Talk:Nuclear holocaust

message: Here's the information on it:
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_(RDM)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth (sort of) is not nuked in Battlestar Galactica 

message: Hi. Unfortunately I don't know how to insert the link myself. The German article about nuclear holocaust can be found here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuklearer_Holocaust 86.59.64.78
I can understand the significance of the ending of "A Canticle for Leibowitz" within the context of this article, but is it really necessary to spoil the end of the book to make a small point?  I mean, seriously, I was considering reading that book sometime.  LAME, to say the least, so I deleted it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.250.103 (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki missing 

message: Maybe that information is better suited for Holocaust.  It seems to be extra information that doesn't fit in the context of this article. ~ digx t·c 12:57, 21 November 20
08 (UTC)
:agree - this page should focus on the nuclear side. 86.161.88.222 (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph talking about "Holocaust" 

message: we're all going to die regardless of politics and nuclear war so lets just have some cake :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.100.14 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any scientisst really believe that "the loss of much modern technology" would result in the end of human life on earth? They must be geeks of the first class.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the end is nigh 

message: Some claims in this article about the expected number of casualties from nuclear exchange cite studies conducted in the 1980s. In some cases, it is not clear which nuclear effects these studies are considering - direct nuclear blast, radiation, fallout, nuclear winter, EMP, etc. When a study is mentioned, it would be helpful to mention the year of the study and also what nuclear effects are being models, since very different numbers can be justified by different models. I will try to clean this up.Davearthurs (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating and clarifying historic references 

message: User:SamuelRiv, I'm not a climatologist but it seems to the me that Martin 1983, Robock 2007, and Tonn 2009, while none of them are definitive, suggest to me that the current mainstream scientific view is that following a global thermonuclear war, the scenario where there are some survivors is more likely than the scenario where the human race goes extinct. Also, Robock 2007 is cited by , which explictly states: "While it is important to point out the consequences of nuclear winter, it is also important to point out what will not be the consequences. Although extinction of our species was not ruled out in initial studies by biologists, it now seems that this would not take place." More informally, Luke Oman (who was a co-author on Robock 2007) had an interview where he initially characterized the in-model odds of extinction as "1 in 10000" and suggested his colleagues agreed it was unlikely. Are there any current models where extinction does occur? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC
:I'll look into it as I only just started getting interested in the subject, but I'll take the studies you posted as representative. But "not supported by science" is a definite no for wording. "Models from the past decade consider extinction (very?) unlikely" or something to that effect would certainly be good for that section.
:Fwiw, I would only say a conclusion is "not supported by science" if it is not a result in any credible model of recent decades and has almost zero credibility in academia, and even then I'd only use that in writing if the subject was pushing pseudoscience or being politicized for the purpose of pseudoscience. For example, I wouldn't even use the phrase to describe something like MOND, even though it has almost no support even from those who work on it, since in that particular case the theory had been proposed and is studied well within the merits of proper science. Essentially "not supported by science" sounds like a total diss. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current mainstream view on nuclear winter and extinction? 

message: I've shortened the subsection on nuclear famine because a nuclear famine page with bulk of the content is currently under review. When the page is approved, I will link it to this page.  Lina.singapore86 (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preparation of nuclear famine page 

message: I edited 'on the order of hundreds of weapons' to read '100 Hiroshima yield weapons' as the link at the end of that sentence clearly states it as such. It might also be worth editing that sentence further, as I recall that at least one of the studies has indicated that as few as 50 Hiroshima sized devices would be sufficient to cause a 10 year nuclear winter - the one that was published a couple years ago in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Anyone recall that one?23.91.131.234 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit to number and yield of weapons needed to cause a global catastrophe 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Nuclear holocaust's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "agu.org":
From Nuclear winter: 
From Firestorm: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Nuclear holocaust]] 

message: "Since 1947, the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has visualized how far the world is from a nuclear war."
Well, it hasn't given any reliable visualization, it's just some people's hypotheses based on how much progress has taken place in favor of or against nuclear warfare. Not sure how to rephrase this. Weegeeweeg (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doomsday clock 

message: Given that the main loss of life resulting from global nuclear war might be due to secondary effects, such as nuclear winter, rather than being due to the nuclear blasts themselves, I will try adding some additional subsections documenting this. These will go under the "Effects of nuclear war" section.
I just added a section on nuclear fallout. I have some text written on nuclear power plant breakdown as well, although it is missing references. Would you advice I post what I have now, or wait until I can add the references? Davearthurs (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsections on secondary effects of nuclear war 

message: Article states (without source)"Under such a scenario, some of the Earth is made uninhabitable by nuclear warfare in future world wars." Some? Is there SOME way to make that sentence mean something significant? "Some of the earth" could be one village in Afghanistan or continents.   (PeacePeace (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: sorif 103.75.139.17 (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there some way to make "some" meaningful?  .0001 percent is some, so is 99.9999 

message: Consider transitioning from using the word "holocaust" to calling this "nuclear genocide" since "holocaust" is the specific killing of Jews in WWII and genocide has a similar but wider meaning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baulius (talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "holocaust" has a broad definition, in which this is included. "Holocaust" (capital h.) refers to  The Holocaust DarmaniLink (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust vs. genocide 

message: — Assignment last updated by Lukebbaldwin (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

message: Hi,dangerous people be aware you'll kill yourself until when ??.The true you is unknown until now you leave in fear asking and answering your on self until you use this nuclear holocaust . So you know.Amooketsi you won't go heaven after all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.192.199 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Believe It or Not