Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Thanks for replying. While I agree, direct conventional war has a much lower likelihood of ending civilization. To be very cold about it, sure lots of people will die in direct conventional war, but they would be measured in the hundreds of thousands, not tens or hundreds of millions.

Conventional war is also localized. Imagine the global economic effects (not just $, but say food and fertilizer distribution) of having clouds of fallout circling the planet. COVID lock-down ^10? ^100? ^1000?



> not tens or hundreds of millions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:tex....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

I wonder if there's an analogous metric to wtfpm that applies to historical ignorance because it sure as hell seems to be increasing lately.


I personally just don't see conventional war going to those numbers today, unless we completely unravel economic interdependence.


That's the same line of thinking that most people had prior to WW1 so I wouldn't be so sure. s/Germany/China/g and things will unravel pretty fast.


Syrian civil war is above 1m military and civilian casualties. War in Yemen and US invasion in Iraq are close.


*ding* that would do it


If there's one good thing about global capitalism, it's that it has replaced outright violence as the best way to gain power!


I've posted about this too many times to repeat so your wrong WW1 yada yada


26 millions of Soviet citizens died in the World War 2. Unless you think that Untermensch aren't people.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: