Binary code: Mystery number one. Artur Zadikyan

scale was discussed quite seriously.

      – What exactly? – Ruthra asked.

      – Now. I do not insist on this particular option, I only want to suggest that such a thing should take hold of people's minds. Then, perhaps, the one who is up to something will take certain steps and make a mark. That is, we can calculate him, so to speak, by markers.

      – I see your point. You think people will take this seriously?

      – Depends on who's presenting it. Let me read the material, then I'll share my thoughts.

      Ruthra glanced over to the staff. Some, mostly young, expressed curiosity, while the older ones, the "veteran group," expressed skepticism.

      – So, listen. I think many people will be surprised that this has been discussed at a serious scientific level.

      – Come on! – Ruthra couldn't take it anymore.

      – Smith, in his book The End of the World Men, describes the history of how the cobalt bomb was first proposed in this way. I will cite some excerpts. "You may ask," Scillard said, anticipating his critics, "who would want to kill everyone on earth? Any country that wants to be invincible in war." "Let's suppose," he explained, "that we are engaged in a war and are on the verge of winning a war with Russia that has lasted, say, ten years. The Russians might say, 'You will not go beyond this border, or we will detonate our hydrogen bombs and kill everyone.'" Faced with that kind of threat, I don't think we can continue. I think Russia will be invincible." In a public lecture the following month, Brown told the audience that he was now convinced that there were people who were prepared to destroy all life on Earth if they did not get their way. The only ray of hope remains that "those who would want to use these weapons to kill must accept suicide as a condition of the deal."

      The F employee was quiet for a moment and added:

      – That's what I suggest we put on the air.

      The hall was silent, digesting what they had heard.

      – Any other thoughts? – Ruthra asked in his superior capacity.

      The hall was silent, many were writing something down.

      The head of the demography department raised her hand. At the same time, the same F department employee offered:

      – If there are no objections, I can continue.

      Ruthra wanted to already give the word to Madame that she had raised her hand, however, she asked politely:

      – Uh, no, no. Can I go after him?

      – What else you got? – Ruthra turned to the man who had suggested he continue.

      – If that's the case, the logical thing to do is the following," he said. – We need to get people to think about it, to make them realize that it could happen. We need to use everything: lectures, movies, music, talk shows, politicians, scientists, military. You have to give examples and constantly scare them. I will tell you, give examples, what information and how you can use it. Attitudes toward the problem of human extinction depend largely on an individual's belief in life after death, ideas about the value of the human race. Human extinction is part of many people's belief in the sense that the end of the world means the absolute end of their earthly existence but not of their eternal soul. Some religions allow for cyclical regeneration. However, most religions do not associate the end of the world with human extinction, since the end of the world means in reality the beginning of a new way of existence, with the Christian religion saying that after the end of the world, all humans who have ever lived will live forever with their bodies, but elsewhere. However, there are the following reasons why the risk of extinction of humanity is not obvious: throughout history there have been countless predictions of human extinction. In all cases, the predicted end-of-the-world date has passed without any consequences, making subsequent warnings less frightening. There are thousands of public safety jobs dedicated to analyzing and reducing the risks of individual death. Yet there is not a single person dedicated to human extinction risks working full time, in part because there is no way to know if they are doing their job well. Pondering human extinction has become unfashionable. Denialism is a kind of negative availability heuristic that occurs when the outcome of events is so unpleasant that even the very act of thinking about them leads to a growing reluctance to believe that such a thing could happen. This leads to an underestimation of the likelihood of human extinction. In general, humanity's sense of self-preservation and intelligence is seen as a strong defense against extinction. It is believed that people will find creative solutions to overcome potential threats and will use the precautionary principle when undertaking dangerous endeavors.

      The member of the "F" department, pondering something was silent, and then continued again:

      – The arguments against this are as follows. First, managing potentially disruptive technologies is becoming increasingly difficult. Second, the precautionary principle is often discarded when the rewards seem to outweigh the risks. One example of the precautionary principle being discarded already exists: before the detonation of the first Trinity atomic bomb, one of the scientists involved in the project, Edward Teller, suggested that a nuclear reaction could destroy the entire state of New Mexico and perhaps even the entire world by causing a nitrogen fusion reaction in the atmosphere. Hans Bethe's calculations proved that this was impossible, but anxiety remained until the moment of testing. Various scenarios of human extinction come from science, popular culture, science fiction, and religion. Humans are probably the only species that has a conscious awareness of its future demise, likely to take steps to avoid it

      Many examples could be given. I think that's enough to start with. I have no other suggestions for now.

      With these words the specialist of department "F" finished his speech, listening to whom outsiders would understand why this department in "Zero" is called "the department of fantasists".

      – You have something, am I reading that right? – Rutra asked the person in charge of world demography.

      – May I?

      – We must! – Ruthra motivated her. – Don't forget that all traditional methods have been tried.

      – Can I start? – She asked.

      – We are listening to you," Ruthra replied.

      – I have an article.

      – Familiarize us with her," Ruthra asked.

      – Reporting," she said in an accent of uncertain origin.

      It was clear that she had come to Zero from the security services, the SVR or some similar foreign service. Rutra did not yet have access to the initial employee profiles.

      – My article touches on such a topic as World War III. It is an event that many believe cannot happen because of its fundamental insanity. But I think it is quite realistic.

      What do we put into the meaning of the expression World War III? World War III is first of all a global military conflict. In case of massive use of nuclear weapons in the Third World War, most of humanity may be destroyed. According to experts of the UN Commission, the total stockpile of nuclear weapons is about 10 gigatons in TNT equivalent. According to the estimates of the international journal of the Swedish Academy of Sciences, dropping 5000 nuclear shells with a total capacity of two gigatons on the main cities of the northern hemisphere could lead to the simultaneous death of 750 million people from only one of the striking factors – the shock wave. Thus, according to scientists' estimates, the nuclear arsenal of mankind is sufficient for its complete extermination. Literature and cinematography often play up the possibility of the defense system going out of control of the country's political leadership or an irresponsible leader coming to power, which leads to mutual destruction of opponents, despite the practical senselessness of such a strategic decision. The consequences of nuclear war could theoretically lead to catastrophic changes in the climate and environmental conditions of the planet. This view has largely defined nuclear weapons as weapons of strategic deterrence of opponents from the outbreak of nuclear conflict. At the beginning of the 21st century, the main points of tension are on the borders between Pakistan and India, and Israel and Palestine. On the side of the latter is Iran. The Indo-Pakistani conflict has escalated