What are reasons and cites for why Nuclear War would never happen and even if it did it would not lead to extinction?

I wish to learn more about this subject

Thank you.

And what have you looked at so far?
Beginner?
Somewhat versed in history and nuclear technology?
Expert?

What are reasons ..... for why Nuclear War....

Someone/some nation gets pissed at some other nation. Another example is if Muslim terrorists get hold of a nuke ...they'd use it in a heartbeat.


.....Nuclear War would never happen and even if it did it would not lead to extinction?

We could explode every single nuke that's in existence and it wouldn't lead to the extinction of the human race. Even with all the fallout, the horrid nuke sicknesses, the birth defects, etc, there just ain't enough nukes to do the job. And to think so it just being ....ahh, sensationalist.

Baron Max

We could explode every single nuke that's in existence and it wouldn't lead to the extinction of the human race. Even with all the fallout, the horrid nuke sicknesses, the birth defects, etc, there just ain't enough nukes to do the job. And to think so it just being ....ahh, sensationalist.

Baron Max

So sad !

It's probably true !

Oh, for the Golden Age of the Swords of Damocles...

Tens of Thousands of Sacred Instruments - waiting... waiting for hands resolute enough to declare that the slate should be wiped clean...

None dared take up the Dark Mantle of this Sterile Salvation - as we know all too well...

Now we pursue half-heartedly a tepid simalcrum of the Extinction Agenda:
Hoping against hope that we may yet choke the race of Rebel Apes beneath a sea of it's own effluvia...

Not with a bang - but a whimper...

Those in power want to keep that power, if they lose it then there's nothing to profit from a nuclear war. Both sides lose everything and no one wins. That's a nuclear war.

I understand the thesis of all of these arguments--
but I just desire to know cites of professionals making these arguments
and perhaps more intricate and advanced arguments contending that
it does not lead to extinction for example--

Reasons for why it could lead to extinction:
Escalation
Destruction of Firebreaks
Stops space colonization which is key to avert future extinction...
the list goes on--
Ozone
Disease
Insect Blindness

Do you have cites contesting these points?

Reasons for why it could lead to extinction:
Escalation
Destruction of Firebreaks
Stops space colonization which is key to avert future extinction...
the list goes on--
Ozone
Disease
Insect Blindness

Although I doubt it would cause the immediate extinction of the human species, an all out nuclear war would certainly set back civilization a lot. You've heard the term, "bomb them into the stone age", that could just happen.

If it did, it's concievable we might not be able to climb the ladder again and would stagnate and ultimately die off.

Let's hope we never find out for sure.

Someone/some nation gets pissed at some other nation. Another example is if Muslim terrorists get hold of a nuke ...they'd use it in a heartbeat.

Probably not, they have common sense… at least I hope they do. They would probably realise the aftermath of nuking someone.



We could explode every single nuke that's in existence and it wouldn't lead to the extinction of the human race. Even with all the fallout, the horrid nuke sicknesses, the birth defects, etc, there just ain't enough nukes to do the job. And to think so it just being ....ahh, sensationalist.


That’s utterly wrong; we have more than enough nukes to permanently destroy all life on earth, even roaches. After a certain limit is reached in nuclear detonations, the atmosphere would be burned away, clouds of debris would fill the sky for several hundred years, and all oxygen producing life-forms would perish.

Probably not, they have common sense… at least I hope they do. They would probably realise the aftermath of nuking someone.

Muslim terrorists have common sense???!! Since fuckin' when? Is it common sense to kill their own people with vicious, murderous suicide bombings?

Also, why should the Muslim terrorists care about the "aftermath" of their nuke strike? They obviously don't care about the aftermath of any of their other terrorist attacks ....mostly against their own people, other Muslims!

[QUOTE=Odin'Izm;1518654]That’s utterly wrong; we have more than enough nukes to permanently destroy all life on earth, even roaches. After a certain limit is reached in nuclear detonations, the atmosphere would be burned away, clouds of debris would fill the sky for several hundred years, and all oxygen producing life-forms would perish.

You really should do some studying up on nuclear bombings. It's not nearly so horrendous as most people like to think. As to the horrid fallout, why is so little of that seen in accidents like Chernobyl in Russia? It only spread a very short distance, and caused relatively little damage.

Don't overblow the effects of nukes without doing a little study about it ...that's nothing but sensationalism. Oh, you'll get people's attention when you make such statements, but the same can be said of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded assembly hall.

Baron Max

What credentials do you have to say that an all out nuclear war would not cause extinction? What exactly are you basing this on?

What credentials do you have to say that an all out nuclear war would not cause extinction? What exactly are you basing this on?

Information is available in books at the library by the hundreds. I'm guessing the same is true on the Internet, but I just haven't been there to look. If you wish, and want true info instead of sensationalism, you should read some of the articles, not just a few of the sensational bullshit scare-tactic articles.

In Japan, in the 40s, there were numerous people who were very close to ground zero who survived. Doesn't that tell you anything about it? Doesn't that give you even a hint?

Baron Max

`

As to the horrid fallout, why is so little of that seen in accidents like Chernobyl in Russia? It only spread a very short distance, and caused relatively little damage.

Short distance ?
uh-uh...
It's the "gift that keeps on giving", too...
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8811/radioactivefalloutcaesibq6.jpg
The damage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ukraine/chernobyl.html

Short distance? uh-uh... It's the "gift that keeps on giving", too...

Check the relative fallout damage, you'll see that all you've done is fallen victim to more sensationalism.

Oh, and as a comparison, check the radiation levels that we get from space and the sun. You'll be surprised ....and maybe disappointed that your sensationalism was for naught.

Baron Max

Hmm if nuclear fallout is sensationalism, why the big panic over WMDs? Why the big deal over Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons?

Hmm if nuclear fallout is sensationalism, why the big panic over WMDs? Why the big deal over Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons?

It is all a big political game to get more money into the military and the arms dealers pockets. Iran can buy, at any time, atomic weapons from Russia or China. They don't need to build a reactor but do so just to piss off America and its allies.

It is all a big political game to get more money into the military and the arms dealers pockets. Iran can buy, at any time, atomic weapons from Russia or China. They don't need to build a reactor but do so just to piss off America and its allies.

Or they want to become independent in their energy concerns. Nah, that's a ridiculous idea.

Or they want to become independent in their energy concerns. Nah, that's a ridiculous idea.

Independant? They have plenty of oil and sell what they want to the outside world but keep allot of it in reserves.

Independant? They have plenty of oil and sell what they want to the outside world but keep allot of it in reserves.

They still need to import oil after the crude if processed, besides, its not gonna last forever.

All countries are investing in alternate energy sources and they are signatories to the NPT.

Or they want to become independent in their energy concerns. Nah, that's a ridiculous idea.
They're floating on oil. WTF do they need nukes for?

They're floating on oil. WTF do they need nukes for?

Perhaps the sanctions since the last 30 years (following the 25 years under the ass kissing Shah) might have something to do with it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688984.stm

An all-out war which emptied the world's nuclear arsenals would not only lead to the extinction of humanity, but quite possibly all life on Earth:

Source, Yevgeny Chazov's Nobel Prize acceptance speech
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1985/physicians-lecture.html

An all-out war which emptied the world's nuclear arsenals would not only lead to the extinction of humanity, but quite possibly all life on Earth: Source, Yevgeny Chazov's Nobel Prize acceptance speech.I guess maybe some people really enjoy it when some lazy person posts a link to a polemic and long-winded diatribe. Perhaps they have nothing better to do all day than follow URLs. But personally I HATE it! Surely you learned how to write abstracts in school--hint: they were called "book reports." Couldn't you take five minutes of your precious time and SUMMARIZE what's in that screed--which should be easy since YOU ALREADY READ IT, instead of asking fifty people to spend a cumulative total of HOURS of our time reading the whole bloody thing?

But what really, really, REALLY disappointed me was that I found in there no source for your statement about the extinction of humanity and all life on earth as the result of a nuclear armageddon. I even used the FIND command and searched on the argument MILLION and your assertion IS NOT IN THERE!

Please explain where you got the data to justify your claim, either empirically or in a reasonably scholarly paper--which BTW this one is not; it's pure propaganda. I am particularly interested to understand why you believe that all the lower life forms would suffer such a dire impact from the radiation. Surely you're not talking about the climate change of a "nuclear winter" since life on earth has survived such cataclysms before.

Your assertion qualifies as "extraordinary" and, according to the principles of the scientific method (which are the guidelines everywhere on SciForums except Religion and Pseudoscience), it requires EXTRAORDINARY SUBSTANTIATION before we have any obligation to take it seriously.

And in the future, please practice those skills you learned in the sixth grade. Life is too short to follow somebody else's URLs!

Only one way to truely find out. Empirical testing.

An all-out war which emptied the world's nuclear arsenals would not only lead to the extinction of humanity, but quite possibly all life on Earth
No it wouldn't.
Source: my five years working for the UK government in a nuclear "planning/ recovery" capacity.

...

It's more scientific than your claim elsewhere that you could accurately interpret whether or not your fellow students at university were virgins. If you wish to dismiss as 'propaganda' a medical doctor's lecture given upon receipt of his Nobel Prize that is certainly your prerogative. As is holding the belief that the unleash of the world's nuclear arsenals would be something less than globally catastrophic. As for posting links, I will continue to do so without summarising the contents in every case. That is my prerogative.

No it wouldn't.
Source: my five years working for the UK government in a nuclear "planning/ recovery" capacity.

There are about 30,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons currently extant worldwide. Were all those fireballs to start popping, the phrase 'nuclear planning/recovery' would take on the cloak of the darkest comedy.

'A Grim Manifesto for Nuclear War'

Jonathan Schell:


"Once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950632-1,00.html

"Once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species."
Did you read it?

...might lead to...
...between the mere possibility...
...as though we knew for a certainty...
Which does not support your contention.

'A Grim Manifesto for Nuclear War' ...Jonathan Schell:

One person's sensationalist opinion, nothing more ...and nothing scientific about it.

Baron Max

Ba-lo-nee.

When Tambora exploaded in the early 1800's it shot more than 100 cubic miles of ash and rock into the sky and did so with the force of about a million nuclear weapons. The Earth is still here. People are still here.

To sterylize the surface of this planet would take a lot more than the nukes we currently have. Although a nuclear bomb packs a pretty big punch, people just don't understand HOW big the Earth is. Our civilization might end, by a very small possibly even humanity, but life on this planet would easily go on.

~String

Ba-lo-nee.

When Tambora exploaded in the early 1800's it shot more than 100 cubic miles of ash and rock into the sky and did so with the force of about a million nuclear weapons. The Earth is still here. People are still here.

~String

Is there a source for that claim? A million nuclear weapons?

whats the theory called that means life must go on cuase i belive in that

It's more scientific than your claim elsewhere that you could accurately interpret whether or not your fellow students at university were virgins. If you wish to dismiss as 'propaganda' a medical doctor's lecture given upon receipt of his Nobel Prize that is certainly your prerogative. As is holding the belief that the unleash of the world's nuclear arsenals would be something less than globally catastrophic. As for posting links, I will continue to do so without summarising the contents in every case. That is my prerogative.Fine fine fine, yes yes yes. But nowhere in that doctor's lecture do I find a hypothesis that deploying the world's entire arsenal of nuclear weapons would extinguish all life. You claimed that was the basis for your extraordinary assertion and I'm just asking you to explain your logic. As for my statement that A. in a university, B. in Los Angeles, C. in the 1960s, most of the boys were not virgins, that is hardly an extraordinary assertion. Of the subset of that class of men whom I knew intimately and can vouch for, not one was a virgin when he graduated.

As for the good doctor's lecture, he is a medical doctor, not a physicist or a biologist. His diploma, license, sincerity and goodwill do not certify him as an authority on this subject. He is meticulous in providing numbers in his own field, e.g. the total number of physicians and nurses on earth. On the contrary he is vague and conjectural as soon as he steps outside his realm of expertise. Moreover, he did not even make a vague and conjectural statement that substantiates your claim about extinction.

This could all be dismissed as good-natured hyperbole, except that it is the subject of this thread! You have posited an answer to the question that is the basis of the O.P., and I'm simply asking you to show us how you arrived at that answer. This is not an unreasonable request!

Perhaps the sanctions since the last 30 years (following the 25 years under the ass kissing Shah) might have something to do with it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688984.stm
Perhaps if their new regime hadn't been ushered in by storming the US embassy and holding those inside hostage for months, they wouldn't have had to deal with those sanctions.