Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

With all the talk about escalation amid the Russia-Ukraine crisis, I have been reading about this and am wondering about the odds of this occurring.

The main counterargument I see to this happening goes like: any world leader calling for nuclear armageddon will not be obeyed/will be assassinated because they cannot convince the entire chain of command to commit suicide. This seems flaky to me. One other thought I had is that perhaps that we are not capable of nuclear armageddon, because this has not been tested end-to-end, although ICBMs and nukes have been tested quite extensively.

What does HN think? Could it happen? And why do we assume that the tech is sufficiently advanced to e.g. take out every major city at the push of a button?

View on HN

Possible, yes. Hard to find a better take on “how to respond” than Feynman:

“I returned to civilization shortly after that and went to Cornell to teach, and my first impression was a very strange one. I can't understand it any more, but I felt very strongly then. I sat in a restaurant in New York, for example, and I looked out at the buildings and I began to think, you know, about how much the radius of the Hiroshima bomb damage was and so forth... How far from here was 34th street?... All those buildings, all smashed — and so on. And I would go along and I would see people building a bridge, or they'd be making a new road, and I thought, they're crazy, they just don't understand, they don't understand. Why are they making new things? It's so useless.

But, fortunately, it's been useless for almost forty years now, hasn't it? So I've been wrong about it being useless making bridges and I'm glad those other people had the sense to go ahead.”

-Richard Feynman

It always surprises me that most of the discussion on nuclear Armageddon is about sudden push of big red button.

I think in conflicts like this, each side tries to be the one to make the big, unanswerable bluff. "I'll escalate so high they won't dare follow". But there's a lot between guns and even thermobaric missiles and cluster bombs, and global thermonuclear annihilation.

My assumption is that the intervening, enabling step is tactical nukes.

Somebody somewhere decides that a kilotone-range tactical nuke (as opposed to megaton range ICBM) is justifiable on the battlefield, will bring swift victory, and other side won't dare escalate further.

So now you're breached the "nuclear" threshold in a way you tell yourself is "limited" and "tactical" and "justifiable", but other side certainly doesn't perceive it as such, and brings "proportional response" otherwise you'll just go ahead and do it again, and off we go from there.

So yes, it 100% could happen. I'm hoping it doesn't.

edit: A bit of a read, but basically, Tactical Nukes have historically been a more practical aspect of Russian Military Doctrone.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12088.8?seq=1#metadata_in...

It is an interesting question in that is the proportional response to a tactical nuke a tactical nuke. It would also vary in terms of the opponent's capabilities, say if the US isn't well setup to deploy them or won't gain the same battlefield advantage.

For effective deterrence I think there has to be an expectation that the response to a tactical nuke is the big red button.

It's a wide field and fascinating topic - does response have to be in kind to be proportional or disproportional? Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles.

(the link I sent is a bit meandering but seems to indicate Russia has ~20x the tactical nukes that NATO has deployable in Europe, although of course categorization always muddies waters. That would seem to indicate West indeed does not consider a tactical nuke to be the appropriate response to another tactical nuke).

> Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles.

The impression I have thus far is that this is because

a) Russia has not invaded/declared war on "the West" in a meaningful way yet: it has invaded the Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, the EU, or any other specific mutual defense pact with the rest of "the West".

b) Relevantly to this thread, Russia has not yet used any forms of warfare that truly cross the line into "mad dog that needs to be put down at all costs". The cluster bombs are pretty bad, yes, and reflect very badly on Russia, but they're still conventional munitions.

If Russia breaks out chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, the calculation on (b) changes. Doesn't automatically mean everyone's going to jump on them—I don't pretend to know how any given country would respond to that, even my own (the US). But it at least means they have to start rethinking whether (a) remains relevant to their decision not to get directly involved.

Russia will first tease and provoke with some nuke in the ocean, then someone's territorial waters, then somewhere in Ukraine, then in some small NATO country like Baltics.

Their fucked up bully goal is to be attacked so they can retaliate with full force.

They'll go one provoking everyone, but when first soldier will be killed by a NATO soldier (which might not even be factual) it's suddenly a drama and oh no poor Russia is invaded by fascists.

Why would Putin - not Russia - be out for nuclear annihilation? What can be gained by provoking such a conflict? Other than some version of apres moi, le deluge I don't see any upside for any country initiating a large-scale nuclear conflict.

No, I don't think this is a believable scenario. That does not mean an escalation can not occur, but I think it is far more likely to be initiated by the use of low-yield 'tactical' nuclear weapons with the intent of forcing a surrender. Once that threshold has been crossed the risk of a nuclear exchange rapidly increases, especially when it becomes clear that the radius of destruction from such an attack is rather limited compared to the doom scenarios which have been painted over the decades. This is not a good thing since it makes it more likely for "rational" minds to consider retaliating in a similar fashion.

He's not out for annihilation, he's out there to push limits. The moment he'll be slapped for it he'll cry like a little bitch he is.

Several of my personal friends are wondering if Putin has a cancer diagnosis or such that the world does not know about, and now he's scrambling to secure his legacy.

I'm trying to imagine if he would be the person to go "the world has never appreciated me, so if I go out, may as well take the world with me". But in now writing that out, I realize that's literally the villain's motivation in the movie Tenet, so probably a bit too one-dimensional of a motivation (although that character is coincidentally a Russian oligarch).

Reasoning about nuclear armageddon is hard because it's so singular. Traditional risk/benefit assessments don't really work when the outcome is so catastrophic that its utility goes to (negative) infinity. But I'd argue that this makes armageddon less plausible, because our psychological judgement of MAD is fundamentally different from normal risk assessment, and probably more cautious.

A useful analogy is individual risk. Consider a doctor giving a new treatment to a sick patient. It has some uncertainty, some risk including death and some potential gain including being healed. But it's possible to reason about the tradeoff and learn to better estimate this over time.

However, to a single patient, while there are both risk and potential benefit, the realized outcome is absolute: Either he lives or he dies. The mental model is very different from the doctors' because both scenarios are extremely charged.

In nuclear war, you are always the patient who either lives completely or dies completely. I guess that makes everyone humble. Or at least, it should.

Reminds me of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJKcdlj-Uiw&ab_channel=ahhoo...

I think it's not a matter of if, but when. All it takes is one deranged individual.

The only way to disarm the world of nukes is to unite under a rational, evidence and incentives based, benevolent world government. There's literally no other way to get rid of nukes if you've studied it.

Even if every nation disarms they all live under the threat of another building them in secret. As soon as one of them suspects as much the race is back on to re-arm.

FWIW I am not familiar with any protocol that allows one deranged person to launch nukes. I think the minimum # of people required is 3? In the US it's 4, IIRC (edit - could be 3 also)

For a history of how it has in fact often been a single person, and may still be, see: https://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-Machine-Confessions-Nuclear-...

Sort of a mute point.

> All it takes is one deranged individual.

Not true, at least in the US and Russia. More than one person in the chain of command needs to commit to an all-out nuclear attack. It is perfectly plausible that someone along the chain would not follow such order.

Here's a twitter thread (in German) explaining how this supposedly works in Russia: https://twitter.com/SwenRoschlau/status/1498575623941505026

Ok, maybe one was a bit of an exaggeration. I should have said "All it takes is one deranged individual and a handful of his his hand picked sycophants."

In some firing squads there's only one bullet and the rest are blanks -- though if you've been in one, some say you can tell the difference between the bullet and the blank. The idea is to give a plausible deniability to those that follow the order: "It wasn't my gun that had the bullet."

If the method for delivering the nuclear order is routine and 99.99% benign (except for the 0.01% where it's not) and the order is checked only by machines, then no one would know except for the person that made it.

Further, to enforce compliance with routine behavior, one just needs to threaten the family of the subordinates. Or better yet, occasionally take one of your subordinates and make an example out of them, once every two years say. Send them and their family to labor camps never to be seen again.

Yes, because humans are apes.

We grow up in a world where are lead to believe that our leaders are leading because they are smarter than we are and that they actually have a plan for everything.

While not entirely untrue, our leaders (if you can call them that) are nevertheless dumb apes like you and me.

Will the dumb apes start nuclear armageddon? Improbable, so far. But implausible? Not completely.

This is a nonsensical non-answer.

Humans are apes, but the other apes couldn't produce nuclear weapons (or even a knife).

If we're different enough from other apes to produce nuclear weapons (and everything else we've created), we're different enough that any analogy to how they would use them is nonsense.

To put it another way: our relationship to apes is as relevant to our propensity for nuclear war as our relationship to dogs or bananas.

> Humans are apes, but the other apes couldn't produce nuclear weapons (or even a knife).

What does that prove? The heart of my answer is that there's no reason to believe we are better than other organisms to the extent that we wouldn't do something irrational, no matter how drastic. If a close ancestor of ours can potentially smack a button that launches nuclear missiles out of some misguided simian impulse, unless there's evidence demonstrating otherwise, this is all the reason you need to believe that this is also true of humans to a non-zero degree. We are by no means debugged as a species despite all the forking and rebasing we've done since Australopithecus.

> If we're different enough from other apes to produce nuclear weapons (and everything else we've created), we're different enough that any analogy to how they would use them is nonsense.

I have no idea what "different enough". If we are "different enough", then what's with all the fighting and the tribalism?

> To put it another way: our relationship to apes is as relevant to our propensity for nuclear war as our relationship to dogs or bananas.

The human and chimpanzee phenotypes share substantially more attributes than do dogs and bananas. I wouldn't have used the word "ape" if I thought something more genetically distant like a banana would have sufficed.

It's tough to evaluate the chances that soldiers down the chain of command would violate orders to deploy nuclear weapons, because the military believes that it must look like it's fully committed to launching nukes if ordered to. The theory is that if the other side believes that there's any chance you _won't_ launch nukes, then they might be able to exploit that and get off a strike without a response. The US military is (or rather, was during the Cold War) so committed to this idea that soldiers that questioned whether or not they could even question the order were discharged, as in the case of Harold Hering, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hering

TL;DR it's important to have the ability to launch nukes even if the President is insane, that's why it goes through a chain of command rather than from POTUS directly to the button pusher. I just have a lot to say, sorry for putting my soapbox here. This starts on topic and goes off the rails at the end.

This is a tough call. I agree with the premise that it's quite important to make sure that an insane president can't launch nukes. At the same time, this is a fundamental issue in the military -- when they say he lacked the qualities of "leadership" what they really meant was "followership", which is a concept not really taught to us in school. Everyone in that organization has a role to play, and if they don't play that role then they are not welcome. This isn't an organization where you join to really be a leader in the "trailblazer" sense, but a leader in the "set a good a example by demonstrating how to follow the rules properly" sense.

Does that mean an officer in the military is absolved from making moral choices? Of course not. They have the free will to say no, to not do what they're told, and to abandon their role. Of course there are consequences for that, but that's not really the issue. Doing the right thing isn't supposed to be easy and consequence free. In fact it's usually quite the opposite, which is why courage is a virtue. But the point is the choice to not press the button always exists.

Also, it's worth pointing out that truly insane people are not subtle about it. I don't know how many people here have talked to genuinely insane people. but from my experience they can't go very long without revealing they are abjectly and certifiably crazy. Someone in that state of mind would have been acting crazy for quite a while (it takes time to go from a sound mind to "NUKE THE WORLD"), and everyone around him would be keenly aware of his behavior. It's destructive by its nature, and does not go around quietly.

Diseases of the mind are quite loud and they are also infectious, if people aren't aware. Not that I mean you can become literally insane in the presence of insanity, but that insanity ramps up your anxiousness, because of how unpredictable and... well insane they are behaving, which in turn degrades your decision making capabilities -- "Well, I could do this completely sane and rational thing, but that would upset the insane person I'm with for illogical reasons. But I'd rather not upset them because that's upsetting to me, therefore I will act irrationally and that's somehow the most rational thing to do". See how twisted it gets? That kind of logic is unsustainable for a rational mind for long, so if you're forced to endure those mental gymnastics, all critical thinking shuts down and you just become a reactive nervous mess. Insane people leave a wake of chaos behind them at all turns. It's not subtle.

Notably General Mark Milley recognized this in Trump at the end of 2020, and assured his chain of command that any nuclear strike order would be issued from the President to Gen. Milley and then he would transfer that order down the chain. What Milley meant to convey with this statement was that any order for a nuke would be lawful, because he would only have advanced it if he deemed it lawful. Not the President. Right, because who determines whether a strike is lawful? Not a court. Not the congress. Maybe after the fact they would have a role but not in the heat of things. The President can issue a strike but his issuance does not make it necessarily lawful; nuking California because they voted against you in an election for example would be an unlawful order on its face. So really the lawfulness of a nuclear strike order is determined in situ by the individual members of the armed services as they pass the order down the chain of command. An unlawful order can still make its way through the chain under these circumstances, but at least it's something. Because what's the alternative? Anything else would slow the process down to a point where the nukes would be completely useless as a deterrent; you have to have the ability to launch them in a timely matter. Because if your opponent knows it takes you 3 months to get an authorization to launch a nuke while you wait on the result of the President's mental health assessment and subsequent lawsuit and court appeals, then MAD completely breaks down.

The President doesn't go directly to the button pusher with an order to push the button. There are channels and even if there isn't apparently a "two man" rule for nuclear strikes, it still originates at the President and goes through a number of personnel. Any one of them has the agency to say no and refuse the order as unlawful. Now, the further down the chain you go, the less weight a refusal carries. That's because each link in the chain acts as a sort of authentication, so you don't have to trust the President is sane, you just have to trust that your direct superior is sane. What Mark Milley was telegraphing at the end of 2020, was that he himself was in fact sane, and any order subordinates might receive would have be effectively laundered by his sanity, even if the President were insane.

And come to think of it, how would that play out?

  Insane President: Launch the Nukes
  JCS: No.
  Insane President: Okay then I will fire you.
  JCS: No you wont.
  Insane President: And why is that, I have absolute authority.
  JCS: If you do then we're going to tell everyone that you fired us because we refused to carry out your nuke order. And then we will reveal that we had been planning a preemptive nuke, which will cause our enemy to preemptively nuke us.
  Insane President: Well why would you do that?! You would be nuked too!
  JCS: You're right that would be bad. So then don't fire us.
  Insane President: But then how would I nuke them?
  JCS: .... you don't....

Right? How would the nuke order go anywhere if the JCS doesn't endorse it. So in that sense there is a kind of two man rule but it's at the top end.

Because what if the President were insane but we also really needed to launch a nuclear missile for a good reason. Well that might need to happen immediately and we can't have random people in the chain of command refusing orders because they have some negative perception about someone far removed from them in the chain. That opens up a whole other world of problems.

So that's why I think an insane President is not likely to be able to launch a Nuke.

Now, the issue is a little bit different in Russia. Putin is not insane, he's a narcissistic psychopath -- the worst kind of psychopath. He has been on a huge power trip the last 6 years, and his ego has been inflated to the size of the universe. What's happened in Ukraine has popped his bloated head. It's caused him the gravest narcissistic injury, which I won't describe here, but I'll leave it to the professionals: https://medium.com/@Elamika/hell-hath-no-fury-like-a-narciss...

  Narcissistic rage is one of the darkest and deadliest forces known to mankind. Before it erupts, it usually simmers and percolates for a long time, fueled by resentment, envy and entitlement, the latter always aggrieved as the narcissist’s need for adulation and glory is insatiable and he can see the world populated by the undeserving, inferior people who nevertheless dare to be happier and/or more successful than he is. It thus creates enemies out of the innocent and often weak who become vessels for the narcissist’s hateful and envious projections.

This article is written with respect to Trump, but Putin and Trump are both narcissistic psychopaths of the highest order so it applies to both of them equally (and no one has to wonder anymore why just last week Trump was calling Putin a savvy genius for what he's doing in Ukraine). But Putin being a narcissistic psychopath means that he absolutely can and will give the order to launch a nuke, and I don't enough about the Russian system to say anything more. Other than the fact that Putin's character disorder means that this conflict ends in 1 of three ways:

1. Putin kills himself Hitler style (also a narcissistic psychopath), as his war effort and country crumble around him.

2. Putin's citizens find him and string him up at the gas station Mussolini (ditto) style, or they find him in a hole in the ground Saddam style (yet another one, seeing pattern?).

3. Putin is murdered or deposed by his generals as he goes off the deep end.

That's it. This is going to keep on going until Putin is gone. Everyone trying to offer him an "exit ramp" or trying to give him an "out" so he can "save face" just does not understand the interplay between Putin's narcissism and his inability to let this go. Narcissistic rage doesn't go away because the target of your rage assuaged you. That is just your target signaling their weakness and vulnerability, and really giving you permission to strike. That's the mind Putin has. There are a lot of "pundits" right now who are out on the internet completely perplexed as to Putin's motives. They say "He can't hold Ukraine, he can't install a puppet government there, what does he want? For the life of me I can't say so he must be inane and completely irrational." I mean, yes and yes he is, but only from our perspective. Within his framework his decisions are completely rational. And his framework is this (it's from the article).

  1. I am great.
  2. People unfairly malign me.
  3. I will show them (they will pay).

We're at stage 3 right now. "They will pay" doe not go away until they have actually paid in the eyes of the narcissist. You can't give the narcissist a "way out" because they don't want out. Their motive is nothing beyond revenge. It's not like Putin bit off more than he can chew and he's desperately looking for a way to get out. No, he bit off more than he can chew, but he wants to shove it down his throat and choke on it because at least maybe he would get his revenge in doing so. He's willing to sacrifice all of Russia or even the entire world for this revenge, and I think people are still unwilling to fathom that. He wants to kill Ukrainians. He wants mass murder on purpose. The phrase "If I'm going down I'm taking you with me" comes to mind.

Today I think is plausible, but not likely, as we have the same big players used to deal on brinkmanship on the last 70 years. But the prospects are getting worse, not better, as they are pushing smaller countries toward proliferation, breaking promises toward non-nuclear states. E.g: Iraq, gave up on nukes, while promised peace. Got invaded. Libya, gave up on nukes, while promised peace. Got invaded. Iran agreed to sign the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but got double-crossed a few years later, and now routinely faces assassination of government officials. Ukraine, gave up on nukes, while promised peace. Now got invaded. On the other hand, North Korea held on their nuke program, despite lots of threats and sanctions. Nobody ever dared to mess with them. The message sent here is clear.

I think the superpowers are fumbling big time with non-proliferation. If we have N nuclear-capable nations, there is N²/2 possibilities for conflicts between them. As superpowers break their promises toward smaller countries that gave-up on nukes, N will only grow, and so the risk of nuclear armageddon.

I think it's more plausible that Russia would use mini-nukes on certain strategic targets. It would be to signal that they're willing to go all the way, but without actually committing suicide by nuking western countries.

The nuclear super-powers are in a situation where they have enough nukes to obliterate each other - many, many times over. But obviously no-one wants to take that chance - even with all the modern anti measures they have.

I think both sides are willing to accept pretty substantial losses, if it means avoiding an all out nuclear war.

There's so much uninformed conversation around, do people in this thread not realize that it Russia nukes any Ukrainian site, the US is obliged to nuke Russia a la Budapest Memorandum ?

According to the Budapest Memorandum, the US is also required to be attacking Russia right now. Obviously we're not, so I wouldn't assume we're automatically going to annihilate Russia if they use a tactical nuke in Ukraine.

Budapest Memorandum clearly has no weight as Ukraine's borders haven't been respected by Russia for years; even if one considers the Donbas involvement legitimate, the present invasion still represents a violation of said borders. They have been pressured militarily and economically, both also violations of the agreement.

Budapest Memorandum is null and void.

Nothing happened when Russia invaded in 2014., and nothing happened now.

Just to be clear the Budapest Memorandum doesn't say anybody needs to nuke anybody. It only says that the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan must be respected. One can respect those borders without going to war and just keep protesting in the UN.

Probably not, per Wikipedia:

> According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." [...] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

> I think it's more plausible that Russia would use mini-nukes on certain strategic targets.

Yep. Plus a noisy, demonstrative test explosion somewhere in the North Sea to make a point.

Strong chance of both, I think. Particularly what you suggest.

At this point it's insane to think otherwise, because he's already telegraphing that he'll use battlefield nukes if pushed. Everything else of any significance that he's telegraphed so far, he's done.

He's a psychopath, telling us in advance, to prolong his enjoyment and make us responsible for what he does.

And he's losing in every significant way; he won't be able to cope with that.

> And why do we assume that the tech is sufficiently advanced to e.g. take out every major city at the push of a button?

I guess you didn't grow up under the cold war? Typical nuclear weapons are 10-20 megatons of explosive force and can destroy everything within a city-wide radius or more. There is the capability to deliver 100-200 megaton mega weapons too (they have been tested in the 60's, look up Tsar Bomba).

Delivery devices like ICBMs include dozens of these warheads in independently target-able munitions--the idea is that one big missile can be shot down, but a shower of dozens and dozens of warheads is impossible to stop when only one needs to hit. These missiles can launch from undetectable nuclear-powered submarines laying in wait anywhere on 70% of the globe (even under a sheet of arctic ice).

As far as numbers go they were vastly reduced in the 90s, but both the US and Russia have enough nuclear munitions left to destroy every major city in the world.

Minor nitpick: your yield numbers are a bit high. The highest-yield nuke in the US arsenal is the B83:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb

It can be dialed up to max 1.2 megaton.

Yields have come down since the 60s as delivery became more precise (you need less bang to kill a target if you can get closer) and MIRVs made it more efficient to put multiple devices on the same missile (they can spread out the bang over a larger target area, and as you say, they provide redundancy against countermeasures).

No. Its an everyone loses everything situation. Even narcistic authoritarians realize that. And in the event I am wrong, then so what, I'll be dead.

A reasonable human being would renounce counterattack to prevent mankind's annihilation.

So the first one would be the winner.

Not counter attacking would be an agreement that the attacker can settle to their benefit any conflict by sending a nuke, without equal consequences for them, and so encourage them to sending more nuke.

The only use of nuclear nuke is to replicate if someone else use theirs (or rather to let them know you would, so they don't). If you don't replicate, you might as well dismantle all your nukes after that.

Unfortunately, there is no other way, if someone use a nuke, we must all die. I think Poutine and the others are well aware of that. Well I certainly hope so.

> I think Poutine and the others are well aware of that.

(emphasis mine)

Oh man, you've gone and declared war on Canada now.

Haha well, in case you didn't know, it turns out it's also what the madman who is attacking Ukraine now is named in French - and I assume in French Canadian too ? So I hope our friend from Quebec will not mind too much ^^

>Unfortunately, there is no other way, if someone use a nuke, we must all die.

That's obviously wrong. You don't want to choose that way but it exists. And it's the only reasonable way if you don't want to kill all mankind.

Reasonable people can be hard to come by when the world is ending. I imagine that even the most ordinarily level headed person might become a bit emotional when nukes starting dropping on their country.

Also 'winner' might not be the best choice of words for this situation.

In all likelihood, you won't be dead. You'll be faced with a stark, deeply unpleasant new reality and your survival instincts will kick in. You will look back on this fatalism as sad naivety.

https://youtu.be/nPM-QSCnNas

Putin is dead already, it's just a matter of time.

We are all, given enough time.

Assuming that happens, who replaces him?

Does someone pop down the local gulag and release Navalny? Or is there a cronie that potentially worse than Putin in the shadows?

Lenin - 200k executions, 5 million deaths due to famines

Stalin - 800k executions, 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag, plus some famine and some miscellaneous brings to around 5million, some estimates upwards 20 million.

Everything after that sounds like a breeze.

Jesús.

right. be less flippant, me.

The threat of using nuclear weapons is much more powerful than actually using them because just about everyone thinks they can cause more devastation than they actually can. There have already been 2058 nuclear explosions on earth since 1945, close to 600 megatons in total.

Theories like nuclear winter have been disproven. Radiation is down to reasonable levels 10 minutes after explosions and down to zero well within 48 hours. What really sets nuclear weapons apart from conventional bombs is the yield to weight factor, making it possible to send them around the world with little effort and in some/great quantities. Nuclear weapons that leave much radiation would not have caused a large explosion (you want to use all of the energy for the burst). The effect will mostly be localized to the burst area and dependent on it being a surface or air burst).

The fear and uncertainty about nuclear weapons is only beneficial to those that have them and especially those that threaten to use them.

Citations please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests

> There have been 2,121 tests done since the first in July 1945, involving 2,476 nuclear devices. As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megaton (Mt): 217 Mt from pure fission and 328 Mt from bombs using fusion, while the estimated number of underground nuclear tests conducted in the period from 1957 to 1992 is 1,352 explosions with a total yield of 90 Mt.[1]

https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion

> Fallout is most dangerous in the first few hours after the detonation when it is giving off the highest levels of radiation.

> Stay inside for 24 hours unless local authorities provide other instructions.

This. There are 3800 active warheads to cover 10 thousand cities. It's grotesque, but we don't have enough nukes!

Nuclear armageddon almost happened multiple times in the past. To think it can’t happen is a necessary step in ensuring that it does.

Huh? The inversion (assuming it can happen) doesn't protect you... so I wouldn't call it "necessary".

Edit

Otherwise you end up with a nice contradiction: "how could this happen?! I was assuming it could happen, so it really shouldn't have!

the inversion may be necessary but not sufficient condition. I don't think you've exposed a logic flaw in OP statement (we can still discuss whether we grant them the premise)

And those are the ones that we know about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

I just added couple more, here are the video versions:

Stanislav Petrov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7EmLf4Xlq0

Oleg Antonovich Gordievsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yprpoPc2g0k

Vasili Arkhipov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLokpu4ixQE

According to some comments "The Collapse Of Communism: The Untold Story" is a movie about Oleg Antonovich Gordievsky and there is a book "The Spy and the Traitor."

And Stanislav Petrov has a movie as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTFUqnY3E3Q

The Petrov movie you linked to, The Man Who Saved The World (2014) is a very good documentary. In it, among other things, Petrov meets his favourite actor, Kevin Costner, who asks him how many people would have died had he followed orders. Petrov says, everybody. Also he gets an award at the UN and visits a US missile silo. With reenactments of him saving the world.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2277106/

To start, I think credibility on this question is important. I've been on the arms control beat since around 2017 when I first started to really worry about the strategic concerns of mass cyberattack. I befriended Dr. Jeffrey Lewis and Scott LaFoy after finding their podcast. I tipped their Patreon over to $100 a month, drank beers with them personally, and pushed one of the other Canadians that was a student at the time to go into something that required clearance because he seemed to want to build policy from the inside. He did so and worked directly for Nato for a while.

So while my background isn't really nuclear weapons per se, I'm better read on this than most.

This is the first time in my 36 years of life that I think that there is greater than a 0.5% chance that some kinda of nuclear attack happens in the next 30 days. Almost certainly one or two tactical nukes to scare the hell out of Europe, but still. Fog of war is a real thing and there are a lot of well-intentioned hackers really taking the gloves off against Russia right now, so this could escalate further.

I'm not alone on this. Where the world goes after this looks grim. I'm trying to control my anxiety and focus on work but so much suffering is in the balance. Even a 1% chance of nuclear attack is too much.

All IMHO:

The likelihood is that the EU and US will not directly intervene in Ukraine much like we didn't for the last invasions of Crimea and Georgia. Because of the history of the country and it's importance in the world landscape, it's difficult to escalate to a point of a nuclear conflict.

Personally, I would be more worried about Taiwan. Taiwan is similar in that they also maintain their independence from the other country (in this case China), yet (I feel) the world would be willing to go to war over controlling interest in this country, or, at least keeping it independent and neutral. Much of the world's most high tech, complex and expensive chips come from Taiwan and if China or another country would invade this would send shockwaves across the world as everything now is technology that requires many many chips. A country such as the US can't magically create a "fab" without years, if not decades of time investing in on the infrastructure and processes needed to fabricate these highly complex chips.

Historically, hot wars are often about power. This could be due to energy (such as oil and natural gas supplies) but the new power-base is technology. You control the chips that everyone needs, you control the world. Same goes with many other things like the software too but that's another topic.

Here's a good read on the subject: https://time.com/6102879/semiconductor-chip-shortage-tsmc/

The general understanding is that nobody can win a nuclear war. Hopefully, if someone decides to start it, there will be enough armed people to kill him for the good of all of us.

All it takes is a little confusion, and a couple of times only a single individual stood in the way of a nuclear exchange. Plenty of close calls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls - even one after the Cold War ended.

And those are just the ones we know of. It's likely we'll never hear about the even closer calls, or the ones with embarrassing causes.

All it takes is one person to follow orders as well.

I would agree that forces wouldnt push the big red button if theyre informed of what actually happening, unfortunately I think most in those positions are kept in media silence.

what if theyre told their hometown is being nuked? Id expect retaliation from most people.

There's 3800 active warheads and 10'000 cities. Many of the cities would need multiple nukes to be wiped out. Many nukes would get disarmed by iron domes, anti-ballistic missiles, etc.

Nucular fallout is thing that I'm not sure about. Technically more efficient bombs are cleaner, but I didn't go too deep into this and I'm not even sure there's conclusive data.

Overall I don't think it's anywhere enough to completely wipe out humanity. Not even majority of people would be killed. But definitely it would effect everyone. Even current events already effecting everyone.

Possible but certainly not plausible. Escalation to that extent is not only contrary to, but actually invalidates, the objectives of all parties involved. To escalate to a nuclear conflict, one's goal must be annihilation of large swaths of population. There is no such thing as a "limited" nuclear engagement when tens of thousands of such weapons exist in a ready-to-launch state. Mutually Assured Destruction it very much is... or to quote an excellent 1980's movie: "The only winning move is not to play."

Given the extent of Russia bio and chemical weaponry programs, I would think it quite plausible that the Russian president might seek to escalate with these tools rather than nuclear weapons. Other regimes have gone down the chemical path in the past without immediate or direct repercussions. Their use does not appear to immediately lead to a nuclear response, but they possess the attribute of being one of the most feared weapons in the Russian arsenal.

It's not hard to come up with scenarios where it happens. Here's a fairly realistic one, though this may not be the best of times to enjoy it:

https://ken-follett.com/books/never/

As for the tech, it's really not that advanced. V-2 rockets started raining down on London in 1944, Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened in 1945.

One thing we need to really think about as we come out of this, and not speaking specifically to the current conflict;

There is too much opportunity for an unstable individual to rise to power in a nuclear enabled country, and for said individual to have access to a nuclear arsenal.

We have a lot of really smart people in the world, and we really need to figure out some safety mechanism to make sure we don’t get wiped out by some such individual.

The fundamental problem here is that any such safeguard against improper use is a vulnerability for intended use that can potentially be compromised, and which, if an enemy believes it is compromised (even if it is not), undermines deterrence.

partly relevant for aftermath: https://sgs.princeton.edu/the-lab/plan-a

I remember on Turkish TV they have mentioned that in theory if more than 5 nukes drops in the same area that would affect the integrity of earth crust(lithosphere?). No matter wha if its simulation or vr I am definitely asking refund.

Like in a crime scenario, if you have the means, the opportunity, and we keep providing motivation, it may eventually happen.

The times we've been closest to nuclear armageddon, the public didn't know about it at all.

So, yes. And no. Who really knows.

I'm more worried about us being wiped out by the universe realizing it forgot a constant somewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum_decay#Existential...

Bear in mind that approximately 200 nuclear bombs have been exploded within the earths atmosphere already.

More like 500. The US has done about 200 yes

Ah yes, all of those (aside from two) bombs exploding in the middle of nowhere make me feel so much better about the possibility of one or more exploding over the big city 10 miles away from me.

This seems relevant to your question:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-...

If people think is it, they try to prevent it.

If people think it isn't, they risk it. And thats how it happens.

Of course it could happen. It might even be the most likely outcome for humanity given enough time.

Don't think it's plausible, otherwise it would already have happened. I mean, if country X really wants to pull that card they could have already done so without having to tell the entire world of their invasion intentions.

We've had nuclear weapons for less than 100 years which is nothing in history. Based on that the Roman Empire never should have fallen. If it made it 100 years, why not 150000 instead of 400ish?

I think you are making a mistake trying to assess what "country X 'wants'".

It only takes one person to decide to launch a missile. And very few to execute on that decision.

And what an individual, or a country, wants can change.

Just because nobody had any desire to attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons at the outset, it does not mean that they will not decide to later.

Consider the fact that Putin likely thought he could get away with annexing Ukraine with little international backlash, just like the last half-dozen times he's invaded and annexed parts of other countries.

Now he is the sole leader of a country that is being completely cut off from the global economy, and made a pariah in the entire western world. The national currency, and nearly all international relations are nearly shattered.

The situation is very different than it was, and things are likely starting to look desperate.

I don't expect a large-scale use of nuclear weapons, but I would absolutely not write off the possibility of their use altogether.

Impressive to see some people here with "yes".

I mean, how can you spend "last minutes" answering on a forum instead of spending it on something more meaningful?

Nuclear war is survivable for the elite in their underground bunkers, and they're the ones who get to decide if it happens. People live in Hiroshima now, its not like everything turns into Chernobyl. If you survive the initial blast you have to stay inside for a couple of weeks until the radiation deteriorates. But then you'll probably starve unless you're surrounded by preppers like in Utah. I think its going to happen but not for a few years.

https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/pdd60.htm

The scale of modern nuclear weapons make Hiroshima look like a toy.

Every potential position of a nuclear second strike would be hit with a warhead.

That's huge swaths of land converted to nothing for 2-5km in every direction.

Humans might survive, but not in places with nuclear weapons.

South America and Africa looking pretty safe right now.

> 2-5km in every direction

That's what? 200k-500k people? There's thousands of cities sized like that.

Hiroshima was a fart compared to the average yield of a warhead. Hiroshima was hit by a 13kT TNT equivalent. The average modern warhead is about 300-500kT -- dialble, but assume the max. if it's all in. (That doesn't change that Hiroshima was a tradegy.) A rocket with multiple warheads often enough carries 5*1MT -- all major cities would be rubble.

Ca. 100 modern warheads mean a multi year nuclear winter -- more will be fired, right know more than 1000 active on either side. Even with a small scale catastrophe: if you don't have enough food in your basement, prep. for cannibalism. The civilization would be horrible.

To paraphrase a famous comedian… It’s not anything we need to plan for because we’ll never have known if it happened.

Maybe those at strike ground zero wouldn't know it happened. Those in the outskirts would begin figuring it out pretty quickly.

This is a common misconception. I highly recommend having a read through the book "Nuclear War Survival Skills" by Kearny. It's an older book more focused on the Cold War, but still highly relevant today. It systematically dispels this kind of myth. You can find PDF copies online or pick up a used copy cheap.

Here's my fear, which I really really hope someone can allay.

I just don't see an "off ramp" for Putin right now. The cost he's incurred is HUGE and there's really no way out of this for him.

He's already threatened a nuclear response to any country that opposes his attempt, in so many words. I'm afraid he will take advantage of one of his new hyper-glide entry nukes. My fear is not that he will launch ALL nukes, just one, to make a point, and to avoid the consequences of MAD (since target of this attack, also fearing MAD, would not want to respond in kind. They would prefer to keep the losses at one city and avoid MAD).

So that's my fear. One strike, to a major city, with a first-of-its kind hyper glide entry vehicle to which no country has a deterrent.

The rationale (if you can call it that) is that no country would want to continue with sanctions against Russia after that point, for fear of the same happening to them.

Disclaimer, I live in the heart of Seattle, so I must admit this has been keeping me up at night.

The real fear for you should be the one where Putin’s regime is toppled, and Russia disintegrates into a series of mini states, all of them with nuclear capabilities.

That's a good point. I hope that Russia doesn't fall into civil war and instead just gets a new government and new leader.

And this scenario on steroids when America finally disintegrates, though that may or may not happen in our lifetimes. America has over twice as many people, our population is more geographically dispersed, and we're all being pushed to hate each other.

I think the "California nukes Texas in 2093" (or vice versa) version of nuclear armageddon is way more plausible than the "Putin goes insane and nukes Ukraine/other targets 2022" version of nuclear armageddon.

> The rationale (if you can call it that) is that no country would want to continue with sanctions against Russia after that point, for fear of the same happening to them.

I see the complete opposite.

Broad sanctions to Russia (think complete embargo like Cuba) and any country not enforcing said embargo. Immediate seizure of any Russian or Russian-aligned assets owned in the west by anyone with allegiance to such. Passports becoming instantly worthless.

Why worry about it? It either won't happen, in which case you worried for nothing, or it will, and it won't be your problem anymore.

The worry maybe comes from somehow surviving the initial blast. For example, it's possible that no one is going to send nuclear bombs to McMurdo Station in Antarctica *. They'd likely survive the initial waves of attacks, but would be utterly cut off from the rest of the world for the rest of their lives. Or maybe they won't be cut off? Hard to know! What would you do if you were there in that situation? How long would you last? Basically, the second worst thing that could happen in nuclear war is *not* dying in the initial blast. It makes for an interesting discussion, which can lead some to worry depending on how the discussion ends.

* Substitute Antarctica for any rural site that isn't within 100 miles of a ground zero.*

Do you think if Russia launches one single nuke onto US land that the government would not issue a retaliatory strike of equal or greater impact? I think its more than likely the US would launch many nukes in response, and the probability of that is at least great enough that Russia wouldn't try it.

The lack of an "off ramp" for Putin is absolutely my biggest fear as well.

Russia can't survive long-term with the sanctions, so he has to put a stop to them.

The only encouraging thing I could say is that if he follows your plan of one strike, I can't imagine it would be to the US. Even if we didn't go MAD in response, we would immediately be at war with Russia until one of us is destroyed.

We have something even worse happening right now--climate change armageddon.

I think it makes more sense to break this question down into a few specific ones:

1. How likely is it that Putin will want to use nuclear weapons?

- I don't think he is that mad, but who knows? If the pressure inside Russia starts to rise, protests expand and a win in Ukraine starts to get more and more unlikely.. Cornered animals start to lash out. If he thinks it's his last chance to save himself or his legacy, he may go that far. Do I think he would attack a NATO country? No. But maybe he would attack Ukraine and hope that would somehow save him.

2. How likely is it, that his orders will be followed?

- He seems to have surrounded himself with yes-man, so I don't think some higher up would stop him. But just like with Stanislav Petrov it's often people down the line who, when faced with the actual consequences of their actions, choose to do the right thing.

3. How likely is it, that they will hit/explode?

- I have no sources, and it's just a personal feeling: I think the U.S. and probably even China have technologies to shoot down any Russian nuclear missile attacks. Looking at some UFO videos, which have popped up, and my belief that those aren't alien but advanced military aircraft, I think this would be a good bet to make. Whether they would use it to save Ukraine and show their (technological) hand is another question. But I would say the chance of a Russian nuclear missile hitting a NATO country and exploding is pretty low.

4. How likely is it, that it will trigger a response?

- If it explodes in Ukraine, who knows. The war in Ukraine would be over at that point, I think it would more likely trigger an (extreme) non-nuclear response, which would result in Russia being made unable to further attack and Putin and his inner-circle being obliterated. If they attack a NATO country, all bets are off.

> 1. How likely is it that Putin will want to use nuclear weapons?

Fiona Hill -- absolutely the smartest person in the room on this topic in a generation -- thinks he absolutely would:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-...

> But just like with Stanislav Petrov it's often people down the line who, when faced with the actual consequences of their actions, choose to do the right thing.

Reassuringly it does seem to be something of a Stanislav Petrov war, doesn't it. Russian soldiers pretty routinely abandoning their vehicles, seemingly even sabotaging them.

But this doesn't apply to Putin. It's important to understand that he does not have a functioning conscience, and he's very comfortable with cruelty.

Fascinating article, thank you. What it also says, is that he may be emotional, but he isn't a madman. So wouldn't the question then be: How likely does Putin think a nuke on Ukraine would trigger a NATO response. Since he must know, a nuclear exchange with NATO would mark his end. What do you think?

He's a psychopath. When he is cornered he will do whatever works for him. Because that is all he can do.

The thing that might temper this is, I think, is that he does have children. Psychopaths aren't capable of true emotional love, but they do look after their things.

It is said (albeit largely in tabloids) that the outcome he fears the most is dying like Gaddafi. He was quite preoccupied by Gaddafi's death at the time:

https://www.reuters.com/article/libya-gaddafi-putin-idUSR4E7...

Maybe he'll commit suicide. Psychopaths do commit suicide. Harold Shipman did, Fred West did, Jeffrey Epstein did (sorry everyone; suicide is the logical explanation).

But they also commit murder-suicide.

This is a guy who has had people pushed out of windows, poisoned, a guy who almost certainly ordered the faking of apartment block bombings as a pretext to invade Chechnya. He's comfortable with cruelty; he has no conscience.

I think it is interesting he is becoming more emotional. He is very narcissistic, but he's always had control over it, appearing showy but gentlemanly and urbane. Perhaps he is losing that control.

Personally I think it's going to be bad. As soon as he believes there is no chance he'll avoid a traitor's death.

I don't know how bad, but I still think there's a good chance he will find a tactical way to demonstrate his willingness to use nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately I think the UAPs cited by the Pentagon are just as likely to be of Chinese or Russian origin.

Paranoid, isolated man with a big red button in front of him that can take out every major city in the world..

It can absolutely happen. The subs are armed and ready. Literally the push of a button.

The fact it hasn’t happened yet is something to be thankful for everyday.

It's much more involved than "literally the push of a button."

Once someone who’s authorized to order a strike, e.g. Putin, gives the command (“presses the button”) - what else would Putin need to do for his command to be carried out?

My guess would be he doesn’t need to do much, and that the “risk” would be someone down the chain of command refuses to carry out the order.

That common misconception is explored in this fine piece of satire from the Onion: "Obama Makes It Through Another Day Of Resisting Urge To Launch All U.S. Nuclear Weapons At Once" https://www.theonion.com/obama-makes-it-through-another-day-...

Not that much more.

It's some phone calls to get the ball rolling. Whether or not various operators of nuclear ICBMs follow through, only one nuke is all it'd take to really massively change the world.

There's a playbook that has to be consulted, and target(s) selected. Of course it's not a terribly complex process, because the assumption is that a strike would have to be ordered without much notice. And that's also why the "nuclear football" containing everything necessary is always very close by the President.

But it's still far from "literally the push of a button."

> Paranoid, isolated man with a big red button in front of him that can take out every major city in the world.

Wait though which guy are you talking about

Yes

While I agree with the other poster that it's a little more involved(though for a few decades the nuclear code in america was 000000 so....)

the thing i've heard said is that at any given moment in time now we are potentially 30 minutes away from the end of civilization as we know it.

Even scarier is the idea that he might have shorted the button with a dead man's switch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man%27s_switch

I wonder what state Dead Hand/Perimeter is in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

It's so surprising that nobody ever talks about the active nuclear policies the countries have. For example Russia states the following:

> With regard to nuclear weapons specifically, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons: > - in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also > - in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.

As long as NATO doesn't nuke something first or the very existence of Russia is not threatened, they should not use nukes.

From this part on I am speculating only, but I believe if Putin would press the red button the officers would have the right to refuse to execute the order.

The world will not have a full scale nuclear war over Putin.

In the cold war era, Russia was the enemy, and any war would have been existential. I do not think that is the case any longer. The enemy now is merely the Putin regime, not Russia and it's people.

It is possible that Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons if he is desperate, but the world will not respond with armageddon, but instead with every effort to remove the regime, and I expect the Russian people will be a part of that effort.

In fact I predict Putin will not last the year as it is.

No because after Putins first bomb(s) all other bombs will be secured by special forces from inside and outside. No one in the Western world will push a button to retaliate.

It has never been likely that any government would simply decide to start a nuclear war. Putin clearly has many delusions, but he knows how MAD works. But there are three nuclear war scenarios that seem plausible.

One is an unintended escalation to a nuclear war that nobody wanted. This has almost happened several times, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to Able Archer 83. It is not impossible that Russian and NATO forces end up shooting at one another (say an aerial incursion, intentional or not, along the Polish-Ukrainian frontier) and this escalates to nukes because each side believes the other is going for it.

Another scenario is that Russia, faced with a quagmire in Ukraine without a clear path to an exit, decides to use a nuclear weapon in a “tactical” context (i.e. to achieve a limited military goal such as destroying the entrenched Ukrainian forces in the east). The possibility of tactical nuclear warfare has been debated since the Korean War, with many strategists believing this would inevitably escalate to a full strategic nuclear exchange (how can anyone know that you plan to stop after just 1-2 nukes?). How would NATO respond if Putin did this in Ukraine, which is not under the NATO nuclear umbrella? How about if he did it in, say, Poland as part of the escalation scenario described above? Again I think Putin understands MAD and that this is not very likely, but in a situation of military desperation (with Russia seeing no path to conventional victory and no way to deescalate without a dangerous loss of face), perhaps it can’t be ruled out.

The third and (in my opinion) scariest scenario is that Putin reaches a position where his political survival (and perhaps his very literal survival—there’s no retirement home for deposed dictators) is at stake and that he feels he has no way out. A combination of military quagmire and economic pain from sanctions could eventually face the regime with a loss of support from elites and masses alike. Putin could conceivably see no non-nuclear way to force an end to international sanctions and support for the Ukrainian resistance, and no way to fold his chips and end the war without making his domestic position even worse (who’s more vulnerable: a despised dictator, or a despised dictator who just made himself look weak?). If this happens, the nuclear blackmail could seriously ratchet up, as Putin could see nuclear blackmail against the West as his only lever for ending the pressure without a self-defeating show of weakness. At that point, would it be possible to deescalate? Would the West see negotiation with a nuclear hostage-taker as an invitation for further nuclear blackmail in the future? If his bluff is called, what would Putin do if he truly believes he has nothing to lose? Would the chain of command carry out his order, especially in a scenario where he may already be losing support from the military? This to me is the darkest scenario because we could no longer assume that all sides want to deescalate from all-out nuclear war.

>What does HN think?

I think Russia's opposition to a defensive alliance is that they have been planning the full invasion for quite some time. Ukraine never joined a military alliance because Russia guaranteed their independence and thusly kept NATO at bay and not 'on their front porch'. When Crimea happened... it made sense for crimea to be their own republic. But Russia's own actions and breaking of their diplomatic commitment is what brought the defensive alliance to the forefront.

As part of the plan to invade non-nato entities, they needed big allies to use as an umbrella. China's no limit alliance is giving them the breathing room to invade.

The expected cyber war never showed up, it seems all hackers turned on russia. Even conti melted down. This only leaves an infowar.

It seems to me, the attempt to crush Russia via sanctions is a primary goal. If a nuclear power can be crushed under sanctions and prevent war. It tells the entire world that war is no longer allowed. Borders are what they are, start building tall. Get free trade going.

The war in Ukraine isnt going well for Russia. They cant touch Romania or Finland. Georgia is rushing to get into the EU to avoid a similar fate. Yes Russia is threatening nuclear war over these but Russia probably cant touch it.

The big wildcard seems to be china. If they invade Japan, South Korea, Australia, India. Which is the fear... that will be World War 3. I can also tell you... that fight will be so broken... Nukes will fly.

I think it's not only possible, but that the US government has been infiltrated by people who want it to happen and are doing their best to push Russia into a nuclear war.

What is the US doing exactly?

I assume Russia has a similar "two man rule" for nuclear command and control that the US does. One can only hope.

The two man rule just protects against a single member of the launch crew launching a nuke. At least in the US, the commander in chief can choose to launch a nuke unilaterally

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/heres-goes-presidents-deci...

It could, but probably not now. Inflation around the world has just started, and all currencies hyperi flate at some point. I expect relations between US and China/Russia to just get worse 5 years from now :(

Reply on news.ycombinator.com