Why aren't folks afraid of nukes anymore?

>>33601759
Because we all hate our lives and wanna die.

File: C029C9B8-6D8D-43CD-B98B-5CDB91C1D32B-262-0000000450DC4E7C.jpg (6KB, 244x206px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 244x206px

>>33601759

File: baf.jpg (142KB, 621x719px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 621x719px

>>33601759

There have been a bunch of nuclear weapon denial threads on pol recently

Pretty pathetic

>>33601852

/pol/ in general is pretty pathetic since they basically recruited ledit

>>33601865
/pol/, where they hall of cost was a lie yet they're happy that it happened.

>>33601759
Because they're not the Armageddon weapons hollywood makes them out to be, and on the off chance one does kill me, I get to go to Gensokyo and slap the shit out of a crow

>>33601852
>recently
That meme has been going on for years.
It started on /x/ I think.
Im pretty sure its just a single anon making threads about it over and over on various boards.

File: 1491766515430.jpg (182KB, 1000x1458px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1000x1458px

>>33601759

>>33601759
Because they haven't been used in over 70 years.

>>33601759
people realized antiwar peaceniks where commies attempting to convince the population that a nuclear response to pact aggression would mean the end of the world. once the internet became a thing people quickly realized global winter/ OMG THE BALL BEARING PLANT UP TH street in HIcksvill is a PRIme TaRGET1! where complete memes and the majority of the citizenry would survive. Once people realized their life wasn't on the line they stopped giving a shit.

>>33601759
germ bombs are scarier, desu.

Nukes are just memes. they don't really exist.

It was all a bunch of photoshop by angry world powers to try and one up each other.

>>33601759
>because if I die I don't fucking care
>because mutually assured destruction means they're most likely never going to be used again

>>33601892
I just realized I'll never hear another huey lewis song for the first time ever again

>>33601770

/thread

I'm kinda amazed at the stupidity of some of the replies here.
Is everyone in this board legit an aspergers retard?

OP, to answer your question, people aren't afraid of nukes because a nuke is more of an abstract idea, than a weapon.
The average person has never seen a nuke in person.
They've seen footage, they understand what a nuke is, but they've never been in a situation where they've witnessed a nuke going off.
When nukes were still fresh and new, people were afraid of them because they were a new, legitimate threat that could kill them and everyone they loved, however by now everyone has a basic understanding of nukes, and is familiar with the mushroom cloud and all that shit.
So they've become part of our collective bag of mixed knowledge.
People are more afraid of a simple gun, or a knife, because they're smaller, more pratical and common weapons that they could realistically ruin their lives one day while they're minding their own business.
They're not afraid of nukes for the same reason people don't think about earthquakes, tornadoes, or lightning striking them in the head, every day, because it's too abstract, too detached from their daily reality, for thei brain to spend time worrying about that.

>>33602157
>Is everyone in this board legit an aspergers retard?
well we do gave you spergstein. writing a novel and shit instead of shitposting like a non autist.

We no longer practice bomb drills.
If you have zero experience with something you will never learn to fear it.
But even if you practice for the event it will always be in the back of your mind.
Look at how we still do tornado, fire, and now even active shooting drills.
Guess what kids fear more nowadays, a tornado or a nuke?

File: Atomic_blast_Nevada_Yucca_1951_(better_quality).png (1MB, 700x877px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 700x877px

>>33601852
>nuclear weapon denial

What?

Like, denying that nukes exist?

File: 1307335445861.jpg (43KB, 247x248px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 247x248px

>>33602226
>well we do gave you
What the fuck does that even mean.
Is this even english anymore?
Did a nuke actually drop on you at some point?

>>33602258
Kids these days fear their phone falling and breaking so they can't connect to social media and get fed a constant feed of bullshit 24/7 until the day they die in poverty and debt while still earning $1/hour.

Getting nuked would be a relief.

>>33601759

Cause Hollywood made the nuclear apocalypse cool.

>Why aren't folks afraid of nukes anymore?
Because they'll probably never be used.

If Pakistan and India can be mature enough to have a war while having nukes, and not use said nukes, I think we'll be alright.

It would have to be a pretty drastic situation for them to be used, like a total war situation where a regime is facing an existential threat.

Everyone posting here was born too late to have known a time without nukes.

Duh.

File: 1332619504639.png (18KB, 209x219px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 209x219px

>>33602536
>It would have to be a pretty drastic situation for them to be used, like a total war situation where a regime is facing an existential threat.
Huh, you don't say.

>>33601759
>Why aren't folks afraid of nukes anymore?
Same reason people think paper has value, because a bunch of lawmakers and bankers say so. All it really takes is 1 nuke from anyone to really kick things off.

>>33602344
Yes there is one still active right now at 200+ replies. Dumb fucking retards keep feeding the OP who is ignorant of the workings of physics

>>33602615
It does need pointing out, because most wars aren't total wars.

fear for nukes serves no purpose
you can't spend your entire life in a nuke-proof bunker, and if you're outside one and someone decides to nuke your general area you're dead and no amount of fear is going to change that

File: IMG_0156.png (107KB, 953x1760px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 953x1760px

>>33601875
Kek

truthfully I don't believe nuclear war would be world ending. with out technical knowledge at this point I think rebuilding would occur rather fast. not to mention the nuclear winter effect has been disproven.

>>33601759
If the US or Russia want to nuke me, there's nothing I can do, so I might as well not care either

>>33602646
>dumb fucking retards who can't understand basic concepts
Yup. Sounds like /pol/ alright.

>>33601759
A few reason but it comes down mostly to
1. Nukes have been around for a long time, like before most people parents were alive.
2. There was active fear mongering which made out the use of nukes more likely and far more deadly than was the case.
3.The balance of power just is not there anymore. Russian is not what the USSR was and does not have the warsaw pact.
4. 9/11 showed that it is very possible to hurt a county without nukes, outside of a state of war.

>>33601759
The medias constant fearstorm programming of the last 40 years has pretty much made everyone so numb and stupified theres no relation to reality anymore

File: kek.jpg (105KB, 890x876px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 890x876px

>>33601875

You should be more afraid of information wars, or rather, being misinformed.

Why make people afraid of you when you can just make them think like you?

File: 1491618065689.gif (1MB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x533px

>>33602646
Holy lol, sort of want to read this thread

>>33601759
They are.
Otherwise we would be upgrading and replacing our dying reactors.
France has something good going on.

>>33602691
>you can't spend your entire life in a nuke-proof bunker
Watch me. Hey mom get me my tendies.

I think we're all aware at this point that it's very possible to live out your entire life without any human interaction whatsoever.

>>33601770
Fpbp.

>>33601852
It's just as pathetic as flat earthers or AIDS deniers.
But hey, someone's got to need these faggots to hurt the credibility of the rest of the crowd, even if many fine people show some legitimate concerns over relevant stuff, right ?

>>33601759
We've been living with a threat that we can barely understand hanging over our heads for so long it doesn't seem real.

>>33603609
>Otherwise we would be upgrading and replacing our dying reactors.
>France has something good going on.
If you mean the EPR, no it's not good. It's complete and utter shit. The F-35 of nuclear reactors, lots of promises, over budget, years late, nothing delivered yet.

If you mean ITER, it's an international project. And yes it's potentially great. Except for all we know it may not work at all.

The future of nuclear reactors lies with Thorium. It's so obvious given its history and so perfect on paper in terms of safety and efficiency I can't believe the fucking hindus are going to be the first ones to build a commercial thorium reactor.

>>33601759
>Why aren't folks afraid of nukes anymore?
I think people still are.

>>33603267
>hurt a county without nukes
>he thinks that counted as hurt

File: kenburnssoldierlg.jpg (30KB, 400x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x360px

>>33601996
Ah shit, m8. I didn't need that right now. I've been coming to terms with my legendary, best music of all time playlist of 500 some songs going stale on me. I didn't need that on top of this.

File: 1488743893500.png (118KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x640px

>>33604763
Shit can only become a diamond with heat and pressure.

>>33601759
The value of human life has massively degraded in the last century.

>>33602681
does Korea ring a bell? Because that anon was talking about Korea. where a regime is about to face a existential threat.

>>33601759
Because nuclear war won't really destroy the world. But it will kill most of the urban political and financial elite, and that's something that most people can get behind these days.

File: it's the end of the world as we know it, and i feel fine.jpg (80KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 960x640px

>>33601759
COME, SWEET DEATH
COME, BLESSED REST

>>33605202
>that's something that most people can get behind these days.
hell, i can.

>>33605015
>where a regime is about to face a existential threat.
I'm not convinced yet that this is actually the case.

A few targeted strikes against certain infrastructure maybe, but getting rid of the regime would create a lot of work, whereas getting rid of someone like Assad wouldn't, because we're already waist deep, so it's not that much more of a step to get completely submerged in shit.

File: 1476312106423.jpg (157KB, 746x982px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 746x982px

>>33606270
God damnit. how the hell did we get into this situation...

>>33601759
Because we learned that nuclear winter and the various claims of human extinction were flat-out lies propagated by people who preferred for us to surrender to Communism.

>>33603932
There's also a bunch trying to make MSR work with plain old yellowcake, on the basis that they can get their hands on that fuel right now, and it requires less R&D than a proper LFTR. I see it as a potential stepping-stone.

>>33601759
Because the age of retarded egotistical world leaders who will screw their country for stupid reasons like national honor and prestige died with the world wars (mostly), and no modern world leader will use nukes. North Korea doesn't count.

And I'm still afraid of them--they're still one of the biggest threats to life as we know it just because they exist. But for now, the leaders and systems in control of them are fairly rational, and wouldn't use them unless someone else did first. For them to be used, some legitimately crazy guy would have to be put in charge of a nuclear power. Putin and Trump don't count, they're greedy and corrupt but not irrational. The status quo's too good for them to want that kind of change.

Even if the next Hitler or MacArthur or whoever were to get in office, I think if the launch codes were given, either here or in Russia, there's a fifty-fifty chance someone else in the process would refuse to obey and not do their part to launch the nukes.

>>33607964
>they're still one of the biggest threats to life as we know it
not by far. a black hole ripping through the solar system near speed of light would be a much bigger threat.

>>33607964
you forgot about pakistan

>>33605202
Pretty much that. Basically everyone living in a blue region would be dead, while the rest of us who are rural or even semi-isolated would go on. The hardest part would be figuring out how to re-start without a fixed system of currency, because you know bartering would be king for years after nuclear war.

>>33601852
What kind of turbo-retardation is this?

>>33601759
because they aren't nearly as bad as they told us they were during the cold war/

File: 306B436300000578-3409908-In_the_1980s_prominent_scientists_including_Carl_Sagan_warned_th-a-5_1453460981601.jpg (255KB, 962x910px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 962x910px

>so much denial in this thread

No one would be spared

File: 1331137639159.jpg (16KB, 499x306px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 499x306px

>>33608134
>nukes
>firestorms

>>33601759
Because the existence of nukes is a paradox thanks to MAD.

>>33608134
Nukes are bad but not 100% apocalypse bad. A lot of people would survive. Well, mostly africans (nothing of value to nuke) and the humans that happen to live in more mountainous regions of the world (again, not much of value to nuke near mountains, with the possible exception of China and a few individual targets in the rest of the world).
And nuclear winter is nothing but an ecotard meme.
But this doesn't mean nukes aren't bad mkay? Many would live but a lot more would die. And you can say goodbye to society for at least a few years after nuke day.