A mouse would not invent a mousetrap
I guarantee if mice and rats were smart enough they would make things like mousetraps to harm the mice/rats they don't like.
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
128 points (97.8% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3540 readers
192 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yup, they’re called Skaven and they’re assholes to each other
won by whom!?
My username is actually a Dr Strangelove reference, it's a brilliant movie.
"Alright Colonel... Bat Guano, if that is your name..."
Please, no fighting in the war room
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
"Gentlemen, there's no fighting in the war room!"
The roaches, probably.
Vault-Tec
Those who died before seeing it.
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?
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.
That was before we had microchips in everything, and the internet.
Today, an EMP would have vastly different effects.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA484497.pdf
Tldr it's still definitely bad, but it's not the irreversible one-shot to a continent and the climate that it was made out to be.
Electrical and communications systems are built to tolerate natural phenomenon that have marked similarities to EMP, so while the EMP would definitely knock out power in the most impacted areas and to a great extent in more outlying areas, major components would be able to be brought back online in a timely fashion, and backup systems would remain available for key portions of infrastructure, such as battery and diesel generators to keep emergency communication systems online.
Communication infrastructure is particularly sensitive to EMP, but as a result it's been insulated due to practical necessity against environmental sources, as well as as a deliberate defense against EMP, since we've known about the risks for decades.
EMP does damage proportional to the size of the conductor it's attached to, since it causes current to flow, and the more there is, the more current flows. That's why power lines generate massive currents, and small things don't.
A cell phone has a very small antenna, so while it's fragile it's not getting hit as hard and can potentially just be disrupted but not physically damaged.
Computers are sensitive to single digit voltage fluctuations, but their parts aren't big enough to generate enough current to burn anything, and the source of the biggest current, the power grid, is already insulated from the sensitive parts because the grid regularly has fluctuations that could cause disruptions, and can be reasonably predicted to have potentially damaging fluctuations often enough to warrant components that burn out in a controlled fashion to protect expensive things.
Damage would be severe, widespread, and variously protracted. Not a quick trip back to the 1800s though. More like the great blackout of 2003, but with a bit more fire.
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.
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, refrigeration is down, etc. etc.
Basically, 3 days later civilization is down, irreversably.
We actually have extensive electrical backups for almost all of those things. The landline phone system was built in an era where people were significantly more concerned with nuclear war than we are now, so it would fare pretty well.
Home Internet would be down, but the actual data centers all have multiple backups for power.
The cell system would kick most people off, but it also has a lot of backup power built into it because it's viewed as an important part of disaster response in the modern world. Part of the reason it sheds load is to keep capacity available for emergency response.
Don't get me wrong, it would be super bad, more disruptive than a typical or even atypical power outage, and last a long time, but it wouldn't irreversibly take out civilization.
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.
EMP works a little different. It doesn't emit energy in a frequency in the sense that WiFi uses a frequency.
A changing electric field creates a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field creates an electrical field. An electrical field makes charged particles move, and electrons move very easily in metal wire, so we get measurable current flow. This is ultimately the principle behind how generators work.
What an EMP does is basically turn any conductive material it hits into part of a very short lived generator. The bigger the conductor, the bigger the current. If something is big enough, it can generate enough current to damage itself, depending on how big or fragile it is.
A lot of small electronics have antenna, but they're very small, so they don't generate much current. If that current would be enough to overcome the voltage protection the devices have to protect against the voltage surge from nearby lightning or the like is beyond me.
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.
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...
MIRV doesn't deploy until after re-entry. Modern interception occurs mid course, in orbit.
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.
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
No more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks.