Two sides of a very bad coin.

A board for news and views on what's happening in the world

Re: Two sides of a very bad coin.

Postby Workingman » 18 May 2016, 17:09

I read the whole article and for the life of me I still cannot figure out how anyone could countenance any sort of nuclear war as a way of solving climate change.
User avatar
Workingman
 
Posts: 21745
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 15:20

Re: Two sides of a very bad coin.

Postby Kaz » 18 May 2016, 17:34

Madness! Is this for real?? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
User avatar
Kaz
 
Posts: 43352
Joined: 25 Nov 2012, 21:02
Location: Gloucester

Re: Two sides of a very bad coin.

Postby Workingman » 18 May 2016, 17:41

Kaz, try some of the links Suff put up on p2 for answers; the short one is Yes!
User avatar
Workingman
 
Posts: 21745
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 15:20

Re: Two sides of a very bad coin.

Postby Kaz » 18 May 2016, 19:46

I know, I just was having trouble taking it in I think! :shock: :shock: :shock: :( :(
User avatar
Kaz
 
Posts: 43352
Joined: 25 Nov 2012, 21:02
Location: Gloucester

Re: Two sides of a very bad coin.

Postby Workingman » 18 May 2016, 20:00

Me too, but we do have to do something; but for me nuclear war is not it - never will be.
User avatar
Workingman
 
Posts: 21745
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 15:20

Re: Two sides of a very bad coin.

Postby 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.
User avatar
Suff
 
Posts: 10785
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 08:35

Previous

Return to News and Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests