Science desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 29[edit]

All out nuclear war (1960s style)[edit]

I'm looking for sources quoting survivability, in the case of all out nuclear war, of government employees in bunkers, versus the general population during the 1960s unclear crisis

For instance, would there be any population left to govern after a massive nuclear strike?.

In other words, was there any point in some government people hiding in bunkers whist the earth was fried? 86.8.202.72 (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you've ever been round one of those bunkers, I think the answer is self evident, you wouldn't choose to do it, but a sense of duty (etc) would make it inevitable that some people would try. Greglocock (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See here. In case of an all out nuclear war, 90% of the World's population will starve to death due to nuclear winter. A small scale India-Pakistan nuclear war will cause one to two billion deaths from starvation worldwide. Count Iblis (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Government officials surviving the initial blast, only to die of starvation afterwards, seems like a fitting punishment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear winter was not understood at the time.
Also we built up our arsenals (and ranges, accuracy, MIRV capability, etc.) gradually, so the concept of survivability even in case of an "all-out" war changed with the passing of time.
The idea of "first strike capability" was the ability to take out an opponent's nuclear capability, rather than their population centres. If either side achieved this, the possibility of a high rate of civilian survival was on the cards for both sides.
Governments had to plan for many different scenarios, an ability to maintain a civilian government, as well as a command-and-control, would not just improve the outcome in the event of these scenarios, but might also prevent them occurring in the first place.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I've seen various estimates of damage and casualties for this over time. In the 1960s people obviously knew less so they had to plan for all outcomes. In case some but not catastrophic damage happens, it would be useful for the survivors to have an intact government maintaining the rule of law. We know now that this is an unlikely scenario. See Nuclear_winter#Recent_modeling 93.136.119.49 (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the 60s every one was a paranoid wreck about nukes thay even did school nuke drills. 23.24.81.162 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a also a paronoid person when it comes to nuke and I like to add in modern times a nuke can destroy a country in many ways. And dont forget about the video game 60 seconds. 23.24.81.162 (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Einsteins words were no.(his quote "I do not know what weopons world war 3 will be fought with but world war 4 with sticks and stones!" Note: The quote was fracured and changed. 23.24.81.162 (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protein nomenclature[edit]

The article Fibrillarin refers to Nop1, elsewhere it is called Nop1p. What is the distinction between these two terms, if any? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

NOP1 is the gene, standing for "nucleolar protein 1",[1] and the custom for the protein coded would be to lower case it to Nop1, and this is used. Nop1p also appears to be used.[2] Before the gene was described it appears the protein was called yeast nucleolar protein p38. NOP1p was used in 1994.[3] That past p probably stands for protein, even though the first P already stands for protein! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good explanation but disagree with your statement "and the custom for the protein coded would be to lower case it to Nop1". It varies by species but generally proteins are all caps: Gene_nomenclature#Vertebrate_gene_and_protein_symbol_conventions. Fgf10 (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. I think I am better informed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Lion King[edit]

Is there a list of animals by species in Circle of Life intro in Lion King for both the 1994 and 2018 versions of the movie? Also are any scientific articles written on the fictional movie trying to analyze it from an ecological standpoint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.39.38.154 (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have the full list of characters: List_of_The_Lion_King_characters. Ruslik_Zero 20:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]