Log In | Register
Even a regional nuclear war could spark "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years, according to U.S. government computer models.
Widespread famine and disease would likely follow, experts speculate.
Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years?
Seeded on Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:43 AM EST
Article Source: National Geographic- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (25)
Somehow I think this is akin to curing a headache by shooting oneself in the stomach: you certainly don't feel the headache anymore, but...
- 4 votes
#1 - Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:44 AM ESTmaybe if we just blow up some more pacific islands... that would only be like blowing off a couple of fingers or toes.
We might need to take a more natural approach... one that includes raising the sea level significantly so perhaps just blowing up Antarctica would get the job done.
Over 500 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests were conducted at various sites around the world from 1945 to 1980.
Over 1500 underground and space nuclear weapon tests. Most by the U.S. followed closely by the USSR.
- 1 vote
Some decent volcanic action would mitigate the effects of global warming, too.
- 1 vote
its not clear from the article just how many blasts would be required (no doubt in relatively short succession vs over decades) but since its indicated to be less than hundreds lets say 50-100. Then you also need fires to create the black carbon called for. It would probably only take a few to settle most mid-east conflicts so the scenario seems unlikely at best.
of course you could get pretty much the same thing from Libya setting its oil fields on fire.
King Dave, very few of those test blasts were set off to maximize damage. In an actual war against an opponent with some bunkers, you are going to see far more ground bursts, which put a lot more material into the atmosphere. You are also going to see far more powerful detonations: the goal of the tests was to prove designs and the weapons were actually throttled back from their full yields routinely. My Dad worked the atmospheric tests, so you might call this the family business.
- 2 votes
I have no doubt this is being considered a viable option. The standard American is being dumbed down by the government/corporate media to be confused, but make no mistake. The government/corporate leaders know this is real, and need to find a solution or risk anarchy and loss of control.
- 1 vote
#2 - Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:07 AM ESTI have no doubt this is being considered a viable option.
Oh please.
- 1 vote
I don't know if I'd discount Brian's statement so quickly, AA-- remember, there were folks proposing (in all seriousness) the use of a nuclear weapon as a method of plugging the BP well...
- 1 vote
Yes, and I made that response to them myself.
But notice, Brian didn't say he was considering it-- just that he had no doubt someone was...
there is a Thai saying - "Run from the TIGER, encounter the CROCODILE!"
Not that elimination of some of the population is not a desirable outcome, just that the lingering effects of radiation might be WORSE than the global warming. Besides, it would not do anything to lower the carbon dioxide problem that is at the very root of global warming
- 1 vote
#3 - Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:36 AM ESTI wonder. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are inhabitable today. The Sahara is mostly not, save for where the Nile waters it.
- 1 vote
Small nuclear war to reduce the effects of global warming?!?? Well okay then. Suggest they toss some those rascals on David & Charles Koch's 'stuff'. Their 'stuff' is just screwin' up the environment anyway. While they're at it. Shut down Fox News and Clear Channel and NewsCorp. They're just wasting electricity and important resources.
#5 - Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:51 AM ESTNo such thing as a "small" nuclear war, and there would be no winners in any such exchange.
#6 - Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:59 AM ESTYes, there is. Pakistan-India would be a small one, as both only have a handful of weapons. Israel-Iran would also be relatively small: Israel's arsenal is not large and Iran will have a couple at the most in the next decade or two. That's pretty small.
- 1 vote
Because of course, any exchange would stay small and limited, right?
Why would we get involved if India and Pakistan decided to blow each other up is a more apt question I am afraid.
- 1 vote
The wind and air currents certainly wouldn't cause an exchange to involve any other countries around them, or to be drinking radioactive water or anything. Just a nice neat little surgical nuclear war, involving no one else.
So you are now claiming that if those winds blew the way you claim, the Russians and Chinese would detonate even more warheads in the same wind pattern, thus making their situation worse? You are engaging in Cold War thinking. When a nuclear exchange involved the USSR and the US there was truly no way to limit it, but these smaller nations are self-limiting.
That doesn't change the fact that it would be stupid, just the reasons why it would be.
- 2 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
