Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Probability of nuclear war

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

Likelyhood of nuclear exchange within 30 years ?

Less than 10 %
23
28%
10-20%
6
7%
20-30%
5
6%
30-40%
5
6%
40-50%
9
11%
50-60%
8
10%
60-70%
8
10%
70-80%
3
4%
80-90%
2
2%
over 90%
13
16%
 
Total votes : 82

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Timo » Tue 18 Mar 2014, 12:51:33

Subjectivist wrote:
Pops wrote:I no longer worry about an EOTWAWKI exchange with Russia. Back in the day the people with the button over there had their bread buttered by the Party and if the infrastructure and production capacity was vaporized, so what, as long as they personally survived the proles would still support them. Today their sugar comes from "privatized" infrastructure and production - privatized by them for their own profit, I don't see them allowing some nationalistic nutcase to mess that up. They'll let him beat his exposed chest, it makes the consumers happy, but they worked too hard divvying up the old soviet system to let him mess it up.

What about India vs Pakistan? The old hatreds are still there and both sides have nuclear weapons.

BINGO! Count on it!

On the other hand, it's always possible the Swiss and the Vatican will have an exchange. Or perhaps Luxemborg and Lichtenstein. Or Monaco and N. Dakota.
Timo
 

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Pops » Tue 18 Mar 2014, 13:02:52

A bang here or there is sure possible - not right here in Lawrence county Missouri but here or there. I meant the Nuclear Winter, Slate Wiper type that erases everything. Not because everyone wants to get along of a sudden, but because the Russians now own things they wouldn't want to see broken.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 18 Mar 2014, 14:07:17

Nuclear winter was downgraded as a theory to nuclear Autumn way back in the 1980's and these days the world only has about 10% of the weapons that were being pointed recklessly around back then.

On the other hand crashing civilization might not take a lot of weapons, just ones hitting key infrastructure. If that turns out to be true I sure hope nobody does it, I rather like modern medicine.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14061
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Pops » Tue 18 Mar 2014, 15:38:00

Tanada wrote: I rather like modern medicine.

Roger that.

The big blather on FOX and WSJ and even NPR is the FERC study that says taking out 9 grid substations could put the country offline for a year and a half.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... l-blackout
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Timo » Tue 18 Mar 2014, 16:01:30

All the more reason to decentralize the grid, and produce as much as we can at the point of consumption. A fuel cell in every home. (sigh) If only..............

This all takes me back to watching The Day After back in '83. Folks in my neck of the woods watched that movie with particular interest because we were at ground zero. I even knew a few extras. OK, they played dead people, but still.......
Timo
 

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby sparky » Sun 16 Nov 2014, 02:43:41

.
It would be interesting to revive this most critical subject
for information the missile shield is proceeding apace ,
all pretense of it being directed toward North Korea :shock: or Iran :roll: has been dropped
http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 87899.html

Like , what a surprise !!!
the US gave an X band radar to Norway to "monitor space objects"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_II
since it's located very close to the Russian naval base of Murmansk , the Russians were furious
when a storm blew the dome ,it turned out the radar was orientated toward the naval base and not skyward
"A local newspaper editor commented: "I'm not an expert, but I thought space was in the sky." Official comments claimed that the radar was still being tested and that it pointed towards Russia was a pure coincidence"

last news about this "scientific" installation
http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/ ... rade-27-02

conclusion , that was the point all along and the Russian general staff paranoia remind one of the famous "catch 22 "
"It's not because I'm paranoia that they are not out to get me !"
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 16 Nov 2014, 05:20:49

Old quote, Even Paranoids have legitimate enemies.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14061
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 16 Nov 2014, 09:15:38

I might have said this on the last page but it bares repeating. I think the possibility is higher now than it was 25 years ago when the Berlin Wall came came crumbling down.

IMO the simple fact is the leadership of America/NATO has not come to terms with the loss of status on the world stage. We owe everyone both foreign and domestic trillions of dollars. We offshored somewhere around 80 percent of our manufacturing capacity or scrapped what we had here to build new overseas in Asia or Mexico.

We turned ourselves into a nation of debt ridden consumers who think imagining they will write a new iPhone/Galaxy ap some day is the same thing as actually writing one today. My family was blue collar all the way, my dad and oldest brother and most of my cousins worked for one or another of the big three American car companies. Their kids can't because those jobs are not here any more.

The only arrow left in the American quiver is our military, including nuclear weapons. If the wrong person gets to be in charge when the inevitable realization sinks in that America's glory days are now well into our past, not our future, well it could get really ugly really quickly.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby vox_mundi » Sun 16 Nov 2014, 15:27:22

Tanada wrote:Nuclear winter was downgraded as a theory to nuclear Autumn way back in the 1980's and these days the world only has about 10% of the weapons that were being pointed recklessly around back then.

- Au Contraire

2007 Regional nuclear conflict would create near-global ozone hole
A limited 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, according to a study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder. (Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism )

The computer-modeling study showed a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side would cause massive urban fires and loft as much as 5 million metric tons of soot about 50 miles 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, said Mills.

In addition to ozone losses of 25 percent to 40 percent at mid-latitudes, the models show a 50 percent to 70 percent ozone loss at northern high latitudes, said Mills. “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,” he said.

The ozone losses predicted in the study are much larger than losses estimated in previous “nuclear winter” and “ultraviolet spring” scenario calculations following nuclear conflicts. A 1985 National Research Council Report predicted a global nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons of explosions, rather than the 1.5 megatons assumed in the PNAS study, would deplete only 17 percent of the Northern Hemisphere’s stratospheric ozone, which would recover by half in three years.

“The missing piece back then was that the models at the time could not account for the rise of the smoke plume and consequent heating of the stratosphere,” said Toon. “The big surprise is that this study demonstrates that a small-scale, regional nuclear conflict is capable of triggering ozone losses even larger than losses that were predicted following a full-scale nuclear war.

A nuclear exchange involving 100 15-kiloton, Hiroshima-type weapons in this study is only 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the world’s nuclear arsenal.


Report: Limited Nuclear War Could Deplete Ozone Layer, Increasing Radiation

2010 Rutgers Report: Local Nuclear War

War-related climate change would substantially reduce crop yields
"We were surprised that there was such a large climate change – climate change unprecedented in recorded human history – even from a war with 50 small nuclear weapons per side, much, much less than one percent of the current nuclear arsenal," says Robock. He adds that the changes also lasted a full decade, much longer than he expected. "The question is, what impact does that have on things that matter to humans, and the most important is our food supply."

The researchers used the climate changes predicted for the Midwest to calculate potential effects on corn and soy production in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Missouri. Using climate-based agricultural output models, they compared yields under modern weather patterns and under the war scenario.

They found that the climate effects of nuclear war led to decreases in corn yields of 10 to 40 percent and soy yields of 2 to 20 percent, with the reductions gradually declining over the course of the decade following the war.

"Those changes – in any year – are much larger than the natural variation we might see" due to weather fluctuations alone, Ozdogan says. And unlike gradual environmental changes associated with greenhouse gas accumulation, the rapid onset of a war would not permit farmers or the global economy any time to adapt.

2013 International Committee of the Red Cross Report: Climate effects of nuclear war and implications for global food production - ICRC
Recent environmental research using previously unavailable climate modeling techniques indicates that even a limited regional nuclear war could cause global climate cooling that would cut food production for many years and put one billion people at risk of starvation worldwide.

This research also estimates that a large-scale nuclear war would create ice-age conditions likely to eliminate most of the human race.


The take-home message is that localized events can have disproportionately large global impacts.

... and help won't be coming ...

2013 International Committee of the Red Cross Report: Humanitarian assistance in response to the use of nuclear weapons
The use of even a single nuclear weapon with a relatively small destructive power in or near a populated area is likely to produce humanitarian needs that will be difficult to address. In light of the effects of a nuclear explosion, many survivors are likely to require urgent medical care for a wide range of serious injuries, shelter to shield them from the on-going risks of exposure to ionizing radiation, and other humanitarian assistance.

However, the significant destruction of infrastructure and large radioactively contaminated areas would considerably complicate the delivery of humanitarian assistance. In addition, ionizing radiation would pose serious risks to the health of assistance providers and special protection measures would need to be taken.

Although some countries have response capacities in place, there is presently no effective capacity at the international level to deliver appropriate humanitarian assistance to survivors if nuclear weapons were ever to be used.

Report: https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/2 ... e-2013.pdf
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 16 Nov 2014, 20:12:50

Tanada wrote:Old quote, Even Paranoids have legitimate enemies.


Ha, my grandma used to say "sometimes being paranoid is just having all the facts."

In our individual lives, we can generally avoid problems with how you handle people and situations. If a spouse is impossible, there is divorce. If a job is impossible, you can move on. You've got that ultimate option there -- just get away from the impossible thing or person.

But nationally, we can't get away from China or Russia, we are stuck with that.

P.S. I voted less than 10%.

Russia wouldn't nuke us unless it's an accident. So sabre rattling is dangerous.. they could be hyped up and paranoid and then a norwegian test missle notification doesn't get passed along by the radar guys -- this happened under Yeltsin -- and maybe next time in a perfect storm of crap going wrong there's a misunderstanding, and they push the button.

Or, it could be a rogue element in the Russian forces that does it.

Or, there's the ongoing risk of terrorists getting hold of one and setting it off. That's why nuclear proliferation is dangerous, the more smaller places that have them, the more likely it is they will get used.

I still say less than ten percent though, I'd rank it a 3% risk. But that 3% risk would be horrible and catastrophic, just in panic and disruption if nothing else.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby sparky » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 00:32:22

.
Or , in a moment of great tension , some incident racket up the pressure and the brass go for broke
a decapitating preemptive strike , which would destroy the Russian strategic missiles forces
the few survivors would be picked up by the missile shield ,then the close earth systems

...a nuclear war can be won if one strike first and one is American ,
the Russians are SOOooo nervous ,they can feel an hatchet job
they would win of course , nobody win against Russia ,
they wouldn't give up , those guys can resist anything
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Sixstrings » Thu 20 Nov 2014, 00:20:16

sparky wrote:.
Or , in a moment of great tension , some incident racket up the pressure and the brass go for broke
a decapitating preemptive strike , which would destroy the Russian strategic missiles forces
the few survivors would be picked up by the missile shield ,then the close earth systems

...a nuclear war can be won if one strike first and one is American ,
the Russians are SOOooo nervous ,they can feel an hatchet job
they would win of course , nobody win against Russia ,
they wouldn't give up , those guys can resist anything


Nope.. the West will never first strike anyone.. on purpose.

And the Russians won't, either.

We'll have to watch Russia though, in the future, and what happens with their hard right wing nationalist element. A NAZI *would* push that button, maybe, in the throes of nationalist zeal and paranoia.

We'll have to keep an eye on Russia, and its politics. And watch it with the sanctions too, it's better to have NATO troops in Ukraine than *to destabilize and implode Russia because what are you bringing on after that, what kind of new Russian leaders are you handing that nuke button over to*.

As long as they don't go off the deep end, we'll be alright. Look -- NK hasn't nuked us, have they? And you can't get crazier than that, can you?

There's a thin line between cult and madman, but it's there. Terrorists are the BIGGEST concern, and them getting ahold of one. But no national government would ever do this.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby sparky » Thu 20 Nov 2014, 00:40:14

.
Doesn't need an evil man , an empty suit would do fine
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby sparky » Thu 20 Nov 2014, 20:20:17

.
Just to show that boys will be boys , in a spirit of freaking people out

US missile hits 'toxic satellite'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7254540.stm

should things get really dicky , there will be a war in space ,
severe damage to all low orbits satellites can be taken for granted
since no people would be killed , it would be the last negotiating point
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 21 Nov 2014, 00:48:11

sparky wrote:should things get really dicky , there will be a war in space ,
severe damage to all low orbits satellites can be taken for granted
since no people would be killed , it would be the last negotiating point


Yes, but power grids going down and / or disruption of communications is actually so critical and serious it's about as bad as losing a town somewhere.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby sparky » Fri 21 Nov 2014, 08:44:32

.
yes but power grid got their own transmissions exchange system ,
it's still quite child play to take the High voltage grid down
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 22 Jan 2015, 18:18:27

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists think we are closer to nuclear war than we have been for most of a decade.

The iconic Doomsday Clock, considered a metaphor for the dangers faced by the world, was pushed ahead by two minutes over concerns about worsening climate change and the world's failure to reduce nuclear weapons, a trans-Atlantic group of prominent scientists announced.

Every year, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists analyzes international threats, particularly nuclear arsenals and climate change, and decides where the minute hand on the Doomsday Clock should rest. The closer it is to midnight, the closer the world is to doom.

The last time the clock moved was in 2012 when the Board set the minute hand at 11:55 p.m. over concerns about the state of nuclear arsenals around the world. It also was concerned about the Fukushima nuclear meltdown and the outbreak of H5N1 flu. It hasn't moved this much since 2007, when the Board warned that "the world stands on the brink of a second nuclear age." It also cited climate change which it called "a dire challenge to humanity."

Those two issues again took center stage as the Board announced it would bump the clock two minutes ahead, to 11:57 p.m.

"Today, unchecked climate change and a nuclear arms race resulting from modernization of huge arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity," Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, told reporters. "And world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe. These failures of leadership endanger every person on Earth."

The Board was especially critical of world leaders for failing to take the actions necessary to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) over what they were in preindustrial times, which most scientists contend would avert the worst impacts of climate change, such as widespread droughts, heat waves and flooding.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doomsday-clock-moves-two-minutes-closer-to-midnight/
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 23 Jan 2015, 20:06:09

These atomic doomsday clock people should have also cited the fact that Russia just pulled out of nuclear monitoring.

That one worries me a bit.

I actually think the Russian armed forces are quite proficient and they like their nukes and it's prestigious and they take it seriously, yet -- do we really know -- sometimes things get crazy with Russia, like how Russian rocket launcher trucks can just show up for sale "at a street market in Donetsk." 8O

Sometimes I wonder whether Putin has control, or just mostly control.

When it comes to their nukes, and the Ukraine situation, and black market and now inflation is up and they may return to 90s instability and black markets -- jesus, what about their nukes?

Even ONE Russian nuke getting sold off or smuggled out or stolen, could mean disaster for the world.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 03 Sep 2017, 22:12:25

Anyone think the odds are going up with Kim in Korea being such a belligerent fellow?
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14061
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Probability of nuclear war

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 04 Sep 2017, 09:39:09

Tanada wrote:Anyone think the odds are going up with Kim in Korea being such a belligerent fellow?

Absolutely.
What worries me more is China's willingness to let him continue.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: vox_mundi and 12 guests