Nuclear war would 'end civilization' with famine, study says

Dec 10, 2013 by Shaun Tandon
Indian Army personnel display an Agni-II nuclear-capable missile during India's Republic Day parade in New Delhi, in January 2006

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would set off a global famine that could kill two billion people and effectively end human civilization, a study said Tuesday.

Even if limited in scope, a conflict with would wreak havoc in the atmosphere and devastate crop yields, with the effects multiplied as global food markets went into turmoil, the report said.

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility released an initial peer-reviewed study in April 2012 that predicted a nuclear famine could kill more than a billion people.

In a second edition, the groups said they widely underestimated the impact in China and calculated that the world's most populous country would face severe food insecurity.

"A billion people dead in the developing world is obviously a catastrophe unparalleled in human history. But then if you add to that the possibility of another 1.3 billion people in China being at risk, we are entering something that is clearly the end of civilization," said Ira Helfand, the report's author.

Helfand said that the study looked at India and Pakistan due to the longstanding tensions between the nuclear-armed states, which have fought three full-fledged wars since independence and partition in 1947.

A Hatf V Ghauri nuclear-capable ballistic missile launching from an undisclosed location in Pakistan, on November 28, 2012

But Helfand said that the planet would expect a similar apocalyptic impact from any limited nuclear war. Modern nuclear weapons are far more powerful than the US bombs that killed more than 200,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

"With a large war between the United States and Russia, we are talking about the possible—not certain, but possible—extinction of the human race.

"In this kind of war, biologically there are going to be people surviving somewhere on the planet but the chaos that would result from this will dwarf anything we've ever seen," Helfand said.

The study said that the black carbon aerosol particles kicked into the atmosphere by a South Asian nuclear war would reduce US corn and soybean production by around 10 percent over a decade.

The particles would also reduce China's rice production by an average of 21 percent over four years and by another 10 percent over the following six years.

The updated study also found severe effects on China's wheat, which is vital to the country despite its association with rice.

China's wheat production would plunge by 50 percent the first year after the nuclear war and would still be 31 percent below baseline a decade later, it said.

The study said it was impossible to estimate the exact impact of nuclear war. He called for further research, voicing alarm that policymakers in nuclear powers were not looking more thoroughly at the idea of a nuclear famine.

But he said, ultimately, the only answer was the abolition of nuclear weapons.

"This is a disaster so massive in scale that really no preparation is possible. We must prevent this," he said.

President Barack Obama pledged in 2009 to work toward abolition but said that the United States would keep nuclear weapons so long as others exist. Nine countries are believed to possess nuclear weapons, with Russia and the United States holding the vast majority.

Explore further: Testing virtual nuclear stockpiles

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Testing virtual nuclear stockpiles

Nov 25, 2013

In 2010 the Pentagon revealed it had a total of 5,113 warheads in its nuclear stockpile, down from a peak of 31,225 at the height of the Cold War in 1967.

Nuclear weapons' surprising contribution to climate science

Jul 13, 2012

Nuclear weapons testing may at first glance appear to have little connection with climate change research. But key Cold War research laboratories and the science used to track radioactivity and model nuclear bomb blasts have ...

U. S. envisions a new generation of nuclear weapons

Mar 19, 2007

Almost 62 years after detonation of the first atomic bombs, the United States is considering controversial proposals to produce a new generation of nuclear weapons and revamp its nuclear weapons complex, according to an article ...

New weapons detail reveals true depth of Cuban Missile Crisis

Oct 12, 2012

The Cuban Missile Crisis took place 50 years ago this October, when US and Soviet leaders pulled back from the very brink of nuclear war. This was the closest the world has come to nuclear war, but exactly how close has been ...

Recommended for you

Awarded a Pell Grant? Better double-check

19 hours ago

(AP)—Potentially tens of thousands of students awarded a Pell Grant or other need-based federal aid for the coming school year could find it taken away because of a mistake in filling out the form.

Perthites wanted for study on the Aussie lingo

Jul 23, 2014

We all know that Australians speak English differently from the way it's spoken in the UK or the US, and many of us are aware that Perth people have a slightly different version of the language from, say, Melbournians - but ...

User comments : 66

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Humpty
Dec 10, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
metanurb
Dec 10, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
arq
1.5 / 5 (13) Dec 10, 2013
Well i dont mind if they want to nuke each other out. It will save the world from the overpopulated, flea infested garbage bin called southasia.

And before anybody takes out their knives.....i am a southasian too!
mvg
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2013
Zero chance of rational eradication.

It is highly unlikely that any of these nations will get rid of their stockpiles of nuclear weapons until they have replaced them with something even worse.
ThomasQuinn
2.5 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2013
Being a bit of a cynic here, but: if there were 2 billion dead, even 3 billion dead, that'd still leave well over half the world's population. Unprecedented catastrophe, yes. The end of civilization, I doubt it.
eric_in_chicago
1 / 5 (10) Dec 10, 2013
BTW, if a person eats a lots of curry, they taste like curry. Eat a lot of chicken, tastes like chicken!

Mmmm, mmm, tastes like sweet-meat, curried chicken!

And, as an orthodox Jew, (you guys may not know this) if it isn't kosher (it's not) but for survival, I can eat it.

Difference is we don't say blessings over non-kosher food, so not to spare a moment, we can hurry up and CHOW DOWN!

Not a lot of meat on those...
mzso
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2013
Yeah. Riiiiight. Much more primitive people survived ice ages supervolcanos, famine, wars, epidemics, etc.
And now a confilct between India and Pakistan which affects china would be "extinction of the human race". BS. I fail to see how would even European and American agriculture would be affected.
ThomasQuinn
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2013
I fail to see how would even European and American agriculture would be affected.


Radioactive dust + wind = proliferation
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.9 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2013
in war , starvation is almost always the biggest killer.
one of the most effective strategies is not to attack your enemy , but to lay siege, and let the effects of starvation create internal chaos and destroy the army ranks from within. of course, the starvation begins with civilians, who find themselves at odds with soldiers and government wanting to keep all the food for itself. win without fighting.

to an enemy without, civilians are more useful as starving dependencies within their own country than they are dead..

nuke and conventional war accomplish starvation both by , incentivizing hoarding and also destroying supply chains of food and fuel---the capital for future harvests, as well as the capital for the distribution chain of future successful

finally----the modern siege is called 'embargo' or 'sanctions'. it achieves precisely this outcome. america uses the 'swift' international payment clearing system for this. dollar-euro supremacy is vital to swift.
axemaster
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2013
Pretty remarkable that people here think 2 billion dead and a nuclear war resulting in famine wouldn't topple civilization. Once again my mind is blown by the geniuses of the Physorg comment section.



GET ME OFF THIS PLANET!!!
Jeddy_Mctedder
1 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2013
all conventional warfare incentivizes hoarding amongst civilians as military grasps for resources. supply chains for food and fuel, and ferilizer inputs to the industrial agricultural farming and distribution system break down. nuclear warfare has no intrinsic difference from conventional warfare in this regard, ----do not mistake scale of warfare for use of nukes. limited nuclear weapon usage is just that.

the use of starvation as a primary tactic is siege warfare is well known and extends to the modern day world of geo-political economic statecraft. the most powerful weapon of the west is the primacy of the euro and dollar, upon which an awesome siege engine called the international payment clearing system known as "swift" is built. disobey the empire and they swiftly cut you off.

the loss of dollar supremacy and the rise of the yuan gives china a bigger say in the methods by which swift is used. generally however, currency warfare is part and parcel of 'hot' warfare.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 10, 2013
did world war 2 end civilization?

depends which 2 billion no? if you nuclear bombed every major city, yea you'd probably end this civilization, setting it back thousands of years. if you killed the youngest 2 billion out of 7 billion and left all the old people, yes, you might end civilization. a demographic gap that big could be seriously destructive to law and order.

fortunately-- some number of cities survive most wars. and wars tend to kill the old sick and weak. the young generally have a stronger constituiton and will to survive. and on their back civilization has always been carried forward.

As the children of polish jews, i'm not advocating killing 2 billion, but im a testament to mass genocide not necessarily ending all civilization. so are you.

Pretty remarkable that people here think 2 billion dead and a nuclear war resulting in famine wouldn't topple civilization. Once again my mind is blown by the geniuses of the Physorg comment section.

mzso
1.4 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2013
I fail to see how would even European and American agriculture would be affected.


Radioactive dust + wind = proliferation

Dust reaches China. Not Europe and Certainly not America. Radioactivity has a rather small effect on plantlife, plants don't get cancer. Wildlife flourishes near Chernobyl.
Also the word radioactivity doesn't even appear in this article...
mzso
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2013
Pretty remarkable that people here think 2 billion dead and a nuclear war resulting in famine wouldn't topple civilization. Once again my mind is blown by the geniuses of the Physorg comment section.



GET ME OFF THIS PLANET!!!

You can get yourself off. Emphasis on "off" and "yourself". It would be better for everyone, including the gene pool.
As I already said humanity has been through a lot of though things. An Indian-Paki nuclear war is nowhere near some of it... Fool.
mzso
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2013
did world war 2 end civilization?

depends which 2 billion no? if you nuclear bombed every major city, yea you'd probably end this civilization, setting it back thousands of years. if you killed the youngest 2 billion out of 7 billion and left all the old people, yes, you might end civilization. a demographic gap that big could be seriously destructive to law and order.

Bombing every city would only end cities not civilization. Civilization was fine and well without huge cities which is a recent development.
Killing the youngest 2 billion is also not as bad as killing the oldest 5. Children who lack knowledge, intellect and other capabilities won't re-build anything. Adults can. (Youngest 2/7th is mostly children and teens)
Birger
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2013
Fortunately, both India and Pakistan are run by rational, incorruptible leaders that would never let jingoism, fear or prestige affect their decisions (sarcasm)
Guy_Underbridge
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2013
And now a confilct between India and Pakistan which affects china would be "extinction of the human race". BS.


Maybe some remedial reading training is needed. The article did not say an nuclear incident between India and Pakistan would cause an extinction event.
Scottingham
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2013
I think the best way to reduce the world's nuclear weapons stockpiles is to make mass-produced, sub critical, fast-reactors than can use their warheads as fuel. One nuke warehead has to be %99.99 percent pure Uranium...or Plutonium....either way, you can get Terra Watts of power out of just one warhead.
ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2013
Pretty remarkable that people here think 2 billion dead and a nuclear war resulting in famine wouldn't topple civilization. Once again my mind is blown by the geniuses of the Physorg comment section.



GET ME OFF THIS PLANET!!!


I am mentally comparing this to massive disasters in the past. Civilization will certainly change, and probably not for the better, but I see nothing to suggest the 4-5 billion survivors giving up all kinds of civilization, especially not if the death toll is geographically concentrated. I agree that the notion is very unpleasant. It is, however, realistic.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2013
It would change civilization. I have a difficult time seeing where it would end it. It also depends heavily on your definition of civilization.

I think the death toll estimates are WAY to high, but I didn't do a ton of research. I do agree that many more would die in the aftermath than in the actual exchanges though.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2013
It is highly unlikely... get rid of their stockpiles of nuclear weapons
A big mystery is how South Africa was persuaded to surrender their weapons, or why they had them in the first place.

But you're right, until religion is banished from India and Pakistan they won't be surrendering their arsenals. Pakistani Islamists dream of a united caliphate empire, and are exporting extremism for the purpose.

Reproductive aggression - 'warfare of the cradle' as teddy Roosevelt called it. Moslem pops are exploding in Kashmir and elsewhere. Minorities become majorities and demand freedom and control.

The only things preventing a nuclear-armed Islamist empire are Israel and India with nukes, and a continuous western military presence which has compartmentalized the ME and is bleeding off the young idle radicalized malcontents in the region. As well as a well-engineered Arab spring which has effectively divided pops and set them against each other in Constructive and Manageable Ways.
mzso
1.6 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2013
And now a confilct between India and Pakistan which affects china would be "extinction of the human race". BS.


Maybe some remedial reading training is needed. The article did not say an nuclear incident between India and Pakistan would cause an extinction event.

USA-Russia wouldn't either. They're not even talking about extinction event, but I have doubts of that either, maybe a minor one. They're talking about "extinction of the human race". Nuking every 10k+ settlement in the world would leave hundreds of millions of people at least.
Mayday
2.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2013
The study references a potential conflict unleashing "as few as" 100 bombs. I don't see that many bombs going anywhere in a Paki-India conflict any time soon. A few warheads might get lobbed by one side, hoping for chaos and quick surrender. In the ensuing turmoil the other side might get a few more airborne, but maybe not. The EMPs alone would cause great chaos due to disrupted command communications and widespread power outages. Not to mention that a not-insignificant number of the weapons will likely fail, resulting in the non-nuclear explosive components exploding and creating very messy dirty bomb situations in unintended locations. I believe the whole thing would then quiet down very quickly. Local "civilization" would be reduced to anarchy for a few years, and local casualties would be horrific. But the end of human civilization? Not likely. And 100 bombs going off? Not on the sub-continent anytime in the foreseeable future, IMO.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2013
The study references a potential conflict unleashing "as few as" 100 bombs. I don't see that many bombs going anywhere in a Paki-India conflict any time soon

"The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan - 2009
"NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) has conducted its own analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia.... estimates that both countries have a total of 50 to 75 weapons...

"Two nuclear scenarios. The first assumes 10 Hiroshima-sized explosions with no fallout [3M dead]; the second assumes 24 [ground burst] nuclear explosions with significant radioactive fallout... Most Indians (99 percent of the population) and Pakistanis (93 percent of the population) would survive the second scenario [which equals roughly 30M dead]..."
http://www.nrdc.o...asia.asp

-The only certainty is that, given the growth rates in the region and the absence of any other significant attritive events, war of some sort is absolutely Inevitable.
krundoloss
3 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2013
I am impressed at the forethought and restraint that every nuclear powered leader, so far, has shown by NOT using nuclear weapons. I am glad that, somehow, the people with nuclear weapons have not used them (other than to stop World War 2 and effectively Save Lives). I can just hope that someone without a moral compass NEVER gets control of a nuclear weapon.
mvg
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 10, 2013
"end of civilization"?

Frankly we have had very little of what looks like "civilization" for nearly 100 years.

We have a decadent society, (populated by urban barbarians) that is influenced by very little more than their own parochial self-interest.

That is what passes for "civilization" these days.
Humpty
2 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2013
Yes if the nukes went off in Pakistan - the PC's and servers get fried, and there goes my supply of A - Grade Pakistani Islam nazi porn...
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2013
Without India and Pakistan taxi drivers, call centeres, cheap counterfeit slave-labor clothes, bollywood and crap software will disappear. Civilization will cease. The carbon footprint will shrink though
BSD
1.6 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2013
I fail to see how would even European and American agriculture would be affected.


Radioactive dust + wind = proliferation


It's also called a "Nuclear Winter"
Modernmystic
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 11, 2013
After some brief research India has a total arsenal of about 80-100 warheads, none is expected to be larger than 250kt. So at the worst they have a total yield of not more than 27 megatons.

Pakistan has more warheads but expected to be smaller yields as their missile tech isn't as advanced as the Indians. It's hard to get yields on specific warheads, but let's just say they have the SAME as India, which they most certainly don't...but just for the sake of argument.

If both states fired their total arsenals it wouldn't yield more than 50 megatons. The largest bomb ever detonated was by Russia and it was about this yield;

http://en.wikiped...ar_Bomba

It didn't' cause a nuclear winter....

Therefore, non-regional agriculture would be pretty much unaffected by this factor alone.

Now you might say more weapons spread out might cause more dust. We had a LOT of above ground tests at the same time as the Russian bomb with no little ice age so supporting data would be needed.
ThomasQuinn
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2013
Somebody's spending a lot of time giving posts a 1-star rating. Bored, or mentally ill? Now taking bets!
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2013
After some brief research India has a total arsenal of about 80-100 warheads, none is expected to be larger than 250kt. So at the worst they have a total yield of not more than 27 megatons.
Excellent point MM. Indeed the population bomb in India is far greater than the government's ability to convert Indians and Pakistan into radioactive charcoal

The population bomb will destroy civilization
mzso
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2013
I fail to see how would even European and American agriculture would be affected.


Radioactive dust + wind = proliferation


It's also called a "Nuclear Winter"

It's a fantasy. You need something in sum power like the asteroid that ended the dinosaurs which was around 100 terratons about 2million times as powerful as the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2013
Add this paranoia to the others.

http://www.infowa...h-nukes/

Hopefully, Russia will place some trust in Americans to keep our word that we have no intention of starting a nuclear war with the Russians...and they can verify all they want.

obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 11, 2013
Somebody's spending a lot of time giving posts a 1-star rating. Bored, or mentally ill? Now taking bets!
-ThomasQuinn

They are mentally ill. The gang-rating sockpuppets or sockbots belong to Theghostofotto1923 who apparently made a list of names for his sockbots to downvote automatically. Now and then a supporter of Socialism/Liberalism/neo-Communism will also downvote. Other times, someone who genuinely dislikes what you said will also give you ONEs without explaining why.

Don't worry about it...enjoy the attention as long as they aren't preventing you from expressing your opinions in this Physorg. The numbers mean absolutely nothing unless you're intimidated by it.
Protoplasmix
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2013
What manner of pitiful, neurologically depraved creature is it that thinks war and destruction is the least bit desirable? Medical science can help these regressed, socially challenged individuals. It's the 500th millennium already! Who's evolved? C'mon, who's evolved?!
BSD
3 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2013
The world population needs thinning out anyway. Particularly in those countries where religion (bullshit) is a prominent cultural component. In other words all of the Middle East and southern Asia. Religious types breed like insects, no matter where they live. Mass eradication with nukes is the answer.
mzso
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2013
@Protoplasmix
Certainly not you.
Protoplasmix
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2013
@Protoplasmix
Certainly not you.

Thanks, you've already shown about how much you know.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2013
Therefore, non-regional agriculture would be pretty much unaffected by this factor alone
The tsar bombe was set off far above the arctic circle and detonated at a height of 4 kilometres (2.5 mi).

"To limit fallout, the third stage and possibly the second stage had a lead tamper instead of a uranium-238 fusion tamper (which greatly amplifies the reaction by fissioning uranium atoms with fast neutrons from the fusion reaction). This eliminated fast fission by the fusion-stage neutrons, so that approximately 97% of the total energy resulted from fusion alone (as such, it was one of the "cleanest" nuclear bombs ever created."

-In contrast the india/paki war would entail several ground bursts throwing much fallout into the atmosphere and creating city firestorms which would generate much smoke and soot.

I guess you missed my link above to an in-depth study of scenarios? Here it is again:
http://www.nrdc.o...asia.asp
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2013
They are mentally ill
You mean ill like this?

"OBAMA_SOCKS, previously posted as pirouette, Ritchieguy, russkiye, pussycat_eyes, racistblackguy ..........................................................
PHONEY ENGR "employed by an aerospace company in the capacity of an Engineer with many degrees" "the education for which I received my diplomas, awards, et al" "we are working on a new aerospace company project which will not be spoken about in these threads because it is "top secret" "I am employed with an aerospace company in the Engineering Dept. where I design operational %$(#%*@)^!, which company policy forbids me to discuss in this Physorg. Spies are in here too, you know" "Many of my colleagues and "higher-ups" visit this website and another one that I know of. We all keep tabs on each other for security purposes" [how embarrassing for them] "my engineering skills are vast and complete and benefit my employment in the aerospace industry"

-google quotes for the source.
Protoplasmix
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2013
I fail to see how would even European and American agriculture would be affected.

Yes you do. Of course, it helps to be able to understand and produce coherent sentences. But I think if you keep trying, eventually you'll see.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2013
Or sickness like this pussytard?

"NASA ENGR "a source of mirth and merriment for us all. Anyway, I took a few days off from NASA" "I've never been a NASA engineer. I work for a major aerospace company" ...[re the Curiosity rover landing:] "they're calling me back to the station..." "sheer luck that the camera was pointed in the right direction...We did not anticipate it" "we were surprised to see what later turned out to be a cloud of dust from the impact. We had no way of telling immediately what it was, although some suggested that it might be the sky-crane but, being that it was the first mission into Gale Crater, there was a lot of speculation going round. That was a good day for all. Now comes the really serious part and the whole purpose of the mission." "I haven't slept very much since the approach to the planet...I'm back on duty in a couple of hours."

""increments are also conceptualized by the mind, as it doesn't naturally occur in nature"

-etc. and SO much more. Remember?
goracle
3 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2013
The world population needs thinning out anyway. Particularly in those countries where religion (bullshit) is a prominent cultural component. In other words all of the Middle East and southern Asia. Religious types breed like insects, no matter where they live. Mass eradication with nukes is the answer.

"Particularly in those countries where religion (bullshit) is a prominent cultural component"
The USA?
Kimmo Rouvari
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2013
Conventional nukes can harm global ecosystem for sure but there's much bigger threats in our near future. Antimatter based products (e.g. antimatter weapons) are capable of annihilate the whole planet. Obviously you won't believe me right now but within few months I'll prove my case. No, I'm not blasting the whole planet up but I'll have an experiment which (in theory) shows how antimatter is "created" and annihilated in large scale with extremely cheap equipments (Graphene Oxide sheets, water and magnet).
mzso
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2013
@Protoplasmix
Certainly not you.

Thanks, you've already shown about how much you know.


Yes you do. Of course, it helps to be able to understand and produce coherent sentences. But I think if you keep trying, eventually you'll see.

Alright jackass, I'll play. You vomit here one delusional, ignorant, condescending, offensive little comment here without any substance and then you keep down-talking like you were on a high horse.

"Medical science can help these regressed, socially challenged individuals"
Of course this is an shallow vague statement with zero foundation or reasoning. "Medical science" wont magically make primitive societies develop a century or two, it'd fairly successful in generating overpopulation though. (Not that everyone was talking about this)
"500th millennium already!"
Really? Of what?
Protoplasmix
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2013
Alright jackass, I'll play

The future of the planet and civilization is just play to you, is it?
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility released an initial peer-reviewed study in April 2012 that predicted a nuclear famine could kill more than a billion people.

My opinion about medical science has no foundation? Delusional? Vague? Zero reasoning? You'll need to do a lot better than that, mzso, to keep from making a bigger fool of yourself.
Protoplasmix
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2013
"500th millennium already!"
Really? Of what?"

That's about how long humans, in present modern form, have been evolving on this planet. It also helps to have a clue, mzso.
Modernmystic
2.9 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2013
The world population needs thinning out anyway. Particularly in those countries where religion (bullshit) is a prominent cultural component. In other words all of the Middle East and southern Asia. Religious types breed like insects, no matter where they live. Mass eradication with nukes is the answer.


I'm so very very glad I'm not you....

Talk about the personification of the "we become that which we hate" quote.

Talking about the "horrors" and child abuse which is religious indoctrination in one thread and in another advocating vaporizing hundreds of millions of children in another. Wow...just wow...
Protoplasmix
2 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2013
Is it just me, or does this article and accompanying cadre of flames-of-war-fanning trolls seem a bit deconflicted? Shouldn't they be off fighting terrorist orcs and elves somewhere?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2013
Conventional nukes can harm global ecosystem for sure but there's much bigger threats in our near future. Antimatter based products (e.g. antimatter weapons) are capable of annihilate the whole planet. Obviously you won't believe me right now but within few months I'll prove my case. No, I'm not blasting the whole planet up but I'll have an experiment which (in theory) shows how antimatter is "created" and annihilated in large scale with extremely cheap equipments (Graphene Oxide sheets, water and magnet).
Do not forget the paper clips and snot. Without the paper clips and snot you will only end up sterilyzing yourself which will incidentally benefit humanity as well. Win-win.
mzso
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2013
The future of the planet and civilization is just play to you, is it?

My opinion about medical science has no foundation? Delusional? Vague? Zero reasoning? You'll need to do a lot better than that, mzso, to keep from making a bigger fool of yourself.

Yet you still don't provide anything, anything at all, besides offense. Can't even come up with a single argument. You're pitiful.

That's about how long humans, in present modern form, have been evolving on this planet. It also helps to have a clue, mzso.

Nope. It's wrong on several levels. What's considered as Homo Sapiens is only about 200-300 thousand years old. And humans weren't just dropped on the face of the earth right there. Humans started evolving unique traits millions of years before. But the most significant accomplishments only came after agriculture/civilization. If it helps why not try to get a clue?
mzso
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2013
Is it just me, or does this article and accompanying cadre of flames-of-war-fanning trolls seem a bit deconflicted? Shouldn't they be off fighting terrorist orcs and elves somewhere?

As the primary troll, try examining yourself.
Protoplasmix
2 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2013
One of us is clearly more evolved than the other, mzso. Quit while you're ahead, then, don't feed the troll :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2013
Why does the bomb have a red nose? Is it's name Rudolph? Is it so people won't accidently bump into it and set it off? Is it so they know which end to point at the enemy? I wonder.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2013
It's propaganda to signify that the war head is carrying really dangerous stuff. Presumably, if it was loaded with puppies, it wouldn't be red.
Protoplasmix
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2013
Why does the bomb have a red nose? Is it's name Rudolph? Is it so people won't accidently bump into it and set it off? Is it so they know which end to point at the enemy? I wonder.

You laugh, but in '08 they developed a reactive-ablative coating for the blunt nose that produces a super-heated gas at supersonic speeds which results in a reduction in drag of about 47%, enhancing the range by at least 40%. Oh, and they patented it just in case China gets any wise ideas. *cough*

And Agni means 'ignite' or 'fire,' also the Hindu god of fire. I'd like to see them develop an "Om" class biological device—anyone within the blast radius acquires an all-knowing mindfulness.
RAL
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2013
Meanwhile the world watches as the USA passively rolls over and submission piddles before Iran's development of nuclear weapons.
JIMBO
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2013
Most people alive today survived the nuclear armegeddon threatened by the cold war. At its peak, one voice asked "Who speaks for Earth ?". That voice was Dr. Carl Sagan's, whose research into what became known as `nuclear winter', frighteningly, eloquently & passionately described the hellish world resulting, in which the survivors would envy the dead. The world listened, & slowly backed down from the threshold of nuclear holocaust, as real as the Cuban missile crisis was 25 yrs prior.
Instead of distracting the world w/paranoia over Iran's isotope separation, America should band together diplomatic forces with Russia, in an unprecedented focus on resolving the perennial animosity between India & Pakistan, which poses the highest danger of nuclear winter.
Protoplasmix
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2013
Meanwhile the world watches as the USA passively rolls over and submission piddles before Iran's development of nuclear weapons.

Have you been watching Faux News? More of the world is upset with the USA for trying to unilaterally act as the world's police man. Look at how much the Republicans detest it when their own government meddles in their affairs—how do you think whole other countries feel about that same government meddling in their sovereign business? And by 'meddling' I don't mean wealth redistribution. I mean things like misleading the world about WMDs and waging wars not over principles and human rights, but waging them instead over 'interests,' while at the same time accusing the watching world of which you speak of being or harboring terrorists, and treating us all likewise by invading our privacy in the extreme. I'd say the world is watching all right, but not for piddles.
grondilu
5 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
What do they mean exactly by "end of civilization"? Do they mean that survivors would go back to stone age and not leave it for thousands of years?
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2013
What do they mean exactly by "end of civilization"? Do they mean that survivors would go back to stone age and not leave it for thousands of years?
It means the Afghan poppy fields may have a bad crop and the Albanian traffickers may need to peddle more whores to make up for the losses in the smack trade while they're under UN protection
grpugh
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2013
Having personal knowledge of the topic through military training, I would have to say, that empirically the results would be far less than suggested in the report.

I would also suggest that we are seeing yet another manifestation of the Precautionary Principle which came to intellectual maturity in Germany during the 1930s. Part of the arguments like those for climate change assume no adjustment to locally changed circumstances.

I also suggest that the peers doing the review would be a priori sympathetic to this position.
davidivad
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2013
we really need a technology that effectively defends against missiles. i hear that star wars program turned into airplane lasers. did anything ever come of that?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2013
we really need a technology that effectively defends against missiles. i hear that star wars program turned into airplane lasers. did anything ever come of that?


http://www.army-t...s/thaad/

And that's the one they've made public...who knows what else we might have.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2013
... which poses the highest danger of nuclear winter.


It poses absolutely zero danger of a nuclear winter. They simply don't posses the combined yield needed. We (the USSR and the USA) blasted off more yield in our above ground testing days that either of these countries is likely to ever have in the foreseeable future.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2013
... which poses the highest danger of nuclear winter.


It poses absolutely zero danger of a nuclear winter. They simply don't posses the combined yield needed. We (the USSR and the USA) blasted off more yield in our above ground testing days that either of these countries is likely to ever have in the foreseeable future.
EXCEPT that we did it in the absence of combustibles. The india/paki war would entail several ground bursts throwing much fallout into the atmosphere and creating city firestorms which would generate much smoke and soot.

I guess you missed my link above to an in-depth study of scenarios? Again?
dav_daddy
not rated yet Jan 09, 2014
... which poses the highest danger of nuclear winter.


It poses absolutely zero danger of a nuclear winter. They simply don't posses the combined yield needed. We (the USSR and the USA) blasted off more yield in our above ground testing days that either of these countries is likely to ever have in the foreseeable future.
EXCEPT that we did it in the absence of combustibles. The india/paki war would entail several ground bursts throwing much fallout into the atmosphere and creating city firestorms which would generate much smoke and soot.

I guess you missed my link above to an in-depth study of scenarios? Again?


You might get more people to check your reference links if you quit linking to crackpot plasma/electric universe nonsense in other posts.

I skimmed your reference and it plainly says that a "nuclear winter" is an impossibility given the total yield of all the warheads in possession by both sides.