It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hey, I know how to stop Global Warming; Let's NUKE somebody!!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I wish I could say I found this story in the Onion but it seems to be from a REAL NASA study.


A Small Nuclear War Would Stall Global Warming

NASA computer models reveal what a small, regional nuclear war in one part of the world would do to the global climate and environment. The results are grim.

If 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, each as powerful as 15,000 tons of TNT, were exchanged in a war between two developing-world nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan, models show the resulting fires would send five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper troposphere - the lowest-altitude layer of the atmosphere.

There, the soot would absorb solar heat and rise like a hot-air balloon, reaching heights from which it would not easily settle back to the ground.

In the shade of this carbon shield, Earth would cool. "The effects would [lead] to unprecedented climate change," said NASA physical scientist Luke Oman at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science last week. Oman's and his colleagues' models show that for two to three years after a regional nuclear war, average global temperatures would drop by at least 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C), and as much as 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C) in the tropics, Europe, Asia and Alaska.

Yahoo News


Hooray, all our problems are solved!!!


God help us all.
:bnghd:

At least the study acknowledges that this wouldn't be a good thing and there would be widespread complications but, try telling that to the environmentalists. The huge loss of human life would be enough for them to endorse this plan.


edit on 3/2/11 by FortAnthem because:





posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Instead of just saying dropping 100 nukes would cause black carbon to go up into the Troposphere, they had to make it a nuclear war scenario between developing countries?

If this is some sort of social engineering they aren't doing a very good job at it...or are they?

Anyways, why would this speculation even fall under, let alone mean anything, yo NASA? Have they become so bored with themselves that they feel that they need to come up with radical solutions for things that happen all of the time in nature?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
lmao at the title

even though the content is no laughing matter.

Oh yea, we can save the world by destroying it.

What an ingenious plan



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I love the header Yahoo put above this article.




I wonder if they think a radical solution like that would really help the world.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CordDragonzord
Instead of just saying dropping 100 nukes would cause black carbon to go up into the Troposphere, they had to make it a nuclear war scenario between developing countries?

If this is some sort of social engineering they aren't doing a very good job at it...or are they?

Anyways, why would this speculation even fall under, let alone mean anything, yo NASA? Have they become so bored with themselves that they feel that they need to come up with radical solutions for things that happen all of the time in nature?



No Kidding! There are many people who would love for that many people to die... because they 'claim' we have an overpopulation problem. Two; it would be so easy to drop 100 A-bombs that small on purpose in the first place.

We've done it many times:


Hiroshima bomb was tiny:





edit on 2-3-2011 by darius2025 because: trouble with video

edit on 2-3-2011 by darius2025 because: embeding issues

edit on 2-3-2011 by darius2025 because: don't got it yet



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but there is no global warming!!!!!!!!


This is simply a weak, lame, and rather disgusting attempt to legitamize the farce and falicy of global warming.

But hey, S+F for upping my blood pressure this morning.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Naw... there is global warming... it's just not 'mainly' caused by humans. It has to do with the sun, i believe.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by darius2025
 


In other words, a normal cycle. *sigh* Global warming, global cooling, weather, . . . .

This winter they were saying the snow was caused by global warming. This summer, the heat will be caused by global warming.

This article is just a perfect example of mans' arrogance to think that they even have a shred of a clue as to what to "do" about it.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by darius2025

Originally posted by CordDragonzord
Instead of just saying dropping 100 nukes would cause black carbon to go up into the Troposphere, they had to make it a nuclear war scenario between developing countries?

If this is some sort of social engineering they aren't doing a very good job at it...or are they?

Anyways, why would this speculation even fall under, let alone mean anything, yo NASA? Have they become so bored with themselves that they feel that they need to come up with radical solutions for things that happen all of the time in nature?



No Kidding! There are many people who would love for that many people to die... because they 'claim' we have an overpopulation problem. Two; it would be so easy to drop 100 A-bombs that small on purpose in the first place.

We've done it many times:


Hiroshima bomb was tiny:





edit on 2-3-2011 by darius2025 because: trouble with video

edit on 2-3-2011 by darius2025 because: embeding issues

edit on 2-3-2011 by darius2025 because: don't got it yet



how in the world is this even possible that we as a whole world have set off this man nukes and were not all glowing radioactive slugs by now?? I don't get it??? someone please explain??



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 
The US, Russia, and other countries have been reducing their nuclear arsenal. I think at one point Russia (or the USSR) had over 40,000 nukes, now I believe it's less than half that. en.wikipedia.org...

If they didn't have the radioactive fallout problem, then dropping the unwanted bombs somewhere like the south pole (where it wouldn't kill anything important because nothing important lives there) would kill two birds with one stone:

It would dispose of the unwanted bomb, and
It would reduce global warming

Unfortunately the radiation in the atmosphere after the explosion would probably cause a handful of deaths globally as I suspect even the radiation from previous atomic bomb tests probably did. International treaty also forbids nuclear weapon testing or detonation on Antarctica, though if internationally agreed as a global warming countermeasure, it may not be unthinkable.

dosfan.lib.uic.edu...

Nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive waste material in Antarctica are prohibited, subject to certain future international agreements on these subjects.



But if global warming ever becomes a problem and people start dying from it, then at some point we might have to ask, which will kill more people, the global warming, or the fallout from dropping some nukes at the south pole?

According to this, cumulative exposures between 1951 and 2000 from some nuclear tests conducted between 1951 and 1962 have resulted in an estimated 17,000 cases of cancer due to fallout:

www.ieer.org...

That doesn't even include Chinese tests, done between 1964-1980, pre-1951 tests, and ventings from underground tests. So there would have to be a lot of people dying from global warming before we would consider this option.

Even more crazy are these ideas: 7 (Crazy) Civilian Uses for Nuclear Bombs

What would be preferable along these lines would be perhaps detonating bombs somewhere uninhabited, like Antarctica, that would create the carbon shield without the radioactive fallout. If global warming becomes a problem, then dropping fallout-free bombs (if such things are possible) in Antarctica where they won't kill anyone might be worth considering.


the Plowshare team designed a series of weapons that contained very little fissionable material, which is what makes radioactivity dangerous to humans.

"For excavation, we put a lot of time and effort and money into developing nuclear explosives which had minimal fissionable material so that you could carry out a 100-kiloton cratering explosion and release the radioactivity equivalent to a 20-ton explosive of fissionable material," Nordyke said.


If the fallout can be reduced by that much, maybe it's not such a crazy idea after all.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join