[mikewarot]

The first time I heard Eric Weinstein call for periodic above ground nuclear weapons demonstrations[1], I thought it was nuts. That's because I grew up with the threat of the H-Bomb[2] and the impending nightmares that I've had ever since (though thankfully they are infrequent these days).

Seeing how casually people dismiss the possible effects of a war involving 10,000 of these weapons has caused me to re-evaluate things.

We should have am internationally sanctioned thermonuclear weapons demo every few years, at least once per decade, but less than annually. To remind everyone what's at stake.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G23s5TX1QRM

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon

[quicklime]

There were tests by France and China in 1996, by India and Pakistan in 1998, and by North Korea in 2009, 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

We’ve never had a decade without a nuclear test since the 1940s.

[gamegoblin]

OP specifically said "above ground". All in recent decades have been underground.

[tomatotomato37]

The problem with such a demo is it will be conducted in a way that does minimum actual human harm, as it obviously should. As such, a raw feed of it won't really demonstrate much besides "big boom knocks things down" and at worst be celebrated in the same way people celebrate fireworks and rocket launches. Nations may attempt to "add context" through fake corpses or actors or some such to demonstrate the heat & radiation burns it does to humans, but that will be quickly called out as manipulative propaganda, as it pretty much is. Tragically the only way to demonstrate it's effect and prevent a nuclear attack from happening is have a nuclear attack happen.

[didericis]

I think the casual dismissal of nuclear war has more to do with the artificial nature of most people's realities than a lack of a direct demonstration of the destruction of nuclear war specifically. People think it can't happen because the majority of people's lives in the developed world are heavily distorted fake marketed/filtered/scripted stuff optimized to do what they want. People love spectacle, they're used to being insulated from the effects, and they think past concerns are like boring stuff from an old season of a TV show.

I think wilderness camping is the best counter to that kind of thing. Sounds unrelated, but it's one of the most visceral, instinctual ways to get people to remember the reality of physical consequences. Those consequences exist no matter how frustrating or stressful they may be to deal with. If you leave food out, it spoils/you have no food. If you can't find water, you have no water. If you don't sterilize the water/check the source, you get sick. There's no grocery store, no cops, no social media to get support from, no emergency deliveries, no doctor, no credit to extend... nothing but nature and what you carry on your back. If you screw up, you're screwed.

I only did a couple trips like that, but when I got back to highways, cars, skyscrapers, restaurants, etc, I appreciated how amazing it all is, and how it's basically all just a very, very big, complicated campsite that's been built up over a long time. Nothing manmade is a given, and the only thing keeping it together is us. Nature is way bigger than you, and there are no guardrails. If someone launches a nuke, it's not a strategy game or a movie. That's a cliff you don't want to walk anywhere near.

A one or two week backpacking trip in the middle of nowhere should be a graduation requirement, imo. Would have lots of benefits beyond just added perspective about the reality of physical consequences.

[soperj]

Why not just play videos of previous demos as if it's news.

[mikewarot]

Because, just like the moon landings, people will deny they exist at some point.

[soperj]

People still deny that the earth is round. Doesn't really matter about the demos going on. Question, do moon landing deniers deny everything due to space? like do they think that the current SpaceX stuff is all cgi? What about the space shuttle? Or is it literally just going to the moon that they don't believe in?

[CRConrad]

It varies. Those who claim Sun and Moon are tiny bodies spinning in flat circles only a few thousand miles above a flat Earth, possibly under a Firmament (basically, Sky Dome) have to deny most of astronomy and cosmology.

Funny thing is, I don't know if there are any Flat Earthers who refuse to use GPS positioning.

[TeMPOraL]

Well, it the hypothetical reality of the thermonuclear Olympic torch, it would be easier to secure the tickets for live viewing and witness the blast, than it would be to go high enough to see Earth in its real shape.

[rad_gruchalski]

Current SpaceX hadn’t been to the Moon yet.

[soperj]

I was asking if they believe what SpaceX is doing with rockets is cgi. If they believe the space station is cgi, or the space shuttle, if they just made up the casualties in the Challenger and Columbia explosions? Do they believe in Project Gemini? Any of the Apollo launches? Is it just the landing on the moon piece?

[CRConrad]

The space station is usually a combination of CGI, underwater floating, and wires.

Tip: Look for a channel called SciManDan on YT. He has regular debunkings on Flat Earth Fridays, and IIRC many of his Tinfoil Tuesdays are also, if not directly Flerf, at least Flerf-adjacent.

[AlexandrB]

I'm pretty sure that unless they witness it firsthand, the same people will deny it exists even with a live broadcast.

[alex_young]

Can't you just have them take a look here and observe the impact of these things?

https://goo.gl/maps/MqkLCrLqNr4usuj29

Seems like we did enough of this already.

[seydor]

That's a double edged sword, reminding some people that the weapons exist and are functional