Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby Strummer » Wed 29 Oct 2014, 13:41:04

Sixstrings wrote:(Russia really has budgeted $700 billion for new nukes though basil, that's not fanatasy or delusion, those missiles actually have targets you know. Just sayin. But I'll shut up. And try to worry about ebola, which is more fashionable around here, ok.)


OMG! What is the poor US going to do, with its poor poor military budget, it has no chance to withstand the mighty mother Russia... oh, wait:

Image

:cry:
Strummer
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 04:42:14

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby vox_mundi » Wed 29 Oct 2014, 15:18:20

Let’s put this in context ..

From: http://rt.com/news/193604-russia-nuclea ... ity-start/
Russia recently announced a planned overhaul of its entire nuclear arsenal by 2020, as part of a wider rearmament program that has been budgeted at $700 billion.

Translated, this means that the Russians will spend $700 billion on their entire defense budget over the next 6 years – which equals about $116 billion a year. The nuclear weapons overhaul portion represents about 5-7 % of that budget or $6-8 billion.

In comparison …

Last year the US spent $75 billion on nuclear weapons maintenance alone,of an approximately $1,300 billion annual defense budget.

The bigger problem is that since 2009, Putin has abandoned the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy for one of tactical use of nuclear weapons. The question would be –“ Are we willing to start WWIII and a global nuclear conflagration with casualties in the billions if he fires a tactical 1 kiloton nuclear shell at some Chechen or Ukrainian separatist?”

If you really want to have troubles getting to sleep tonight try reading this report from Chatham House
Too Close for Comfort Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy

also covered here …

Risk of nuclear accidents is rising, says report on near-misses
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... ses-report
Too Close for Comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy, published by Chatham House, says that "individual decision-making, often in disobedience of protocol and political guidance, has on several occasions saved the day", preventing the launch of nuclear warheads.

The report lists 13 instances since 1962 when nuclear weapons were nearly used. In several cases the large-scale launch of nuclear weapons was nearly triggered by technical malfunctions or breakdowns in communication causing false alarms, in both the US and Russia. Disaster was averted only by cool-headed individuals gambling that the alert was caused by a glitch and not an actual attack.

And to answer your question ...
6 - Is this sh*t even SAFE? For crying out loud look at that ICBM they have on a truck. It's sitting, out in the weather, in the damn woods.

They're gonna have nukes on TRAINS too.

They're flying around our borders with nuclear cruise missiles, too.

Nuclear Weapons on a Highway Near You
At a cost of $250 million a year, 350 couriers employed by this secretive agency within the US Department of Energy use some of the nation's busiest roads to move America's radioactive material wherever it needs to go—from a variety of labs, reactors and military bases, to the nation's Pantex bomb-assembly plant in Amarillo, Texas, to the Savannah River facility.* Most of the shipments are bombs or weapon components; some are radioactive metals for research or fuel for Navy ships and submarines.
Image

In 2010, DOE inspectors were tipped off to alcohol abuse among the truckers. They identified 16 alcohol-related incidents between 2007 and 2009, including one in which agents were detained by local police at a bar after they'd stopped for the night with their atomic payload.

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_ ... n_Big_Star
and

Also apparently 'Doctor Strangelove' was real http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby AgentR11 » Wed 29 Oct 2014, 15:50:27

You know what bothers me right now about the nuclear question, is that most of Russia's deterrent towards us, depends on the principle of using nuclear weapons to halt a NATO invasion of Russia. But at the same time, folks in NATO and the generalized West seem to make it a point of trying to convince themselves or someone that the Russian nukes won't work, or won't reach their targets, whether shot down or launch failure.

The problem with that, is that in the end, the only way to restore the deterrent that Russia depends on, is to actually launch and detonate a nuke. The more strident the dismissal of Russian capabilities seems, the more desperate Russia will get with its need for a live fire demo. We're backing them into a corner where they will believe they need to nuke something in order for NATO to believe they are willing and able to use their nuclear deterrent. If so... maybe we'll get lucky and they'll nuke some above ground wasteland in Siberia or something that's been a nuclear test site before; or they could put us in an equally tough spot by doing something outrageous like nuking Kiev. How would we even respond to something like that? its an impossible situation.

Course.. I'm a paranoid, pessimistic doomer; so perhaps I'm going off the deep end because people are playing with world burning fire like its a recreational ego-trip.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby vox_mundi » Wed 29 Oct 2014, 17:18:11

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/2010 ... ctrine.pdf
http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls ... escalation
http://www.ifri.org/files/Securite_defe ... Trenin.pdf
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... UB1087.pdf

Common sense might suggest that any limited use of nuclear weapons for de-escalation purposes would involve non-strategic (shorter-range) weapons. But this does not appear to be the thinking. In 2003, the Ministry of Defense issued a white paper that dotted the new doctrine’s i’s and crossed its t’s. The white paper emphasized, among other things, that because the United States could use its precision-guided conventional assets over significant distances, Russia needed the ability to deter the use of those assets with its own long-range capabilities.

Accordingly, simulations of the limited use of nuclear weapons have featured long-range nuclear-capable systems (long-range air-launched cruise missiles above all, but medium-range bombers as well).

To the extent that one can determine the targets that have featured in these exercises, they seem to be located over much of the world—Europe, the Pacific, Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, and even the continental United States. Targets appear to include command and control centers as well as airbases and aircraft carriers from which US aircraft could fly missions against Russia.

In other words, for limited-use options, Russia appears to target military assets rather than the population or economic centers that were typical targets under Cold War strategies.

It is important to note amid all this that Russia’s nuclear weapons are assigned only to conflicts in which Russia is opposed by another nuclear weapon state. When Russia was preparing the 2010 edition of its military doctrine, some proposed that the possibility of using nuclear weapons be expanded to more limited conflicts, such as the 2008 war with Georgia—but this proposal was rejected. Ultimately the 2010 doctrine tightened conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used. Whereas the 2000 document allowed for their use “in situations critical to the national security” of Russia, the 2010 edition limited them to situations in which “the very existence of the state is under threat.” (Otherwise, the nuclear component of military doctrine remained fundamentally unchanged from 2000.)


Personally, I think an accident or the Chinese* will get us first.

*The head of their Rocket Forces mentioned, one time, that a loss of 600 million Chinese was acceptable in a nuclear exchange if it could be guaranteed that the US ceased to exist. I think he didn't bother to ask those 600 million.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... rhead-gap/
China has nearly 750 theater and tactical nuclear warheads in addition to more than 200 strategic missile warheads, a stockpile far larger than U.S. estimates, according to a retired Russian general who once led Moscow’s strategic forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Artillery_Corps
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/china ... FFczfldVyI
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011_10/ ... r_Dialogue
Language in the 2002 U.S. “Nuclear Posture Review Report” suggesting possible U.S. first use of nuclear weapons against China in a military conflict over Taiwan aggravated the Second Artillery’s anxieties about its ability to manage such a conflict successfully.

China’s Nuclear Forces: Operations, Training, Doctrine, Command, Control, and Campaign Planning
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... ortzel.pdf
http://sinodefence.com/2010/12/07/pla-s ... ery-corps/

There is evidence that the Sino-U.S. relationship will be predominantly adversarial. Henry Kissinger recently noted, “Enough material exists in China’s quasi-official press and research institutes to lend some support to the theory that relations are heading for confrontation rather than cooperation.

http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News ... ation.aspx
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby Sixstrings » Thu 30 Oct 2014, 04:31:07

vox_mundi wrote:Translated, this means that the Russians will spend $700 billion on their entire defense budget over the next 6 years – which equals about $116 billion a year. The nuclear weapons overhaul portion represents about 5-7 % of that budget or $6-8 billion.


Oh, okay. Well thanks for that correction. I thought that sounded off, for starters Russia doesn't even have $700 billion to spend on anything. That's what I get for reading RT, they make Russia sound scarier than it is.

Russia did just hack the white house computers, though. So what about that. We gotta do something about that, no?

And Russia just had a bomber flotilla flying around Europe past two days freaking everyone out.

Europe is concerned because these planes do not report to air traffic control, for one thing. And they're flying so many of them.

Very interesting and informative post by the way, I won't respond to all of it, I'll just read it.

And yeah I know how many close calls there have been. Most people don't realize that.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby AgentR11 » Thu 30 Oct 2014, 08:12:11

6, Russia has nearly that amount in flat out hard reserves SAVED in dollars. Secondly, the expense would be almost or entirely paid in ruble to domestic industry with no real impact on dollar reserves. We do the conversion in media so we can comprehend the scale of the expenses when discussing foreign currency. I promise you, Russia does in fact have everything it needs domestically to build, maintain, and launch nuclear weapons without any assistance from any Western technology what so ever.

You really need to get off this stupidity of thinking Russia is like North Korea or Iran. Its nothing of the sort. Our economy is bigger of course. However, Russia's industrial economy, and military capacity is completely sufficient to end the friggin world for everyone. Full stop. No magical missile defense will stop thousands of nuclear warheads from detonating, should the Russian state be placed in a position it can't survive.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby fjciv » Thu 30 Oct 2014, 15:54:49

We are not good at nuclear war when the last one was held. Wait who cares .
If and when it happens everyone left standing will think they are next and fire all the missles. and so it goes
lets not worry.
fjciv
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu 30 Oct 2014, 14:51:16

Russian Nuclear Bombers Buzz Guam

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 21 Dec 2014, 04:21:19

Russian Nuclear Bombers Again Buzz Guam

Russian strategic bombers conducted a third circumnavigation of the U.S. Pacific island of Guam last week as other bombers flew close to Alaska and Europe, defense officials said.

Two Tu-95 Bear H bombers made the flight around Guam, a key U.S. military hub in the western Pacific, on Dec. 13. No U.S. interceptor jets were dispatched to shadow the bombers.

Separately, two Canadian F-18s intercepted two Bear bombers that intruded into the Alaska air defense identification zone on Dec. 8 that a military spokesman called “unwanted, provocative, and potentially destabilizing.”

Around the same time in Europe, NATO jets intercepted Russian Tu-95 and Tu-22 Backfire bombers also conducting provocative flights.

Russian warplanes, including four Bear Hs and two Tu-22M Backfire bombers were shadowed as they flew simulated bombing runs from bases in Russia to the Baltic Sea enclave of Kaliningrad for four days beginning on Dec. 7.

Regarding the Guam air defense zone incursions, “U.S. Pacific Command can confirm that two aircraft entered Guam’s outer air defense identification zone on Dec. 13,” said Maj. Dave Washburn, a command spokesman.

“The aircraft were flying safely in international airspace and in accordance with international norms; as such, the decision was made to not intercept them.”

It was the second time in a month that nuclear-capable Russian bombers buzzed the island in what U.S. officials have said is nuclear saber-rattling by Russia under its strongman Vladimir Putin.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-nuclear-bombers-again-buzz-guam/
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby JuanP » Thu 22 Apr 2021, 01:38:14

"The rising threat of nuclear war is the most urgent matter in the world"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/521740-threat- ... ar-urgent/

The Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight. If we go nuclear, a very real possibility considering the quality of some of the political leaders we have in the world today, then fast crash it will be.
"Human stupidity has no limits" JuanP
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 22 Apr 2021, 09:18:19

JuanP wrote:"The rising threat of nuclear war is the most urgent matter in the world"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/521740-threat- ... ar-urgent/

The Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight. If we go nuclear, a very real possibility considering the quality of some of the political leaders we have in the world today, then fast crash it will be.


The number of weapons deployable today compared to say 1981 is a small fraction. No doubt any country could be completely devastated, but the level of damage today vs then means recovery a decade after is a real probability where before it was unlikely a nation completely taken apart with all its major population centers smashed would ever recover. Instead in those circumstance you were looking at a migrant replacement population moving in and replacing the erstwhile now dead civilization from before the war.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16842
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby JuanP » Thu 22 Apr 2021, 13:00:34

Tanada wrote:
JuanP wrote:"The rising threat of nuclear war is the most urgent matter in the world"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/521740-threat- ... ar-urgent/

The Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight. If we go nuclear, a very real possibility considering the quality of some of the political leaders we have in the world today, then fast crash it will be.


The number of weapons deployable today compared to say 1981 is a small fraction. No doubt any country could be completely devastated, but the level of damage today vs then means recovery a decade after is a real probability where before it was unlikely a nation completely taken apart with all its major population centers smashed would ever recover. Instead in those circumstance you were looking at a migrant replacement population moving in and replacing the erstwhile now dead civilization from before the war.


You are mostly correct, but there are still enough nuclear bombs to end human civilization in most, if not all, of the planet and kill most of humanity. I think many nations, particularly the USA, would most likely never recover, definitely not in 10 years. I think you are underestimating the seriousness of the problem. The global population is significantly more concentrated in urban areas now. in the 80s the vast majority of humanity lived in rural areas, but now the majority live in urban areas making them easier to kill. What you said about the number of bombs is true, though, and is very clearly pointed out in the article I provided a link to:

"If you look at the data that’s collected by the Federation of American Scientists, for example, you see that – since the 1980s at the height of the Cold War – we have slashed the global nuclear arsenals. We went from a world in 1986 where there were almost 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world down to where we are now where there’s just about 13,500 nuclear weapons. Tremendous progress. 85% reduction in the stockpile…"
"Human stupidity has no limits" JuanP
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 23 Apr 2021, 09:36:29

JuanP wrote:
Tanada wrote:
JuanP wrote:"The rising threat of nuclear war is the most urgent matter in the world"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/521740-threat- ... ar-urgent/

The Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight. If we go nuclear, a very real possibility considering the quality of some of the political leaders we have in the world today, then fast crash it will be.


The number of weapons deployable today compared to say 1981 is a small fraction. No doubt any country could be completely devastated, but the level of damage today vs then means recovery a decade after is a real probability where before it was unlikely a nation completely taken apart with all its major population centers smashed would ever recover. Instead in those circumstance you were looking at a migrant replacement population moving in and replacing the erstwhile now dead civilization from before the war.


You are mostly correct, but there are still enough nuclear bombs to end human civilization in most, if not all, of the planet and kill most of humanity. I think many nations, particularly the USA, would most likely never recover, definitely not in 10 years. I think you are underestimating the seriousness of the problem. The global population is significantly more concentrated in urban areas now. in the 80s the vast majority of humanity lived in rural areas, but now the majority live in urban areas making them easier to kill. What you said about the number of bombs is true, though, and is very clearly pointed out in the article I provided a link to:

"If you look at the data that’s collected by the Federation of American Scientists, for example, you see that – since the 1980s at the height of the Cold War – we have slashed the global nuclear arsenals. We went from a world in 1986 where there were almost 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world down to where we are now where there’s just about 13,500 nuclear weapons. Tremendous progress. 85% reduction in the stockpile…"


Those "kill the world" estimates are based on silly assumptions that every weapon would be deployed to do the maximum population reduction. That is not how things work here in the real world. In the real world high value targets get hit multiple times and other places like most of Africa, South America, Asia and Australia/New Zealand are pretty much ignored completely. Sure North America, Europe and east Asia probably get plastered pretty good and you might if you are really going for it kill half the worlds population. Do you really think Argentina and South Africa are going to implode if they can't get cheap junk from China and bad advice from the USA? Again, that isn't how it works in the real world.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16842
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 30 Oct 2022, 15:18:21

Completely ignoring that France and the UK have their own nuclear arsenals and that hundreds of US nuclear warheads are already stored in depots around NATO countries the Biden Administration is saber rattling amid growing nuclear tensions with Russia. I see this as an increase in probability of someone accidentally starting the war we are all better off avoiding.

S to send hi-tech nuclear weapons to Nato bases amid rising tensions with Russia



America is to bring forward the delivery of dozens of highly accurate guided tactical nuclear weapons to Europe amid escalating tensions with Moscow.

The new B61-12 thermonuclear bombs are "dial-a-yield" devices, meaning their payload can be changed. They are expected to be sent to Nato bases within weeks.

B61-12s have four yields that can be selected - 0.3, 1.5, 10 or 50 kilotons. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 had a yield of about 15 kilotons.

The 12ft-long weapons feature new tailkits that allow them to be dropped from planes as a "dumb" gravity bomb, or in "guided drop" mode, with an accuracy of within 30 metres.

The move is part of a decade-long $10 billion upgrade programme for several variants of B61-class unguided nuclear bombs, which first became part of the US arsenal in 1968.

Currently, the US has 100 older B61s stored at bases in European countries including Germany and Italy.

In what was seen as a move to reassure Nato allies amid Russian nuclear-sabre-rattling, the replacement process will begin in December, having previously been expected next spring.

Allies were told about the move last month, Politico reported.

The new weapons have had "all of the bomb’s nuclear and non-nuclear components" replaced or refurbished, according to the US energy department.

In addition to making them more accurate, the modifications have reduced the yield from the bombs they are replacing.

The US bombs being delivered to Europe can be dropped by a variety of aircraft including B-2 stealth bombers, and smaller warplanes like the F-15, F-35 and Tornado.

The Pentagon denied that the process of upgrading them had been affected by Kremlin posturing, or fears Russia could deploy a "dirty bomb" in Ukraine.

A Pentagon spokesman said it was "in no way linked to current events in Ukraine and was not sped up in any way”.

They added that the modernisation of B61 nuclear weapons had been "under way for years".

The development came as Vladimir Putin dismissed accusations that Russia could use a tactical nuclear weapon as a "fuss," and blamed the UK for initiating provocations.

He accused Liz Truss of having publicly threatened Russia with a nuclear attack when she was prime minister.

Mr Putin claimed the former prime minister had made a "folly" and was a "bit out of it," adding: "Someone should have corrected her. Washington could have said they have nothing to do with that."

In a long speech, Mr Putin described the Ukrainian crisis as part of "tectonic changes in the world order that have been going on for several years now".

He added: "We are facing a historic milestone. Ahead of us is possibly the most dangerous, unpredictable and at the same time crucial decade since the end of the Second World War."
First defence review in four years

As Mr Putin spoke, the US released its long awaited National Defence Strategy, the first in four years, and its Nuclear Posture Review.

The 80-page defence strategy said China was "the most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades," and that would determine how the US military is equipped and developed in the future.

There was also a strong warning for Kim Jong-un that his regime would "end" if he used a nuclear weapon.

It said: "There is no scenario in which the Kim regime could employ nuclear weapons and survive."

The review said US nuclear weapons were a deterrence not just against nuclear, but also conventional, attack.

"This includes nuclear employment of any scale, and it includes high-consequence attacks of a strategic nature that use non-nuclear means," the document said.

It also confirmed the cancellation of a new submarine-launched cruise missile announced when Donald Trump was president.

Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, said the US already had enough nuclear capability.

He added: "I don't think this [the cancellation] sends any message to Putin. He understands what our capability is."

Mr Austin added: "We are certainly concerned about escalation, we have been so from the very beginning of this conflict. It would be the first time that a nuclear weapon has been used in over 70 years."

On Wednesday, Mr Putin watched the so-called "Grom" exercises by Russia's strategic nuclear forces, involving intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines and long-range bombers.

Mr Austin said: "We haven't seen anything to cause us to believe, at this point, that [the exercise] is some kind of cover activity."

Telegraph
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16842
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby evilgenius » Sat 05 Nov 2022, 10:07:46

JuanP wrote:
Tanada wrote:
JuanP wrote:"The rising threat of nuclear war is the most urgent matter in the world"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/521740-threat- ... ar-urgent/

The Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight. If we go nuclear, a very real possibility considering the quality of some of the political leaders we have in the world today, then fast crash it will be.


The number of weapons deployable today compared to say 1981 is a small fraction. No doubt any country could be completely devastated, but the level of damage today vs then means recovery a decade after is a real probability where before it was unlikely a nation completely taken apart with all its major population centers smashed would ever recover. Instead in those circumstance you were looking at a migrant replacement population moving in and replacing the erstwhile now dead civilization from before the war.


You are mostly correct, but there are still enough nuclear bombs to end human civilization in most, if not all, of the planet and kill most of humanity. I think many nations, particularly the USA, would most likely never recover, definitely not in 10 years. I think you are underestimating the seriousness of the problem. The global population is significantly more concentrated in urban areas now. in the 80s the vast majority of humanity lived in rural areas, but now the majority live in urban areas making them easier to kill. What you said about the number of bombs is true, though, and is very clearly pointed out in the article I provided a link to:

"If you look at the data that’s collected by the Federation of American Scientists, for example, you see that – since the 1980s at the height of the Cold War – we have slashed the global nuclear arsenals. We went from a world in 1986 where there were almost 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world down to where we are now where there’s just about 13,500 nuclear weapons. Tremendous progress. 85% reduction in the stockpile…"

That depends upon what you mean by recovery, doesn't it? Because nuclear weapons aren't going to destroy a place like Vernal, Utah, for instance. Vernal is big enough to contain, all by itself, enough resources to recover. There are thousands of Vernals all over the United States. And you don't travel very far, in most places, between them.

The United States is huge. It may become the fastest country to get to a billion in population, one day. Much faster than China or India, which have had centuries to do so. Yes, it is another model, one that isn't based upon first world largess disrupting how people make decisions about how they will have children, and thus leading to higher populations. The US doesn't need the thousand or so years of run up.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3700
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Stopped at the Border.

Previous

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests