|
A few days ago, perhaps as a desperate bid to gain some more superdelegate votes or to sway the gun-toting rust belt electorate, Hillary Clinton made this statement: "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." Iranian President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly made statements about eliminating Israel. Israel has also more covertly threatened nuclear strikes against Iran.
Meanwhile, Russian Chief of General Staff Yury Baluyevsky stated this year that "It may resort to a preemptive nuclear strike in cases specified by its doctrine." This doctrine includes arming its entire military infrastructure with permanently ready, large and small-weapons nuclear capabilities, and from all sorts of stagings, including aircraft in international airspace.
In recent months, long range Russian bombers have tested the national airspaces of several European nations, including Denmark, which responded by sending off F-16s to chase the Russian planes away. (This is a video)
On April 20 (2008), Pakistan successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile, which threatens to escalate the arms race locally, including with India. The newly elected, liberal Prime Minister Smith of Australia responded with: "Any testing which occurs within that region does have the potential to cause tension or instability."
Combined, India and Pakistan have some 100 nuclear missiles already aiming at each other, each one about the size of the one that destroyed Hiroshima (15 kiloton).
Both Russia and the United States have well over 10,000 nuclear weapons each. China is estimated to have at least 500. Israel is suspected of having a bit over 200 nuclear weapons.
France: 350
UK: 190
Some of the above weapons are now also deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. About two dozen other nations are known to be within a couple of years of developing nuclear weapons should they chose to do so. Lord knows how many are in various nations' submarines near whose coastal waters? And how many are flying on various nations long range bombers.
In all the world has over 20,000 nuclear weapons, most on a hair trigger. Some of the nuclear weapons that have been tested in this arsenal include H-bombs with a yield of between 10 to 50 megatons each. To put that into perspective, the two bombs dropped on Japan to end WW II killed over 200,000 people. Just one of these 10-50 megaton bombs is equivalent to over 2000 Hiroshima bombs. Now let's get yet another perspective. America's total nuclear weapons yield is over 20,000 megatons! Russia likely also has some 20,000 megatons in its arsenals. 40,000 megatons just between Russia and the USA!
All these weapons, of course, have various yields and delivery systems.
OK, an all out MAD war would end life on Earth many many times over virtually instantly. I don't feel I need to go into the science of that scenario...
But a small, local nuclear war, perhaps to contain Iran. That ought to be doable, some might think.
Recently, the University of Colorado at Boulder tested this idea with various computer simulations.
Here's the kicker few have contemplated, least of all Hillary. In this capacity, she has now expressed the same moronic viewpoint of extremists like Bush, Ahmadinejad and North Korea's Kim Jong-il. The university's testing of a small war in that region (apx 80-100 Hiroshima sized bombs) would likely destroy nearly ¾ of the the Earth's protective ozone layer. Michael Mills, a researcher at the university, stated, "The models show this magnitude of ozone loss would persist for five years, and we would see substantial losses continuing for at least another five years."
So what does that mean in concrete terms for human beings?
UV radiation from the sun would increase by over 200%, resulting in genetic mutations, skin cancer, blindness through cataracts for every single living human being, never mind the human-supportive animals within our various ecosystems, farms etc. All vegetation on Earth would also suffer catastrophically.
The Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, which reviewed this simulation, states that this is likely a very conservative estimate of the result of a limited nuclear war.
WAKE UP!
Article Source: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977331062
Some bibliography:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/index.html
http://news.theage.com.au/smith-concern-over-pakistan-missile-test/20080420-27b9.html
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080129/97936766.html
http://www.spiderbomb.com/publishing/hypocrisy.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Regional-Nuclear-War-Would-Destroy-the-World-82760.shtml |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
