Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on March 12, 2022, 06:41:52 PM
-
Nuclear war would kill tens of millions of people, but dudes, the climate change would be totally worse. Especially if world militaries started driving their gas and diesel vehicles around afterwards.
These people are retarded.
Outside of the direct effects of the bombs themselves, the full effect of a nuclear exchange could be even worse. If several years of gasoline- and diesel-fueled conventional military operations followed the global destruction, then the permanent consequences for the climate system would be even worse. That would also be true if society tried to rebuild by undertaking a fossil-powered reconstruction—and that would very likely be the case. The ruins of our postwar society would be poorer, and fossil reserves are the easiest energy sources to locate. Renewables, wind turbines, and other decarbonization technology, meanwhile, require secure factories, highly educated engineers, and complicated global networks of trade and exchange. They depend, in other words, on everything that peace provides. Solving climate change is a luxury of a planet at peace with itself.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/03/12/the-atlantic-even-a-minor-nuclear-skirmish-would-prove-disastrous-for-climate-change/
-
And that would be racist
-
Minority women and children affected the worst.
-
Oy vey anotha shoa.
-
It's an apocalyptic cult.
-
"I dunno, Pete, I thought I saw a gas station down there somewhere. You see anything out your way? Over."
(https://i.redd.it/718t23sqp4v41.jpg)
I won't take bets on whether there'll be enough survivors, either numerically or in population density, to sustain the species.
Any species.
Chicxulub event all over again, in spades.
Terry, 230RN
Pic credit in properties
-
Ummm, haven’t they seen The Book of Eli?
-
John Kerry lamented that worst effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - which has already killed thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of people was that it diverted people's attention from addressing global warming. (Or climate change, or whatever today's scam-du-jure is.)
-
John Kerry lamented that worst effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - which has already killed thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of people was that it diverted people's attention from addressing global warming. (Or climate change, or whatever today's scam-du-jure is.)
Yeah I saw that.
Sure he hopped on his private electric jet to someplace exotic just to say that.
-
Wait. Won't the global cooling from the nuclear winter effects offset the global warming from... well, whatever causes that? Aside from the radiation deaths.
What am I missing here? Did I skip a post? Am I having a senior moment?
Terry, 230RN
-
So if they want to avoid this, do they want us to aim all our nuclear weapons at the largest greenhouse gas emitters? (not the US and Russia)
-
Can the shock wave or EMP from the first missile on a city upset the aim of the second? Or the third? Or fourth?
Asking for a friend.
Terry, 230RN
-
Can the shock wave or EMP from the first missile on a city upset the aim of the second? Or the third? Or fourth?
Asking for a friend.
Terry, 230RN
Some people think so. Several decades ago, they were looking at ways to deploy a new missile system (MX?) and there were several ideas under consideration, from racetrack to dense pack. The latter involved super-hardened silos put fairly close together with the presumption that a nuke targeting one would throw off the nukes targeting others.
A little more thought told the powers-that-be that it wouldn't work very well, and people began calling it "dunce pack."
I imagine it would depend a lot on how close the warheads were coming in both space and time. If it takes a HUGE separation, then the whole concept of MIRVs is flawed.
-
Can the shock wave or EMP from the first missile on a city upset the aim of the second? Or the third? Or fourth?
Asking for a friend.
Terry, 230RN
It shouldn't if they are ICBM's. By that stage the warheads are ballistic. I don't think there is much, if any, terminal guidance on a MIRV. The aiming is done by the warhead bus before releasing the warhead.
Also, remember that an EMP's effect on any given piece of electronics is in relation to how much wiring or circuit tracing there is for the pulse to induct current in. Limiting extraneous circuitry and building metal shells around electronics is a pretty easy way to harden them.
-
I would think if a nuclear blast was enough to deflect a ballistic warhead coming in, it might be enough to cause damage. However, the spread on the deployment is probably enough to avoid it even if 4 or 5 were hitting the same city.
Remember the actual nuclear blasts are limited to a number of square miles. The question is how much fallout affects things in the area and how long that takes to dissipate.