Tired of Terrorists!

[Thekri]

They are claiming that climate change could happen with less yield than that of a single W88 Nuke, of which an Ohio class SSBN carries 192. Out of the thousands of tests done none have caused the climate change mentioned in the report.

Rich, you are generally pretty logical, you seem to be derping over this article though. The author is claiming a drop of 1.1k, not a drop to 1.1k, which means a drop of around 1 degree Celsius, which is pretty serious, but not absolute zero. The reason given for this is not the nuclear warheads themselves, which create very little carbon and dust relatively, but the massive firestorms that would result from their detonation in Indian and Pakistani megacities, of which there are almost a dozen bigger than New York, some of them many times the size of New York. The Author assumes fairly logically that fires thus created would burn for a long time, given the annihilation of urban fire departments, the scale of the fires, and the relative inadequacy of rural fire departments. It is not unreasonable to assume that 100 burning Urban centers would put out an amazing amount of smoke, which could have serious climate effects.

If you remember what happened with the Iceland volcano a few years ago, he is talking about something like that, only spread across the subcontinent and lasting for months.

[Zecora]

Maybe i was a bit optimistic with 2 weeks, but we could have it done this year. also airstrikes? I am talking about full war with ground troops and everything we can throw at them, and i am not thinking that us should do it alone every modern country who have any balls should join this! it is for the modern future we fight!

Because military force has worked sooooo well in "stopping terrorism" in the last decade.

"Guys, it's not working!"
"-Do it some more!"

[Deleted]

You do realize the only reason they exist is because of the very brute force the US has used in its politics all over the world I hope.

If I grew up today in a torn apart country, where my neighbours were killed by a drone, my family killed by a drone, all I ever see is death and destruction due to a country on the other side of the planet, would it be weird if I decided to join a militant group against it?

I am not saying it's justified by any means but it's very easy to sit here and say "yeah we should bomb them even more".

Its not different from whats been happening for the last 3000+ years. PPl get pissed of and hit back, only nowadays we should be educated enough to know that an endless circle of killing solves nothing. We also have a lot more advanced destructive tech than we used to.

Blaming the US for it is beyond stupid, especially considering these groups have been around in one form or another for thousands of years

- - - Updated - - -

Because military force has worked sooooo well in "stopping terrorism" in the last decade.

"Guys, it's not working!"
"-Do it some more!"

Certain groups of these people only understand force. If the option is shoot at them or let them do what they want (and considering what groups like ISIS are currently doing), I would also choose to shoot back

[Deleted]

Rich, you are generally pretty logical, you seem to be derping over this article though. The author is claiming a drop of 1.1k, not a drop to 1.1k, which means a drop of around 1 degree Celsius, which is pretty serious, but not absolute zero. The reason given for this is not the nuclear warheads themselves, which create very little carbon and dust relatively, but the massive firestorms that would result from their detonation in Indian and Pakistani megacities, of which there are almost a dozen bigger than New York, some of them many times the size of New York. The Author assumes fairly logically that fires thus created would burn for a long time, given the annihilation of urban fire departments, the scale of the fires, and the relative inadequacy of rural fire departments. It is not unreasonable to assume that 100 burning Urban centers would put out an amazing amount of smoke, which could have serious climate effects.

If you remember what happened with the Iceland volcano a few years ago, he is talking about something like that, only spread across the subcontinent and lasting for months.

None of which validates nuclear winter, he is talking about an extreme event using out dated delivery methods which causes temporary climate change. Nuclear Autumn not nuclear winter.

[Thekri]

None of which validates nuclear winter, he is talking about an extreme event using out dated delivery methods which causes temporary climate change. Nuclear Autumn not nuclear winter.

Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of nuclear winter, this does appear to be more nuclear autumn than nuclear winter, it will cause a global disaster, but not a global extinction. But then this is a local exchange on the Indian subcontinent, not a full scale exchange with stockpiles like the US, Russia, or even China. This article is the author of the previous article talking about it, it actually makes a lot of sense, I am learning stuff.

http://www.wired.com/2011/02/nuclear...limate-change/

[Kuntantee]

Eh... science begs to differ.

I made a quick research and I think the journal is not indexed and it's open access. Take what it says with a grain of salt.

[Clockworks]

How about we just get our arses out of our heads and get out of the area and let them work it out themselves.

Let them work it out themself? THEY have no will to work it out themself, the civilians / police down there don't care what happens and ignores it.
When we the Swedish army was there to help the police out, they were most of the time sitting down in a chair slacking or not there at al. As one of the soldiers said ''They hate the Tallibans here yet they do nothing to help us get rid of them or help us locate them''

[petej0]

I have a great idea... how about we invent a time machine, go back in time and stop Charlie Wilson from waging his stupidity through our congressional support. We started this mess. Well actually, this is a fall out of a mess that has gone on for at least 100 years.

This started in the 1910s when Germany lost its first world war and we imposed insane sanctions on them that left them no choice but to go into WWII. When that happened Russia and the United States started the cold war. The current mess is a fall out of the cold war because we decided to try to "help" that area against the Soviet Union. If we had not decided to go on a 100+ year policy of world policing we would have never seen half the strife we have been through.

This goes way back to the British idiots lumping the Mosul, Baghdad and Basra provinces under one border. That whole region is a Cluster F and religion has not helped.

If we would have voted Al Gore into office in 2000 (oh wait, we did do that) there is a very good chance that we would have seen a diplomatic outreach to the Middle East in order to end this terrorism and not start war. However, the Supreme Court decided "The Decider" was supposed to be president, and he spent 8 years getting this nation as far in debt and as far messed up as humanly possible then people like you have the nerve and the gull to come along and blame Obama because its not all worked out overnight.

There is a very good chance? How do you know? The same congress would have called for action based on the same bad intelligence. Then again, maybe we would have ignored the terrorists and tried to reason with them. Then again, how well has that worked with anything in that region.

[Zecora]

Certain groups of these people only understand force. If the option is shoot at them or let them do what they want (and considering what groups like ISIS are currently doing), I would also choose to shoot back

So violence or apathy are the only choices? Really?

[Deleted]

So violence or apathy are the only choices? Really?

Doesn't seem to be much else. You don't negotiate with terrorists.

[Zecora]

Doesn't seem to be much else. You don't negotiate with terrorists.

Okay, so your take on this is to either do something that doesn't work (more military force) or something that doesn't work (nothing at all).

Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that solution will work.

[Deleted]

Okay, so your take on this is to either do something that doesn't work (more military force) or something that doesn't work (nothing at all).

Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that solution will work.

But when all other options don't work either, what would you do?

[Zecora]

But when all other options don't work either, what would you do?

I would start by TRYING them to see if they work, rather than dismissing them out of hand.

[Deleted]

This article is also saying similar things, so i call bullshit on not having enough nuclear power to cause nuclear winter. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211090729.htm

[Deleted]

This article is also saying similar things, so i call bullshit on not having enough nuclear power to cause nuclear winter. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211090729.htm

I really wish people would learn the difference between a nuclear winter and a nuclear autumn, one is an extinction level event the other is not.

[Deleted]

I really wish some people would use their brains a little more and their beliefs a little less. While 100 Hiroshima sized bombs would not bring nuclear winter but an autumn, that is only 1600 KT of nuclear explosive, while the combined nuclear arsenal is somewhere near 7000 megatons. So to put it in percentage a Nuclear autumn taking for example of the first article with 100 Hiroshima sized bombs is a whooping 0,022% of the whole arsenal, and even that small percentage would cause a nuclear autumn.

[Raging Penguin]

Terrorists are a complex being, like a spoilt child at a supermarket. They keep making a scene until they get what they want, but once it reaches their hands, they want something else or want more. How much is enough for them?
They are scum that are not even fit for the pits of hell. The crimes they have committed are saddening to hear and see and are beyond forgiveable.

If they have problems with the governments then solve it with the government, they got no rights to drag civilians into their pissing match.

[Skayth]

If you think you could "wipe most of them out" in two weeks you're grossly misinformed. Air strikes have limitations.

Unless you want to use nuclear weapons to literally hit every part of Syria/Iraq and cause nuclear winter and the death of large amounts of the population of the world.

Nah, I could easily wipe them out within two weeks. Id wipe them out and their families out. Id have no regard for their "innocence," as from a very young age, they are initiated... and what do you do when their "father" dies? you make the child hate you even more. Id carpet bomb the entire area with our largest non-nuclear weapons, and let allah sort them out.

[Thekri]

I really wish some people would use their brains a little more and their beliefs a little less. While 100 Hiroshima sized bombs would not bring nuclear winter but an autumn, that is only 1600 KT of nuclear explosive, while the combined nuclear arsenal is somewhere near 7000 megatons. So to put it in percentage a Nuclear autumn taking for example of the first article with 100 Hiroshima sized bombs is a whooping 0,022% of the whole arsenal, and even that small percentage would cause a nuclear autumn.

And if you would read the article you would see that the yield of the bombs is not the issue at all, you can blow up 25 MT bombs all you want in the desert with very little effect. The ecological changes he suggests are due to the burning of every major city in India and Pakistan in a firestorm. This is both logical and not really indicative of the nuclear yield used to create it. So burning more cities will increase the effect, but increasing the yield won't really change much. Most likely burning every major city in the northern hemisphere will still not cause Nuclear winter, and the few big cities in the southern hemisphere won't change that much. I don't know who has nukes aimed at Brazil anyway.

Of course killing over a billion people is still a very bad thing, and nuclear autumn is a scary concept even without the extinction of the human race.

[Hauntlander]

I would start by TRYING them to see if they work, rather than dismissing them out of hand.

Open yourself to this idea:

If you simply agree to their demands then all you're doing is showing weakness and the fact that you CAN be influenced, which provokes them to do more things.

If you show aggression to their demands you'll just anger them, which provokes them to do more things.

They're like that one obnoxious kid in school that harasses others, you just have to ignore them sometimes. There's a reason why "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a thing.