BS: nuclear war dangerous

Subject: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 04:11 PM

Just a note for all those who stated that Iran has the right to nuclear weapons, regardless of it's treaty obligations.




"SAN FRANCISCO — Some of the scientists who first advanced the controversial "nuclear winter" theory more than two decades ago have come up with another bleak forecast: Even a regional nuclear war would devastate the environment.
Using modern climate and population models, researchers estimated that a small-scale nuclear conflict between two warring nations would cause 3 million to 17 million immediate casualties and lead to a marked cooldown of the planet that could lead to crop failures and further misery.

As dire as the predictions seem, they fall short of nuclear winter. That theory says that smoke and dust from an atomic war between the superpowers would blot out the sun, plunge the Earth into the deep freeze and cause mass starvation, wiping out 90% of the Earth's population, or billions of people"

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-12-12-nucelar-war_x.htm

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 04:38 PM

So, who has said that, Bruce?

...& you think that those people, whoever they are, are accepting of nuclear weapons because they believe they cause no more harm than a paper-cut, or something?

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Lox
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 04:55 PM

I think it's a fair point.

As long as it's complemented by the view that they have as little right as anyone else.

Though (to be fair) it may be that the same point was made in a different way - ie that they have the same right as everyone else.

I would agree with that as long as it meant that noone else had the right either.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 04:55 PM

Why single out Iran, Bruce? No one has the right to endanger the enviorment, including the US, UK, Israel, N. Korea, Russia, France or Bora Bora.

"Just a note for all those who stated that Iran has the right to nuclear weapons, regardless of it's treaty obligations."

None have a right to a treaty either as far as I'm concerned. What is this, a 1st come 1st served community? No one has a "God Given Right" to anything that endangers us all.

Where is this coming from?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 04:56 PM

"nuclear war dangerous"

Who woulda thunk it?

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 05:00 PM

Duh?

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Lox
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 05:11 PM

Israel equally has no right to Nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 06:23 PM

Darned right it's dangerous. Let's not do it.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Cluin
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 06:25 PM

Hey, there's an idea.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 06:36 PM

I've said it before but, hey, if I'm the leader of Iran and the president of United States singles me out for a butt-whuppin' then I'm gonna look around for a big stick...

Bush's stupid policies which are crafted to appease rednecks and fundamentalists may play well to Jerry Falwell and angry NASCAR dads but they have made the U.S. and the world a much less safe place...

Nice going, George and Karl... You have destabilized the entire planet in 6 years...

You ignored Richard Clark's suggestion which brought about 9/11 and then you did yer cowboy thing in the aftermath of 9/11 and look where the two of those screw-ups have gotten us...

This ain't any longer about the worst president 'cause we have two more years of failures lookin' us all in the face...

But then what could we have expected from a guy who has never been successfull at anything he has tried???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Lox
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 06:39 PM

6 years ...

... what is it about misguided fruitless campaigns and the last 6 years ...

.. oh ... no it's nothing ... just my mind playing tricks on me ...

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Peace
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 06:46 PM

No one anywhere has 'rights' to weapons of mass destruction. With that said, countries have nuclear weapons because it's really stupid to fuck with them if the lower-right-hand-corner risk is that they will actually use them. Countries invest in the damned things because it gives them a feeling of security. It's just the rest of us who get the crap scared out of us.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 01:21 AM

Am I one of those who said that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons? Maybe it was because I think it's such a charming idea to have a contest as to who can first downsize them so that they are as cheap and readily available and socially acceptable as tiddlywinks.

Frankly, BB, I don't think there is a soul on the Mudcat who has said that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. If you took it that way, it is because you forgot to read or absorb the rest of the thought- that it is not surprising that Iran seeks such weapons because it doesn't trust the 'civilized' world. With good reason.

Can you imagine a country sitting passively by when a super power names you as part of "an axis of evil" and then invades one of the named countries? Wouldn't YOU gird your loins?

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 02:26 AM

Bobert - 12 Dec 06 - 06:36 PM

"I've said it before but, hey, if I'm the leader of Iran and the president of United States singles me out for a butt-whuppin' then I'm gonna look around for a big stick...

Bush's stupid policies which are crafted to appease rednecks and fundamentalists may play well to Jerry Falwell and angry NASCAR dads but they have made the U.S. and the world a much less safe place...

Nice going, George and Karl... You have destabilized the entire planet in 6 years..."

Now this is a typical Bobert anti-Bush Post. Of course what Bobert's forgotten is:

1. Iran's nuclear programme, including the bits of it that they tried to keep "Secret" (i.e. Uranium enrichment facilities) were started long before George W Bush ran for Office in 2000.

2. In all of 27 years since the Revolution of 1979 that swept Khomeini to power and deposed the Shah the United States of America has not threatened Iran once.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:08 AM

There's no evidence at all that nuclear war is dangerous. Most Japanese survived the last one we had, and there's no more evidence for nuclear winter than for global warming. It's typical of scaremongering do-gooders to condemn nuclear war without looking for the benefits.

If billions of people are killed, all the more for the survivors. Destruction of whole cities means that house prices go up in the remaining ones. We could save the billions we are spending on high- energy research, as nuclear scientists could now do field research. An end to delays on the London Underground. There would be an end to objections against nuclear power, as there would now be less radiation in the core of the reactors. Planning rules would be relaxed, and European bureaucracy rolled back. Speed cameras would no longer be required, and you could do your shopping in pounds and ounces.

So the scanario is not nuclear winter, but nuclear paradise!

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:30 AM

Paul, if that's an idea of some sort of Utopia, you can keep it!....I guess what they haven't made clear is how much the environment has been polluted already.....Chernobyl....Kuwait oilfields burning....and many other disasters which have 'leaked' into the atmosphere...including CFCs. We hear a lot about theory but little of the scientific facts on which our future may be based. Many respected scientists have spoken up...only to be quickly silenced...why? Maybe things are already worse than we think....however...should we at least be taking some action now to 'SAVE the PLANET' or just sit back and wait? Who knows?. Oh and it would appear that the use of radioactive material has come down to bumping off individuals who can be an embarrassment now. Why not a town, a city, a county/state?. Mans inhumanity to man.....when will we ever learn?

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:03 AM

Paul has made a good point.

Have Hiroshima and Nagasaki recovered?

How many atmospheric nuclear tests have been carried out?

Chernobyl is now regarded as the greatest wildlife sanctuary in Europe.

Where it becomes dangerous is if someone believes that a nuclear war is viable.

During the "Cold War" period, where the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries opted for Chemical and Biological Weapons, NATO did not believing them to be too indiscriminate and unreliable. To counter these C & B weapons NATO developed tactical nuclear weapons and made no secret of the fact that if the Soviets used C&B weapons NATO's immediate response would be to go tactical nuclear. That was the stand-off and it worked for the best part of 40 years, as did MAD.

Neither the US, Russia, China, France or the UK are going to use their nuclear weapons, because each country mentioned there possesses second and possibly third strike capability.

The new members to the nuclear club, Pakistan, India and possibly/potentially North Korea, Iran and Israel. Are all states that only possess first strike capability, where the accepted dictum always was - "who strikes first wins".

Some on this forum regard Israel's possible nuclear deterent as being threatening. They say that if pushed into a corner any such weapons that Israel possesses will be used, well if such was the case they would have been used during the opening phases of the Yom Kippur War, they weren't. Now what if nuclear weapons are developed by Iran. What if those weapons are smuggled into Israel, by either Hamas or Hezbollah. Take the target cities as being Tel Aviv and Haifa. The result would be that the State of Israel would be finished, Hamas and Hezbollah would have in effect made good their promised and avowed intention of wiping the state of Israel from the face of the map.

World reaction? Who do you strike back at? Proof of Iran's involvement would have to convince the entire world and no amount of proof would convince France, Russia or China - All of whom have too much invested in the middle-east to allow it to be destroyed by nuclear stikes against Iran. All the Arab nations of the region then have to wait for is for the dust to settle before they themselves settle what used to be known as Israel. Middle-East problem solved - or would it be??

Dangerous stuff indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:08 AM

We in the UK have noted that Mr Bush's 'pet poodle', Tony Blair has made a commitment to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system. And this at a time when Britain's armed forces are dangerously over-stretched and under-equipped in Iraq and Afghanistan (it should be clear to everyone that you can't 'nuke' Al Quaeda or the Taliban).
The only reason that I can think of for retaining and renewing Trident is that once you are on the 'nuclear treadmill' you can never get off. To the Blairs and Bushes of this world abandoning nuclear weapons is an unthinkable sign of weakness. Then, of course, both Bush and Blair are 'poodles' of the Military-Industrial complex and have no choice but to do its bidding.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:27 AM

Chernobyl may be considered a wild life sanctuary..that I do not know...what I do know is that there are many thousands of children within a huge area around Chernobyl who have or die from Leukemia. Friends of mine are involved in transporting them to the UK for two weeks break from the radiation levels and to get fresh air and food...that two weeks is expected to prolong their lives by over two years. As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the last I read was the level of radiation is still overly high and many people are dying of radiation triggered conditions still....and this will carry on for many more decades....something to do with the 'half life' of the radioactive material...something I really don't understand but there ya go.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 07:51 AM

I know how to understand Paul's post, but I'm not sure how to understand Teribus' praise. Does he understand the irony and takes Paul's words serious just for the sake of answering irony with irony?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: redsnapper
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:06 AM

There's no evidence at all that nuclear war is dangerous.

I like it! (;>)

RS

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:20 AM

There is no comparison between the effects of the Chernobyl "meltdown" and a nuclear explosion (either fission or fusion). There was no "Mach wave" or overpressure produced at Chernobyl, no thermal radiation (i.e., heat) released to any great extent.

Except for the radiation release, and even that is in some ways not comparable, there is little to compare between, say, the BRAVO or TRINITY shots and either Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.

No, there is something.

Ain't none of them good.

(I refer you to, among other sources, DA Pamphlet 39-3, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (April, 1962 et seq.) for, well, the effects of nuclear weapons. There are many studies done on the release of radiation from both Chernobyl and TMI.)

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Hand-Pulled Boy
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:56 AM

Can't we get Christmas out of the way first..................?

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 10:25 AM

The Bush new way forward still leaves all options on the table.
Cheney would be quick to point out that time is running out and the best way to go forward in the middle east is to have a nuclear explosion there.

"The beauty part", Cheney would add, "is that we could blame anyone we choose for the nuclear detonation."

think about it.

A coalition could be stirred to action as well as a great selling point for the American people to be led into whatever fiasco the neo con terror experts decree. George could be given a speech that would in essence say "See, we told you so!"

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 12:03 PM

I think that there are a lot of necessary fingers which wouldn't press the nuclear trigger. It's not something Bush or Cheney can do alone.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 12:25 PM

"Paul has made a good point" Teribus

This just in: Not only Americans are deficient in detecting satire- Scots are too.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 09:38 PM

Judging by what has been posted on this thread very few people bothered to read the link supplied by BB.

The premise of the article is for two countries each to lob 50 nuclear warheads at one another. This will not cause the much feared nuclear winter that could destroy mankind, but still 3 million to 17 million deaths cannot be dismissed too lightly. The only trouble with the "model" the article is based on is that apart from the "big five" no two sides of the newbies (North Korea - possible; Iran - potential; Israel - possible; Pakistan - definate and India - definate) actually have 50 nukes to throw at one another.

And yes Paul did make a couple of very good points and the questions asked remain unanswered:

Have Hiroshima and Nagasaki recovered?
Yes they have, I have travelled to both and worked in Nagasaki. At no time was I advised not to drink the local water, at no time was I told not to eat local produce, at no time was I advised to wear a mask as local dust particles may be dangerous.

How many atmospheric nuclear tests have been carried out?
I would estimate that between 1945 to 1980 there have been something like 560 atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons. I say estimate because I have not been able to get any information regarding the number of Russian and French atmospheric tests. The US, UK and USSR stopped atmospheric testing in 1963, the French in 1974 and the Chinese in 1980. The largest atmospheric test was carried out by Russia when it tested a 50 megaton yield weapon.

I would still stand by what I said and the article tends to agree with me - "Where it becomes dangerous is if someone believes that a nuclear war is viable."

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Peace
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 10:56 PM

"At no time was I advised not to drink the local water, at no time was I told not to eat local produce"

True. But then they didn't tell the Minamata fishermen either.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 11:34 PM

Have Hiroshima and Nagasaki recovered?

The victims of both bombings have been shunned by the general population. Birth defects are still showing up in second and third generations. BUT the bombs which fell on Japan were miniscule compared to what is available today.

"There's no evidence at all that nuclear war is dangerous." I can only assume you are joking.

Which brings me to another observation: since the US is the ONLY country which has seen fit to rain down nuclear devastation, shouldn't it be the first banned from possessing nuclear weapons? Sorry, I honestly do not believe that the Iranians are more likely to use nuclear weapons than the US, Russia, China, Korea or whoever.

Please note: I am not talking about terrorists who are totally unpredictable.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 03:57 AM

SINSULL,

As previously stated and as clearly demonstrated over the last 61 years, the US, Russia, China, France or the UK are not going to use their nuclear weapons, because each country mentioned there possesses second and possibly third strike capability. The use of nuclear weapons would gain nothing bar guaranteed destruction.

The new members to the nuclear club, Pakistan, India and possibly/potentially North Korea, Iran and Israel are all states that only possess first strike capability, where the accepted dictum always was - "who strikes first wins" - remember that the "model" described in the article linked by BB was a regional conflict.

India and Pakistan are not likely to go to war, they are both working very hard to resolve their remaining differences.

SINSULL - As you stated terrorists are totally unpredictable - I note that nobody has dismissed as being impossible the scenario of a weapon being given to a group of international terrorists. This is comforting to know - In the USA your House and Senate Joint Security Committee, in conjunction with your Intelligence and Security Agencies came to that conclusion about five years ago. Now who do you think would be most likely to do that? My bet would be that Iran would donate such a weapon as long as it was to be used against Israel, North Korea has "developed" nuclear weapons to use primarily as a bargaining chip in its negotiations with the outside world. However, if the situation warranted it, it could sell such a group a weapon and not really give a hoot about who it was going to be targeted at.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:57 AM

One thing that bothers me, but never seems to be addressed or considered by anyone, is the CO-EXISTENCE of nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.

Surely, in the event of a war, you take out the enemy's power plants(?)
But what happens if you nuke a nuclear power plant? What happens if you nuke 50 or a 100? My guess is that you spread large quantities of dozens of extremely noxious radio-isotopes, some with extremely long half-lives, over most of the planet - making it uninhabitable - bye, bye human race!

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 05:20 AM

By the bye SINSULL, the statement, ""There's no evidence at all that nuclear war is dangerous." was made by Paul Burke, as his opening sentence in his post of 13 Dec 06 - 04:08 AM. I, for one, am absolutely convinced that he was joking.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 05:57 AM

GUEST,Shimrod, regarding your post of 13 Dec 06 - 06:08 AM. Just a couple of points:

1. Tony Blair has NOT committed to any renewal of Britain's current stockpile of Trident Mk II missiles. In fact he is considering reducing the number of warheads kept by the UK.

2. Up until the point that India and Pakistan joined the "club" nuclear disarmament amongst the five major nuclear powers was going well, something like a 60% reduction in the number of operational warheads from "Cold War" levels.

3. You castigate Bush and Blair but fail to mention Chirac of France. On the announcement by Iran that it was going ahead with its uranium enrichment programme, Chirac made a statement that France was going to reconfigure one third of it's submarine launched nuclear missiles to counter any attack on France, French interests or French allies by any future Iranian nuclear device.

4. With countries such as North Korea and Iran apparently proceeding hell-for-leather in the race to acquire nuclear weapons, I can think of two very good reasons for retaining nuclear weapons, neither have got anything to do with being 'poodles' of the Military-Industrial complex

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 09:39 AM

Teribus fails to add that childhood leukemia rates have risen 90% since nuclear testing began. And that is just the tip of the iceburg.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Peace
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 10:19 AM

This won't be a hot flash (pardon the pun in poor taste), but nuclear war is NOT good for people and other living things. I really don't care what the experts say. In part, nuclear bombs are just REALLY big explosions. However, they have some nasty side effects that we don't completely understand. Until we do, we shouldn't fuck with the things. And maybe after we do understand the side effects we shouldn't fuck with the things either. That is my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 10:21 AM

Teribus,

May I point out that Mr Blair is certainly not going to scrap Trident - I believe that he also plans to spend several billion pounds on it (I would guess that that represents a bit more than just a 'lick of paint').

As for Monsieur Chirac - you don't surprise me at all!

I also refuse to retract my comments about 'poodles' . Bush, Blair, Chirac, and other leaders of the 'Free World', are all the same; when running for office they make promises designed to please the voters and tax payers 'in the street'; when they get into office they forget about those voters and tax payers and just respond to orders from their 'masters' in Big Business. Never forget that there are big profits in war.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Paul Burke
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 11:08 AM

I suppose it's also worth noting that we don't control our 'independent' nuclear force. If some idiot wanted to play fireworks, he'd have to ask permission from the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Peace
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 11:17 AM

With deepest respect to everyone who's posted to this thread, y'all might wanna give this gal a good listen. I believed her three decades ago and I believe her now.

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: number 6
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 11:21 AM

"I study nuclear science
I love my classes
I got a crazy teacher, he wears dark glasses
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades
I gotta wear shades, I gotta wear shades "

... exerpt from "The Future's So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades" by Timbuk3

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: nuclear war dangerous
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 09:36 PM

I quite agree Shimrod, Mr. Blair is not going to scrap Trident. But counter to what you might think you have read, or been told, the British Government is not going to spent a penny on Trident above normal operating costs. They have also been reviewing whether or not to scrap 48 of Britain's 200 nuclear warheads.