Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Destroyer of illusions, Oct 29, 2018.
There's a debate with a majority opinion, not a consensus.
They're not the only scientists investigating the idea.
So? It is still an ideologically driven research and not objectively based on evidence.
You know this because...?
I can read. I can read about how the concept originated with Sagan and his cohorts anti nuclear weapons zeal and not based on any actual evidence.
Then you can read that other researchers are looking at impact of a number of nuclear weapons, of different yields, are used at the same time. A lot of the research and speculation has taken place since Sagan died more than twenty years ago.
You forgot to give a link to the words of McCain about the Crimea. Are these your sources?Even the American president called it - fake news
Who is your doctor?
After the end of World War I, the leaders were so greatly amazed at the number of deaths and destruction. (And also the appearance of deadly military equipment at that time) that they were sure that there would never be a war again. But we all know what happened next. Is not it? And we also know that the United States can use a nuclear bomb against civilians without regret.
I think that the propaganda of war, the heightening of fear that either North Korea or Iran would attack the United States are connected with the political situation in the United States, which is a consequence of the economic problems of the United States, the European Union, Japan and other leading economic countries. In other words, oligarchies need war. In order to zero debts and try to save their fortunes. There is no other reason. Wars have always been fundamentally economic. All wars, and religious as well.
The eruption of the Krakatoa volcano in 535, led to death, famine, global climate change around the world for centuries.
Information about the tragedy came to us thanks to historians who managed to capture on parchment what they saw or heard from witnesses to the disaster. A prominent religious figure of the sixth century, John of Ephesus, in his Church Stories, wrote these words: "The sun went dark and its darkness lasted for 18 months. Every day it shone only for 4 hours, but this light was only a faint shadow. Everyone thought that the sun will never shine again in full force. "
The contemporary historian David Case, in his writings Catastrophe, published in 1999, claims that the disaster was global. Directly or indirectly, it led to the death of many people, had an impact on the lives of all continents and probably caused the fall of the Roman Empire. The subsequent 100-year period entered our history under the name "Dark Ages".
And now imagine what awaits humanity after a global nuclear war. I think the biblical "and the living will envy the dead" is what really happens.
I will ask this could either nation or combined together invade the United States and hope to hold her by occupation yes or no? Could the armed forced if forced to defend the continental United States for say two years conventionally yes or no? If both are a NO then the only reason to do such an attack would be to force us to retract to our nation and secure North America in a military action forcing us into an eventual favorable treaty unless they want to go nuclear there would be no reason to go there. Plus China would lose all US trade forever and all our factory interests will relocate and I bet to safe nations who are better disposed to us maybe Brazil and India would benefit.
So the missile differences don't matter to me unless they use it and must we add such an attack would activate the NATO alliance and our Pacific defense treaties that is one area we have an advantage our allies and hopefully they will be worth the paper we wrote them down on.
It's the Missile Gap all over again, like deja vu repeating itself
Yet you push one agenda and argue against anything that contradicts it?
Yea, that is why I rarely venture down here into the political areas of the forum. I tend to find that 80% of those down here are insane to be honest.
Most of the Nuclear Winter theories were debunked decades ago, even by those who proposed them in the first place. Today, the consensus is that at worst, it would be a "Nuclear Fall". Every one of their theories was blown apart by multiple discoveries.
First, was that all of their mock-ups and calculations were given a real world test in 1991 and 100% failed. Not a single one of their predictions came true at all.
Secondly, was the realization that the KT Event was not simply an asteroid impact, but a "perfect storm" of several things. First the Deccan Traps, which had been one of many volcanic events worldwide at the same time. And after the Chicxulub impact itself there was a tsunami that wiped clean most of the South and Central United States.
And more recently researchers have started to seriously consider that there was not a single asteroid impact, but multiple impacts. The breakup of Shoemaker-Levy 9 into the Jupiter atmosphere shook a lot of paleontologists and geologists, and made them take closer looks at some of the data they already had.
The Boltysh Crater in the Ukraine and the Silverpit Crater in the North Sea are all roughly the same age as the Chicxulub Crater.
And finally, that the "extinction event" itself likely lasted for almost 10k years. It was not the "instant lights out for dino" that most people tend to believe.
But yea, we actually do have a pretty good idea what the impact would be. And "Nuclear Fall" is how most scientists describe it now.
No country has seriously considered an invasion of the Continental US since the British did it in 1812. We are simply to large, have to armed of a population, and have to strong of a military to make it workable for any nation or group of nations (short of getting the active assistance from Canada and/or Mexico).
However, if such an event was to happen, and say a nation was able to build up massive forces in Mexico then invade say Southern California, then the odds are that nukes would be used would increase greatly. But not as most would think.
If one nation was to use nukes against another, then of course the international outrage would make a pariah of that country. But what is much less sure, is if those nukes were used defensively inside of their own country. Like say instead if nuking Mexico City, the US was to nuke a large military buildup just north of San Diego. It would be hard for the invading force to scream that the nukes were used "aggressively", since they are already in the user's country.
That would be akin to my breaking into somebodies house, then screaming that they were being mean when they shot me for being there.
Oh, China would loose much more than the US trade, they would loose the majority of European and Asian trade as well. Because most of the region would start to instantly scramble for patronage, and many who had once looked to the US would search out others.
And I think there would be many interesting ones out there. The last 70 years have healed a lot of scars, and as odd as it sounds South Korea and the Philippines would likely gravitate towards Japan. And such an attack would likely cause Japan to throw off their self-imposed shackles and return to Superpower status once again.
India would likely be another one in South Asia, even possibly letting their decades of hostility with Pakistan be put to rest in the face of a mutual adversary.
But China could not survive for very long in a protracted war with the US. They have become to dependent upon imported resources in the last 40 years, and their worker base has become more and more industrialized and urbanized. In the past they could close all of the schools and send the students out into the fields to harvest grain and rice. Today, you now have generations of Chinese that have never seen rice grown or harvested.
Sending a large number of Chinese to the fields to do such work today would be like doing the same thing in the US. Where as when Nixon visited China over 85% of the population was agrarian, their modernization has drastically reduced that number until today it is only 35%. That is not enough to maintain their food supply in the event of the loss of resources in a protracted war.
One unique thing about the US, is that it and Russia are really the only 2 countries on the planet that could largely stop all imports and exports, and still maintain themselves. Neither country is majorly dependent upon imports and exports of critical resources in order to maintain itself in the event of a major war. Both could maintain themselves in the areas of food, fuel and raw materials in the event of a major war, China does not have that capability.
In the event of a Sino-American War, I think that ultimately the largest change would be in the Pacific with a resurgent Japan. With the acquisition of either AV8B or F-35B aircraft, their 4 DDH class Helicopter Destroyers could be quickly converted into aircraft carriers.
I only argue against blanket statements for or against it.
That makes absolutely no sense.
You argue that either it was either never real, or that it had to be real.
We know from further research that it was never possible in the way the fanatics predicted. Yet you play one against the other and claim neither was possible?
That is simply being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. And in essence stating that you believe in nothing.
Then why even bother to say anything? It is like being an agonist and jumping into a thread about religion between believers and atheists.
It makes sense if you see that the potential impact is still an open question.
I believe we haven't gotten to the bottom of the question.
I reject your analogy.
But there is an answer......
Actually we do... Nuclear weapons are dwarfed by the power of a volcano and we have had plenty of those going off in real catastrophic ways. Plenty of the nuclear winter advocates based their hypothesis on what happened following the Krakatoa explosion in 1883 which had a planetary impact (the ashes released dropped the global temperature by 0,18 to 1,3C and caused a vast amount of acid rain which impacted the recolts). But dispersed individual nuclear weapons will never have that same impact. It will totally **** up the area they explode in, for a few miles.
Separate names with a comma.