Myths About Nuclear War

http://www.aussurvivalist.com/nuclear_war/nuclear_facts_vs_myths.htm

Hey, Cleve’s back!

Um…why?

Edit: Well, I guess he came back yesterday…but, again, why?

You’re right, it’d only kill 90% of the population, with the last 10% wishing they were dead. Touche`!

Ooh, whatta loss it would be, too!

I can’t believe I read all that, but it was really facinating.

But that site is spouting as much propaganda as it claims to refute. It’s a sales pitch attempting to sell people on their need for shelters. Obviously they got sick of hearing “why should I bother with a shelter when the world is just going to be a living hell anyway?”. So they write up a myth/fact sheet that in itself relies on unproven numbers and selective study sighting.

The biggest issue is their refutation of the nuclear winter theory. Instead of disproving the theory, the writer simply states that theory can be disproven, but the people who would disprove it just aren’t the type of people that get involved in government matter. The writer is counting on a deus ex machina to show up and suddenly demonstrate why nuclear winter is bunk.

Serious climatic effects from a Soviet-U.S. nuclear war cannot be completely ruled out. However, possible deaths from uncertain climatic effects are a small danger compared to the incalculable millions in many countries likely to die from starvation caused by disastrous shortages of essentials of modern agriculture sure to result from a Soviet-American nuclear war, and by the cessation of most international food shipments.

In otherwords: ok, so maybe nuclear winter will happen and it will be horrible. But not as horrible as all the other problems! So many people will be dying of starvation that a little multiyear blocking of the sun is nothing to worry about.

Who cares about all this crap. We’re all going to die someday anyway !

You obviously are not very well read. Carl Sagan publicly confessed in many different forums that he was wrong to propagate the nuclear winter hypothesis and that he was duped by Soviet scientists into studying the issue.

Serious climatic effects from a Soviet-U.S. nuclear war cannot be completely ruled out. However, possible deaths from uncertain climatic effects are a small danger compared to the incalculable millions in many countries likely to die from starvation caused by disastrous shortages of essentials of modern agriculture sure to result from a Soviet-American nuclear war, and by the cessation of most international food shipments.

In otherwords: ok, so maybe nuclear winter will happen and it will be horrible. But not as horrible as all the other problems! So many people will be dying of starvation that a little multiyear blocking of the sun is nothing to worry about.

You’re exactly right. What do you think a couple cold years means to somebody like me? That’s tea time. I could shrug that like water off a duck’s back. Sure, consumer units like yourself might be aboveground freezing to death in their SUVs weeping and wondering how come the fuel light is blinking, but true humans like myself are not going to seriously consider a few years of Vermont style weather to be the end of human civilization. If that’s the worst we have to worry about we are pretty secure in saying a global thermonuclear war is not that big a deal.

I’ve got several thousand litres of diesel stored long term in an underground bay and I could probably run my electrical system without sunlight for at least ten years off generator power alone. Some marxist birdbrain shrieking about the fifty year nuclear winter is just plain rubbish, it’s more middle-class voodoo. The truth is that most people are stone age primitives who regard nuclear weapons as the big Kahuna and use them as a deus ex machina to integrate into their weird notions of guaranteed company when their nation’s dopey Jerry Springer cultures finally get their just desserts. I’ve got a better idea - how about we start acting like sentient lifeforms and get realistic civil defense programs? Oh, that’s a big ask you see. Reality and whatnot, it’s all so complex. Let’s just forget about all of it and watch more Oprah instead and try not to think about any grownup issues or anything that is in any way linked to sanity in our lives. Buy Martha Stewart products, watch cable tv, sip cappuccino and tsk, tsk.

Soon, you won’t have the option of ignoring the issues of civil defense, national sovereignty, fiat money, cultural homogeneity and the survival of western civilization. The chickens are coming home to roost and they won’t be shushed away by another Oprah broadcast this time.

It’s not about who is “right.” This isn’t a television chat show. It is about who will be left.

Considering you are resorting to the ever popular “appeal to authority” - and on nuclear winter there are few better authorities than Dr. Sagan - I’m going to have to ask for a citation here. I can find no reference to such a confession.

Troy

Do you have any links off-hand to that sort of admission, Cleve? Interesting article, by the way.

Stefan

Being relatively new to these boards…

Cleve = educated troll?

Do you have any links off-hand to that sort of admission, Cleve? Interesting article, by the way.

Stefan[/quote]

http://mediawhore.wi2600.org/mirrors/textfiles.com/survival/nkwrmelt.txt

Carl Sagan predicted that the 1991 Kuwaiti oil fires would throw up so much soot and pollution they would darken the sun and catastrophically cool the earth. (What a gammy-eyed goofball!) Sagan was speaking outside his field of expertise, basing his prediction on the nuclear winter theories (which he already admitted may have been based on bad comp sims) that atmospheric scientists had formed in their study of a potential nuclear war. Needless to say, nuclear wars are far more serious than oil fires, and Sagan’s prediction did not come true – at least to the degree that he thought it would. Perhaps he was spending too much time on that cardboard Star Trek set at PBS muttering about his “billions and billions” of particles of nuclear ash. The guy was a vain performing artist and a bit of a naff loon, in my opinion. all he needed was a turban on his head with a feather sticking out of it. Like a lot of “skeptics” you needed to be a bit skeptical about this pencil necked geek when reading his books. I’ve never read the kind of crappy hack flowery prose scrawled in hammy texts like BROCA’s BRAIN in my life. Amazingly bad writing. Carl loved to use really weird malapropisms and big words in the wrong context. He should have been writing for Bush Jr. or putting out his own Xmas albums crooning away about the “Fecundity of fossil field fallacies amidst the laconic laity! Oh, baby, won’t you be home for a white snowwwwwwooohh!” He could be in a duet with Stevie “Screamin’ Garlic Breath” Jay Gould!

Good debunk from here :

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s05.htm

Another good summary of Oprah crowd mythology in general :

http://www.ki4u.com/survive/doomsday.htm

I love it when bug-eyed right-wingers quote The Wall Street Journal editorial page as if it was some kind of even-handed, temperate journal of reason.

The particular article you linked to attempts to persuade, when you cut through all the bullshit rhetoric, that since a 100 megaton, tactical nuclear exchange would fail to produce a nuclear winter, no such thing as nuclear winter must exist.

Unfortunately at the time of that article’s writing there were about 10,000 megatons of nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States and the USSR. The WSJ test case of a 100 megaton exchange presumably was chosen to justify their political desire to place and then keep tactical nuclear weapons in Europe (which Reagan did, if I recall correctly), which might produce just such an event.

What we have here is a perfect example of Rush-Limbaughesque conservative “logic”, which is to find the most extreme left-wing argument being advanced by anyone anywhere, debunk it (easy enough, since you’ve gone out of your way to assault only the most hair-brained claims of the left), and declare the entire field of inquiry settled in favor of an immoderate, right-wing agenda.

The other article (from Arizona) that you linked doesn’t appear worth reading through, but a quick glance indicates that it bears a strong resemblance to the rhetoric of General Jack. D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. I like the line where he says that arguing that a full-scale nuclear war would wipe out life on earth as we know it is a “criminal simplification” of the issue.

What sort of foaming-at-the-mouth tin-foil-hatted nutcase, when considering the consequences of nuclear war, places the onus of criminality on those who worry that it will wipe them and their kind out?

Have fun in your bomb shelter.

I’ll have more fun scrubbing your outline off concrete with a wire brush. “Right wing reasoning.” Yeah, that’s … odd. Dude, there’s nothing wrong with you that a sky ring of 220 kiloton airbursts can’t fix.

It’s not about who is right. It’s about who is left. People like you have trouble understanding reality stuff. I predict a cure is in the pipeline.

Well, now everyone can see the extent of your ability to sustain political argument.

I’m not exactly sure how to interpret the “cure is in the pipeline” comment. Is that a threat?

I think that means god will choose cleve as TEH WINNER by nukin’ the rest of us up real good. The same way god has chosen Cleve as the best game developer - you know, by delaying his game endlessly and anointing his belly with TEH HOLY FANNY PACK.

Cleve, I was looking for a citation of Sagan’s confession that he was duped by the Russkies. Though the provided WSJ article makes allusion to Soviet propagandists in the concluding paragraph, but no reference to Sagan admitting being prodded by them. You did intend to cite the confession of this naff loon as evidence that nuclear war wouldn’t be so bad, right?

Troy

I can’t believe you guys are responding to him. Didn’t any of you READ the matrix reloaded thread? We already went over this. I suggest going to the movie section and reading it. Cleve is NOT going to listen to your arguments. He self seals everything he says. if you don’t agree with him, you are an idiot, and therefore everything you say is wrong. So you can’t possibly argue with him. He then throws in some ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority (without citation) and calls it a day. At least, he said he was going to call it a day, but I guess he changed his mind. Fair enough, but fueling him isn’t really helping anything.

It sure is fun though.

Obviously I’m either crazy or stupid or both, depending on who you talk to, but I’d rather work to avoid large-scale nuclear war rather than work to survive it. Somehow I think I’d be better off with the former.

I’m no Sparky, but it’ll have to do.