I would say they're about equal, if we're talking a global nuclear war. I think we'll drop a couple nukes, say "HOLY CRAP!" and never do it again, while global warming continues to cause damage.

A global nuclear war would be substantially worse than the continued rate the Earth is heating up at right now.

We've already dropped a couple of nukes: remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Ant

I would say they're about equal, if we're talking a global nuclear war. I think we'll drop a couple nukes, say "HOLY CRAP!" and never do it again, while global warming continues to cause damage.


Well, personally I do not worry about either.

We have droped nukes (well, atom bombs) 2 times before.  And it has been the US policy that we will not conduct a first strike, and only use them in retaliation.

Currently, there is no country out there that has nukes that is a real threat.  Russia and us are no longer in the 40+ year Nuclear Standoff of the Cold War.  And the only countries that possess them are either not a threat, or our number is so much larger that if they used them against us, they would become a radioactive puddle.

In other words, I seriously doubt that Iran or North Korea would use their nukes to attack us.  Because it would not be "Mutual Assured Destruction", the only destruction after the bomb went off would be theirs.

I also do not worry about "Global Warming".  Sure you have scientists that claim it exists.  You also had scientists at one time that said smoking was good for you, cold fusion was the wave of the future, eugenics was a valid field of study, and that Fairies really existed.  And if you look around, you will find scientists that believe almost anything.

In reality, we are still in an "Ice Age".  In the history of our planet, polar ice caps are an exception, not a rule.  And our planet has been "warming" for roughly 13,000 years.

And the accelleration of temperature increases is actually expected.  As the ice sheets melt, less sunlight is reflected back into space.  This leads to increased warming.

If you want to know what the temperature is normally like, look at the Cretaceous, when there was a large number of dinosaurs that evolved to live in Antarctica (semi-tropical rainforest, with 6 month days and 6 month nights).  Or even the Eocene, where there was a tropical rainforest in Northern Canada.

And if anybody looks at the Wikipedia entry for ice ages, it clearly states:

"There have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past. Outside these periods, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes."

So hold onto your seats, things are going to get a lot warmer for the next several thousand years.  The last major interglacial (Eemian Interglacial) was warmer then the estimates of our current one when it peaks, and we will not hit there for another 5-8,000 years.  By that time, the ice caps will be gone, the tundra will be replaced by rain forests, and scientists will be worrying about the upcomming next ice age.

Besides, we really only have accurate first-hand scientific proof of a little over 100 years of climate data.  And most of that was collected after the "Little Ice Age" of the 14-19th centuries.  That was on the heals of the "Medieval Climate Optimum", which had temperatures that are even warmer then we have today.

Personally, I am much more worried about some kind of epidemic wiping out our civilization then anything else.  A stronger strain of Ebola would do much more damage then either of these "boogiemen".

A global nuclear war would be substantially worse than the continued rate the Earth is heating up at right now.

We've already dropped a couple of nukes: remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Ant




Not to mention the fact that radioactive halflives can last for hundreds or thousands of years depending on the substance involved.  Chernobyl left a large area mostly uninhabitable after its meltdown.  A truly global nuclear war would leave much of the planet in a state like Chernobyl.

Not to mention the fact that radioactive halflives can last for hundreds or thousands of years depending on the substance involved.  Chernobyl left a large area mostly uninhabitable after its meltdown.  A truly global nuclear war would leave much of the planet in a state like Chernobyl.


Uninhabitable if you have a high standard of living, that is. C'mon, Macphisto, what's a 35 year life expectancy and a little leukemia between friends?  ;)

Seriously though, good points.

Mushroom, I think global warming does exist, but I also think it's part of the earth's cycle. Regardless of if CO2 and CH4 emissions are to blame for it, going for cleaner technologies is still good for the simple fact that humans can't breathe toxic air at any temperature, nor drink toxic water. "Global Warming" may be a red herring for the inevitable changes that will not be good for a large portion of coast line cities, but reducing pollution is in all of our best interests, regardless of whether or not it affects the overall temperature of the planet.

Re: nukes, I don't worry about Iran or N. Korea. I am concerned with the possibility of a rogue terrorist group setting off a "dirty bomb" in a major city, not because of the damage it would cause, but because our government would use it as an excuse to shred what is left of the Constitution.

Ant

Re: nukes, I don't worry about Iran or N. Korea. I am concerned with the possibility of a rogue terrorist group setting off a "dirty bomb" in a major city, not because of the damage it would cause, but because our government would use it as an excuse to shred what is left of the Constitution.

Ant


Exactly...  Our greatest enemies are no longer governments but small groups of extremists.

I would say they're about equal, if we're talking a global nuclear war. I think we'll drop a couple nukes, say "HOLY CRAP!" and never do it again, while global warming continues to cause damage.


Nuclear War.

A full-scale thermonuclear war would, of course, be much worse.  However, global warming in the long run might be as deleterious to human civilization. 

The consensus among scientists is man-made global warming exists. 

The "scientists" who said smoking was good for you were in the pocket of the tobacco companies much as the "scientists" who deny global warming are today in the pocket of oil companies. 

Of course, there are more compelling studies demonstrating doubt about global warming than there were denying the health hazards of smoking. 

I certainly hope those scientists are right.  I hope there is no such thing as man-made global warming, but it doesn't look like that's the case.

How about a nice game of chess?

Humans can adapt over time to climate changes. But an all out nuclear war would just kill massive amounts of people almost instantly, and then there's the fallout. I think the choice here is clear. 

I also do not worry about "Global Warming".  Sure you have scientists that claim it exists.  You also had scientists at one time that said smoking was good for you, cold fusion was the wave of the future, eugenics was a valid field of study, and that Fairies really existed.  And if you look around, you will find scientists that believe almost anything.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but feel that the above shows a lack of understanding of how science works: yes, there have been scientists that said the above sorts of things, but you're talking a small handful of mavericks that wouldn't be called "scientists" by anything other than an arts-based media that doesn't know what a scientist is (i.e. a scientist is not someone in a lab coat who gets trotted out by a vested interest to make their point for them).

The science that underlies global warming has been peer-reviewed and accepted by a large part of the scientific community... but many things are still open to dispute.  For example, the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas (i.e. a causal effect in global warming rather than a product of it) is by no means proven; however, it is pretty much inarguable that there *is* mankind-induced global warming, the argument comes from how significant this is and what can be done about it.

The one thing the global warming scare stories have done is highlight how unbelievably wasteful we all are, given the chance - mankind has a whole is incredibly good at exploiting natural resources until none are left... and only then do we start thinking about conservation.  So while I disagree with the scares, and think targets like Kyoto are risible when it comes to actually having an effect on global warming, increasing energy efficiency, recycling as much as possible, using cleaner renewable energy sources - all of these are positive, sensible moves irrespective of whether they'll have any noticeable effect on global warming at all.

As to the question: which is worse - nuclear war would be far, far worse were it ever to happen; however, the odds against it are fairly high.  So global warming is more likely to have a bad effect on the majority of the world's population than nuclear war is - a bit like the odds on being killed by an asteroid hitting the earth are similar to being killed crossing the road, 'cause in the one-in-a-hundred-million chance that it happens, many hundreds of millions of people will die.  But that won't stop me looking both ways before I cross the road.

Not to mention the fact that radioactive halflives can last for hundreds or thousands of years depending on the substance involved.  Chernobyl left a large area mostly uninhabitable after its meltdown.  A truly global nuclear war would leave much of the planet in a state like Chernobyl.


In other words, one of the nicest nature preserves in the former Soviet Union? 

Don't laugh too quickly -- although there are places around Chernobyl that I wouldn't want to live, farm, or grow crops, most of the exclusion zone is perfectly safe to visit.  Emphasis on most.  Give it another 20-30 years.  In all seriousness, Bikini Atoll is one of the premier dive spots on the planet.

Global thermonuclear war would be a civilization-ending event; probably set us back a good 300-500 years.  But a limited nuclear war (that is, by any non-state actor or by any state other than China or Russia) wouldn't be significantly worse than the damage we incurred during Katrina.  We'd have to relocate the population of a couple of cities. Big effin' deal, and I say that as an inhabitant of one of the first US cities likely to see the big fireworks. Assuming the goal was to win the war (and/or split the spoils with China and Russia in exchange for their noninterference), it still would have been a hell of a lot cheaper than the route we ended up taking.

I also do not worry about "Global Warming".  Sure you have scientists that claim it exists.  You also had scientists at one time that said smoking was good for you, cold fusion was the wave of the future, eugenics was a valid field of study, and that Fairies really existed.  And if you look around, you will find scientists that believe almost anything.

A stronger strain of Ebola would do much more damage then either of these "boogiemen".


 
    well, we know that there is such a thing as a greenhouse gas. we know that greenhouse gasses trap in heat. we also know that carbon dioxcide is a greenhouse gas, and we know that we release un-natural amounts of it into the atmosphere everyday. we know all of these things for a FACT. i hate to break it to ya but they all lead up to one thing. human induced global warming. stop trying to discount what we know to be true.
 
  you're right, Ebola could do alot more damage to the human race, but what about the planet as a whole? if anything it would make the world a better place. after all, if we humans were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth, who would miss us? maybe a few cockroaches. just maybe.

In other words, one of the nicest nature preserves in the former Soviet Union? 

Don't laugh too quickly -- although there are places around Chernobyl that I wouldn't want to live, farm, or grow crops, most of the exclusion zone is perfectly safe to visit.  Emphasis on most.  Give it another 20-30 years.  In all seriousness, Bikini Atoll is one of the premier dive spots on the planet.

Global thermonuclear war would be a civilization-ending event; probably set us back a good 300-500 years.  But a limited nuclear war (that is, by any non-state actor or by any state other than China or Russia) wouldn't be significantly worse than the damage we incurred during Katrina.  We'd have to relocate the population of a couple of cities. Big effin' deal, and I say that as an inhabitant of one of the first US cities likely to see the big fireworks. Assuming the goal was to win the war (and/or split the spoils with China and Russia in exchange for their noninterference), it still would have been a hell of a lot cheaper than the route we ended up taking.


Uh...  so are you suggesting that the Cold War should've gone hot?...  As much as I hated the arms race, I'm glad we were able to limit the war to the extent that we did.  The part that sucked was how we meddled in conflicts we never should've entered (like Vietnam).

A limited nuclear war would almost guarantee a full-on nuclear exchange, regardless of the origin of the first strike.

Uh...  so are you suggesting that the Cold War should've gone hot?...  As much as I hated the arms race, I'm glad we were able to limit the war to the extent that we did.  The part that sucked was how we meddled in conflicts we never should've entered (like Vietnam).

A limited nuclear war would almost guarantee a full-on nuclear exchange, regardless of the origin of the first strike.


That's where we disagree.  The Cold War shouldn't have gone hot -- and a limited nuclear exchange during the Cold War probably would have gone hot.  Civilization-ending event, 300-500 year dark ages, and no way to guess which side's survivors end up rebuilding civiliation.  Sucky.  Which was why Korea was a draw and Vietnam was a loss for us and a win for the Russians.  Neither country was worth risking a civilization-ending event for.  (And neither are any of the countries in the Middle East, which is why, in a cruel twist of irony, Rambo III features all-American hero John Rambo helping some helpless natives fighting the Godless Russian Communists for the right to worship as they pleased :-)

(I'm predicting Pakistan goes to Mushie or Bhutto, and neither of those scenarios leads to war with India or the loss of control of their weapons, so they're safely out of the game.)  That leaves the most likely scenario as a limited nuclear exchange between Iran (or Syria) and Israel.

Suppose Iran lobs a nuke over Tel Aviv.  The Russians might nuke Israel, and we (and the Israelies) might nuke the Iranians, but why would we (or the Russians) go head-to-head with each other?  There's no win in it for us -- we're both only interested in the oil, which isn't of much use if we start WW3.  We'll let the Israelis and Iranians duke it out, and we'll pick through the ashes later. (Same as Vietnam with Russian help or Korea with the Chinese help -- all three superpowers tolerated each other's presence and help, up to a point.  It's not like any of the three superpowers actually cared what happened to their respective client states during the battle!) 

So let's presuppose a limited exchange in the Gulf.  Two scenarios:

A: Everyone else stays out of it, and (preferably before any of them go off!) after the first round of targets has been fried, it slaps some desperately-needed sense into both sides, much in the way that Hiroshima and Nagasaki slapped some much-needed sense into American and Soviet generals. Self-preservation instinct trumps religious fanaticism, and the sides learn to coexist.  Detente breaks out, as both sides realize that continuing the war is suicidal. Mutual Assured Destruction works with rational opponents.  But what if we're not dealing with rational opponents, and...

B: ...after the first few dozen bombs go off, rationality goes out the window (Communism vs. capitalism is a debate over some 200-300-year old Western economic theories -- the stakes go deeper when we're talking about 1000-6000 year old religions and tribal cultures), and we end up with the all-out Jew-vs-Muslim cage match. Thunderdome!  Two sides enter, one side leaves!  The Muzzies could win due to sheer manpower, but the Israelis could win due to their huge nonconventional advantage. What if they gave a war and there was nobody left to fight? Well, peace can also break out when one (or both!) of the two sides has been obliterated.  As per previous engagements, the major powers (US, Russia, China) are smart enough never to directly fight each other, and swoop in to divvy up the resources as soon as the glass solidifies over the ashes of the fanatics.  100M-500M dead, and the rest of the world gets a much-delayed reality check about religious fanaticism.

I can see the worst case scenario devolving into genocide.  I can't see it escalating into a civilization-ending event, even if the superpowers lose a city or two to collateral damage along the way.  Religious fanatics might be willing to incinerate the planet for their brand of God, but they don't have enough bombs.  The only difference between the superpowers used to be about how their economies should be run; and even that difference has gone away as all three nations have adopted the Chinese model of the corporate state, where government decides which private companies get to make money. The only issue on which the superpowers differ is about which natural resources belong to whom.

Russia, China, and America are running a cockfight. The countries of the Middle East are like our prized fighting birds. We're all in it to win our respective bets, and we might even get into the occasional fistfight as we settle those bets, but we're smart enough businessmen that we don't shoot each other over a couple of dead chickens. For the chickens, it's life and death, but for us, it's just business.

Foo Bar, we agree.  I had thought you were saying that you wished the Cold War went hot.

The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities at the end of WWII.  Nothing since then.  The Cuban missile crisis was close.  Otherwise there has just been massive build-up of nuclear arms, MAD, threats, and what-if scenarios.  It's as if the act of atomic attack has been a sealed taboo since 1945 and no one dares to break it.  I'm afraid if one country breaks the seal, another will.  Soon atomic warfare will become an acceptible tactic.  It might not lead to a single world-ending showdown such as we feared in the Cold War.  It might be more insidious with radiation disbursed in smaller packets over the globe and choking life out slowly.
:o

Global warming.  We're already feeling the effects and it's irreversible.

Global warming.  We're already feeling the effects and it's irreversible.

It's not irreversible, but it's out of our hands: for example, when Krakatoa erupted in 1883, it caused a decrease in global temperatures of nearly two degrees (to whatever degree of accuracy they were measuring it in those days)... but I doubt that humungous cataclysmic eruptions would be thought of as good things, either.

The one thing I would like to see from the global warming lobby is what effect reducing emissions to different levels is likely to have on future temperatures: AFAICT, if everybody were to hit their Kyoto targets, it still wouldn't make a noticeable impact on global temperature - it may slow the rise in temperature by a percentage point or two, but ain't no way that's going to be significant.  We need to look for a far better use of resources than mindlessly concentrating on carbon emissions.

I'm kind of hoping for incontrovertable proof that we're totally f*cked and there's nothing we can do about it.  That way I could just pop open a beer, light up a J, and watch the world go by!
:P