• Lung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Mmm yeah imma small brain here and say it cannot be won. There are nukes on subs traveling all over the ocean. Not to mention that the environmental damage and radiation will probably fuck up the world really bad no matter what. Did you know a single nuke in orbit would emp a whole continent and destabilize climate? Great, now you do

    My question is “what does this mean for the nature of empires?” — can they no longer truly fall once they enter the nuclear era? How does civil war look?

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      12 hours ago

      a single nuke in orbit would emp a whole continent and destabilize climate

      That’s a bit overblown.

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

      We’ve done orbital tests before and while the effects are more than we expected, they are not continent crippling or climate destabilizing.

      about 900 miles (1,450 km) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms, and damaging a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian Islands.

      It’s definitely not good, and there’s a reason we all agreed not to do that anymore, but it’s really more about the damage it does to satellites that hurts everyone, and the damage being too unstructured to be worth investigating too far.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        That was before we had microchips in everything, and the internet.
        Today, an EMP would have vastly different effects.

        • groet@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          If I remember correctly, EMP doesn’t really work on very small devices. You need a “antenna” that is long enough to induce a strong enough current to fry your electronics. So anything connected to a long wire. The power grid is itself a huge antenna and will be completely destroyed but a small battery powered device will be unharmed.

          • superkret@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            When the power grid is down now, phones are down, the internet is down, mobile networks are down, payment systems and ATMs are down, gas stations are down, refridgeration is down, etc. etc.
            Basically, 3 days later civilization is down, irreversably.

          • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Lots of our battery powered devices have a bunch of literal antennas, though. I actually don’t know the frequency ranges on which an EMP can be expected to “pump out” significant amounts of energy, but if there’s enough in the bands where WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS etc operate that’s going to fry devices that don’t have some sort of protection built in. I also have no clue how common it is for radio modules used in consumer stuff to protect against voltage surges on their antennas, but somehow I’d imagine it’s not very common.

    • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      12 hours ago

      The point, as I understand it, is that nuclear war can be technically won by nuking the enemy to smithereens and tanking their nukes as best as possible. The concern here is that because this would technically count as a victory, that it is a battle tactic that elitist assholes in the government have no doubt considered using.

      • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Reality isn’t a video game: you can’t just “tank nukes”.

        Even a limited nuclear conflict between, say, India and Pakistan would likely lead to a global food security disaster and could kill up to a third of the world’s population – see eg this article (open access). That’s using less than 3% of the world’s total nuclear stockpile

        edit: welp I didn’t notice I was in NCD

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It doesn’t matter how well you can tank the enemy nukes when yours alone still fuck the climate and ruin the biosphere.

        But yeah, some numpty with their head up their ass probably plans on ruling over the ashes.

      • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Maybe you can take out the air fields and the silos before anything has left the ground, maybe, but the subs are already out at sea.

        MIRV makes interception dubious…

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          MIRV doesn’t deploy until after re-entry. Modern interception occurs mid course, in orbit.