dc0de wrote:

AL GORE: What is unique about the climate crisis is that it could end all human civilisation.

It seems that Al Gore has forgotten about the Cold War, Mutually Assured Destruction, SLBM's, ICBM's, and the Duck and Cover movies...

I know I haven't forgotten...

Is it me, or is it that every time Al Gore opens his mouth, he switches feet?

This is actually different. In all of those cases, no one doing anything would mean maintaining the status quo, meaning everyone is still here. Not making a change here means a serious problem.

dc0de wrote:

AL GORE: What is unique about the climate crisis is that it could end all human civilisation.

It seems that Al Gore has forgotten about the Cold War, Mutually Assured Destruction, SLBM's, ICBM's, and the Duck and Cover movies...

I know I haven't forgotten...

Is it me, or is it that every time Al Gore opens his mouth, he switches feet?

The difference is that even during a full on nuclear exchange at the height of the cold war (1984 I believe), there would still be humans left. The death tolls would be significant, in the hundreds of millions to even a billion, but about half of the population would survive after the exchange, and a half again after the nuclear winter subsided. There were never enough arms to totally wipe out the human race. And a large section of the population didn't live near primary targets.

Now when you're talking about climate change, and many of the models indicate not only intolerable shifts in temperature as well as the atmosphere changing to essentially be poisonous, then I think he has a point. Granted, it would take hundreds of years to get to this state, but it's a lot more deadly consequence than the 90 minutes it would take to get off a nuclear exchange.

In any case, I think that it's disgusting that humans keep figuring out ways to eradicate large portions of life by ever more clever means.

The difference is that even during a full on nuclear exchange at the height of the cold war (1984 I believe), there would still be humans left. The death tolls would be significant, in the hundreds of millions to even a billion, but about half of the population would survive after the exchange, and a half again after the nuclear winter subsided. There were never enough arms to totally wipe out the human race. And a large section of the population didn't live near primary targets.

Wrong. There were enough Nuclear weapons on the planet at the height of the cold war to destroy all human live four times over. And it doesn't matter if a large section of the population didn't live near primary targets (which wasn't true either), because the climatological changes post an all out nuclear war would have destroyed all life on earth.

Now when you're talking about climate change, and many of the models indicate not only intolerable shifts in temperature as well as the atmosphere changing to essentially be poisonous, then I think he has a point. Granted, it would take hundreds of years to get to this state, but it's a lot more deadly consequence than the 90 minutes it would take to get off a nuclear exchange.

See above... those who die in the first 90 minutes would be the lucky ones. I was actually happy that I did grow up in a primary target area, because I wouldn't have to be around to suffer the end of man.

Actually, Nature has a way of controlling the climate. (hint) It's the largest unexplored area of our planet. El Nino is just the beginning. As more polar ice (fresh water) melts, and gets into the circulatory flow of the planet, changes the salinity of the current flows, causing temperatures of waters of all the world to change, effecting the climate directly.

We can continue to pollute the earth, the climate will change, and adjust, and begin eradicating humans. I really DON'T care, because nature will still survive. If it is our destiny to destroy ourselves, who are we to stop it?

dc0de wrote:

The difference is that even during a full on nuclear exchange at the height of the cold war (1984 I believe), there would still be humans left. The death tolls would be significant, in the hundreds of millions to even a billion, but about half of the population would survive after the exchange, and a half again after the nuclear winter subsided. There were never enough arms to totally wipe out the human race. And a large section of the population didn't live near primary targets.

Wrong. There were enough Nuclear weapons on the planet at the height of the cold war to destroy all human live four times over. And it doesn't matter if a large section of the population didn't live near primary targets (which wasn't true either), because the climatological changes post an all out nuclear war would have destroyed all life on earth.

Now when you're talking about climate change, and many of the models indicate not only intolerable shifts in temperature as well as the atmosphere changing to essentially be poisonous, then I think he has a point. Granted, it would take hundreds of years to get to this state, but it's a lot more deadly consequence than the 90 minutes it would take to get off a nuclear exchange.

See above... those who die in the first 90 minutes would be the lucky ones. I was actually happy that I did grow up in a primary target area, because I wouldn't have to be around to suffer the end of man.

Actually, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Only in a war mongers dream world would that be possible. I will admit that I was wrong about the height of the cold war. It's being pegged at 1966 for the US, where the US had approx 32K nuclear warheads in its arsenal. And 1986 for the Soviets, where they had an estimated 45K warheads.

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), not all of those were active or serviceable for an exchange, plus at any given time, the type of units available were not necessarily high megaton devices for strategic targets (ie capitals, military bases, manufacturing centers, etc) which would be needed to do the most damage. Most units in service at any given time were for small tactical operations or non-strategic targets like destroying ships, launch platforms, armor, or large troop deployments. While doing some damage, these types of devices would not be nearly enough to cause global climate change, even if used in the hundreds. The ratio of non-strategic to strategic warheads is something like 5:1 at it's closest. It's probably more like 10:1 practically. The only way these types of warheads could've caused significant climate damage would've been if every shot got off and exploded somewhere that hadn't already been hit. Hitting the same target with multiple warheads wouldn't cause more climate damage. It wouldn't even raise the half life of the radioactivity for the target a... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

Cool.

I'm glad you were in the military during the cold war, and had access to the actual figures of weapons systems, yields and were a Subject Matter Expert on Bomb Damage Assessment, tactical and strategic targeting, and nuclear release.

It all makes sense now.

Oh, and whatever you do, don't look around on the web, (it took me all of 30 seconds) and look at Nuclear Weapons Yields. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield) If you look at the force related to the size of the fireball, and KT Yield ratings, you'll note that these weapons were FAR larger than the tiny weapons deployed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But hey, you believe what you want, and ignore the facts... I guess it's all good...

Of course, you could also forget that CURRENTLY the United States has the following Nuclear Weapons:

1. Land Based ICBMs
US Air Force currently operates just over 500 ICBMs at around 15 missile complexes located primarily in the northern Rocky Mountain states and the Dakotas. These are all of the Minuteman III ICBM variants. To comply with the START II most US multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, have been eliminated and replaced with single warhead missiles. However, since the abandonment of the START II treaty, the U.S. is said to be considering retaining 800 warheads on 500 missiles.

2 Sea-based ICBMs
The US Navy currently has 12 SSBN Ohio-class submarines deployed. Each submarine is equipped with a complement of 24 Trident II missiles. (Trident IID Missiles, carrying 5x300KT Highly Accurate MIRV Warheads x 24 tubes, x 12 SSBN's = 1440 Warheads or 432MT) In addition approximately 12 U.S. attack submarines are equipped to launch, but do not currently carry, nuclear Tomahawk missiles. Sea-launch weapons make up the majority of weapons declared under START II rules. The U.S. keeps its 320 Tomahawk missiles at Bangor, Washington, and Kings Bay, Georgia.

3 Additional weapons
In addition to this the US armed forces can also deploy tactical smaller nuclear weapons either through cruise missiles or with conventional fighter-bombers. The U.S. maintains about 850 nuclear gravity bombs today. Some 480 of these bombs are deployed at eight airbases in six European NATO countries.

This isn't the COLD WAR, this is TODAY.

Approximate Grand Total?

Strategic ICBMs ~ 800 Warheads (Yield 300-500Kt ea.)
Sea-Based ICBMs ~ 1440 Warheads (Yield 300Kt ea.) [SSBNs]
~ 144 Warheads (Yield 200Kt ea.) [Fast Attack]
Additional Weapons ~ 800 bombs ~ (Yields selectable as follows: 0.3, 1.5, 5, 10, 45, 60, 60, 80, 170, and 340 kilotons)

Total? ~ 3,184 Warheads (lowest total yield:640,240 Kilotons, highest possbile yield: 1,072,000 Kilotons, Avg yield per warhead: 538 Kilotons)

Just for your edification, the two weapons that have been deployed in wartime (Little Boy - Hiroshima, and Fat Man - Nagasaki, were 15, and 21 Kilotons respectively).

So I guess I'm wrong...

.

Approximate Grand Total?

Strategic ICBMs ~ 800 Warheads (Yield 300-500Kt ea.)
Sea-Based ICBMs ~ 1440 Warheads (Yield 300Kt ea.) [SSBNs]
~ 144 Warheads (Yield 200Kt ea.) [Fast Attack]
Additional Weapons ~ 800 bombs ~ (Yields selectable as follows: 0.3, 1.5, 5, 10, 45, 60, 60, 80, 170, and 340 kilotons)

Total? ~ 3,184 Warheads (lowest total yield:640,240 Kilotons, highest possbile yield: 1,072,000 Kilotons, Avg yield per warhead: 538 Kilotons)

Just for your edification, the two weapons that have been deployed in wartime (Little Boy - Hiroshima, and Fat Man - Nagasaki, were 15, and 21 Kilotons respectively).

So I guess I'm wrong...

yep. cuz you didn't read what I wrote. For one, all of those weapons would not be able to be launched because they would either be destroyed on the first strikes, or there would be no command & control systems left to arm and fire them after the first or second strikes. Second, more than 1/3 of what you list as current armament are tactical weapons and most wouldn't be fired in an all out exchange, plus their yields are too small for any long term climate damage.

Plus simply adding up the # of warheads and the yield per class doesn't give you a good picture of total tonnage or even average tonnage. You could still be off by at least 1 standard deviation using that technique, possibly more.

But y'know... thanks for not being a dick about it.

Strategic ICBMs ~ 800 Warheads (Yield 300-500Kt ea.)
Sea-Based ICBMs ~ 1440 Warheads (Yield 300Kt ea.) [SSBNs]
~ 144 Warheads (Yield 200Kt ea.) [Fast Attack]

yep. cuz you didn't read what I wrote. For one, all of those weapons would not be able to be launched because they would either be destroyed on the first strikes, or there would be no command & control systems left to arm and fire them after the first or second strikes. Second, more than 1/3 of what you list as current armament are tactical weapons and most wouldn't be fired in an all out exchange, plus their yields are too small for any long term climate damage.

Plus simply adding up the # of warheads and the yield per class doesn't give you a good picture of total tonnage or even average tonnage. You could still be off by at least 1 standard deviation using that technique, possibly more.

Ok, so cut it in half... you're saying that no long term climatological changes would be in effect for 1/2 or even 1/3? Ok... I'm no climatologist, but if one volcano can effect the global climate, I don't see how we can miss having 192,000 Kilotons (1/3 of the smallest figure) of Nuclear explosions, and resulting material floating in the stratosphere without effecting the climate...

and for the record, I'm having a spirited discussion... and I DID read what you wrote...

If you really think that the Nuclear Command Control and Communications system would be broken for 2nd and 3rd strikes, I might suggest that your information regarding the strength of the nuclear arsenal of the United States might not be accurate. I am, however, interested in how the SLBM fleet would be disabled... and therefore could not fire their weapons...

dc0de wrote:

Strategic ICBMs ~ 800 Warheads (Yield 300-500Kt ea.)
Sea-Based ICBMs ~ 1440 Warheads (Yield 300Kt ea.) [SSBNs]
~ 144 Warheads (Yield 200Kt ea.) [Fast Attack]

yep. cuz you didn't read what I wrote. For one, all of those weapons would not be able to be launched because they would either be destroyed on the first strikes, or there would be no command & control systems left to arm and fire them after the first or second strikes. Second, more than 1/3 of what you list as current armament are tactical weapons and most wouldn't be fired in an all out exchange, plus their yields are too small for any long term climate damage.

Plus simply adding up the # of warheads and the yield per class doesn't give you a good picture of total tonnage or even average tonnage. You could still be off by at least 1 standard deviation using that technique, possibly more.

Ok, so cut it in half... you're saying that no long term climatological changes would be in effect for 1/2 or even 1/3? Ok... I'm no climatologist, but if one volcano can effect the global climate, I don't see how we can miss having 192,000 Kilotons (1/3 of the smallest figure) of Nuclear explosions, and resulting material floating in the stratosphere without effecting the climate...

and for the record, I'm having a spirited discussion... and I DID read what you wrote...

If you really think that the Nuclear Command Control and Communications system would be broken for 2nd and 3rd strikes, I might suggest that your information regarding the strength of the nuclear arsenal of the United States might not be accurate. I am, however, interested in how the SLBM fleet would be disabled... and therefore could not fire their weapons...

Just to clarify, I didn't postulate that there would be no climate change. I stated that life on earth would not be destroyed in a full on exchange between all nuclear powers at the height of the Cold War. There would DEFINITELY be climate damage, for decades, with probably 3/4 of the world's population murdered. But it would not cease life on Earth, even human life.

I'm guessing when I say that most launch sites and depots would be destroyed by the first or second rounds. I don't really know. I'm sure C&C would survive in pockets and may be even fully operational, but even NORAD would've gotten destroyed in a full on exchange. I gotta think that all sides know exactly how to disable each other and they know where all the depots, launch sites, and distribution facilities are. That's why despite the Cold War being 'over', there are still hundreds of spies deployed. Wherever Dick Cheney was hiding is probably not enough to keep the joint chiefs of staff in operation and command of the force following a full on exchange. They may be able to regroup after a few days though. Who knows. I don't really want to find out.

As for the SBLM fleet, it's an excellent launch platform, since you can get very close to strategic targets that are deep within enemy territory or highly protected. But that doesn't mean that they are immune from disability. For one, they are severely limited in their armament loads, so they might only be able to get off a few more rounds than a stealth bomber before they are either destroyed or run out. Second, if they are truly close to enemy territory in order to do the most damage for a highly strategic target, then they are also in the most danger of being destroyed by other subs, destroyers, or tactical surface missiles. As the Russians proved many times, you can't dive very deep in the Black Sea or the Arctic Circle.

Don't get me wrong. I'm enjoying the discussion. Makes me want to play a game of Fallout!