Why Worry About Global Warming When There Will Be A Nuclear Winter

Nuclear Weapons Are Much More Dangerous Than Global Warming

Posted: 12/01/2014 12:24 pm EST Updated: 12/01/2014 12:59 pm EST 
Skeptical Science is a great website that debunks global warming deniers. But their home page has a box counting up the amount of energy trapped by greenhouse gases in units of Hiroshima atomic bomb energy. While strictly correct, in the sense that the amount of energy released by the horrendous, genocidal attack on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945, the equivalent of the explosion of 15,000 tons of TNT, is the same as that accumulated at Earth’s surface every fourth of a second by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I find that this trivializes the horror of nuclear war.

I am not writing this to criticize global warming theory. I have been doing climate research for 40 years, since Professor Edward Lorenz recommended the study of climate as a Ph.D. topic for me in 1974. In 1978 I published the first transient climate model simulation of the warming response to increasing CO2 (Internally and externally caused climate change. J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 1111-1122). And I often explain the problem in the 10 words of Yale’s Anthony Leiserowitz: “It’s real. It’s us. Scientists agree. It’s bad. There’s hope.” But we do not need to shock and mislead people with the effects of nuclear weapons to solve this problem.
Hiroshima after the nuclear attack. The buildings burned, producing smoke. Multiple attacks, with much larger current bombs, could produce devastating global cooling.

Nuclear bombs do more than release thermal energy, and their potential impact on climate far outweighs anything else humans could do to our climate. The blast, fires, and radioactivity would kill millions of people if dropped on modern cities. The direct casualties from just three weapons of the size used on Hiroshima, exploding on U.S. cities would cause more casualties than the U.S. experienced in World War II. But the smoke from the fires would cause the largest impact on humans.
I described the climatic effects of nuclear war and the continuing nuclear winter problem in a previous Huffington Post blog. To summarize, the current Russian and American nuclear arsenals can still produce a nuclear winter, with temperatures plummeting below freezing in the summer, sentencing most of the world to famine and starvation. Even a war between two new nuclear powers, say India and Pakistan, could put a billion people could be at risk of starvation from the agricultural impacts of the smoke from the fires that could be generated.

Nuclear weapons are useless. They would never be used on purpose by the major powers, but could be used by accident. Some countries might use them in a moment of panic, or in response to imagined threats and insults, or in a fit of religious hysteria. The arsenals of nuclear weapons states set a bad example for the world, encouraging proliferation. And they could kill us all.

Now that President Obama is feeling freer to do the right thing, rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars to modernize our nuclear arsenal, he can rapidly reduce it, to make the U.S and the world safer, and to save us money for much more productive uses.

The time is now to ban nuclear weapons so we have the luxury of worrying about global warming.
For more information on this topic, click here and watch my 18-minute TEDx talk, here.

Iraqi Horn And The Abomination of Desolation (Daniel 11:31)

Islamic State has a ‘dirty bomb’ says British jihadi, amid claims 40kg of URANIUM was taken from Iraqi university

Tariq claims to have been contacted by the terror group (pictured in northern Syria) from his Pakistani home

Islamic State fanatics claim to have constructed a dirty bomb after stealing 40kg of uranium from an Iraqi university.
Among extremists making online threats to the West is British explosives expert Hamayun Tariq, who fled his home in Dudley, West Midlands, for the Middle East in 2012.
He continued: ‘We’ll find out what dirty bombs are and what they do. We’ll also discuss what might happen if one actually went off in a public area.
‘This sort of a bomb would be terribly destructive if went off In LONDON becuz (sic) it would be more of a disruptive than a destructive weapon,’ before having his Twitter account suspended.
Other jihadis echoed the claims a destructive ‘dirty bomb’ had bee
n made, with one writing: ‘
Jihadis boasted of the device on Twitter. British-born Hamayun Tariq, who uses the Muslim name Muslim Al-Britani is thought to have threatened that the bomb may be detonated in London, though his account on the social media site has since been suspended
In July nearly 40kg of uranium stored for scientific research went missing from Mosul University in northern Iraq.
‘These nuclear materials, despite the limited amounts mentioned, can enable terrorist groups, with the availability of the required expertise, to use it separate or in combination with other materials in its terrorist acts.’
Yesterday, as news the uranium had been used to construct a bomb, one jihadi taunted Iraq’s reported plans to retake control of Mosul.
Tariq claims to have been contacted by the terror group (pictured in northern Syria) from his Pakistani home
Extremists are thought to have paid for him to travel to Syria where they operate in large numbers

‘Plan to retake Mosul from ISIS emerges, haha! Little do they know the resources of #IS! Good luck!’ they wrote.
Earlier this year, Tariq claimed to have had his passport cancelled by the Home Office after travelling to the Middle East.
The former car mechanic fled to Pakistan almost immediately after being released from prison in 2012.
After pledging his allegiance to the Taliban, he claimed to have been recruited by IS fighters who paid for him to travel to Syria to join them.
The Home Office would not speak to Tariq’s claims, saying it did not comment on individual cases.

The Iranian Horn Grows Larger (Daniel 8:4)

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Tells Iran Armed Forces to Build Up ‘Irrespective’ of Diplomacy

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Tells Iran Armed Forces to Build Up 'Irrespective' of Diplomacy
File photo of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. (Reuters)

Dubai:  Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Sunday the armed forces should increase their combat capability regardless of political considerations, in an apparent allusion to continuing nuclear talks with the West aimed at easing tension in the Middle East.

“Given our vast maritime borders and the enemy’s huge investments in this area, our armed forces should continuously improve their (combat) readiness, irrespective of political calculations,” Khamenei told a gathering of senior navy officials during a ceremony to mark the “Navy Week” in Iran.

Khamenei, who commands all branches of the armed forces in addition to other key centres of power in the Islamic republic, did not mention any countries by name but he normally uses “enemy” to refer mainly to the United States and Britain — both of which have intervened in Iran over the past century.

“Peacetime offers great opportunities for our armed forces to … build up on preemptive capacities,” said Khamenei, with state television playing excerpts of his speech.

The United States and its key regional ally Israel have both hinted they might bomb Iran to prevent it developing nuclear weapons. Iran denies any such ambition and insists its atomic programme is designed for civilian projects.

With Khamenei’s blessing, Iran’s moderate President Hassan Rouhani launched a diplomatic initiative to resolve a 12-year nuclear dispute, hoping to save his country from punishing global sanctions. Tehran and six world powers missed a self-imposed deadline on Nov. 24 for a deal, but gave themselves seven more months to overcome their many differences.

Despite his reserved support for the negotiations, Khamenei, perceived by many as a hardliner, remains distrustful of Western intentions in the region and insists that Iran’s defence capability, including its controversial missile programme, must not be part of any broad diplomatic deal.

In tandem with Rouhani’s diplomatic overture, generals appointed by Khamenei are maintaining a relentless war rhetoric and unveil on an almost daily basis what they say are new innovations in weaponry.

“The range of (our) missiles covers all of Israel today,” the chief of the Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, said last week. “That means the fall of the Zionist regime, which will certainly come soon.”

However, Admiral Ali Shamakhani, an ally of President Rouhani who serves as a top security official, sought to temper the bellicose language on Sunday.

“Our missile capability, like our nuclear, is inherently peaceful and geared for self defence,” the official IRNA news agency quoted his as saying.

© Thomson Reuters 2014

Babylon The Great WON”T Use Minimal Nucelar Deterrence (Daniel 7:7)

American Nuclear Strategy: The Case for a Minimal-Deterrence Policy

December 1, 2014
Critics of minimal deterrence, such as Keith Payne in a recent article in the Washington Times, accuse advocates of reducing the U.S. nuclear stockpile of viewing the world through rose-colored glasses, irresponsibly following ideological perceptions at the expense of American security. These charges represent true irony; few policies are more tainted with ideology than the advocacy of an outdated nuclear strategy with an excessive, ill-maintained arsenal of weapons.

The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review states: “[t]he fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, [its] allies, and partners.” Because of the vast and indiscriminate destructive power of nuclear weapons, there is a general consensus that their sole legitimate purpose is to deter the use of weapons of mass destruction by potential enemies; and that their use in war should be initiated only as a last resort to prevent the military defeat of the nation or an ally. These weapons clearly are irrelevant to current international security challenges such as nonstate terrorist expansion in Iraq and Syria, the Ebola virus in Africa or even Russian aggression in Ukraine.

But how many nuclear weapons are necessary for an effective, reliable deterrent?

The United States currently has an arsenal of about 4,800 nuclear warheads, enough for an estimated 1,400-megaton cumulative yield of destructive power. That is 87,500 times the blast power of the bomb that devastated Hiroshima and equal to the blast yield of 1,400,000,000 tons of TNT. Put another way, it would only take one tenth of the 1,400 megatons we possess to decimate the fifty most-populated cities in the United States.[1] How much deliverable nuclear explosive power and destruction does it take to deter potential enemies? Obviously, under any conceivable scenario, the United States does not need a nuclear arsenal nearly this large.

In the midst of the Cold War, the United States adopted a nuclear counterforce strategy designed to disarm the remaining nuclear capabilities of the Soviet Union and ensure the survival of its counterattack capability in the event of nuclear aggression. This posture, mirrored by the Soviets, led to a decades-long nuclear arms race. While our current relationship with Russia is strained, it certainly does not rise to a Cold War level of risk of a nuclear exchange. Unfortunately, however, our nuclear planning has been driven largely by inertia, dependent on outdated scenarios implausible in today’s world. As Lt. General James Kowalski, Vice Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, stated in 2013, a Russian nuclear attack on the United States is such “a remote possibility” that it is “hardly worth discussing.”

A detailed analysis of U.S. nuclear-deterrence requirements conducted by the Department of Defense, in cooperation with the departments of State, Homeland Security and Energy and the intelligence community, concluded that the United States could reduce the number of its deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by one third without degrading its nuclear deterrent. This analysis was concurred by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If instead of a counterforce strategy, the United States were to adopt a more practical and more stable minimal nuclear deterrent, it could significantly reduce its nuclear arsenal, along with the associated cost and risks, without compromising its security or that of its allies. For example, a 2012 study—chaired by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Cartwright, and with other responsible and knowledgeable former national-security officials such as committee members, including ambassadors Thomas Pickering and Richard Burt, then Senator Chuck Hagel and General (Ret.) Jack Sheehan—concluded that the United States could reduce its nuclear arsenal to 450 warheads deployed on nuclear submarines and bombers, with an additional 450 in reserve, without jeopardizing security.

There have been other responsible studies of the number of nuclear weapons necessary for an effective deterrent, ranging from 311 to 1000 warheads. The Federation of American Scientists and the Natural Resource Defense Council released a study in 2009 concluding that 500 warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMS), nuclear submarines and bomber aircraft would be sufficient. A 2005 study conducted by Stanford physicist Sidney Drell and Ambassador James Goodby estimated a 500 warhead stock of operational nuclear weapons on submarines, ICBMS, and bombers, with an additional 500 warheads in a reserve “responsive force,” would provide an effective nuclear deterrent. The lowest estimate of these studies, conducted by two members of the faculty of the Air University and an active duty Air Force officer planner, described a 311-warhead force deployed on 100 ICBMS, twelve nuclear submarines and nineteen bombers as a sufficient deterrent.