Hacker News Reader

Comment by ytoawwhra92 | Hacker News Reader

The risks of nuclear weapons aren't theoretical. Nuclear weapons have killed people, destroyed infrastructure, and contaminated the environment. The Limited Test Ban Treaty was put in place after radioactive fallout from repeated nuclear weapons tests made people sick.

So in fact we've done exactly what you suggest there's "no point" doing - used the things and then had a discussion after the fact about limiting future use of them.

View on HN

FWIW, before any nuclear weapons had ever been tested, a risk was identified that the first one might trigger a self-sustaining reaction in atmospheric nitrogen and destroy the entire planet.

Faced with such a scenario, is the prudent next move:

a) blow one up and see what happens, or

b) do whatever you can to be sure it won't happen before conducting the first test, and make sure the confidence in the calculation is very very high

because I vote for b, and so did Teller.

“Self-sustaining reaction,” like the recursive self improvement?

Or perpetual machines?

Is physics no longer a main subject at schools?

I assume the fear was an uninterrupted burn until the gas depletes, as in the Darvaza gas crater but atmosphere-wide.

A self-sustaining reaction is exactly what happens with the fissionable material inside the nuclear weapon[0]. It seems like you’re trying to be pedantic on terminology here, but if you’re saying that a self-sustaining reaction is as un-scientific as a perpetual motion machine, you’re simply incorrect.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_(status)

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

I'm pretty sure they didn't think the reaction would be perpetual; just long-lasting enough to wipe out life on Earth.

It's funny that when faced with a weapon that could finish the war, option b was still selected (thanks Teller).

But the people faced with decisions close to IPO, well, we know what is happening.

Good point, humanity chose a and the sky in fact did NOT ignite an destroy the planet. The hypothesis was very very far off from what I recall.

But it's good we talked about it.

Incorrect, they did the calculation first. They decided not to proceed with the test until they were 99.9997% sure the atmosphere wouldn't catch fire.

> The risks of nuclear weapons aren't theoretical

The logic for the first bits of handwaving still applies: "I haven't seen any evidence of thermonuclear war happening, so it is unlikely to ever happen. The only time nukes were ever used outside of research was 80 years ago; the whole world recoiled, decided that they were way too dangerous and never used them again. Clearly they are not a real risk."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com