by Suff » 19 May 2016, 01:58
Yes it's all a bit mind boggling isn't it.
If you consider it from two standpoints.
1. that some form of limited nuclear war is virtually guaranteed. Because when one technology reaches a certain proliferation stage it is always used.
and
2. It is now globally recognised that CO2 and Climate change are going to do levels of damage to the world community of Humans that has never been seen before. Plus the fact that the Global Cooling impact of almost any level of nuclear war are well known and documented.
Then it's not that hard to think that someone will
3. Decide that controlling 1. and managing it so that the conflagration doesn't grow beyond the bounds of acceptable mayhem would be a controlled and reasonable answer to 2.
Scary isn't it. That people could believe that it's OK to kill a few hundred million or a billion or two with a war just so that they can avoid losing money on realistic carbon reduction schemes.
Because the science is clear. Putting the world on a WWII style crash programme of developing new clean energy sources and replacing old fossil fuel technologies would, by the centuries end, have us in a position where the species has a good chance of survival.
Anyone who thinks that a small Nuclear war (with all the deaths it would create), is a viable alternative; is not someone who would be welcome in my home.
But someone is clearly thinking it and if it wound up in that journal it wasn't just some off the wall scientist. It was someone in a position to make the politicians believe it's viable.
There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand Binary and those who do not.