Jump to content
KatLike

Nuc. war leads to extinction scenario

Recommended Posts

ok, well, it seems to me that if something was worse than a nuclear war ever could be in terms of debris, and everything didnt die, then nuke war wouldnt cause that either

 

Well, that's the thing about seeming, and especially about seeming if. Maybe it will be something you grow out of.

 

Kyle, your 6,000 number is off. That number is the warhead count of the American strategic offensive weapons. SORT limits us to 2200 such weapons, but expires at the same instant that the deadline arrives. It also doesn't apply at all the SLBMs, tactical, theater, and strategic defensive weapons. The last time I looked seriously at it, the number was about 30,000. There are also a large number of de-alerted warheads which are just warheads you use an hour from now. The number I always recall for China is fifty.

 

That card is more like that I think about when I think of a nuclear extinction scenario. The fallout alone seems like it would do the trick. I remember cards about unviable babies because of genetic damage from radiation.

 

And did someone really put astronauts out there as a counter-argument? Seriously? Like if we have to wait for the three people on the space station to suffocate in three months that might save us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sheer amount of fallout that would come to reside in all of the worlds soils would be enough to cause human extinction - two ways -

 

1 - either there will be so much toxic materials in our soils that all of us will die of health complications and shit, killing everyone from the pure toxicity

 

or 2 - these materials, like plutonium and shit, wont kill us, but instead will just fuck with our genetics. This results in major genetic drift and a new species takes over, causing human extinction. yes, this isnt quite what you have in mind, but it is still extinction

 

and just an fyi - there are traces of plutonium in british farm soils from US tests in nevada, so this is totally plausible with a massive nuclear conflict. The long term environmental damages will be ridiculous and certainly devestate large numbers of all species populations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Jeffrey Deutsch 02, founder of the Rabid Tiger Project, a political risk consulting and related research firm, 11-18-02, http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html

 

The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any "help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing.

 

Best. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nick, my partner,

 

first this isn't a terminal impact for nuclear war.

it's just an internal from african instability to nukes.

 

also, i'd like to see if you could find any decent warrants in the card.

i know we read this card in rounds, but still... it's not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st, the card identifies that countires in Africa will be more willing to get involved in conflicts that could potentially escalate into nuclear war because they don't want to risk being percieved as weak and overthrown.

 

2nd, most African countires don't have strong ties to any particular power, so outside powers can more easily find client states. And when that happens these regional African conflicts draw those powers into war which goes nuclear.

 

And yeah, I know it's a terrible card >_>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1st, the card identifies that countires in Africa will be more willing to get involved in conflicts that could potentially escalate into nuclear war because they don't want to risk being percieved as weak and overthrown.

 

2nd, most African countires don't have strong ties to any particular power, so outside powers can more easily find client states. And when that happens these regional African conflicts draw those powers into war which goes nuclear.

 

And yeah, I know it's a terrible card >_>

 

yeah, but this thread is about nuclear leading to extinction. not internals to nuclear war.

 

um, except for the presence of post-colonialist bonds. (i.e. england and south africa, germany and angola). and the best possible explanation for outside powers being drawn in is resources, which isn't even in the deutsch card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that this is not the topic of this thread, but here is the opposite side. These are arguments you should be prepared to answer. I've included multiple cards that conclude that nuclear war will not cause extinction. It answers most of the best warrants that the opposing side makes. There is plenty more where this comes from. If there is interest, I will release a Spark/Nuclear Malthus file on Evazon. Let me know what you think in this thread or in a private message on this website.

 

Nuclear winter has been proven incorrect by physicists and empirical events.

 

Nyquist, 1999.

(Nyquist, Jeffrey R. Contributing Editor. WorldNetDaily. Expert. Geopolitics. “Is Nuclear War Survivable?” WorldNetDaily. May 20, 1999. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19722. Shayan Makani.)

 

I patiently reply to these correspondents that nuclear war would not be the end of the world. I then point to studies showing that “nuclear winter” has no scientific basis, that fallout from a nuclear war would not kill all life on earth. Surprisingly, few of my correspondents are convinced. They prefer apocalyptic myths created by pop scientists, movie producers and journalists. If Dr. Carl Sagan once said “nuclear winter” would follow a nuclear war, then it must be true. If radiation wipes out mankind in a movie, then that’s what we can expect in real life.

But Carl Sagan was wrong about nuclear winter. And the movie “On the Beach” misled American filmgoers about the effects of fallout. It is time, once and for all, to lay these myths to rest. Nuclear war would not bring about the end of the world, though it would be horribly destructive.

The truth is, many prominent physicists have condemned the nuclear winter hypothesis. Nobel laureate Freeman Dyson once said of nuclear winter research, “It’s an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight.”

Professor Michael McElroy, a Harvard physics professor, also criticized the nuclear winter hypothesis. McElroy said that nuclear winter researchers “stacked the deck” in their study, which was titled “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions” (Science, December 1983).

(Continued…)

In truth, natural disasters have frequently produced smoke and dust far greater than those expected from a nuclear war. In 1883 Krakatoa exploded with a blast equivalent to 10,000 one-megaton bombs, a detonation greater than the combined nuclear arsenals of planet earth. The Krakatoa explosion had negligible weather effects. Even more disastrous, going back many thousands of years, a meteor struck Quebec with the force of 17.5 million one-megaton bombs, creating a crater 63 kilometers in diameter. But the world did not freeze. Life on earth was not extinguished.

Consider the views of Professor George Rathjens of MIT, a known antinuclear activist, who said, “Nuclear winter is the worst example of misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory.” Also consider Professor Russell Seitz, at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs, who says that the nuclear winter hypothesis has been discredited.

Two researchers, Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider, debunked the nuclear winter hypothesis in the summer 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs. Thompson and Schneider stated: “the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of probability.”

OK, so nuclear winter isn’t going to happen. What about nuclear fallout? Wouldn’t the radiation from a nuclear war contaminate the whole earth, killing everyone?

 

More people currently die of smoking and car accidents than would through nuclear fallout, which subsists quickly.

 

Nyquist, 1999.

(Nyquist, Jeffrey R. Contributing Editor. WorldNetDaily. Expert. Geopolitics. “Is Nuclear War Survivable?” WorldNetDaily. May 20, 1999. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19722. Shayan Makani.)

 

OK, so nuclear winter isn't going to happen. What about nuclear fallout? Wouldn't the radiation from a nuclear war contaminate the whole earth, killing everyone?

The short answer is: absolutely not. Nuclear fallout is a problem, but we should not exaggerate its effects. As it happens, there are two types of fallout produced by nuclear detonations. These are: 1) delayed fallout; and 2) short-term fallout.

According to researcher Peter V. Pry, "Delayed fallout will not, contrary to popular belief, gradually kill billions of people everywhere in the world." Of course, delayed fallout would increase the number of people dying of lymphatic cancer, leukemia, and cancer of the thyroid. "However," says Pry, "these deaths would probably be far fewer than deaths now resulting from ... smoking, or from automobile accidents."

The real hazard in a nuclear war is the short-term fallout. This is a type of fallout created when a nuclear weapon is detonated at ground level. This type of fallout could kill millions of people, depending on the targeting strategy of the attacking country. But short-term fallout rapidly subsides to safe levels in 13 to 18 days. It is not permanent. People who live outside of the affected areas will be fine. Those in affected areas can survive if they have access to underground shelters. In some areas, staying indoors may even suffice.

Contrary to popular misconception, there were no documented deaths from short-term or delayed fallout at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. These blasts were low airbursts, which produced minimal fallout effects. Today's thermonuclear weapons are even "cleaner." If used in airburst mode, these weapons would produce few (if any) fallout casualties.

On their side, Russian military experts believe that the next world war will be a nuclear missile war. They know that nuclear weapons cannot cause the end of the world. According to the Russian military writer, A. S. Milovidov, "There is profound error and harm in the disoriented claims of bourgeois ideologues that there will be no victor in a thermonuclear world war." Milovidov explains that Western objections to the mass use of nuclear weapons are based on "a subjective judgment. It expresses mere protest against nuclear war."

(Continued…)

Russian military theory regards nuclear war as highly destructive, but nonetheless winnable. Russian generals do not exaggerate the effects of mass destruction weapons. Although nuclear war would be unprecedented in its death-dealing potential, Russian strategists believe that a well-prepared system of tunnels and underground bunkers could save many millions of lives. That is why Russia has built a comprehensive shelter system for its urban populace.

On the American side as well, there have been studies which suggest that nuclear war is survivable. The famous 1960 Rand Corporation study, "On Thermonuclear War," says, "Even if 100 metropolitan areas [in the USA] are destroyed, there would be more wealth in this country than there is in all of Russia today and more skills than were available to that country in the forties. The United States is a very wealthy and well-educated country."

The Rand study states that even if half the U.S. population were killed, "the survivors would not just lie down and die. Nor would they necessarily suffer a disastrous social disorganization."

Despite so many scholarly works and scientific studies, myths about nuclear war persist. These myths serve to confuse and misinform the American public. Because of these myths the United States government did not bother to build fallout shelters for its people. Because of these myths we do not take seriously the nuclear war preparations of Russia and China.

"[T]he worst that nuclear war could do” is unable to cause orbit alteration, rotational axis shift, oceanic collapse, planetary explosion, or biodiversity loss. Life would survive.

 

Sagan and Turco, 1990.

(Sagan, Carl Edward. B.A. Recipient. Physics. M.A. Recipient. Physics. Ph.D. Recipient. Astronomy/Astrophysics. University of Chicago. Professor. Astronomy. Critical Thinking. Cornell University. Advisor. National Aeronautical and Space Administration. Turco, Richard P. Professor. Atmospheric Sciences. University of California – Los Angeles. Director. Institute for the Environment. University of California – Los Angeles. A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race. Pg. 63. 1990. Shayan Makani.)

 

What is the worst that nuclear war could do? Our technology – while capable of enormous devastation – is wholly unable to alter the orbit of the Earth, change the tilt of the rotation axis, boil the oceans, or blow up the planet. Even exploding 60,000 nuclear weapons simultaneously could not do any of that. It seems highly unlikely that, even intentionally, we could destroy all life on Earth. There are hardy insects and grasses that are resistant to nuclear radiation and know how to close up shop, even for a very long winter, in order to resume business later. There are submarine worms that reside in hot vents at the ocean floor, living out their lives by altering the oxidation state of sulfur, impervious to whatever cold and dark, pyrotoxins and radioactivity and ultraviolet light might be stalking their distant cousins far above on Earth’s surface.

There is so much life on Earth, with so many diverse adaptations, that we cannot destroy it all. Cold comfort for us, because it is well within our powers to destroy the global civilization, other species, and perhaps ourselves. We are already every day rendering species of life on Earth extinct without nuclear war. Extinction of many more species may be possible in the wake of a nuclear war. But for us, understandably, an important question is whether we can make humans extinct.

 

Even launching every weapon on Earth wouldn’t cause extinction.

 

Gay, 1987.

(Gay, William C. Ph.D. Recipient. Professor. The Nuclear Arms Race: The Last Quarter Century. Pg. 14. 1987. Shayan Makani.)

 

Bernard Feld, a major critic of nuclear weapons who has done extensive research on both fission and fallout, terms Shute’s image of total destruction “1 beach” and articulates that such destruction would require one million megatons of fission.6 Though not altogether reassuring, current global stockpiles are closer to 50,000 Mt., and even a major exchange would probably involve only part of this total.7 At any rate, most scientific calculations show that current blast and radiation potential is insufficient to guarantee human annihilation in any war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the long term effects of it are not going to be from "nuclear winter" or from the blasts, but from teh disruption of every ecosystem on the earth. Trace amounts of plutonium are in todays soils because of the Manhattan project - a large scale nuclear conflict would make these levels jump suddenly by factors in the thousands -much faster than any species can adapt to. and as far as i know, all land animals of significant size are reliant on clean and fertile soils.... i dont know of any natural resistances to plutonium bc its never encountered naturally...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the long term effects of it are not going to be from "nuclear winter" or from the blasts, but from teh disruption of every ecosystem on the earth. Trace amounts of plutonium are in todays soils because of the Manhattan project - a large scale nuclear conflict would make these levels jump suddenly by factors in the thousands -much faster than any species can adapt to. and as far as i know, all land animals of significant size are reliant on clean and fertile soils.... i dont know of any natural resistances to plutonium bc its never encountered naturally...
that makes zero sense. yes, a nuke would probably kill the environment where it lands. the rest of the world would be unaffected in every degree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that makes zero sense. yes, a nuke would probably kill the environment where it lands. the rest of the world would be unaffected in every degree

 

false - tests of nukes in nevada and usages in Japan have causes plutonium to appear in english farm soils. ill cite that shit if you think this means enough to me to lie about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that doesn't prove anything. traces of radioactive material aren't going to collapse entire ecosystems. they will only do so where the countries involved are. but as soon as those countries are wiped out, the world can recuperate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that doesn't prove anything. traces of radioactive material aren't going to collapse entire ecosystems. they will only do so where the countries involved are. but as soon as those countries are wiped out, the world can recuperate

 

traces exist from minor testing - it will be multiplied by a factor in the tens of thousands in all out war. thats probably gonna do some damage son...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still neglect to answer

Who will bomb Australia

Tanzania

Indonesia

etc?

I'm missing the warrant for

China, Russia, the U.S. and a couple of European powers all get in a war and are nuking the shit out of each other and then are like "Hey, let's blow up the fucking Australians since we're going to die"

"Wtf mate?"

"STFU we're superpowers, if we go down we're taking you with us!"

 

... not gonna happen.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You still neglect to answer

Who will bomb Australia

Tanzania

Indonesia

etc?

I'm missing the warrant for

China, Russia, the U.S. and a couple of European powers all get in a war and are nuking the shit out of each other and then are like "Hey, let's blow up the fucking Australians since we're going to die"

"Wtf mate?"

"STFU we're superpowers, if we go down we're taking you with us!"

 

... not gonna happen.

The core explodes the same no matter which side of the Earth you're on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize there were so many people that didn't understand how a nuclear weapon works and what fallout is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You still neglect to answer

Who will bomb Australia

Tanzania

Indonesia

etc?

I'm missing the warrant for

China, Russia, the U.S. and a couple of European powers all get in a war and are nuking the shit out of each other and then are like "Hey, let's blow up the fucking Australians since we're going to die"

"Wtf mate?"

"STFU we're superpowers, if we go down we're taking you with us!"

 

... not gonna happen.

 

not every country needs to be bombed for them to feel the impacts. we are in one biosphere, and if you irradiate one part of it, everything gets effected. if you irradiate it to the point of like 100X overkill, even the spill over gets dangerous. There is more to a nuke than the blast, cmon, everyone knows this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...