Obama: No Nukes- Even in Self Defense

[bascule]

Agreed and neither can one or even several nuclear weapons eliminate everyone on the earth.

 

As was established earlier, the current stockpile of nuclear weapons does have sufficient potential to kill all humans on earth. This is because humans and all other animals evolved in a environment where they were constantly attacked by disease, however we did not evolve in a fallout-ridden high radiation environment like one that would exist after a massive nuclear catastrophe.

 

The detonation of the current nuclear stockpile of ~10,000 nukes, geographically distributed around the world, would create a fallout cloud capable of killing every human on earth.

[Moontanman]

As was established earlier, the current stockpile of nuclear weapons does have sufficient potential to kill all humans on earth. This is because humans and all other animals evolved in a environment where they were constantly attacked by disease, however we did not evolve in a fallout-ridden high radiation environment like one that would exist after a massive nuclear catastrophe.

 

The detonation of the current nuclear stockpile of ~10,000 nukes, geographically distributed around the world, would create a fallout cloud capable of killing every human on earth.

 

And why pray tell would anyone want to do that? I thought we were discussing a retaliatory strike against one nation for using non nuclear WMD's against that country, exactly what scenario would result in the detonation of every nuclear weapon on the earth geographically distributed all over the Earth?

 

 

On the other hand a bio weapon could indeed spread over amuch larger area than one nuke (or even several) ever could and cause far more deaths than one nuke (or even several) ever could.

[bascule]

And why pray tell would anyone want to do that? I thought we were discussing a retaliatory strike against one nation for using non nuclear WMD's against that country

 

No, that's not what you were discussing. As a reminder, here's what you were discussing:

 

Agreed and neither can one or even several nuclear weapons eliminate everyone on the earth.

[Moontanman]

No, that's not what you were discussing. As a reminder, here's what you were discussing:

 

Your point would be?

[bascule]

Your point would be?

 

That several nuclear weapons could kill everyone on earth (everyone being humans)

[Moontanman]

That several nuclear weapons could kill everyone on earth (everyone being humans)

 

Define several, 4, 8, 25, 100?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

For very large values of "several."

[Moontanman]

I don't think any reasonable persons definition of several would suffice to kill everyone on the planet.

[Mr Skeptic]

The detonation of the current nuclear stockpile of ~10,000 nukes, geographically distributed around the world, would create a fallout cloud capable of killing every human on earth.

 

Still, only two countries in the world have the capability to do that (and also I doubt it would kill every human), and neither of them have the motivation to do so at the time nor for the foreseeable future. Biological weapons, on the other hand, could potentially kill most of humanity with one single weapon, possibly as an unintended consequence, and there are several reasons and peoples that might want to use bioweapons.

 

Possible people who might use bioweapons and could have the capability to develop them:

*Small countries

*Terrorists

*Pharmaceutical companies

*A person or group with resources seeking a huge ransom

 

Possible reasons:

*To kill a target small gathering

*To kill people in a city

*To cause global pandemic

*Any of the above, for ransom or other demands

*To create huge demand for a cure

 

And again, bioweapons are the only class of weapons that could unintentionally kill most of the world population with a single weapon. They don't take massive and detectable infrastructure to develop, and much of the necessary knowledge is common knowledge and the equipment needed is all over the place and cannot be regulated.

[Phi for All]

I think if any non-nuclear country devised an unprecedented bio weapon and officially used it to attack and kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, no one is going to hold President Obama to his promise not to retaliate with nukes. It would be like someone vowing not to use a gun on an unarmed opponent, only to find out that the opponent is a mixed-martial arts grand master. You point and pull the trigger.

[bascule]

And again, bioweapons are the only class of weapons that could unintentionally kill most of the world population with a single weapon.

 

I strongly doubt bioweapons are capable of unintentionally killing most of the world population. Ebola exists and so far has not managed to unintentionally kill most of the world population. I guess the key point I keep reiterating that everyone talking about some pie in the sky risks of bioweapons is that humanity has strong defenses against disease. Humans have diverse immune systems. The CDC exists. The WHO exists. And for that matter, "superviruses" like Ebola Zaire exist. But that doesn't really matter because of the former.

 

The chance of causing a major outbreak inadvertently is even less likely. The existing defenses are set up for that sort of thing. The one scenario I can't argue against is a coordinated attack with a weaponized virus. What if terrorists were to intentionally deploy a virus like Ebola Zaire in every major western international airport? I really can't imagine what would happen in such a scenario.

 

But unintentionally killing off most of the world's population? Sorry, that isn't a credible threat. Completely in the realm of hypotheticals, nanotech and a grey goo scenario is about all I can see causing that problem, and that's still a decade off if not more.

 

also I doubt it would kill every human

 

We're talking about a situation where you couldn't go outside without breathing radioactive fallout for several years at the very least. I don't see how humans could survive in such conditions. Perhaps if someone actually stockpiled enough supplies to last until the fallout cleared they could survive.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Define several, 4, 8, 25, 100?

 

Since you seem to have trouble following the previous conversation, let me quote the relevant portion of my previous post:

 

The detonation of the current nuclear stockpile of ~10,000 nukes, geographically distributed around the world, would create a fallout cloud capable of killing every human on earth.

Edited April 8, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think if any non-nuclear country devised an unprecedented bio weapon and officially used it to attack and kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, no one is going to hold President Obama to his promise not to retaliate with nukes. It would be like someone vowing not to use a gun on an unarmed opponent, only to find out that the opponent is a mixed-martial arts grand master. You point and pull the trigger.

 

It being an empty promise isn't really a plus in my book.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I guess the key point I keep reiterating that everyone talking about some pie in the sky risks of bioweapons is that humanity has strong defenses against disease. Humans have diverse immune systems. The CDC exists. The WHO exists. And for that matter, "superviruses" like Ebola Zaire exist. But that doesn't really matter because of the former.

 

We also have strong defenses against radiation, against fire, and against explosions. An underground bunker protects against all of those. We long ago evolved to have DNA repair mechanisms to deal with radiation of various kinds, from UV to radioactive decay. Even against all the nukes on earth, a nice bunker with nuclear power and sunlamps would keep a few people alive for quite some time (or a humongous stockpile of corn would do too). Said bunker would protect from bioweapons as well, so long as we didn't let anyone infected in.

 

The chance of causing a major outbreak inadvertently is even less likely. The existing defenses are set up for that sort of thing. The one scenario I can't argue against is a coordinated attack with a weaponized virus. What if terrorists were to intentionally deploy a virus like Ebola Zaire in every major western international airport? I really can't imagine what would happen in such a scenario.

 

Certainly comparable to detonating 10,000 nukes though. If you're saying that 10,000 nukes beats 1 bioweapon, yeah I'd probably have to agree. It would depend on the bioweapon and on chance, but I'd take my chances with the one bioweapon.

 

But unintentionally killing off most of the world's population? Sorry, that isn't a credible threat. Completely in the realm of hypotheticals, nanotech and a grey goo scenario is about all I can see causing that problem, and that's still a decade off if not more.

 

Bacteria and viruses trading genes is definitely in the realm of verified fact. Whether this with a weaponized germ could result in a humanity killer type of disease, I agree is unlikely -- but can you really rule it out as impossible? How about if a weaponized virus crosses with an avian one, so that the little birdies spread the virus everywhere? Impossible you say?

Edited April 8, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

We also have strong defenses against radiation, against fire, and against explosions. An underground bunker protects against all of those. We long ago evolved to have DNA repair mechanisms to deal with radiation of various kinds, from UV to radioactive decay. Even against all the nukes on earth, a nice bunker with nuclear power and sunlamps would keep a few people alive for quite some time (or a humongous stockpile of corn would do too). Said bunker would protect from bioweapons as well, so long as we didn't let anyone infected in.

 

Okay, fine, conceeded, enjoy your nuclear-powered post-nuclear holocaust fallout shelter! Sure hope humans think to build something like that before the nuclear holocaust happens. I really can't see a population of humans surviving long enough to outlive the fallout cloud though, and even then what do you do? Your chances of rebuilding civilization are pretty much shot on a planet where everything is covered with nuclear fallout.

 

Certainly comparable to detonating 10,000 nukes though. If you're saying that 10,000 nukes beats 1 bioweapon, yeah I'd probably have to agree. It would depend on the bioweapon and on chance, but I'd take my chances with the one bioweapon.

 

10,000 nukes exist today. Does a genetically engineered virus capable of wiping out humanity exist today? Strongly doubt it, and even if it does, you can't prove it. It's a hypothetical. 10,000 nukes are not (although all of them going off at the same time, maybe)

 

All that said, a much different argument and far more practical argument would be: the detonation of a single megaton nuke in any major population center would send the entire world into a deep depression. Nuclear explosions in multiple population centers would be the undoing of modern civilization. Look at the effect 9/11 had on the world, and that was only two skyscrapers. Imagine if a megaton nuclear blast occurred in downtown Manhattan.

 

Bacteria and viruses trading genes is definitely in the realm of verified fact. Whether this with a weaponized germ could result in a humanity killer type of disease, I agree is unlikely -- but can you really rule it out as impossible?

 

It's hypothetically scary, but you seem to be forgetting we live under Damocles atomic sword today.

[toastywombel]

I don't think any reasonable persons definition of several would suffice to kill everyone on the planet.

 

Since you did not read earlier. The following aren't about killing everyone on the planet, but this may give you an idea.

 

"A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centers, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers.[4][5]"

 

"A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near- global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade.[6] The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80 km) into the stratosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation."

 

"A minor nuclear war with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

 

100 20 kiloton bombs is equal to 2 megatons. There is some of the math for you.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

We also have strong defenses against radiation, against fire, and against explosions. An underground bunker protects against all of those. We long ago evolved to have DNA repair mechanisms to deal with radiation of various kinds, from UV to radioactive decay. Even against all the nukes on earth, a nice bunker with nuclear power and sunlamps would keep a few people alive for quite some time (or a humongous stockpile of corn would do too). Said bunker would protect from bioweapons as well, so long as we didn't let anyone infected in.

 

Could you please tell me what defenses we have against radiation other than giant slabs of lead. Our capabilities of protecting ourselves against airborne pathogens are cheaper and more effective than our capabilities of protecting against radiation and nuclear blasts. Last I checked Hepa Filters and alcohol do pretty well with germs and they are much cheaper than the bunker you are describing above.

[SH3RL0CK]

I strongly doubt bioweapons are capable of unintentionally killing most of the world population. ... humanity has strong defenses against disease. Humans have diverse immune systems. The CDC exists. The WHO exists. And for that matter, "superviruses" like Ebola Zaire exist. But that doesn't really matter because of the former.

 

 

Well, unintentional is less likely, IMO than intentional. Consider the following scenario:

 

As per my previous postings, smallpox killed 95% of the population on three continents, it arose spontaneously (i.e. not "manufacturered")and was for the most part, unintentionally spread. So what do you think happens if a "manufacturered" agent (perhaps genetically modified smallpox plus virus) were deliberately spread to infect virtually the entire world at the same time (excepting the nation/terrorist cell that developed the agent which also immediately goes into self-quarantine)? Couldn't it do the same on all six continents?

 

Do you really think the CDC and WHO would be capable of developing and distributing a vaccine in time? Or set up an adequate quarantine for the areas which happened to not (yet) be infected? A vaccine isn't possible in this short timeframe.

 

Keep in mind, by the time this agent is identified (i.e. people dropping dead) it is already too late to set up a quarantine because most people (including the staff at the CDC, WHO, etc.) would already be infected/dying.

 

N. Korea is already in a sort of self-quarantine and has been for over 50 years. Any other nation could possibly point to the very first cases and claim "we saw this coming, and we are glad we took the prudent response". And if the president, the cabinet, and all but 5 senators are deathly ill/dying, would the USA have sufficient poise to even investigate the source of the infection or mount a proper response?

 

I still think you overestimate the "strong defenses against disease" that humanity has. The part you are missing is that the immunity Europeans had to smallpox evolved/was naturally selected over many generations of exposure to the agent. This was probably aided by exposure to cowpox (a similar virus which was used to develop the vaccine) which was not deadly but imparted a resistance to the disease. Given todays travel patterns and/or a deliberate intentional delivery system, humanity would not have many generations to respond. We might not have even a month.

 

I admire your optimism, but where am I mistaken in my logic here?

Edited April 8, 2010 by SH3RL0CK
correct typo

[Mr Skeptic]

Okay, fine, conceeded, enjoy your nuclear-powered post-nuclear holocaust fallout shelter! Sure hope humans think to build something like that before the nuclear holocaust happens. I really can't see a population of humans surviving long enough to outlive the fallout cloud though, and even then what do you do? Your chances of rebuilding civilization are pretty much shot on a planet where everything is covered with nuclear fallout.

 

I just don't believe that either the US nor Russian governments are stupid enough to do this. And no one else has the capability.

 

10,000 nukes exist today. Does a genetically engineered virus capable of wiping out humanity exist today? Strongly doubt it, and even if it does, you can't prove it. It's a hypothetical. 10,000 nukes are not (although all of them going off at the same time, maybe)

 

Well there's smallpox, Dutch elm disease, myxomatosis, bubonic plague, AIDS... We've got plenty of incurable diseases, and plenty of cases of a disease wiping out huge percentages of the population. ~90% give or take mortality rates are not uncommon for invasive diseases. And these are natural. Natural diseases are limited in their virulence, because if they wipe out their host population they too die out. An artificial disease need not be limited like that.

 

Do you really think US and Russia are going to destroy the world? Isn't it much more likely that someone somewhere is going to develop and use bioweapons? It's not like bioweapons haven't already been used in warfare to great effect.

 

All that said, a much different argument and far more practical argument would be: the detonation of a single megaton nuke in any major population center would send the entire world into a deep depression. Nuclear explosions in multiple population centers would be the undoing of modern civilization. Look at the effect 9/11 had on the world, and that was only two skyscrapers. Imagine if a megaton nuclear blast occurred in downtown Manhattan.

 

Yes, a dead city would be quite a mess. But not a global catastrophe.

 

It's hypothetically scary, but you seem to be forgetting we live under Damocles atomic sword today.

 

Yes but there's only two "swords" and I trust the folks holding them not to do anything crazy with them. Can you say the same of bioweapons? Disease, even unweaponized, has killed far more people than nukes ever will.

 

Pandemic#Biological_warfare

As for unintended side effects, the Black Death may have been an unintended side effect of biological warfare.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[Zolar V]

I strongly doubt bioweapons are capable of unintentionally killing most of the world population. Ebola exists and so far has not managed to unintentionally kill most of the world population. I guess the key point I keep reiterating that everyone talking about some pie in the sky risks of bioweapons is that humanity has strong defenses against disease. Humans have diverse immune systems. The CDC exists. The WHO exists. And for that matter, "superviruses" like Ebola Zaire exist. But that doesn't really matter because of the former.

 

The chance of causing a major outbreak inadvertently is even less likely. The existing defenses are set up for that sort of thing. The one scenario I can't argue against is a coordinated attack with a weaponized virus. What if terrorists were to intentionally deploy a virus like Ebola Zaire in every major western international airport? I really can't imagine what would happen in such a scenario.

 

But unintentionally killing off most of the world's population? Sorry, that isn't a credible threat. Completely in the realm of hypotheticals, nanotech and a grey goo scenario is about all I can see causing that problem, and that's still a decade off if not more.

 

 

 

We're talking about a situation where you couldn't go outside without breathing radioactive fallout for several years at the very least. I don't see how humans could survive in such conditions. Perhaps if someone actually stockpiled enough supplies to last until the fallout cleared they could survive.

 

The detonation of the current nuclear stockpile of ~10,000 nukes, geographically distributed around the world, would create a fallout cloud capable of killing every human on earth.

 

 

I like how you compare the effects of ONE biological agent to the effects caused by ~10,000 nukes.

how about we take it pound for pound agian. 10,000 biological weapons and 10,000 nukes all detonated at the same time.

The results are the same, all humans will die.

 

But like i said before pound for pound Biological weapons are far more dangerous than nuclear. 1 biological agent could wipe out the entire world, 1 nuke could blow a pretty big hole in ONE city.

[bascule]

~90% give or take mortality rates are not uncommon for invasive diseases.

 

Oh please, among the entire world population? No.

 

1 biological agent could wipe out the entire world, 1 nuke could blow a pretty big hole in ONE city.

 

No, you are wrong. One biological agent could not wipe out the entire world. Do ideas like "immunology" and "quarantine" escape you?

[Leader Bee]

There have been over 2000 nuclear tests; atmospheric, underground and undersea since the advent of the trinity device. Britain alone has a stockpile of ~25,000 nuclear weapons (including radiological bombs) of varying designs and yields - we are one of the nations with the smaller stockpiles.

 

The biggest device to be detonated to date was a 100 megaton thermonuclear bomb scaled down to 50 because of the risks associated with fallout debris, this was detonated in Nova Zmelya in remote Siberia; The fallout is obviously a massive concern then from nuclear weapons if there are minimal people living in such a remote location that they decided it would be a risk to other countries.

 

All out nuclear war would scare me and if the bombs dont get me then the fallout will if all of those weapons are used, the mushroom cloud rises well into the stratosphere and spreads around the globe using the wind currents with radioactive particles settling absolutely anywhere (all that from just one!?)

 

To say that nuclear weapons are indiscriminate is an understatement and are clearly the most available type of WMD by their sheer numbers.

 

I do think possession of them is a perfectly viable political bargaining tool but their use should be very limited. Chemical and Biological weapons wont destroy buildings or even kill off food sources they are not designed to, nukes however will make people homeless, starve to death, die from radiation poisoning if they survive and eat animals or plants that have been exposed so the soil is unfarmable for generations.

 

Overall i believe Bio and chem weapons are not as destructive to the whole of the human race (pockets of survivors could relocate to remote locations the weapon wasnt used) as nuclear weapons are but can be just as disruptive and so we should not take like for like as a policy, it still doesnt mean i'm against having those nukes there as a bargaining chip even if they're never used.

[Moontanman]

100 20 kiloton bombs is equal to 2 megatons. There is some of the math for you.

 

 

One 2 megaton device will not produce the same results as 100 20 kiloton weapons spread out over a large area, do that math. We have detonated a 15 megaton device in the atmosphere already that is the equivalent of 750 20 kiloton bombs, the world didn't end.

 

 

Could you please tell me what defenses we have against radiation other than giant slabs of lead. Our capabilities of protecting ourselves against airborne pathogens are cheaper and more effective than our capabilities of protecting against radiation and nuclear blasts. Last I checked Hepa Filters and alcohol do pretty well with germs and they are much cheaper than the bunker you are describing above.

 

we don't need large slabs of lead, not do we need to stay inside for years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout

 

Fallout radiation decays exponentially relatively quickly with time. Most areas become fairly safe for travel and decontamination after three to five weeks.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_shelter

 

A basic fallout shelter consists of shields that reduce gamma ray exposure by a factor of 1000. The required shielding can be accomplished with 10 times the amount of any quantity of material capable of cutting gamma ray effects in half. Shields that reduce gamma ray intensity by 50% (1/2) include 1 cm (0.4 inch) of lead, 6 cm (2.4 inches) of concrete, 9 cm (3.6 inches) of packed dirt or 150 m (500 ft) of air. When multiple thicknesses are built, the shielding multiplies. Thus, a practical fallout shield is ten halving-thicknesses of packed dirt, reducing gamma rays by 1024 times (210).

 

Usually, an expedient purpose-built fallout shelter is a trench, with a strong roof buried by ~1 m (3 ft) of dirt. The two ends of the trench have ramps or entrances at right angles to the trench, so that gamma rays cannot enter (they can travel only in straight lines). To make the overburden waterproof (in case of rain), a plastic sheet should be buried a few inches below the surface and held down with rocks or bricks.

 

Fallout can be defended against, it does not kill everyone and it does not mean the end of everyone. a nuclear strike against one target or even several would not mean the end of the world. Fallout is limited, it decays, it does not cover everything everywhere with deadly level of radiation. You assertion about one 2 megaton explosion being equal to 100 20 megaton explosions is very misleading and is nothing but fear mongering!

[John Cuthber]

What's the big difference?

The USA has huge industrial and military reserves.

If some country attacked the US with, for example, chemical weapons then the US could deliver enough good old TNT to erase any and all major population centres in that country.

Promising not to use nukes just makes it slightly more expensive in the short term (and probably cheaper in the long terms because fallout goes worldwide.

 

It's not a real military sacrifice to give up on first use of nukes if you are the richest country in the world.

 

BTW, Bascule, have you read about this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/010117_mousepox.shtml

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh please, among the entire world population? No.

 

Among populations for which it is an invasive species. Seen any natural diseases invasive for the whole world? Diseases produced in artificial conditions need not play by the regular rules.

 

No, you are wrong. One biological agent could not wipe out the entire world. Do ideas like "immunology" and "quarantine" escape you?

 

We humans are doing a fairly good job at wiping out other species. (We're biological BTW). The trouble with a biological agent is that they don't have a half-life nor are there disease counters to measure exposure. Quarantine can only last so long before it is likely to be broken -- hopefully there would be a vaccine by then.

[bascule]

BTW, Bascule, have you read about this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/010117_mousepox.shtml

 

Yes, I do recall reading about that many years ago. If a virus with the lethality time and incubation time of Ebola Zaire and airborne transmission were weaponized it'd be quite a bad situation.

 

Specifically in regard to that article, variola is a DNA virus. If an outbreak were to occur, a vaccine could be created, and since variola is a DNA virus it evolves comparatively slowly compared to things like rhinovirus, influenza, and HIV which are RNA viruses.

 

Once immunized, the population would effectively be safe against such a virus, and I'm wondering if existing smallpox immunity would provide additional protection.

 

That's not to say that someone couldn't engineer an airborne killer RNA virus. That situation would be far worse because creating a vaccine would be harder and the virus could evolve. That said, I trust the power of modern epidemiology to quarantine such a virus. Drastic measures would have to be taken, but people here are seriously arguing that it could wipe out every human on earth. I don't think such a scenario is remotely realistic.

[Sisyphus]

I agree that literally causing extinction seems very unlikely for an epidemic. Worst case scenario, quarantined pockets of uninfected wait for all the infected to die, thus wiping out the pathogen.

[toastywombel]

100 20 kiloton bombs is equal to 2 megatons. There is some of the math for you.

 

 

One 2 megaton device will not produce the same results as 100 20 kiloton weapons spread out over a large area' date=' do that math. We have detonated a 15 megaton device in the atmosphere already that is the equivalent of 750 20 kiloton bombs, the world didn't end.

 

 

 

 

we don't need large slabs of lead, not do we need to stay inside for years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_shelter

 

 

 

Fallout can be defended against, it does not kill everyone and it does not mean the end of everyone. a nuclear strike against one target or even several would not mean the end of the world. Fallout is limited, it decays, it does not cover everything everywhere with deadly level of radiation. You assertion about one 2 megaton explosion being equal to 100 20 megaton explosions is very misleading and is nothing but fear mongering![/quote']

 

Okay you said, "We do not need large slabs of lead" then quoted wikipedia describing a fallout shelter. Did you even read how the fallout shelter is built? With slabs of lead and concrete. And I never said one 2 megaton explosion is equal to 100 20 megaton explosions. I was simply pointing out that a nuclear war with between two countries with a total yield of around two megatons could drastically effect the globe. Again, did you not read the scientific articles I posted.

 

"A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centers, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers.[4][5]"

 

"A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near- global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade.[6] The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80 km) into the stratosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation."

 

"A minor nuclear war with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout

 

 

And although this is true,

 

Fallout radiation decays exponentially relatively quickly with time. Most areas become fairly safe for travel and decontamination after three to five weeks.

 

You failed to address the fact that a nuclear war that yielded around two megatons could lead to the destruction of the ozone layer. Tell me how are you going to go about going outside if the ozone layer is significantly damaged? Can you tell me of any biological agent that can do that. Not only that the destruction of the ozone layer would lead to the death of many oceanic creatures. This would cause a global food crisis.

 

Hepafilters, masks, alcohol, and anti-bacterial soap are all easy and cheap ways to prevent the spread of biological agents. Also biological agents don't destroy infrastructure, and despite what everyone seems to be implying on here, it is highly unlikely that they would have a 90% mortality rate. I don't know of any airborne infectious disease that has a 90% mortality rate. The deadliest form of the Ebola virus has a mortality rate of 83%, however many other forms of Ebola have a mortality rate around 50%.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola

 

"The Zaire virus, formerly named Zaire Ebola Virus, has the highest case-fatality rate, up to 90% in some epidemics, with an average case fatality rate of approximately 83% over 27 years. There have been more outbreaks of Zaire ebolavirus than any other species. The first outbreak took place on 26 August 1976 in Yambuku. Mabalo Lokela, a 44-year-old schoolteacher, became the first recorded case. The symptoms resembled malaria, and subsequent patients received quinine. The initial transmission was believed to be due to reuse of the needle for Lokela's injection without sterilization. Subsequent transmission was also due to lack of barrier nursing and the traditional burial preparation method, which involves washing and gastrointestinal tract cleansing.[5]

Sudan ebolavirus (SEBOV)

The virus was the second species of Ebola emerging simultaneous with the Zaire virus. It was believed to have originated amongst cotton factory workers in Nzara, Sudan, with the first case reported as a worker exposed to a potential natural reservoir. Scientists tested all animals and insects in response to this; however, none tested positive for the virus. The carrier is still unknown. The lack of barrier nursing facilitated the spread of the disease. The most recent outbreak occurred in May 2004. 20 confirmed cases were reported in Yambio County, Sudan, with five deaths resulting. The average fatality rates for were 54% in 1976, 68% in 1979, and 53% in 2000 and 2001."

 

The black plague wiped out only 1/3 of Europe, and that was before modern medicine.

 

Here is something else interesting,

"By making these data available to local public health officials in real time, most models of anthrax epidemics indicate that more than 80% of an exposed population can receive antibiotic treatment before becoming symptomatic, and thus avoid the moderately high mortality of the disease."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare

 

On the other side there is not easy and cheap way to prevent hunger when there is no food, there is not easy and cheap way to protect yourself from a nuclear blast, no easy and cheap way to protect yourself from not having an ionosphere.

 

There is no bioweapon as being described by many contributers to this topic that could do what a small scale nuclear war could do right here right now.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What's the big difference?

The USA has huge industrial and military reserves.

If some country attacked the US with, for example, chemical weapons then the US could deliver enough good old TNT to erase any and all major population centres in that country.

Promising not to use nukes just makes it slightly more expensive in the short term (and probably cheaper in the long terms because fallout goes worldwide.

 

It's not a real military sacrifice to give up on first use of nukes if you are the richest country in the world.

 

BTW, Bascule, have you read about this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/010117_mousepox.shtml

 

I agree, I think if we were attacked with a biological agent, the United States has the military capability and force to destroy nearly any target in the world without the use of nuclear bombs.

 

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/l/aabombs1.htm

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, unintentional is less likely, IMO than intentional. Consider the following scenario:

 

As per my previous postings, smallpox killed 95% of the population on three continents, it arose spontaneously (i.e. not "manufacturered")and was for the most part, unintentionally spread. So what do you think happens if a "manufacturered" agent (perhaps genetically modified smallpox plus virus) were deliberately spread to infect virtually the entire world at the same time (excepting the nation/terrorist cell that developed the agent which also immediately goes into self-quarantine)? Couldn't it do the same on all six continents?

 

Do you really think the CDC and WHO would be capable of developing and distributing a vaccine in time? Or set up an adequate quarantine for the areas which happened to not (yet) be infected? A vaccine isn't possible in this short timeframe.

 

Keep in mind, by the time this agent is identified (i.e. people dropping dead) it is already too late to set up a quarantine because most people (including the staff at the CDC, WHO, etc.) would already be infected/dying.

 

N. Korea is already in a sort of self-quarantine and has been for over 50 years. Any other nation could possibly point to the very first cases and claim "we saw this coming, and we are glad we took the prudent response". And if the president, the cabinet, and all but 5 senators are deathly ill/dying, would the USA have sufficient poise to even investigate the source of the infection or mount a proper response?

 

I still think you overestimate the "strong defenses against disease" that humanity has. The part you are missing is that the immunity Europeans had to smallpox evolved/was naturally selected over many generations of exposure to the agent. This was probably aided by exposure to cowpox (a similar virus which was used to develop the vaccine) which was not deadly but imparted a resistance to the disease. Given todays travel patterns and/or a deliberate intentional delivery system, humanity would not have many generations to respond. We might not have even a month.

 

I admire your optimism, but where am I mistaken in my logic here?

 

Well lets start

 

A. I don't think there is any way a strain of smallpox could be introduced the entire population of the planet instantly.

 

B. Smallpox, or any other disease of that nature, is very unlikely to have a 95% mortality rate, even if there was no medical infrastructure

 

C. How would the virus be able to discriminate from the terrorist cell and the rest of humanity. I also question that any group would have the motive to kill 95% of the worlds population. Not only that if such a biological agent was dispersed all over the world simultaneous and was indeed that deadly, I don't think the terrorist cell would have much of a chance of being able to accomplish anything with such an infection, especially considering their medical capabilities are probably far more limited than a nation like the United States.

 

D. Smallpox would not and did not kill 95% of the population on three continents.

 

"V major produces a more serious disease and has an overall mortality rate of 30–35%."

 

"Rarely, smallpox has been spread by virus carried in the air in enclosed settings such as buildings, buses, and trains.[18] The virus can cross the placenta, but the incidence of congenital smallpox is relatively low."

 

"Smallpox is highly contagious, but generally spreads more slowly and less widely than some other viral diseases, perhaps because transmission requires close contact and occurs after the onset of the rash. The overall rate of infection is also affected by the short duration of the infectious stage."

 

"Some estimates indicate case fatality rates of 80-90 % in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics.[44] Smallpox was introduced into Australia in 1789 and again in 1829 and caused devastation among the aborigines, but quickly died out on both occasions.[23]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

 

Another problem with bioweapons is they cannot be too deadly, because the infected people will die before the disease could even be transfered on a large level.

 

And the reason the mortality rate for Native American populations was so high is because they were unable to have time to develop any immunity. Every human alive today has traits carried down from ancestors who did survive smallpox, so the situations are totally incomparable.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I like how you compare the effects of ONE biological agent to the effects caused by ~10,000 nukes.

how about we take it pound for pound agian. 10,000 biological weapons and 10,000 nukes all detonated at the same time.

The results are the same, all humans will die.

 

But like i said before pound for pound Biological weapons are far more dangerous than nuclear. 1 biological agent could wipe out the entire world, 1 nuke could blow a pretty big hole in ONE city.

 

Zolar, really after all the evidence that has been presented to you, how can you say one biological agent could wipe out all of humanity? Remember, the higher the mortality rate of the virus, the less likely it is to spread. That is because the people infected die and are able to spread the disease only so far. Also diseases like ebola and smallpox are easy to spot in a person, thus making them hard to transfer.

 

To create a bioweapon of such magnitude it would require that the disease lies dormant long enough to spread without killing the host, and after surviving in the human body for a long period of time be able to kill the host effectively with a 90% mortality rate. This to me seems highly unlikely. On the other hand nuclear war could break out at any time and we know exactly what the effects of such a nuclear war are. Please before you respond reference the wikipedia links above.

 

Even the deadliest forms of ebola have a mortality rate of around 80% and many others around 50% as cited above.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You have AIDS, a presently incurable disease that is spread via sexual intercourse, contact with an infected persons blood, saliva and mucus.

Now just genetically mix or modify it with something like Ebola or some other disease that kills, and Viole you have a biological agent that is incurable, easily spread and will kill millions upon millions.

 

How do you intend to mix something like smallpox and Aids and get an effective disease? Furthermore, a virus like HIV would be too heavy to be transferable through the air. They are totally different, biology doesn't work this way. Its like saying what if we mixed a human with a shark and created a super powerful sharkman. Its just not likely at all.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"Yes, I do recall reading about that many years ago. If a virus with the lethality time and incubation time of Ebola Zaire and airborne transmission were weaponized it'd be quite a bad situation."

 

It would be a bad situation but not an global problem. Again, ebola has the problem with killing the host too quickly. That is why it has not spread on a large scale. Ebola is easily contained because the carriers of the disease die before they can transfer it to many people.

Edited April 8, 2010 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.