# Consequences of shooting down a plane bearing a nuclear weapon

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/consequences-of-shooting-down-a-plane-bearing-a-nuclear-weapon/768420>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [October 13, 2016, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/consequences-of-shooting-down-a-plane-bearing-a-nuclear-weapon/768420 "2016-10-13T14:27:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/consequences-of-shooting-down-a-plane-bearing-a-nuclear-weapon/768420/21 "2016-10-14T05:05:36Z")

</div>

> [@wevets](#):
>
> It’s difficult to reconcile the quote in green with the quote in red - they directly contradict each other. The environmental catastrophe is the spread of highly poisonous plutonium or uranium over a large area.

One square mile of contaminated area is not a good thing, but isn’t what I’d call an ‘environmental catastophe’, so no they don’t contradict each other. A minor, localized incident, that doesn’t require country wide action, and no loss of life is not a ‘catastrophe’, especially when we’re talking about it in the context of nuclear powers shooting at each others military vehicles.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/consequences-of-shooting-down-a-plane-bearing-a-nuclear-weapon/768420/22 "2016-10-14T05:29:11Z")

</div>

I consider it a catastrophe when there’s flour all over the floor of the kitchen. YMMV.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/consequences-of-shooting-down-a-plane-bearing-a-nuclear-weapon/768420/23 "2016-10-14T12:42:46Z")

</div>

And thus we see the meta-problem.

Many folks have been conditioned by the relative simplicity and trouble-free nature of modern Western life to use words like “catastrophe” to describe trivial non-events.

The consequence of this will be societal paralysis and panic when actual non-trivial events eventually occur. be they natural disasters, man-made disasters, or political upheaval.

Especially when the severity of whatever it is will be massively cheer-led by the media.  
Sense of proportion, people. Please get some.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/consequences-of-shooting-down-a-plane-bearing-a-nuclear-weapon/768420/24 "2016-10-14T14:27:05Z")

</div>

> [@LSLGuy](#):
>
> And thus we see the meta-problem.
> 
> Many folks have been conditioned by the relative simplicity and trouble-free nature of modern Western life to use words like “catastrophe” to describe trivial non-events.

Describing something as a “non-event” conveys just as little information as describing something as a “catastrophe.” If someone spread plutonium over a square mile in your town, you’d probably be describing it as a “catastrophe” and hating on that guy from Spain on the internet describing it as a “non-event.”  
My advice would be to just let the reader decide what the writer meant, rather than clutching pearls over the breakdown of language leading to “societal paralysis.” :rolleyes:

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/consequences-of-shooting-down-a-plane-bearing-a-nuclear-weapon/768420.md?page=1)