|
United States22883 Posts
|
Calgary25954 Posts
You seriously just posted a link to a 19 page journal with a two sentence lead in?
|
that's our jibba!
*levels rifle and zeros in sights
|
United States22883 Posts
Do you know what the 'Introduction' part of a report means?
|
Calgary25954 Posts
No but I know what closed means. Heyo! *high five*
Edit: Decided to leave it open.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
well I don't think it is any great mystery that a nuclear war would end all or most life.. putting that on some kind of a time table however is impossible.
Every generation is fascinated with the concept of it being the generation that witnesses doomsday.
|
United States22883 Posts
It's a 20 page report discussed in a high level political science class. 20 pages (plus like 6-7 graphs) is ridiculously short and I'm sure some people are curious about real academia. Also, this is the blog section, and I'm pretty sure if I posted nothing but the link, it would still contain more content than 9/10 Scorpion blogs.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
don't be so modest you know damn well it would have more content than 100% of his blogs.. sheesh.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 11 2008 02:14 {88}iNcontroL wrote: well I don't think it is any great mystery that a nuclear war would end all or most life.. putting that on some kind of a time table however is impossible.
Report says 3+ years for the US/Australia/Canada and other countries with large grain stores. Smaller countries wouldn't last a year, and possibly only a few weeks/months if it occurred right before the harvest.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
No I mean a timetable for when a nuclear war would happen. Sure we would die off in 3 years but that could be 3 years in 2200 or 3 years from today.
|
I highly doubt this will happen and I'm not at all worried about global warming. Edit:But nonetheless it's an interesting report.
|
United States22883 Posts
I don't think the US or Russia would ever really use nuclear weapons, especially since our conventional weapons are so "good" these days. A far greater concern, IMO, is the conflict between Pakistan, by far the most unstable nuclear country in the world, and India, a country with a weak military central command system. Neither country's weapons program is particularly advanced like the US, China or Russia and they really only have first strike capabilties, which is probably the riskiest part of the nuclear "game", like where the US and Russia were in 1947-50.
Look at the front page of BBC South Asia today. If the article is accurate (and it's based off the best calculations at the time, I don't think it's been disproven since) then China and the surrounding countries are put in a very poor position.
BTW, the predictions in that article/book are not based on large scale USA vs. USSR MAD style warfare, but really a relatively small conflict.
|
On September 11 2008 05:52 Jibba wrote: I don't think the US or Russia would ever really use nuclear weapons, especially since our conventional weapons are so "good" these days. A far greater concern, IMO, is the conflict between Pakistan, by far the most unstable nuclear country in the world, and India, a country with a weak military central command system. Neither country's weapons program is particularly advanced like the US, China or Russia and they really only have first strike capabilties, which is probably the riskiest part of the nuclear "game", like where the US and Russia were in 1947-50.
Look at the front page of BBC South Asia today. If the article is accurate (and it's based off the best calculations at the time, I don't think it's been disproven since) then China and the surrounding countries are put in a very poor position.
BTW, the predictions in that article/book are not based on large scale USA vs. USSR MAD style warfare, but really a relatively small conflict.
Very true, most of the more advanced nations have policies against striking first with nuclear weapons. Iran is also a worry imo, but at this point I doubt they have nuclear weapons. In the future though they could pose a threat and I'm sure nuclear capability is high on their list of goals considering their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the planet.
|
On September 11 2008 06:10 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2008 05:52 Jibba wrote: I don't think the US or Russia would ever really use nuclear weapons, especially since our conventional weapons are so "good" these days. A far greater concern, IMO, is the conflict between Pakistan, by far the most unstable nuclear country in the world, and India, a country with a weak military central command system. Neither country's weapons program is particularly advanced like the US, China or Russia and they really only have first strike capabilties, which is probably the riskiest part of the nuclear "game", like where the US and Russia were in 1947-50.
Look at the front page of BBC South Asia today. If the article is accurate (and it's based off the best calculations at the time, I don't think it's been disproven since) then China and the surrounding countries are put in a very poor position.
BTW, the predictions in that article/book are not based on large scale USA vs. USSR MAD style warfare, but really a relatively small conflict. Very true, most of the more advanced nations have policies against striking first with nuclear weapons. Iran is also a worry imo, but at this point I doubt they have nuclear weapons. In the future though they could pose a threat and I'm sure nuclear capability is high on their list of goals considering their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the planet.
Khamenei is not suicidal and neither was Khomeini. It's doubtful that we'll see a Supreme Leader of Iran who is any time soon.
|
or maybe we will die before we feel the devastating effects of global warming let our children and grandchildren suffer for the mistakes of our parents and grandparents
|
United States22883 Posts
Well a nuclear war would counter-act global warming. Temperatures would drop 3+ C worldwide.
|
|
|
|