So. Much. Planets.

[magnemoe]

How does an automobile kill? don't you mean the people who drive the automobile?

Probably pollution, however 100 million is off by multiple magnitudes, think total deaths on earth is less than 100 million / year.

Accident numbers also looks to high.

[78stonewobble]

Well, obviously the same way that nuclear weapons don't kill... only the people firing them are doing the killing, but thats splitting hairs.

Regarding number of deaths directly related to automobiles, it's based on a WHO estimation:

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/en/

Where it's estimated that in 2004 traffic accidents caused 1,2 million deaths and injured upwards of 50 million people.

Regarding the consequences of their pollution I think it's once again a WHO, but this time future, estimation on the consequences of global warming, to which automobile use obviously contributes. Here it's been a while so I can't find the link.

However there it is estimated that global warming will indirectly cause an extra 5 million deaths a year from the year 2025 til 2050. Due changes in weather, leading to less arable land and thus local famine. Or more rainfall leading to more puddles, lakes and whatnot and thus more malaria mosquitoes.

EDIT: This is where the 100+ million number comes from... It's over time.

IF these numbers are correct, and I know thats a pretty big if, atleast in the 2nd estimation, then automobiles are a far greater threat to humans than nuclear weapons or nuclear energy. Atleast so far.

We'd need thousands of Chernobyl sized accidents for nuclear energy to be more dangerous than global warming and quite a few to be as dangerous as cars...

...

Anyways... My point was more that a couple of thousand nuclear weapon in silo's and submarines or even sinking submarines is a relatively theoretical problem costing very few lives. There are other and bigger practical problems that cost lives every day and to me it seems more rational to protest those or do something to change those instead.

Edited June 9, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[Holo]

Imagine if they're like humans.

In a future, one of our starships enters an massive planetary system to find out that every world has been throughlu nuked from top to bottom with no survivors of a once great interplanetary civilization.

That sounds a lot like Earth!

(oh wait)

[ThinkOutsideTheHangar]

Don't be so negative. We humans have nukes for 70 years now and despite intense hatred and many wars, only two have ever been deployed and the morality of those is heavily debated till this day. Considering that we're a bunch of primates that need 3 years of training to not **** ourselves that's pretty impressive.

But that's only deterrence between the nuclear countries. what about terrorists? Rogue states? Fissile material on the black market?

[78stonewobble]

But that's only deterrence between the nuclear countries. what about terrorists? Rogue states? Fissile material on the black market?

I think some intelligence agency somewhere would notice terrorists or rogue nations beginning a programme on the scale to make enough nuclear weapons to destroy all of humanity. It took a little more than a garage workshop to make the nuclear arsenals of the height of the cold war.

Offcourse the terrorists could allways claim that another nuclear country went and "dun it" and hope that the attacked nuclear country would believe this completely and then annihilate, not only the supposedly attacking nuclear country... but attack all sorts of other countries just for the heck of it.

PS: Offtopic and perhaps mostly suitable for a new thread.

Hmm, can a global thermonuclear war these days even kill everyone? We're down to what? 4,180 active nuclear warheads and some 16,400 total nuclear warheads (takes a bit of time to use). Down from 85.000 warheads total in the 80's. Would that be enough to cause a bad enough global nuclear winter as compaired to volcanic eruptions (which relatively rarely wipes everything out) and/or lethal fallout globally?

[Chiboko]

The combined nuclear ordinance of the world is thought to be enough to cover every inch of the surface 3.5 times. On the subject of maximizing the number of planets in a given band of orbits why not have multiple planets in the same orbit but at different points? e.g. 2 planets in the same orbit but on opposite sides of the star(s)

[Whirligig Girl]

I don't think that would work because on the other side, Lagrangian points might conflict. the Lmap of any system is asymetric, so all bodies would have to be on the same side. If it was possible, I'm sure this guy would have thought of it.

[78stonewobble]

The combined nuclear ordinance of the world is thought to be enough to cover every inch of the surface 3.5 times. On the subject of maximizing the number of planets in a given band of orbits why not have multiple planets in the same orbit but at different points? e.g. 2 planets in the same orbit but on opposite sides of the star(s)

Hmm... assuming 16.000 500 kiloton blasts and a damaged area of 137 sq. miles per blast, "only" 3,8 percent of earths land area would have severe blast effects. If they're spread out evenly and there is no overlap and allmost all the weapons are used.

But I'm far from an expert on the area :S

PS: "only" *lol*

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

The combined nuclear ordinance of the world is thought to be enough to cover every inch of the surface 3.5 times. On the subject of maximizing the number of planets in a given band of orbits why not have multiple planets in the same orbit but at different points? e.g. 2 planets in the same orbit but on opposite sides of the star(s)

The systems described in the article both make heavy use of multiple planets in the same orbit. The exact situation you mentioned, with two planets on opposite sides of a star, would be a planet at L3. However, this situation is unstable; if the two planets come even one nanometer out of alignment, they will be pulled towards each other, ultimately resulting in either a horseshoe orbit or a very elongated tadpole orbit.

[Camacha]

Actually... The automobile is a much bigger threat. It kills and maims millions every year and has for years. Plus it's... you know... via enviromental effects part of killing around a 100 million more.

Whatever the effect of automobiles (which is relatively minor compared other pollution sources and accidents), nukes exchanged in anger between warring nations will eclipse that in a heartbeat.

[78stonewobble]

Whatever the effect of automobiles (which is relatively minor compared other pollution sources and accidents), nukes exchanged in anger between warring nations will eclipse that in a heartbeat.

It would have to be a few of them and between equally nuclear capable nations and take 10+ minutes, but sure... if it happens it'll be bad. Until then... cars kill alot more people. Seems more sensible to protest that.

[Seret]

That would make a good sci-fi story.

Firefly/Serenity were set in a single multiple star system with dozens of planets and moons.