Nuclear cycle

[duordi]

I have been contemplating the certainty that human intelegance and aggressiveness ( or ruthlessness ) will unavoidably end with a nuclear holocaust.

Emotionally this is not acceptable to me but logically I see no alternative except for Devine intervention or something equally as dramatic.

I suspect this given that there are people who would exterminate themselves for the purpose of taking a hated opponent(s) with them.

Also given that the knowledge of nuclear weapons is spreading and will be fairly common knowledge in under 100 years.

Most archaeological finds indicate that humans civilizations started about 4000 years ago.

My intent here is not to argue the dates so much as to try to get an estimate of how long it would take for an "intelligent" "ruthless" life form to create technology of nuclear weapons starting from scratch and use them on themselves.

Secondly my intent is to give and receive arguments which would prove the "cycle" has or has not happened already at least once and as many times as you care to speculate about.

Where the "cycle" is defined as a human civilization starts from scratch, reaches nuclear technology and has a war which exterminates enough of the planet that the technology is lost causing the civilization to start from scratch or being replaced by another life form.

Scratch is not defined as it may also be discussed.

I am particularly interested in the possibility as contemplated from both a creation and an evolutionary perspective.

Duane

 

[Dr.GH]

Most archaeological finds indicate that humans civilizations started about 4000 years ago.

Actually, agriculture got started about 8,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. There might be earlier agriculture that we have yet to discover, but so far 8,000 years is about it.

Now, the circumstances were the desertification and loss of big game. This has happened elsewhere independently at different times. There are still areas of the world that have not been well studied such as North Africa, and southern China, and big parts of India. But, the general trend is people living on or near major rivers that ran out of big game to hunt.

The invention of argiculture is the start of modern civilization.

So, the answer to your question would be about 8,000 years.

 

[duordi]

Actually, agriculture got started about 8,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. There might be earlier agriculture that we have yet to discover, but so far 8,000 years is about it.

Now, the circumstances were the desertification and loss of big game. This has happened elsewhere independently at different times. There are still areas of the world that have not been well studied such as North Africa, and southern China, and big parts of India. But, the general trend is people living on or near major rivers that ran out of big game to hunt.

The invention of argiculture is the start of modern civilization.

So, the answer to your question would be about 8,000 years.

How much do you think it would change.

I mean, a second dark age, or a few plagues, could change things.

It didn't take long once we came out of the dark ages so the printing press may be the key.

Actually it only would take 800 or 900 years if something was encouraging science.

Once you get to the industrial revolution things move quick.

What would you say our chances are of blowing our selves back to the stone age?

90% or so?

What other possibilities do you see.

Duane

 

[Big Rob]

Nuclear holocaust is not certain. That's just stupid.

 

[duordi]

Nuclear holocaust is not certain. That's just stupid.

Are you saying that we don't have the ability?

Are you saying that humans would not be that cruel?

Are you saying that the people who would do that will not get the chance?

What part do you disagree with?

Duane

 

[Big Rob]

Are you saying that we don't have the ability?

Are you saying that humans would not be that cruel?

Are you saying that the people who would do that will not get the chance?

What part do you disagree with?

Duane

You mean NK? Iran? Neither have the power, or are anywhere near having enough power to do anything on a scale you are describing. Only the US, and they have no reason to. Renegade countries like Iran and NK will not be allowed to progress to the point of being able to decimate huge populations without Military intervention.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Actually, knowledge of nuclear weapons is already available. I know how to build one, and all it took was a few minutes in a library.

I can't actually build one for two reasons. I don't have the equipment to build one, and I don't particularly want to build one. Nuclear weapons are really not that complicated.

Reliable nuclear weapons are a little trickier, but if all you want is a really big explosion then it's not a big challenge. Supplies are a major problem though, people tend to notice large amounts of weapons grade material going missing.

 

[duordi]

You mean NK? Iran? Neither have the power, or are anywhere near having enough power to do anything on a scale you are describing. Only the US, and they have no reason to. Renegade countries like Iran and NK will not be allowed to progress to the point of being able to decimate huge populations without Military intervention.

India and Pakastan are at war and both have nuclear weapons.
Give them 20 years.

In twenty years there should be a few dozen countries able to do a good job at it.

Once a country hads nuclear weapons who is going to dissarm them?

How long before a Hitler comes along somewhere that desides he will rule or no one will?

Duane

 

[duordi]

Actually, knowledge of nuclear weapons is already available. I know how to build one, and all it took was a few minutes in a library.

I can't actually build one for two reasons. I don't have the equipment to build one, and I don't particularly want to build one. Nuclear weapons are really not that complicated.

Reliable nuclear weapons are a little trickier, but if all you want is a really big explosion then it's not a big challenge. Supplies are a major problem though, people tend to notice large amounts of weapons grade material going missing.

I may want to live a great distance from you.

I heard that at one time the USSR had plans to build a ship bomb that would destroy all life on Earth but they decided not to build it as it might go off accidentally.

Oops.

I would guess that there are four possibilities with nuclear weapons.

1. We just use enough to mess up the environment.

2. We use enough to lose our technology.

3. We use enough to exterminate ourselves.

4. We don't use it.

Which would you suggest is most probable and why?

Duane

 

[CuteAlien]

I would guess that there are four possibilities with nuclear weapons.
Duane

I guess there are some more. First of all a nuclear explosion is certainly bad, but a single nuclear bomb won't eradicate the whole life on earth. Nuclear material is strongly supervised and so i don't see a high chance what someone could build and distribute enough bombs to destroy the complete civilisation. Thought there might be some other holocausts waiting for us to happen. Nuclear power ain't the only dangerous technology.

And i don't think that it could already have happened before, as you did suggest. This would mean that an advanced civilisation did just vanish without leaving any traces behind. I might change my opinion on that when someone finds a buried dinosaur town ;-)

And there are still chances that humanity does not end that soon or disastrous. We might find better ways to prevent disasters. We might evolve some more to survive disasters (maybe by genetical engineering). We might leave the planet and increase our survival chances by colonisation of other planets (personally i'd really like to live in a space city *g*). Or who knows - maybe we even learn to live together without blowing each other up!

 

[Silent Bob]

India and Pakastan are at war and both have nuclear weapons.
Give them 20 years.

India and Pakistan may have enough nukes to blow each other off the face of the planet but even if that is the case it would not be enough to cause the apocalypse. Also just because they both have the weapons they do not attack.

In twenty years there should be a few dozen countries able to do a good job at it.

There are already a few dozen countries that can do a good job. France, Germany, Korea (both), US all have nuclear weapons. In fact every country that has a nuclear reactor has the capabilities to make those weapons.

But the real question I see is what if a rogue country has those weapons.
Well:

Nuclear warfare 101.

​

To cause your own Armageddon you need:

1) A healthy supply of weapon grade material or huge amounts of Uranium with a facility to enrich it.
2) A weapons factory to make the bombs.
3) A good delivery system design or the minds, money and time to make your own.
4) A factory to build you those huge ICBMs.
5) Silos to store and launch ICBMs.
6) Make sure that no intelligence service finds out about this.
7) Ludicrous amounts of money.

There is no rogue nation that can satisfy any of the above seven requirements or will ever be able to do so. So my guess is we are safe from Iran and Syria. I wish the same could be said about the US...

Once a country hads nuclear weapons who is going to dissarm them?

Nobody. There is no need just the fact that everybody has nukes makes war an extremely unlikely event. There is no coincidence that the US declared war on Iraq instead of Korea.

How long before a Hitler comes along somewhere that desides he will rule or no one will?

It depends if people keep voting "war presidents" ('presidents' used to quote G.W. Bush I actually mean heads of states) the time will come soon. Which is good news for Christians!

 

[duordi]

India and Pakistan may have enough nukes to blow each other off the face of the planet but even if that is the case it would not be enough to cause the apocalypse. Also just because they both have the weapons they do not attack.



There are already a few dozen countries that can do a good job. France, Germany, Korea (both), US all have nuclear weapons. In fact every country that has a nuclear reactor has the capabilities to make those weapons.

But the real question I see is what if a rogue country has those weapons.
Well:

Nuclear warfare 101.

​

To cause your own Armageddon you need:

1) A healthy supply of weapon grade material or huge amounts of Uranium with a facility to enrich it.
2) A weapons factory to make the bombs.
3) A good delivery system design or the minds, money and time to make your own.
4) A factory to build you those huge ICBMs.
5) Silos to store and launch ICBMs.
6) Make sure that no intelligence service finds out about this.
7) Ludicrous amounts of money.

There is no rogue nation that can satisfy any of the above seven requirements or will ever be able to do so. So my guess is we are safe from Iran and Syria. I wish the same could be said about the US...



Nobody. There is no need just the fact that everybody has nukes makes war an extremely unlikely event. There is no coincidence that the US declared war on Iraq instead of Korea.



It depends if people keep voting "war presidents" ('presidents' used to quote G.W. Bush I actually mean heads of states) the time will come soon. Which is good news for Christians!

So you think it could take several hundred years before anything substantial can happen.

In several hundred years the US could turn into a very aggressive country.

Who knows we might be the bad guy.

Lets see it was estimated that we have about 8000 years from intelligent society to the ability of nuclear war so I will add another 1000 or 2000 years for the intent, ability and a sufficient amount of nuclear weapons to do a good job of it.

That would put us at 10,000 years.

Duane

 

[duordi]

I guess there are some more. First of all a nuclear explosion is certainly bad, but a single nuclear bomb won't eradicate the whole life on earth. Nuclear material is strongly supervised and so i don't see a high chance what someone could build and distribute enough bombs to destroy the complete civilisation. Thought there might be some other holocausts waiting for us to happen. Nuclear power ain't the only dangerous technology.

Agreed on all points.

And i don't think that it could already have happened before, as you did suggest. This would mean that an advanced civilisation did just vanish without leaving any traces behind. I might change my opinion on that when someone finds a buried dinosaur town ;-)

The idea came form some reading I have been doing on the "meteor-killed-the-dinosaur" theory.

There are a lot of creators and it is my understanding that a meteor strike and a nuclear strike ( If it is targeting an underground missile ) is very similar.

One of the reasons that it is thought we were hit by a big meteor is that there is a geological record of a radiative layer in most parts of the world. Of course many meteors have radioactive materials as so it is as good of a guess as any.

I saw a total "megatons" of the megatons that would be necessary to achieve the creators.

I wondered what exactly would happen in an all out nuclear war and if there was any way to prove that it did or didn’t happen.

I was surprised that it does not seem to be considered when it is an obvious possibility.

And there are still chances that humanity does not end that soon or disastrous.

This is an interesting sentence.

It almost sounds as if you are saying there is more of a chance of all out nuclear war happening then not happening.

We might find better ways to prevent disasters. We might evolve some more to survive disasters (maybe by genetical engineering). We might leave the planet and increase our survival chances by colonisation of other planets (personally i'd really like to live in a space city *g*). Or who knows - maybe we even learn to live together without blowing each other up!

I should hope so.

Duane

 

[duordi]

I have been contemplating the certainty that human intelegance and aggressiveness ( or ruthlessness ) will unavoidably end with a nuclear holocaust.

Emotionally this is not acceptable to me but logically I see no alternative except for Devine intervention or something equally as dramatic.

I suspect this given that there are people who would exterminate themselves for the purpose of taking a hated opponent(s) with them.

Also given that the knowledge of nuclear weapons is spreading and will be fairly common knowledge in under 100 years.

Most archaeological finds indicate that humans civilizations started about 4000 years ago.

My intent here is not to argue the dates so much as to try to get an estimate of how long it would take for an "intelligent" "ruthless" life form to create technology of nuclear weapons starting from scratch and use them on themselves.

Secondly my intent is to give and receive arguments which would prove the "cycle" has or has not happened already at least once and as many times as you care to speculate about.

Where the "cycle" is defined as a human civilization starts from scratch, reaches nuclear technology and has a war which exterminates enough of the planet that the technology is lost causing the civilization to start from scratch or being replaced by another life form.

Scratch is not defined as it may also be discussed.

I am particularly interested in the possibility as contemplated from both a creation and an evolutionary perspective.

Duane

I have several questions regarding the possibility of a previous nuclear war.

If you have some knowledge on the subject I’m interested.

1. Would the radioactive materials mess up the dating?

2. How long would an area that was hit stay radioactive?

3. If we did find something made of metal etc. would we hide it somewhere to prevent it from interfering with the commonly accepted ideas of our day?

4. Are we more willing to accept something else is responsible for death then ourselves?

Duane

 

[Jet Black]

The problem with a Nuclear war would be this; first of all pretty much everything would get destroyed, and technology would have to start from scratch, assuming humans were still around. we probably would be. however the industrial revolution and subsequent mechanisation relied on oil, something which we have used most of. This would make it extremely difficult for any post holocaust civilization to actually get back to where we are now.

 

[Big Rob]

The problem with a Nuclear war would be this; first of all pretty much everything would get destroyed, and technology would have to start from scratch, assuming humans were still around. we probably would be. however the industrial revolution and subsequent mechanisation relied on oil, something which we have used most of. This would make it extremely difficult for any post holocaust civilization to actually get back to where we are now.

There's no reason to have to start from scratch, unless the people saved are stupid and can't remember how things worked.

 

[And-U-Say]

I have been contemplating the certainty that human intelegance and aggressiveness ( or ruthlessness ) will unavoidably end with a nuclear holocaust.

etc.

Duane

An interesting thought. More than a few science fiction writers have suggested such a scenario: a planet with life giving rise to multiple civilizations which extinguish themselves in a blaze of nuclear glory. One question that springs to my mind is "how detectable would our human civilization be after 60 million years of natural deterioration?". What with plate techtonics and the inexorable action of erosion, maybe we would be pretty hard to find 60 MY from now. Still, I would think that a dominent, intelligent species required for this scenario would have multiplied to a large number making it much easier to to have fossil remains. At this time it seems unlikely that there was a previous civilization.

As far as nuclear war is concerned, keep in mind that it is not an either/or proposition. There is the possibility of a bad nuclear war and a not so bad one. Heck, we have already had one and the cities are doing fine (I mean now, of course, not then). SO, I guess the big question is not whether there will be a nuclear war, but how bad will it be? Bad enough?

I would think it unlikely. The most dangerous time for a nuclear was was probably in the 60s when it was actually entertained. People tend to mis-manage technology earlier in the curve, not later. Still, a far cry from impossible.

 

[Magnus Vile]

There is, as I recall, one country that has disarmed it's nuclear weapon. (I seem to remember they only had one) and that was South Africa. So it is possible. Unlikely as hell, but possible.

 

[stone]

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050220.html

http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/Where/Where.html

ummm.. yea. so how do you answer this one?

i've developed a theory of mine own from solid evidence, i find that it can all be directly related to what i read in revelations sunday morning. I'm 32 now, i've read every book in the bible cept revelations, that was till sunday. I see some obvious clues that it's begun, i'll drop a thread on it shortly.

Also, since i'm speaking of obvious clues, you ever notice that everytime there is an earth quake at a location on the globe there is at the same time reports springing up of rogue nations testing nuke's? The last one would be when the Tsunami hit Indonesia again last week, or the week before i think it was, and Condoleeza Rice just happened to be in China to discuss with China the future of Northern Korea and Irans place in the Nuclear Industry.

so yea, have a theory that coincides with the cycle of humans blasting themselves back into the stone age, but it is really the work of satan. You guys are really gonna love this. heh.

 

[duordi]

The problem with a Nuclear war would be this; first of all pretty much everything would get destroyed, and technology would have to start from scratch, assuming humans were still around. we probably would be. however the industrial revolution and subsequent mechanisation relied on oil, something which we have used most of. This would make it extremely difficult for any post holocaust civilization to actually get back to where we are now.

Unlesss the process of distruction caused new oil fields.

Duane