343
Collapse of critical Atlantic current is no longer low likelihood, study finds
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
343 points (99.1% liked)
science
24999 readers
357 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seems critical to a lot though...
Yes, we're talking about mass death. We're not talking about extinction of the human species
...unless those that are dying decide to use nuclear weapons to obtain resources for their States
Even then, we don't have enough nuclear weapons to cause human extinction. We didn't even have enough back in the 1980s when nuclear stockpiles were at their peak and the stockpiles have been reduced drastically since then.
This is another case where destroying civilizations is nowhere near being equivalent to destroying our species.
Ooof, don't spread misinformation. We absolutely have enough nuclear weapons to cause nuclear Holocaust right now.
A nuclear holocaust, sure. But not one big enough to cause human extinction.
Since this is a science community, I guess I'll lead by example. Here are some numbers.
Here's an article that tries to project the effects of a full-scale nuclear exchange at the height of the cold war in 1988. Net result is that by 2040 human civilization is back on its feet. We have a lot fewer nuclear weapons now than we did back then. A more recent study predicted 90 million deaths from a US-Russia nuclear war, which is a tragedy but not a particularly big blip on the world population graph.
Here's a page showing humanity's nuclear arsenal over time. It's currently down to the same level it was in roughly 1958. And note, the bombs in 1958 were generally much higher-yield than the ones we have now because the precision of delivery was very poor back then - they had to be large to be sure to hit their target. And half of the current-day arsenal is in Russia, which has notoriously poor reliability for their weapons due to extreme corruption so I wouldn't expect all of those to function.
Nuclear winter has been drastically overblown in popular culture. We've had volcanic eruptions put comparable amounts of particulates into the air and the effects haven't been anywhere near what the nuclear winter doomsayers have predicted.
Bear in mind that anyone launching nuclear weapons isn't going to be doing it with the goal of wiping all of humanity out, they'll have more limited military goals. There will be specific countries that they're targeting, and specific facilities within those countries, and they won't be selecting those based on how "extinct" they make people. The Russians would "waste" a whole lot of nukes on relatively empty land in Montana, for example, trying to destroy the missile silos there. They'd have no reason to nuke targets in Africa. There'd be plenty of civilization left to rebuild after a nuclear war.
Alright. Your turn, where's your information showing that humanity faces extinction from this?
I recommend reading Daniel Ellsburg's Doomsday Machine.
From the Wikipedia article it appears he's taking the "nuclear winter" approach. I pointed out the criticisms of that in my comment above. But even his notably extreme version still doesn't support the notion that this would lead to literal human extinction. It also appears he's rather out of date, he hasn't been a nuclear war planner since 1971. If you look at my sources above about humanity's nuclear arsenal over time you'll see how significant that is.
Please keep that at forefront here. This subthread is about human extinction, not about "oh no I guess we have to reinvent steam power" or some other drastically less-bad outcome like that. I have never said that I don't think a nuclear war would be bad, of course it would be bad. My position is that it's not going to render humanity extinct.
You really don't understand how nuclear weapons work and how absolutely devastating their fallout actually is. Its not a movie or video game where a few survive in underground bunkers and the rest just "mutate". The fallout from a total nuclear war would wipe out every human life in a couple of decades either through extreme radioactive poisoning or through extreme famine from the irradiation of any and all arable land.. Bacteria and tardigrades might survive. Sure as shit nothing else will.
Absolute irony. Your depiction of the global effects of fallout is from sci-fantasy, at best. Do you have any sources that are not on the IMDB?