Proof of the Fermi Paradox here on earth


We did this in the 1980s…Google Proud Prophet.

Any limited use of nuclear weapons pretty much is guaranteed to result in a full-scale exchange.

Even Ronald Reagan finally accepted this.

And of course we just increased the probability of this happening by deploying a low yield nuclear weapon onto our subs.

On the same missile that would carry a high yield weapon…so any enemy, of course, wouldn’t know which one we launched.

The farther and farther we get from our last destructive war (WW II), the more of us that remember the Cold War that die off, the greater the likelihood we’ll stumble into a new war.

Because humanity is stupid.

Maybe this is the answer to the Fermi Paradox.

Low yield nuke does concern me…it make em more viable options that will only escalate IMO.

Large scale warfare is really a thing of the past its been proven over and over again in war games.

Marine General Paul Van Riper defeated a whole carrier group with the assets of Iran.

Eh they said the exact same thing before 1914.

Four years later an entire generation was destroyed.

The difference is that now we can basically reset civilization back to the medieval period in 30 minutes. But there’s no guarantee that we will avoid making the big mistake.

I remember Reagan officials talking about Proud Prophet years after the fact. And they used his top officials in the war games.

They went into the simulation highly confident that winning a limited nuclear war was not only possible but probable.

After the exercise they were scared ■■■■■■■■ how quickly things went off the rails and they committed to a full exchange. With no one decision that they made that could be pointed to as mistaken or irrational.

PS I do notice that Esper didn’t say how this war game actually ended.

It’s the Great Filter.

The problem is that you never know which side of the filter you are on… but you are probably on the bad end of it.

Russia and China have often won war games.
but I’m not sure the Russian / Chinese leadership is as well verse in American military complex to exploit.

Horse hockey, all it would take is another Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc.

I doubt Russia is going to march 500,000 people into Europe even with another Stalin.
the way we fight war has changed we technology.

The second we developed nuclear weapons, we guaranteed our species extinction. The realization of alternate perceived truths is just icing on the metaphorical cake.

Species extinction I disagree with. Though it would put the planet back to the dark ages in the places that did survive.

Bio weapons on the other hand… A nasty one of those gets loose and that could be game over. Something with a long onset before people become symptomatic so people keep traveling… that would be a species eraser.

Technology can’t replace armor, infantry, and artillery.

All it would take is another megalomaniac hell bent on conquest and we’ll have another major war.

An asteroid or comet is far more likely to lead to our extinction than a nuclear exchange.

Nukes might reset the clock taking us back to the stone age but in pretty much any scenario imaginable some portion of humanity remains.


We could be on the right side of the filter.

Some scientists think the Cambrian Explosion signifies the Great Filter could be in our past.

For nearly 4 billion years the only life was single celled…then BOOM…multicellular life.

That seems to show that multicellular life is not easy to evolve.

1 Like

Sure when one bomb can wipe that all out …

That has more to do with conditions on the planet early on.

We had an incredibly hostile environment for a very long time.

No single bomb can accomplish that and when you start shooting nukes you will immediately be hit with a retaliatory nuclear strike.

Thus wiping out your army…which was my point. If we didnt have nukes youd have a point. Then sheer numbers with all that jazz you said should create a huge advantage…but we dont live in that world anymore

No, the retaliatory strikes would be on strategic military sites, missile batteries, silos, capitols, and major cities, not on the troops.

The whole point of the retaliatory strike is to make sure they don’t get to launch again.

What idiot wouldnt attack the troops along side the bases?