Global nuclear winter can counteract global warming

In short, if there are people looking for a reason as to why we should make more nukes, we've just found it.

Well done kids.

Originally posted by Throbber
You're advocating the acceptance of nuclear arms, and saying that we can use them for our own benefit by shaping the environment.

Nuclear weapons were created to be used. Since people are reluctant to use them on each other, I figure that we should at least use them to better our planet.

I really don't see a problem with using nuclear weapons to sculpt the environment that we would like to see.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Throbber
You're advocating the acceptance of nuclear arms, and saying that we can use them for our own benefit by shaping the environment.

Nuclear weapons were created to be used. Since people are reluctant to use them on each other, I figure that we should at least use them to better our planet.

I really don't see a problem with using nuclear weapons to sculpt the environment that we would like to see.

Maybe we should use them on people that come up with ridiculous ideas like the idea in this thread

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Maybe we should use them on people that come up with ridiculous ideas like the idea in this thread

The wright brothers had thier nay sayers as well. People will end up using nukes sooner or later, you'll see.

A weapon unused is a waste of resources.

So you might as well use them for a positive purpose, like saving the polar bears. Even an environmentalist should see the logic in that.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

It seems hard to believe today, but between the late 1950s and 1977, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and its successor agencies, the Energy R&D Administration and the Department of Energy spent hundreds of millions of dollars studying the feasibility of using nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. One of the ideas that seemed most promising was excavating a new sea-level canal across Central America to replace the existing Panama Canal. The Panama Canal uses a series of 12 locks to raise ships 85 feet (~26 meters) above sea level and bring them back down on the other side. A sea-level canal could speed traffic considerably and could be built deep and wide enough to accommodate modern supertankers which are too big for the Panama Canal.

Complete link here: www.alteich.com...

I knew this from when it was discussed back in the 60's and again in the late 70's.

You just can't make this stuff up.... Atoms for peace....

You can use them all you want in America, But not here in the land of Downunder.

Has no one seen the movie ON THE BEACH, it's a movie about nuclear war that broke out in the northern hemisphere that ended up killing everybody because the fallout went into the upper atmosphere and circulated around the world killing them with radiation poisioning. The even ended up given people pills to put them to sleep so the didn't suffer.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Global Warming, is that thing still around?

I think it's time give it a new name like Climate Change because I don't know where you've been but the world's climate is dropping in temperature. Many countries experienced record breaking lower temperatures last year.

The Earth slowly and automatically corrects its global temperature but this takes time. As a result Global Warming awareness is now probably the biggest contributing factor to this cooling surprise because for all we know the Earth has now been forced to over compensate based on pre GW awareness conditions it may had been expecting.

Your nuclear solution would make the world much colder

Originally posted by In nothing we trust


So you might as well use them for a positive purpose, like saving the polar bears. Even an environmentalist should see the logic in that.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

Shut up, an Environmentalist would never agree to this - they're all anti-nuke anyway.

Your desire to keep this matter going fuelled purely by false reasoning is showing you are nothing but a fool, and any kicks you may be getting out of this will be short-lived.

In the meanwhile, people can look at what you've written, change a few bits here and there, and next thing you know the sheeple will be calling for nuclear terraforming.

Which is what you're talking about - nuclear terraforming.

Originally posted by Throbber
Which is what you're talking about - nuclear terraforming.

Pretty much.

Drastic times call for drastic counter-measures.

Look at this post and this will close this case. 'Regional' Nuclear War Would Cause World Wide Destruction

Originally posted by cnm1976
Look at this post and this will close this case. 'Regional' Nuclear War Would Cause World Wide Destruction

On the contrary I just posted my theory in that thread.

I admit that the use of nuclear weapons is scary. You just don't know where they are gonna go off. However, it is really just the unknown aspects of not knowing that scare people. If they know before hand where the detonations will occur it will go along way towards allevating mass panic and hysteria.

I think once people understand what is at stake and the benifits to alleviating the growing problem of global warming they will come to cheer on the use of controlled nuclear explosions. Emphasis on controlled.

It is the uncontrolled use of nuclear weapons in combat that scraes the crap out of everyone. A controlled use of nuclear weapons used in a sequence that will bring about a positive change in the earths atmosphere would be applauded if sold to the people in the right manner.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

This thread would make Dick Cheney proud. I can see him now showing this thread to Bush and making his case for it and Bush saying "Let's Roll"

reply to post by Throbber


Wow why are you so rude to the OP ? How do you know this would not work? It is just an idea and nothing more. Keep an open mind and oppose openly as well but don't be rude.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Stumpy1]

So you might as well use them for a positive purpose, like saving the polar bears.

The polar bears are fine. Nukes will make them and everything else much worse. As a responsible conservationist, I have noticed that.

By the way, global warming is not a problem, nor will it ever be; that is unless you are referring to hundreds of millions of years in the future when the sun will be stronger.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by SlyCM]

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

People will end up using nukes sooner or later, you'll see.

You are right about the nukes being developed for one purpose: to be used. They will be used. You have a good point. I would like to think we could de-engineer them or recycle them somehow?

I'd rather that then use them to induce nation-wide nuclear fallout. Keep in mind you're suggesting they be used tactically for optimal debri to be put into the atmosphere... that's radioactive debri! You are underestimating the devistation here, it's not going to be contained to the key areas you mentioned... it's going to fall back down onto people, animals, and crops and water sources.

[edit on 053030p://9u22 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by SlyCM
that is unless you are referring to hundreds of millions of years in the future when the sun will be stronger.

The Sun gets stronger and subsequently puts off more heat fairly often actually; it's called solar cycles. During solar maximum all sorts of sun flares occur. This puts out more energy aka more heat.

Anyways, the world at large is still in heated debate over GW and CC. You speaking so absolutely that it is no threat or ever will be is premature and silly at best.

[edit on 053030p://9u19 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Keep in mind you're suggesting they be used tactically for optimal debri to be put into the atmosphere... that's radioactive debri!

... it's going to fall back down onto people, animals, and crops and water sources.

The atmosphere is a very big space. We really just need a very thin layer of dust to help minimize the affects of global warming. I would think that 1,500 megatons would only result in about a 4 - 6 inch thick layer of dust in the upper atmosphere surrounding the earth. Sure some of it will be radioactive dust, but thats ok because by the time it falls back to earth it will be so completely diluted and dispersed by the winds currents that it won't really affect too much.

As the protective dust layer falls to earth we may have to periodically set off some more nukes to refortify the dust zone. Remember the goal here is to bring the earth back into temperture balance. If the world gets too warm, the icecaps melt and the oceans rise we're in deep sh*t.

And yes I am calling for the tactical use of nuclear weapons so that we can win the war against the envionment. As long as we use them in a measured and controlled fashion everything will be ok. It's the uncontrolled use of nuclear weapons that are used without a real purpose that is kinda scary.

We got a problem called global warming and we have nuclear weapons which were created to be used, so lets put them to good use. Let's kill two birds with one stone. Nuking the earths deserts are our only hope.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Detonating nuclear bombs is just stupid and irresponsible, especially when its not guaranteed to work

Yeah, but I bet the sunsets will be something to see for the next few years, tho!!!

Ok, back to the topic. Funtime is over.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
We really just need a very thin layer of dust to help minimize the affects of global warming. I would think that 1,500 megatons would only result in about a 4 - 6 inch thick layer of dust in the upper atmosphere surrounding the earth.

How much? I did a few quick calculations, thats like 77000 cubic kilometers of material up there, how do intend on getting it all up there?

As an aside:
Calculation: 6 inches= approx 15 cm
radius to atmosphere level, lets say 6401000m.
4 pi r ^2 = 5.14879 x 10^14 x 0.15 (6 inches thick layer) = 77231 cubic kilometers.

You only get dust from the affected area on the ground with a nuke, and even so, there isn't that much. And using the figure of energy you have worked out, being 1,500 MT, thats equivalent to two Tambora sized eruptions. Now obviously not all that energy pushes material upwards, but neither would it with a nuke. And that eruption only deposited 100 cubic kilometers of ash, yet created the so called "Year without a summer". Now you are proposing a lot more than that, 77,000 cubic kilometers. Thats 30 times more material than Lake Toba threw out when it erupted 75,000 years ago, and that pushed early humans to the brink of extinction.
If it's not all ash, just ash to air in a 1:15 ratio by volume, it's still a lot, 5,148 cubic kilometers.
And thats still twice as large as Toba.

As the protective dust layer falls to earth we may have to periodically set off some more nukes to refortify the dust zone. Remember the goal here is to bring the earth back into temperture balance. If the world gets too warm, the icecaps melt and the oceans rise we're in deep sh*t.

Or if we get into a massive nuclear winter, we have problems.

We got a problem called global warming and we have nuclear weapons which were created to be used, so lets put them to good use. Let's kill two birds with one stone. Nuking the earths deserts are our only hope.

Or we could do it how it's meant to be done, adapting to a change in environment, rather than adapting the environment to try to suit us.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The Sun gets stronger and subsequently puts off more heat fairly often actually; it's called solar cycles. During solar maximum all sorts of sun flares occur. This puts out more energy aka more heat.

Anyways, the world at large is still in heated debate over GW and CC. You speaking so absolutely that it is no threat or ever will be is premature and silly at best.

[edit on 053030p://9u19 by Lucid Lunacy]

True enough but only in hundreds of millions of years will it be strong enough to actually impair life as we know it. Of course, that is if things keep going as they are.

By the way, is it any less silly or premature for global warming fundamentalists to be speaking so absolutely? They seem to get plenty of sympathy...

[edit on 10-4-2008 by SlyCM]