Ed Grabianowski - The specter of nuclear holocaust has haunted humanity for more than 60 years now. Here are some of the reasons that a nuclear nightmare is the worst one of all.
Last month I wrote about five times we almost nuked ourselves by accident. I received more emails in response to that article than anything I've ever written – they ranged from people thanking me, to lengthy descriptions of other nuclear incidents that readers had experienced through working in the military or the nuclear power industry. I'll admit there were a few irate readers who felt I had needlessly denigrated the nuclear reactor crews, and one justifiably angry Russian.
But mostly, people were scared. The outpouring of pathos stunned me, but also got me thinking. Why did these stories about nuclear disasters touch people's nerves like this? Why are we still so scared of nuclear incidents, with the Cold War over and nuclear power safer today than ever? Here are some of the reasons why we'll probably always be haunted by the specter of nuclear holocaust.
1. It really is that bad.
If we look at nuclear weapons only in terms of their sheer explosive force, they are still the most terrifying weapons ever constructed. The Hiroshima bomb exploded with a force of about 13 kilotons of TNT. Basically, it incinerated a city. The H-bombs developed in the next decade were roughly 1,000 times more powerful. Just…let that sink in for a moment. 1,000 times as powerful. Comic book super villains would blush and turn away at the thought of such a weapon. It's almost incomprehensible. The only word I can think of that even approaches describing what a doomsday weapon of that magnitude is like is, "Absurd." We can vaporize hundreds of thousands of humans in an instant. We have conceived of and successfully developed that ability. ...
via Nuclear Holocaust Really Is The Sum Of All Fears.
Plan H:
Step 1 (about 100 years) Build underground cities, store food and water and fuel and all the best humanity has to offer. Take plenty of seeds, animals, plants, etc.
Step 2 (14 days) Nuke war. Radiation doses of 800 rems or more are always fatal. Death occurs from 2 to 14 days.
Step 3 (wait 1 year) Disease ravages the survivors. Starvation is now the major cause of death. Food production among survivors is 2% compared to the previous year. World population is cut in half, now 3.3 Billion.
Step 4 (wait 2 more years) The soot is nearly gone from the atmosphere after three years.
More here. If you are one of the survivors who can read .pdf's, you may like this library which includes basics of machines, farm devices, blacksmithery and some other things that will be needed.
I hope I never see Firefox replaced by Foxfire.
17 comments:
But, do let complacency get the better part of your judgment. Whatever near-nuclear accidents may have occurred in the past, presumably sane and intelligent officials in the U.S. government were also quite close to intentionally using large-scale nuclear weapons. This is true, despite the fact they were also quite aware of the devastating consequences. Safeguarding humanity has not been and is not a priority, even among elected officials. (That should be obvious to anyone who studies war.)
Don't doubt for a minute that circumstances may not arise again when U.S. government officials may feel the need to use nuclear weapons. (Small scale nuclear weapons have already been used in Iraq. And, the U.S. is stockpiling for their future use in the Mideast.)
The U.S., Russia and other nations still have nuclear weapons. India and others are the newest members of the same nuclear weapons club. There's a lot of other countries that want to join. Furthermore, international nuclear weapons treaties are not making much progress either here or abroad.
Currently, the Doomsday Clock has been stalled at about 11:54 p.m. (Armageddon being at midnight)since 2002.
Ann, I don't think nuclear weapons (in the true sense) have been used in anger since the Hiroushima/Nagasaki bombs of WW2. Depleted uranium shells were controversially used in Irag for armour penetration, but there is no nuclear explosion with these.
But the spectre of nuclear war is a scarey one and god forbid, anyone should get complacent about it.
I didn't mean to imply any anger was involved; it was merely the rules of the game. I seriously doubt there was any anger involved in the use of atomic bombs in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. (The official reason for using atomic bombs, however true, was to save American lives that would have occurred with an invasion of Japan had the country never surrendered. So, U.S. gov't officials probably felt good, in a sense, using them.)
One example comes quickly to mind: Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. The U.S., according to many historical accounts, was quite ready to use large scale nuc weapons.
According to a publication in (your country's beloved no. 1 med. journal:) The Lancet, a 38-fold increase in Leukemia (or Leukaemia), 10-fold increase in breast cancer as well as significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumor occurred after the assault Fallujah, Iraq. Compare that to the bit of information we have about Hiroshima explosion, after which time there was only a 17-fold increase in leukemia. No, bunker busters (small scale nuc weapons) were definitely used in Iraq and probably elsewhere in the country also.
If I may add: the U.S. has stockpiled, according to what I had read as of August of this year, 300+ bunker busters on an island in the Indian Ocean for another assault in the Mideast. By the way, Cheng, this couldn't have occurred without the faithful assistance of your gov't, who has cleared the way for the building of a U.S. base on its Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, a process that included removing the natives. (Anyway, who cares about local inhabitants, when there's a war in the making?)
Another Brit colloquialism I'm afraid. "To be used in anger" means to be used with intent or purpose.
I was just pointing out that these weapons were not technically nuclear weapons. They have a chemical explosive. Unfortunately, they use the dense fissile material to punch through the armour before detonating, which is then spread all over the place in the following explosion. Technically a dirty bomb I suppose.
Yes, skulduggery is usually the result of acquiescing to American Govt requests.
Oops!
I hope in the above comment I wasn't stepping on any sensitive British toes. I just read the following in the Wall Street Journal (12-11-09 "For the Sake of Argument" by Kirwin-Taylor). The article starts this way:
Speaking about a debating club in London:
"It's an unlikely draw for London's well-heeled. The wine is served lukewarm and evenings often end up in screaming matches. At a debate called 'Winston Churchill was more a liability than an asset to the free world,' a man stood up and shouted: 'How dare you question the reputation of the greatest leader on earth!'"
(Although, the following sentence says the shouter, "was escorted out by security immediately.")
And continues to crumble. The superpower(s) of the time are always reviled by the rest of the world. Britain, France, The Netherlands, Spain and Mongolia have all experienced it. Now it's America's turn and it will be China's turn soon (if not already).
Don't get me wrong Ann, I'm not defending British government or any other. All governments, big and small, are capable of despicable acts. Just the larger ones have more opportunity and clout to perform them. If politicians had to fight the wars there would be far fewer of them or we'd all be governed by military Juntas.
British toes have long since become desensitised and the English toes more so than the other member states.
You can't deny that Churchill was a great leader though (probably not the greatest ever). He wasn't a great economist or diplomat or humanitarian, but he could rally support and galvanise thinking and action.
I wouldn't group Churchill in the same category, but the same can be said of Hitler and Ghengis Khan. Despicable people but great leaders none the less.
Cheng, in the real world are you a humorist? If you aren't, you ought be. I find you quite witty.
I say, let's arrange for a U.N. resolution to have our "leaders," however strange it is that democratic societies have such type of officials, fight their own wars.
Seconded.
Oops!
I forget to add to the above list of nations:
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) also has nuclear weapons.
Also, Syria may have some.
And some people (particularly in Washington D.C.) claim - although its has not been established - that Iran is on its way to have some.
-----
It just so happens a study found that, with the exception for the U.K., all the above countries that have nuclear weapons "simultaneously also suffer from high internal rates of poverty and endemic neglected diseases."
Yes, that includes the U.S.A. in regions of the country, such as the Mississippi delta, where levels of poverty are outrageous.
The study was conducted by Peter J. Hotez, who writes, "Although it is common to think of neglected diseases as confined to low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and
Latin America ... these infections also exhibit a high prevalence in middle-income countries such as China,
India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and
Syria, as well as in selected areas of poverty found in the US, Russia, and
Eastern Europe."
The neglected infectious diseases in the U.S.A. and the number of people who endure them are:
Toxocariasis 1–3 million
Trichomoniasis 1 million
Chagas disease 1 million
Cysticercosis 0.2 million
Strongyloidiasis 0.1 million
Never heard of them in the U.S.A., have you? Well, there's reasons why you haven't and it's not because of the science. Try politics and propaganda.
[Source: P. J. Hotez, 'Nuclear Weapons and Neglected Diseases: The "Ten-
Thousand-to-One Gap"' PLOS ntds 2010; 4 (4): e680]
.
The DOD is doing it's job then, but the surgeon general can't because congress says the money goes to weapons?
Sent from my iPhone
U.S. gov't made a choice: The "job" of the DOD: maintaining the largest military in the history of the world, several times larger than any other existing country, 700+ military bases worldwide etc., ... Odd, isn't it? This choice occurs in a democratic society where people just don't like war; don't like their money wasted on bombs ... $$$$ vanish in seconds. Not much return on that kind of investment, albeit the U.S. may make more enemies, more reasons for war ... and the cycle goes on ...
The choice was probably made based on Historical fear. Might makes right seems to be the way human tribes get on. No use providing anything for your people if other tribes will come in, take your goodies and kill you. But why can't we grow up and act like one big tribe?
Historical fear? I wonder.
The U.S. notion of "democracy" was influenced to some extent, if not largely, by the method with which Iroquois Confederation of tribes, the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida , Onondaga, and Seneca, worked with each other.
Anthropologists don't tell us that "primitive" societies were fearful of much or warred that much. Although those that did, such as the Yanamamo in Venezuela and others, had rules that they and their enemies followed. Wars are just killing events.
If you think about it and believe that in some way technological development is an expression of how advanced a society is (many people do, although I certainly don't, nonetheless, if you do:), the Native Americans were still using bows and arrows and some were pre-farmers, never even developed agriculture, that is, they were hunters and gatherers (some tribes of Shoshone were hunters and gatherers into the 20th century), while the Europeans had firearms etc. From this perspective, I suppose, one could say that Natives Americans were very "primitive," when compared to Europeans. Yet, among some plains Indians "taking coup," just touching the enemy in battle, not hurting or killing him, was far more worthy and noble.
Fearful of the supernatural? No, not quite. People today in our modern cities display more fear of things like death, Armageddon and the End Time and ghosts, haunted houses, poltergeists and the like, than the Native Americans who I met and their shamans, who knew exactly how to deal with such entities and energies.
No, I think, we can learn much from "our past," if one wants to think that some technological way "societies evolve." The contemporary notion of witchcraft is basically modern creation, but it has ancient, pre-Christian origins in European paganism. Scattered, but quiet, pockets of these ancient traditions still exist in Europe. And, they hold dear the natural living world, changing of the seasons, and the cycles of life and death that we all must go through. They were/are quite ecologically oriented. If mainstream modern European society had kept that tradition, instead thinking it can control and dominate nature, we might not be in the climate fix we're in now.
I think, we should accept and respect cultural differences and not ask for "one big tribe," not try to change the world to our or anyone else's liking. Because, this is the very reason, I would emphasize, the U.S. has been wars for over 100 years or more with one country or another (of course, they weren't officially called "wars," - the U.S., for example, has militarily intervened in just about every Latin American country at least once).
The last thing we want is "one big tribe," and, thus, remove diversity, because it is cultural differences that brings us examples of other ways, quite different ways, of understanding the world. To be sure, we certainly need that resource today.
I hate to do this, but for the sake of thoroughness, I must add that wikileaks has just revealed that there are an additional "200 tactical nuclear weapons" in "Belgium, Holland, Germany and Turkey."
"The four nations were long suspected of hosting warheads but Nato and the governments involved have refused to confirm reports. Nato yesterday condemned releasing nuclear secrets as 'illegal and dangerous'."
[Dec. 1, 2010, "Wikileaks claims 200 Nukes in Europe," London Express]
Post a Comment