flu epidemics, along with HIV and Sars. Major pandemics sweep the world every century, and it is inevitable that at least one will occur in the future. At the moment the most serious concern is H5 avian influenza in chickens in south-east Asia. If this virus learns to transmit from human to human then it could sweep rapidly around the world. The 1918 influenza outbreak caused 20m deaths in just one year: more than all the people killed in the first world war. A similar outbreak now could have a perhaps more devastating impact.

"It is not in the interests of a virus to kill all of its hosts, so a virus is unlikely to wipe out the human race, but it could cause a serious setback for a number of years. We can never be completely prepared for what nature will do: nature is the ultimate bioterrorist."

Chance of a viral pandemic in the next 70 years: Very high

However, for a fairly quick and efficient extinction a catastrophic nuclear war and/or interstellar impact would do the trick.