Even Limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan would destroy much of the ozone layer, leaving the DNA of humans and other organisms at risk of damage. I think it's time we all agree to get rid of nuclear weapons and start closing down weapons factories. It should be illegal to sell weapons. Done. Everything must be settled in the UN. Michael
:LOL The earth survived countless nuclear tests as well as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why would a few nukes tossed back and forth between India and Pakistan destroy the ozone layer and human DNA?
A few nukes tossed back and forth! They are talking 50 a peace - that's more than a few. Anyway, why do we need nukes? We don't. They should be illegal for everyone. Also, what's the problem with the UN? It may be a bloated waste of space for most things but it's still much better than "With us or against Us" "YeeeHaaawwww lets go git us sum Moosms" - wouldn't you agree?!?!?!?
I just think it's VERY STUPID to but the future fate of the human species in the hands of a few alpha monkey's.... How in the hell did human's get to be sooo stupid???
Hey, maybe we need a radioactive wake up call to get rid of alpha males. But wait, Who will lead us then? Eh, the earth is getting to small for us. Get into space or die trying.
Excellent Idea! I say we allow the muslims and palestinians to have the moon, free of charge. In about hundred years all you'll have left is the nice calm peaceful muslims and palestinians. Every trouble maker will have either airlocked himself, or the moderates will have done it to them.
Wait. Why Muslims ? why can't christians have the moon? (you can imagine them going WAA, I wanna go to the moon). Or Israeli's. I shotgun Mars on behalf of Oz.
True how many nukes have detonated in the last 50 years Hiroshima and nagasaki where the only ones detonated over populated area's but wiki states that there where around 2000 controlled detonations of wich 331+50+23+? where atmospheric tests. There have actually been years with a 140 detonations (and most were heavier then hiroshima and nagasaki) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
While nuclear war is obvioulsy a bad idea, it'd be nice if news media organizations got some more evidence to back these claims. A couple of scientists with a political agenda, and a gullable hungry news media doesn't make a "fact". Just look at Carl Sagan's "Nuclear Winter Theory". Correct me if I'm wrong, but a few years later some explosive experiments were conducted in the desert that disproved Carl's theory. And Orcot's response above me pretty much debunks this new "Ozone Theory" too.
I am looking at the water problems in the area. It isn't just with Pakistan that problems can develop, China is on the road to becoming a bigger headache for India than Pakistan. China controls 8 of the 9 fresh water sources in the area.
i support the indians. the Pakistanis are just hateful muslims. the indians at least hate for a reason!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Did you know that the 'father' of Indian's nuclear bomb is a Muslim? And you do realise that India has about 135 million Muslims? That is larger than the population of Egypt, larger than the population of Bangladesh, larger than the population of Saudi Arabia. Many tend to overlook the Muslims of India. Just like Arab Israelis - almost 20% of the Israeli population is Arab (83% of them being Muslim).
Yeah but there are still problems. I read in the paper that not everything there is so great. Here is an indication: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article782933.ece
In an ideal World, yes. The biggest weapons dealers are the permanent members of the security council. They are too fucking corrupt and money hungry to not send arms to militias and other questionable characters around the globe. They have turned the UN into a complete joke.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just for argument's sake,I will present the positive sides of such a war: Let's suppose there is a short nuke excanges with a few millions dying on both sides. Advantages: 1. The world needs to be reminded from time to time the awesome destructive power of nukes. 60+ years passed without nukes going off, after all. A little bad occasionally is better than a big bad once... 2. It is good for controlling overpopulation. 3. Scientic experiments can be done on the survivors, we don't need to mess with animals. 4. Finally nobody could blame atheists... 5. It could prove that local wars are possible with nukes, it doesn't have to be immediately armageddon. The positive side of this that the 2 big military powers could ease a bit on the red button... As you can see, I am ever the optimist/opportunist...
I'm not aware of those, but Sagan did posit similar but less dramatic consequences from oil well fires during Desert Storm, and it didn't pan out. The problem with the TTAPS report was that it relied on far too many variables to predict anything reliably. It was based largely on the albedo of supposed particulate ash made airborne by the collumnar drafts following detonations, which would produce the nuclear winter effect by reflecting so much solar energy that earth would cool rapidly and yada yada yada. Sagan and the rest of the authors failed to realize that weapons only loft materials immediate to ground zero, and then only if the fireball comes very close to the earth's surface. Additionally, the heat is sufficient to not only produce the ash, but immediately recombust the ash as well, much in the same way that arson investigators can find the origin of a structural fire by looking for where the soot is less abundant. What will happen is the lofting of a great deal of soils, which perform very differently in this scenario, by falling back to earth around the immediate area. Also, most nuclear attack profiles call for air bursts to maximize mach effects, which will loft much less material than surface bursts. That said, nuclear explosions do produce large amounts of ozone-depleting nitrogen oxides because of the way the blast pressure and heat interacts with nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, crushing them together with enough binding energy to form covalent bonds. This is similar to what happens in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine - and why engines with higher compression ratios generally produce more NOX emissions. The NOX produced in a nuclear explosion are then lofted by the heat, to altitutes where they can begin to interact with atmospheric ozone.
i dont recall saying there arent any muslims in india. but they are a minority. thats 13.5 percent. too bad the jewish minority in gaza is overlooked as well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
