backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by Smilin.. on Jul 28 at 4:09 PM


The documentary "Countdown to Zero", produced by one of the top producers of "An Inconvenient Truth" airs Friday. The documentary discusses the terrorism dangers of keeping stockpiles of nuclear weapons. It calls for complete worldwide disarmament of nukes, including the U.S.'s massive stockpiles.  (Source: YouTube)

U.S. President Barack Obama, despite being a strong supporter of nuclear energy, has called for international, unilateral nuclear arms reductions.

One of the biggest proponents of the U.S. maintaining a nuclear arsenal -- Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger -- has reversed his stance, becoming an anti-nuclear weapons advocate.  (Source: NSA Archive)
Ultimately strategic defense initiative may prove movement a moot point

The Cold War is fading into distant memory, but new concerns like dirty bombs, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism continue to mount.  Amid that backdrop, the documentary Countdown to Zero will be released this Friday and offers a new battle-cry to the nuclear disarmament.

The movie is based on the Global Zero campaign, which launched in 2008, calling for complete worldwide nuclear disarmament.  The campaign, initiated by the World Security Institute, is the culmination of decades of calls for nuclear arms reductions.

"Countdown to Zero" may be a keystone of this new campaign, but it follows in a long line of successful anti-nuclear flicks.  Among the many fictional films that dealt with the topic include 
Godzilla (1954), Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb(1964), Planet of the Apes (1963), Damnation Alley (1977), When the Wind Blows (animated, 1986), The Terminator (4 films, 1984, 1991, 2003, 2009), and Grave of Fireflies (animated, 1988).  

Among the nonfiction films to tackle the topic include 
The War Game (1965), If You Love This Planet (1982), Deadly Deception: General Electric, Nuclear Weapons and Our Environment(1991) Doomsday: "On The Brink" (1997), Nuclear Related Activities in Burma (2010).

Despite this slew of films, it's commonly thought that the public in nuclear-armed nations/confederations such as the United States and European Union has grown apathetic to the cause of arms reductions.  

The new film, directed by Lucy Walker, aims to drive home that we should still be worried, showcasing hundred interviews on camera (and many more off), with physicists, writers, nuclear weapons experts (which include former CIA officers Valerie Plame Wilson and Rolf Mowatt-Larssen) and top world leaders (including Tony Blair, Mikhail Gorbachev and Pervez Musharraf).

Among its most compelling interviews, though, is with a potential terrorism supplier, Oleg Khinsagov, a Russian smuggler who was arrested in Georgia for allegedly attempting to deliver highly enriched uranium to a man believed to be affiliated with a terrorist group.  Walker argues that in a volatile geopolitical climate, the only solution is to have 
no nuclear weapons.  She states, "No matter what you used to think, the only stable solution today is zero."

Walker's film is the second major U.S. documentary this year to support nuclear disarmament.  Back in April the documentary 
Nuclear Tipping Point was released.  This documentary was perhaps even more convincing that Countdown to Zero, in that it featured four key nuclear arms supporters who have since recanted their views --former Secretaries of State Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn.  The men first came together when they wrote a 2007 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, entitled "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons".

Lawrence Bender, one of the producers of Al Gore's global warming documentary 
The Inconvenient Truth, produced the film.  An Inconvenient Truth achieved both mass commercial appeal and won an Academy Award; Bender envisions similar critical and commercial success for the new picture.

The movement enjoys the support of U.S. President Barack Obama.  Despite being an ardent supporter of increased U.S. use of nuclear energy, President Obama has also vocally supported nuclear arms reductions.  In an April 2009 speech in Europe before the Czech Republic, President Obama proclaimed, "So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change."

Ultimately if the U.S. and others succeed in developing reliable, affordable laser defense/missile shield technologies, the issue of nuclear missiles may become a moot point (though dirty bombs/ground based bombs remain a concern).  For that reason it seems that 
Countdown to Zero will see its vision achieved, at least in the long run -- the U.S. will have to adjust to global politics without the aid of its nuclear arsenal -- be it sooner or later.

A trailer of the film can be found here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Disarmament?
By Ben on 7/22/2010 10:44:10 AM , Rating: 4
I don't hear anything about China disarming.

What's the point of the US and Russia doing it if the other players aren't going to. So we can get caught with our pants down?

I know we're supposed to be the bigger person, but other countries don't necessarily play in the same moral playground.




RE: Disarmament?
By Dorkyman on 7/22/2010 11:55:40 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly.

It is both hilarious and scary to me to see this "Let's all just sing Kumbaya" attitude still in existence.

I don't know how many nukes the USA needs. But I do know that there are zealots out there who would be happy to destroy us with THEIR nukes unless there was the certainty of retribution.

Oh, and a film produced by one of the makers of "An Inconvenient Truth?" Now THERE'S a ringing endorsement, yeah?


RE: Disarmament?
By Smilin on 7/28/2010 3:35:16 PM , Rating: 1
Not that I subscribe to the "lets all just sing Kumbaya" but the opposite view is an equally stupid concept.

The idea that somehow retaliation, mutually assured destuction, treaties, or some other bullshit is going to prevent a nuke from being used is retarded.

If nukes exist then eventually there will be an incident. If many exist then eventually there will be an extinction.

Good think we have a bunch of nukes so we can kill that suicide bomber in retaliation...f'n genius.

Seriously with such stupid logic the "Kumbaya" crowd is starting to look smart by comparison.


RE: Disarmament?
By Smilin on 7/28/2010 3:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
My view? We gotta get them down to the point where we cannot trigger full extinction of the human race.

That can be done while still maintaining deterrent to protect your subset of the human race.


RE: Disarmament?
By Phoque on 7/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Disarmament?
By Phoque on 7/27/2010 9:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
By Phoque on 7/24/2010 4:26:39 PM , Rating: 0

LOL!

People in your country seem to have such high esteem of the moral playground of its political leaders.

I do make a distinction between the political leaders and the people to whom they sometimes lie to to get their deeds done.

I don't believe the ethics of the US to be that much better, if better at all, than a lot of other countries, especially in terms of foreign affairs.


Let's give peace a chance!
By MeesterNid on 7/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Let's give peace a chance!
By dgingeri on 7/22/2010 12:22:52 PM , Rating: 3
I got teased and picked on a lot when I was a kid. I never did anything violent back to the bullies, even as they dunked my head in the toilet in 6th grade. The teachers or school staff didn't do anything about it, either, and some even laughed along with some of the bullies' jibes in class.

these days, I'm bitter and lonely. I hate dealing with people, but I also hate being alone all the time.

being a pacifist gets you one of 2 things as a person: beaten down with nothing or suicidal.

as a country, being a pacifist nation gets you 2 things: conquered or all of your resources stolen.

I know this from experience. pacifism doesn't work.


RE: Let's give peace a chance!
By MindParadox on 7/23/2010 5:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
i was the opposite, the bullies picked on me cauyse i was small, and i tended to get more than even regularly, and learned to fight. unfortunately, that just gave me a reputation and caused more idiots to want to fight me just to see if it was true

seems to me theres a fine line to walk between pacifism and war

course, i still subscribe to the 1000x theory

you steal a dollar, i take 1000 of yours(as an example

Apostrophes Cause Catastrophes!


RE: Let's give peace a chance!
By Ammohunt on 7/23/2010 3:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong you are small and most likely had little man syndrome causing you run your mouth resulting in more beatings. I am 6'4" 300lbs never have i had to be in fist fight in my adult life.


RE: Let's give peace a chance!
By jdsal on 7/25/2010 11:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
And the bullying continues... better watch out, he learned to fight.

Doesn't that frame up this whole topic nicely.


It makes sense
By Digimonkey on 7/22/2010 8:44:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The movement enjoys the support of U.S. President Barack Obama. Despite being an ardent supporter of increased U.S. use of nuclear energy, President Obama has also vocally supported nuclear arms reductions.


You can dilute the military uranium found in the weapons into a suitable grade to use in reactors. It's recycling on it's finest scale.

On another note. The world will never be free of nuclear weapons until something more destructive/cheaper comes along. It's true.




RE: It makes sense
By mcnabney on 7/22/2010 10:03:26 AM , Rating: 2
Swords into plowshares

I believe that reactor fuel is 5% enriched and warhead material is 98% enriched. So there is a lot of 'reactor fuel' that can be put to a better use. I doubt we will ever get to zero weapons, they are just too easy to build, but I could see the world getting down under 1000 per nation.


RE: It makes sense
By bupkus on 7/22/2010 11:11:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I could see the world getting down under 1000 per nation.
I hope you're being ironic. I don't know of more than 2 nations that less than 1000 would actually be a reduction.


RE: It makes sense
By Ammohunt on 7/23/2010 2:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Swords into plowshares


Modern version: Swords in slave shackles.


A risk but...it saves lives
By Ytsejamer1 on 7/22/2010 8:49:59 AM , Rating: 5
It's somewhat ironic to think of all the lives that have been saved by nuclear weapons. The amount of casualties around the world has dropped by a huge amount post-Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Yes, the world is at risk with nuclear weapons available, but somehow we've managed as a global society to NOT use them. We've been brought to the brink of doing so many times...but yet, we didn't. Amazing really...

That said, I don't think we really need stockpiles of weapons that could destroy the Earth 150 times over. I think ten is a nice round number and likely sufficient.




Grave of the Fireflies?
By Aikouka on 7/22/2010 11:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
It's been awhile since I've seen it (and that's probably a good thing since it's a bit of a tear-jerker), but I'm pretty certain Grave of the Fireflies only deals with the fire-bombings that the US executed over Kobe.

Taking a peek at Wikipedia confirms this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_of_the_fireflie...




RE: Grave of the Fireflies?
By phazers on 7/23/2010 1:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
Article also omitted famous anti-nuke films such as On the Beach ...


By The Raven on 7/22/2010 9:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
I mean how many gov't workers will lose their jobs as a result? It take more to maintain the stockpile than it would to bring it down.

And we all know that people never lose their gov't jobs (especially the federal gov't)




I don't think so...
By marauder16 on 7/22/2010 4:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
They're talking about "worldwide nuke disarmament", I say no way. I mean which country would be crazy enough to give up their nuclear weapons? That would make them just too vulnerable.

And after all, if any country decided to officially destroy all nuclear weapons in their possession and use it too fuel nuclear reactors, don't think for even a second they wouldn't keep a nice big pile "in the back", just in case.




By chromal on 7/23/2010 12:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe the US will ever scrap its last nuclear warhead, but am hopeful proliferation will continue to unwind to a minimal force, say, of fewer than 250 nuclear warheads per side.

Hopefully, the ongoing efforts to create civilian reactor fuel from formerly weapons-grade plutonium for domestic electricity production will ultimately succeed, although this effort hasn't gone as well as hoped to date, as they decided they would do this in the late 90s, but don't expect any deliverable civilian fuel before 2016.




Cold War? Yes
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/10, Rating: 0
Nukes are retarded but
By Mithan on 7/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Anoxanmore on 7/22/2010 8:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
I want links to this so-called study.

Not even 150 full powered Tsar size bombs (100MT) would cause a nuclear winter.

Largest nuke currently around is something like 5 to 15 MT.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By AnnihilatorX on 7/22/2010 8:59:08 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't think so, but 150 bombs is enough to wipe out half of the world's population if detonated in population centres and major cities around the world.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By quiksilvr on 7/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nukes are retarded but
By 91TTZ on 7/22/2010 10:22:57 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Or just unleash them in the atmosphere. The blast itself won't kill the people but the sudden loss of atmosphere and nuclear radiation will cause some shit to hit the fan.


What? You think that detonating a nuke in the atmosphere would make the atmosphere go away and kill people with radiation?

We did over 300 nuclear tests in the open atmosphere from the 1940's to the 1960's. Last time I checked the atmosphere is still there and there was no massive die-off back then.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By tng on 7/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nukes are retarded but
By dgingeri on 7/22/2010 12:37:18 PM , Rating: 3
a 1MT nuke lets out an EMP that would reach maybe 5 miles. Coast to coast EMP would require the detonation of a small star.

We have had detonations in Nevada and New Mexico in the 5MT range, and those didn't wipe out the country's electronics.

you are blowing this way out of proportion in a major way.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Smilin on 7/22/2010 12:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, you're wrong, he's right.

The detonations in Nevada were surface or (low altitude) air detonations.

The test 1.5MT test conducted in the pacific at a 250mi altitude knocked out heavy 60's era electronics almost 900 miles away. (think 1800 mile diameter EMP "blast")

Turns out it wasn't even a good spot to test an emp! If you do the same at higher latitudes where the earth's magnetic field is stronger (like say over the continental US) then you could likely blackout the US with a single device. You could knock us back to the stone age with a small handful of devices.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Anoxanmore on 7/22/2010 2:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Umm no.

You can't go 250 miles into the air unless you want to do it in space, and at which point you aren't going to affect the earth.

There has never been a nuclear blast detonated in the thermosphere.

Where the hell are you getting this psuedo-science?


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By tng on 7/22/2010 3:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
Beg to differ with you on this but, the atmosphere would have no effect.

What the cause is the gamma ray output from the explosion, this is considerable and will find it's way to the atmosphere where it creates a wavefront of EM similar to the static that you hear on the radio when there is a lightning strike only on a much larger scale. Unshielded electronics would suffer.

Find the book One Second After, it explains this in detail.

Also to make things more cheery, certain solar flares can have the same effect. If you do some research, there was a solar flare in the 1880's that literally melted telegraph lines off of the poles and warped train rails.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Smilin on 7/22/2010 3:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Umm no.

Umm yes.
quote:

You can't go 250 miles into the air unless you want to do it in space

I golfclap you for realizing 250 miles is in space. I believe I said "altitude", not "in the air".
quote:
and at which point you aren't going to affect the earth.

...because???
quote:
There has never been a nuclear blast detonated in the thermosphere.

Yes there has. Go get a bowl of crow.

quote:
Where the hell are you getting this psuedo-science?


A public library from the 1960s. What rock have you been living under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Anoxanmore on 7/22/2010 3:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Umm no.

Yeah that whole 1st grade science thing. ;)

There was no adverse affect to the earth.

I stand corrected on that one.

It isn't a rock, but I don't know everything there is. It happens.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Smilin on 7/23/2010 10:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It isn't a rock, but I don't know everything there is. It happens.


All good. Honorable recovery there.

Check it out though. The whole upper atmosphere EMP thing is fascinating stuff. The immediate effect (caused by blast stripping electrons) is interesting but the after effect is even more so. There is a lesser emp effect that happens over minutes to hours as the earth's magnetic field has to drift back into alignment.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By 91TTZ on 7/22/2010 1:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
That's some really far-fetched nonsense. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Smilin on 7/22/2010 2:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
While I call shenanigans on 90% of the population starving in a year he's spot on about the emp device.

A single device properly deployed could pretty much knock the US back into the 1920s. It's scary.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By tng on 7/22/2010 3:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Think about it. There are no phones, electricity, and if you have a car that is later than the 70's it dead as well.

No city tap water (no electricity, no pumps), no food delivery (most large cities in the US have an average 3 day supply of food for their population). Mass Chaos.

Do you have even a 2 week supply of food stored in case of disaster? Could you grow a garden and protect it from other hungry people since there is nothing left at the grocery store?


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Smilin on 7/22/2010 3:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
No but I have a gun and I'll take yours. :)

Seriously though crap would indeed suck. I don't see 90% of the population within a year though. You might reach that in subsequent years when local supplies run out. There would still be plenty of carcass of the old world to pick clean and people don't starve to death as easily as you might think. They'll eat dogfood, and then the dogs (or maybe in reverse).

It's all dark ages after that though. The fall of rome will look like a bad day in the stock market for mankind.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Galcobar on 7/26/2010 3:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
Local supplies are subject to significant diminishment in the current world of just-in-time deliveries.

Or to put it another way, people used to live close to where the food came from. In the post-industrial world, that's no longer as true -- especially considering the preferred land for residential development is the flat ground which was preferred for farming.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/2010 9:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
Probably as credible as..

quote:
The documentary "Countdown to Zero", produced by one of the top producers of "An Inconvenient Truth" airs Friday.


LOL I mean honestly, is Mick saying this would be any less biased than that bloody "Inconvenient Truth" abortion?

Nobody watches documentaries anyway. Documentaries have gone from informative to blatant Michael Moore style propaganda.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Anoxanmore on 7/22/2010 9:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
OMG Reclaimer are we agreeing?

Oh geeze the world is ending. :(


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/2010 9:15:32 AM , Rating: 2
Hi pretty lady!! You could do worst than agree with me, c'mon, let's face it :P


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Anoxanmore on 7/22/2010 9:17:13 AM , Rating: 5
LOL

True, I could agree with FIT, or Quad.

shudders


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By maverick85wd on 7/24/2010 3:40:17 AM , Rating: 2
one time Reader1 made a good point, I've actually seen him get a few 5's


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By nafhan on 7/22/2010 10:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
I heard this guy on Elliot in the Morning (local radio show) earlier today, and he at least sounded reasonable. It sounded like his main things were:
A. The big worry is terrorists getting nuclear material
B. The US would be the main target for terrorists and smuggling it into the country would be fairly easy
C. We (all nuclear armed countries) need to create Fort Knox style repositories for weapons grade fissile material
D. Most important from someone making a documentary like this (for me, at least) is he didn't seem anti-US or anti-military

I'm sure he says some things in the documentary that I would completely disagree with, but it sounds interesting, and I'll probably check it out once I can get it from Netflix.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By rikulus on 7/22/2010 9:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
Well, he did say "as few as 150", so maybe the study assumed worst case/worst case for bomb size/detonation location. I think it's crazy when you hear just how many nuclear bombs actually have been detonated during the hay days of nuclear testing.

Lets just hope there never is another nuclear device detonated in a populated area. Is a treaty of complete disarmament the best way to get there... honestly I'd have to say probably. Maybe a "rogue" nation or somebody could build a single bomb, but that will be harder than stealing one. And, would keep it at one bomb rather than multiple.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Anoxanmore on 7/22/2010 9:16:13 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly the location doesn't matter, it isn't like there is some place on earth that is more "potent" for a nuclear winter than any other.

Now for deaths of millions of people if not billions. Then I'd agree.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By rikulus on 7/22/2010 9:21:14 AM , Rating: 2
I was referring more to altitude of detonation than geographical location (other than perhaps having them spread around vs all in one place... not that I know which would be worse.) I assume you'd agree that atmospheric detonation would be worse than underground?


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Anoxanmore on 7/22/2010 9:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
According to nuclear weapon experts, detonation 500ft above the ground is the most deadly you can get for destructive force.

I would agree detonating them in the air is a bit worse than say under the ground.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By nafhan on 7/22/2010 10:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
Ground level or slightly underground is supposed to be the worst for nuclear fallout in the surrounding area, as the soil gets irradiated and flung all over the place.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Smilin on 7/22/2010 12:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
500 feet is actually right. At that altitude you'll get a precursor formed as the shockwave travels over the ground and it will kick up enormous amounts of crud.

I think it was shot "grable"? where they figured this out. It was that artillery launched design that was being tested when the precursor got discovered.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Smilin on 7/22/2010 1:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
500 feet is actually right. At that altitude you'll get a precursor formed as the shockwave travels over the ground and it will kick up enormous amounts of crud.

I think it was shot "grable"? where they figured this out. It was that artillery launched design that was being tested when the precursor got discovered.

While a ground level detonation would throw a lot of crap up the blast would affect far less area. Higher altitude blast would cover an enormous area but generate little "throw".


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By delphinus100 on 7/25/2010 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ground level or slightly underground is supposed to be the worst for nuclear fallout in the surrounding area, as the soil gets irradiated and flung all over the place.


True, but you'd likely be doing that only if your target is also underground, meaning command bunkers and missile silos.

If you're after a strategic air base (or a city), air bursts (which are defined as higher that the maximum radius of the fireball, which itself depends on weapon yield) give you greater blast effects to smash structures and objects n the ground, as well as maximizing radiant thermal effects from the fireball. that would otherwise be partly wasted in pulverizing/vaporizing surface material.

Those familiar with the BLU-82 'daisy-cutter' conventional bomb will know it had a three-foot probe to cause detonation above ground to minimize cratering, and maximize blast effects on foliage, to create instant helicopter landing zones (among other possible uses). The blast physics are the same with nukes, just...bigger.

It's no accident that the weapons used on Japan were detonated at about 1800 feet. We had a pretty good idea, even then, of the ground vs. air burst effects.

And if you have any intent of occupying the area later (or are simply downwind yourself), fallout-minimizing tactics also are to your benefit.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Smilin on 7/28/2010 4:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
No the bombs used over Japan were detonated at that altitude precicely because we *didn't* know.

The logic we used to make that determination was pretty much what you describe. A higher burst gives it line-of-sight to more "stuff" and does indeed cause far more destruction than a ground burst...especially thermal.

However the most destruction comes from an airburst far below the optimal hight you describe. We discovered this accidentally during shot Grable which was the testing of an atomic weapon fired from artillery.

What they found was a shockwave that reflected off the ground and outran the main shockwave. This "precursor" wave does not have as much pressure as the main wave but at the scales we're talking it doesn't matter. It is highly destructive and generates those "blast of *sustained* wind" looking effects you see in old nuke footage.

You're correct about the Daisy Cutter though. I'm sure it has a similar precursor but at it's smaller scale the high pressure of the main shockwave would be more destructive.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By modus2 on 7/22/2010 9:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe the 150 figure is from a misconception;

"and for the 150 Tg case produce a true nuclear winter"

"The model was used to investigate the effects of a war involving the entire current global nuclear arsenal, projected to release about 150 Tg of smoke into the atmosphere (1 Tg is equal to 10^12 grams)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008235...


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Anoxanmore on 7/22/2010 9:25:32 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming that article is correct and it would take 1/3rd of the nuclear weapons in the world at 2007 to create 150Tg of smoke. (Assuming the world has 12,000 possible nuclear weapons as of 2007)

We are going with around 3400 nuclear explosions, at once.

That is a bit higher than 150.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By GaryJohnson on 7/22/2010 10:08:29 AM , Rating: 2
Links to the study(s):
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/

Krakatoa was ~200Mt and dropped global temps around -1.2 °C. The global cooling during the last ice age was around –5°C. So 833Mt should be enough for a full blown ice age. 150 * 5.6Mt bombs = 840Mt.

My analysis is stupefyingly simple and produces a much more conservative estimate compared to the studies, which generally cite the burning of metropolitan areas as a significant factor in the creation of a nuclear winter. I think one of them says that as few as 50 Hiroshima sized bombs over large cities would be enough.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Anoxanmore on 7/22/2010 10:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
That isn't your analysis, that is Wiki's. Secondly a volcano is not the same as a nuclear weapon. :/

Give me the link to someone that doesn't have a history of anti-nuclear propaganda and has passed peer review.

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_bi...
quote:

Alan Robock
Participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , which was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, 2007


I hate to break it to you but he doesn't pass science's requirements.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By GaryJohnson on 7/23/2010 2:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
You give ME a link to someone that has passed peer review that agrees with your position.

quote:
I hate to break it to you but he doesn't pass science's requirements.

If the only requirement of science is that it has to agree with your viewpoint, then I suppose it doesn't.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By 91TTZ on 7/22/2010 9:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US Defense industry researched and found out that as few 150 would cause the world to go into Nuclear Winter and basically wipe out the human race as a result.


I call BS on this. More than 500 were detonated during the cold war for tests and the public barely noticed it.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Smilin on 7/22/2010 10:41:42 AM , Rating: 2
While I may also still call BS I'm first going to call BS on your BS.

It's actually closer to 2000 detonated but all were tests, not attacks. During tests they are done in isolated areas like deserts or pacific islands or underground. The area became approachable within a few hours or days.

During war they'll be dropped on cities. You'll have uncontrolled fires on a scale not seen since the fire bombing days of WWII and these fires will burn for weeks or months. Depending on how such a war plays out there would be hundreds or thousands of these fires simultaneously.

Who knows what the actual number may turn out to be but I think the point is still valid: nukes can trigger an extiction event and when you're doing a risk analysis that tilts the scale significantly.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By 91TTZ on 7/22/2010 2:37:21 PM , Rating: 3
While nukes are powerful, people vastly overstate their effects. According to popular media, cities that have been nuked would be radioactive wastelands for thousands of years. In reality, the two cities that were nuked were inhabited immediately. The bombs were smaller than modern nukes, but much dirtier as well.

Nuclear war is never a good thing but people must believe the facts instead of grandiose claims.


RE: Nukes are retarded but
By Smilin on 7/22/2010 3:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
I've not overstated any effects (others may have)

If there is something close to a full nuclear exchange then you'll find cities burned to the ground and the resulting matter ejected into the atmosphere.

Expect: multiple warheads per population center, a mix of ground and air burst to maximize precursors and fallout, EMP bursts, megatons of total yield instead of kilotons, Nasty stuff.

While I wouldn't expect cities to become a nuclear wasteland for thousands of years this isn't 1945 either. We had nuclear weapons back then but we knew nothing of "nuclear warfar". We aren't talking about a single digit kiloton device dropped all by itself on a large city. Nobody is going to be moving back in thier own lifetime like they could after fatman/lil boy.


Makes it easier I suppose.
By Daniel8uk on 7/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Makes it easier I suppose.
By Daniel8uk on 7/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Makes it easier I suppose.
By kyp275 on 7/22/2010 5:59:50 PM , Rating: 3
You're either trolling, or terribly misinformed, or both, but I'll bite anyway.

1. Nuclear weapons have little use in peacetime politics/negotiations. What are you gonna do? threaten to nuke someone if they don't do what you say? yea, that's gonna work out really well. There's little bargaining power to be had from nuclear weapons for well-established nations, you can't bluff when everyone at the table knows you're bluffing.

2. Where are the oil that everyone loves to say the US pillaged from around the world? the only oil I see are the ones spilling in the Gulf these days... Lots of wars and conflicts are fought over various national interests, to imply it's all for oil is ignorant and naive.

3. You'd be surprised if you actually bothered to check the facts, but the US spends more on social programs and welfare than it does on its military. Yea I know, shocking what you can learn if you actually try.

4. On one hand you want the US to dismantle its military, on the other hand you want us to be a super world police and right all the wrongs in the world? so typical. Why don't you go out and give all your wealth and assets away to those poorer than you? No? I didn't think so either, guess that makes you a hypocrite.

Some people like to think that humans are more enlightened and saintly than they actually are, they obviously haven't taken a good look in the mirror lately.


RE: Makes it easier I suppose.
By Josett on 7/22/2010 11:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some people like to think that humans are more enlightened and saintly than they actually are, they obviously haven't taken a good look in the mirror lately.


Universally valid point.

But that's like nailing one's own coffin: Light reflects the same way all around the globe, but you get different perspectives from different societies, especially if you're one of the few who owns the graveyard.

Cheers!


RE: Makes it easier I suppose.
By kyp275 on 7/23/2010 3:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between aspiring to be something better while knowing what you are and what you're not, and being completely ignorant of reality and believe you're something you're not.


Nukes are passe
By dgingeri on 7/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nukes are passe
By Kurz on 7/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nukes are passe
By bupkus on 7/22/2010 11:27:02 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Only reason Japan attacked us was because we placed an embargo on their oil supply.
To force Japan to retreat from China and Indochina.


RE: Nukes are passe
By Kurz on 7/23/2010 1:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
Look I am not saying what we did was bad.
I am just stating the truth that free trade in general enables peace around the world.


RE: Nukes are passe
By Treckin on 7/23/2010 10:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you consider being victimized by Enterprise fun, I would modify your "yay trade" attitude. Trade helps those people that YOU care about... Wealthy, usually but not always white, elites. Those who's backs those fortunes are made on are would not agree with your advocacy.


RE: Nukes are passe
By Kurz on 7/24/2010 7:41:39 AM , Rating: 2
Wow... the anti elitist/capitalist.
Those who run your perfect society will be elitist as well.

Ever hear of the USSR, Castro, Chavez, all of which have much to gain to make you believe they are helping the people.


RE: Nukes are passe
By Kurz on 7/23/2010 1:42:45 AM , Rating: 2
Look I am not saying what we did was bad.
I am just stating the truth that free trade in general enables peace around the world.


RE: Nukes are passe
By dgingeri on 7/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nukes are passe
By 91TTZ on 7/22/2010 2:18:23 PM , Rating: 4
This is completely untrue. On the contrary, China's military is geared towards defending their own country and not for carrying out a war in a far away country like the US.

They have a lot of troops, trucks, and tanks, but hardly any long range bombers or cargo aircraft. They have a very small nuclear force that only serves as a deterrent against the US and Russia.

Carrying on a far away war requires tons of logistics and the US is the only country with the infrastructure required to do that.

China also has no functioning aircraft carriers so they'd lack any type of air support for their troops. The US, on the other hand, operates half of the world's aircraft carriers and all of the world's supercarriers.

All China has is a lot of troops, which is great for defending their homeland where they can be fed and supplied. They do not have the logistics to supply large numbers of them abroad.


RE: Nukes are passe
By Enoch2001 on 7/23/2010 2:54:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Peace is won through superior firepower, not diplomacy. that's the way of the human race.


This is simply NOT TRUE. Have you no knowledge of history? Rome - being responsible for the existence of Western civilization - achieved success not by brute force, but by respecting the people it "concurred" and setting up roads, cities, and stability throughout it's empire. It often integrated local customs and religions into its own in order to achieve this. It made itself desirable - to be a Roman citizen was a great honor and had tremendous benefits.

Despite its seemingly short existence in the scale of history, it was one of the most influential civilizations in human history and it did not achieve this by brute force alone.


RE: Nukes are passe
By Gondorff on 7/24/2010 1:31:36 AM , Rating: 2
You have a very odd view of the Romans, a civilization that was at war for almost its entire history... Sure, they did a decent job of infrastructure in the lands they conquered, but that is hardly a pacifist approach.

Remember, this is the civilization that produced the saying "If you wish for peace, prepare for war", the exact opposite of your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_be...


RE: Nukes are passe
By tng on 7/26/2010 8:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
Very true. The Romans fed their empire by constant taking of territory, taxes on that territory, taking slaves from new territories all to feed Rome itself.

When the empire got fat and lazy and people in the center became pacifist, they were overran by barbarians from the North. This was because the citizens of Rome didn't want to join the legions anymore and started contracting out the job to some of the former conquered peoples, who did a less than adaquate job.

Some of the most influential people in conquered lands became citizens of Rome, but it was a minority of people.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki