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 area.

Speaking of which, most of the material used for non-strategic warheads was short half-life, on the order of 20 years or less. So the ecological damage from that would be extraordinarily minimal considering the eons that climate change takes. Yes, there were actually bomb shelters capable of sustaining human life for at least that long. Psychological incapacitation not-withstanding.

You're also forgetting that just because a warhead is launched doesn't mean it hits its target and explodes. Considering that in the 50's and 60's, most of the delivery mechanisms would've been bombers, it's safe to say that not all arms would've made their targets, culling a significant number of them during an all out exchange during this era. If we're talking about a later era and ICBMs and SBLM's, then a higher percentage of targets would've been hit, but probably a lower number of targets, given that the strategy at the time was mutually assured destruction. Meaning that every target had an equal and rationed response target. No one was probably able to fire twice out of a launch platform, so this would severely limit the number of actual warheads levied during an all out exchange. That would not be enough to inflict significant casualties worldwide. Targets under this strategy would be capital cities, ports, manufacturing centers, labs & research centers, distribution hubs, and mines. Even if all nuclear powers were to exchange, that would leave significant territory unexposed to direct hits, and the fallout and nuclear winter effects wouldn't be large enough to wipe out life on earth. Chernobyl gives a pretty good example of what that would've looked like and even if you multiplied that by 100x (doubtful given this scenario), you would still preserve a good number of people. There are a lot of places on the planet that would just not make it high enough up the target list before an exchange would've ceased for many reasons. We're talking maybe 2 hours tops before an exchange would cease due to lack of launching platforms or command and control functions.

Even if you were to use MIRVs, which use a far smaller warhead payload, and thus, inflict less radioactive damage per strike, just over a larger area, you'd still not be able to get enough warheads lobbed between everyone in the amount of time you'd have available before all of your launch platforms were destroyed.

I googled around and could not find one credible source that claimed that there were enough arms to destroy life on earth many times over. There's a lot of quotes and paraphrases to that effect, but nothing that is researched or has any backing whatsoever. Even if someone credible said it, I'm sure that it was meant more to put the urgency in non-proliferation and decommission rather than as any sort of empirical fact. The military strategy is what ultimately rid us of this threat. You can't win. It's been proven over and over again in every scenario run. Of course, that doesn't mean that the earth is destroyed.

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?

It's not our destiny and it won't happen. Humans are far too selfish to let that happen. Just as your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness, so too the inverse is true. Besides, nature needs humans. Otherwise, you have a wonderful beautiful place for nothing.

RE: AM - Gore warns on climate change