US/NATO rule out halt to expansion,reject Russia demands.

That's not much of a living.

 

Platitudes from the beyond !

I take it you are not a "Warrior" then

 

You forgot the locusts: People will flee those cities in droves, and they will come to the suburbs first to pick clean then move on to rural areas. There will be lots of killing in a situation like this, on both sides.
The longer it drags on the worse it will get.

 

We can't be sure because we haven't encountered a nuclear war, let alone a civilian nuclear war.
But the total collapse of society didn't happen with Russia, Germany or Japan during WW2.
dunno.

 

Can you post a link?

 

Wrong. I have never committed any strawman fallacy.

I explained what a straw man fallacy is just a few post up on this very page, in message number 78.

Wrong. I have never committed any strawman fallacy.


-----------------------------------------------------

What's really weird is, a real strawman argument would be a statement that I wrongly attribute to him.

He is referring to my own claims, that I openly attribute to myself.


-----------------------------------------------------

His list of my supposed strawmen is here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...r-over-ukraine.595684/page-26#post-1073193795

My post containing the statements that he refers to is here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...r-over-ukraine.595684/page-25#post-1073193338

Note that all three are my own statements, and in no place do I attribute any of those statements to him.

 

B) China being damaged by the fallout from Russia's destruction is not the same as China being destroyed by direct attack.
C) Russia being damaged by the fallout from China's destruction is not the same as Russia being destroyed by direct attack.


B) didn't say otherwise - Strawman
C) didn't say otherwise - Strawman

 

He's a Potemkin agent ....what do you expect.

He's the type that... one can pi$$ directly on top of his head....and he'll be convinced it's actually raining outside on a bright sunny day.

 

You did say otherwise. You said that destroying the planet through fallout and nuclear winter was good enough.

Even if you had not said otherwise, that would not make it a strawman argument when I make a claim about something.

 

Destroying the Earth through fallout and/or nuclear winter is impossible.

 

It depends on the meaning of "destroying". We can certainly end human civilization and cause a dinosaur-level extinction.

The earth itself will still be here. But we might not be here along with it.

 

That is not possible.

 

Sure it is. A bad nuclear winter will end all growing seasons for multiple years.

 

Nuclear winter is a theory that was debunked years ago. Even Carl Sagan who promoted it most heavily came to admit that the evidence did not support it (mentioned in his biography).

 

That is incorrect. It has not been debunked. The scientific consensus is that if anything it is worse than was originally feared. Some models now predict up to ten years of nuclear winter if a nuclear war is bad enough.

His biography is in error if it claims that. He made no such admission.

He did admit that his prediction of "Iraqi oil fires causing nuclear winter" was wrong. But he never said that the theory of nuclear winter was itself wrong.

The Iraqi oil fires were individual point sources that were too small to loft the smoke high enough. Large urban areas will not be point sources if they burn.

 

I have a copy of his autobiography and the exact wording was that "Carl Sagan was trying to claim something he didn't have evidence of".
and your ignore the obvious. It doesn't matter what the source of he fires are. Smoke and dust in the atmosphere is smoke and dust regardless of whether it came from a nuclear blast or an oil well fire.

computer models are not actual evidence you know.

Hundreds of megatons of nuclear weapons were detonated on and around the Soviet island of Novae Zemyla and it never experienced abnormal cooling.

 

Not a good example. For a start Novae Zemyla already has a polar climate with average lows, depending on the time of year of about -15 to -30 C while at its top it usually never gets warmer than about 10 degrees C! Any cooling effect is simply going to be masked by the prevailing climatic conditions, particularly as the biggest tests were in colder parts of the year. On top of that a lot of the tests were underground which by default limits the amount of debris kicked up into the upper atmosphere. Also the ecosystem while diverse is polar, which basically means there's bugger all to burn nor are there any man made structures to combust.

Finally perhaps the biggest misconception in the above statement is the that a 'nuclear' winter is not a localized effect its a generalized one i.e. a bomb dropped at X location does not automatically cause localized cooling. The effective is distributive - it depends on lots of bombs detonating at lots of different locations so that dust and soot particles etc are widely distributed throughout the atmosphere across all latitudes. Basically detonating 1000 bombs more or less at exactly the same location one after the other is not going to have the atmospheric cooling effects that detonating the same 1000 bombs around the globe all at once will have. And even then?

What is true this that the severity of a 'nuclear winter event' is highly debated with a lot of criticism being directed at some of the earliest models which predicted the severest/most long lasting impacts. It is however generally excepted that there would be an impact, even if it wasn't at the 'doom and gloom' levels initially predicted. (Of course its hardly matters anyway. For the survivors of a global nuclear war arguing about how cold its going to get over the next few years is sort of akin to passengers on the Titanic worrying about having to leave their luggage behind! Their problems will be a little bit more immediate .)

 

]

You were the one said if USA-Russia used all nukes - nuclear winter would destroy world --- I concurred. What I didn't say - nor infer that
B) China being damaged by the fallout from Russia's destruction is not the same as China being destroyed by direct attack.
C) Russia being damaged by the fallout from China's destruction is not the same as Russia being destroyed by direct attack.

 

So cities somehow have more than 3 days of food at a time? Yes or no.
So you can grow crops in irradiated land with no drawbacks? Yes or no.
So you can use regular civilian owned vehicles and gear to pass through irradiated land to deliver supplies? Yes or no.

 

They didn't collapse because they were in total control of the information. And even then they had to send many thousands of their population into concentration camps or gulags and executed thosands more. The exception is Japan which had never really had civilian liberties. They went from having your head chopped off by a samurai for the minuscule of percieved slight to being beatten to death by the Kampetai.

Today, it's quite hard for countries to control all the information, unless they totally close down loke North Korea.

 

That is incorrect. It does matter. A large widespread fire will loft the soot much higher into the atmosphere.

They can be, if they are good enough and properly carried out.

Nuclear winter is not caused by nuclear explosions, but by the burning of cities that have been destroyed by nuclear explosions.

 

Actually one of the newer models predicts that nuclear winter will last at least ten years.

 

Here are your exact words:
"and after retaliation .. the world is destroyed according to you.. .. so no worries .."

 

Yes .. according to you the world is destroyed after US/Russia go to war. So if US attacks Russia - and Russia Retaliates .. the world is destroyed according to you .. along with China.

Nowhere was it claimed that fallout and direct missile hit were the same ... so you are wrong once again.

 

Report of Ukraine military firing on Spartak in Donetsk Oblast [pro-Russian area of east Ukraine.]