Reading this review brings a few different thoughts to mind. 1) First, it's clear that normalizing the use of nuclear weapons is now a main thrust of the National Security State. We are very, very far from the days when Presidents actually tried to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and gave warnings about the danger of armed conflict between nuclear powers, as JFK did about 60 years ago: "Mankind must put an end to war--or war will put an end to mankind." In complete contrast, in today's world, Joe "Cold War" Biden and his cohort of neocons do everything possible to ratchet up the threat by promoting war and direct confrontation with Russia and China; 2) Second, human beings clearly lack the intelligence to realize that they are jeopardizing their own survival as well as the survival of all flora and fauna. Between the creation and use (only by the USA thus far) of nuclear weapons along with the totally suicidal endless burning of fossil fuels, human beings seem determined to wipe themselves out; and 3) I think it's time for me to watch once again Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" in order to ward off the feelings of total hopelessness.
They said the same thing about the movie "Network," made in 1976, showing what the future of TV news would look like. That was 4 years before the phenomenon of cable TV news came into existence and 20 years before the horror of Fox News came on the scene. These two movies were 100% accurate in predicting the looming insanity on the horizon, and both are must see classics for anyone who wants to see what sophisticated movie making looks like and how movies can be a means to try to enlighten people, unlike the overwhelming majority of movies that just provide mindless entertainment.
I recommend everyone go to the AIRNOW site and look at the smoke map from the Canadian wildfires. The coverage is immense and has at times extended to Spain and Britain. Keep in mind that these fires are from wood burning. In a nuclear war there would be multiple cities on fire with all the chemicals associated burning furiously and nobody to even begin to put them out. Nuclear fireballs would raise the cloud to heights far above that of wildfire smoke where it would persist and it would be radioactive. Can anyone doubt nuclear winter? I took my light meter out and measured the sunlight through the smoke cloud at less than half the norm. Any discussion of nuclear weapons should make one sweat and raise the heartbeat. There is no place on Earth that would escape the results. Starvation and radiation reaches the most well stocked "prepper." Where are the billionaires on this subject? Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg never say a thing about it. Do we even have a Greta speaking out?
As I have mentioned, I think it is inevitable, we are complacent and it is only a matter of time before either intentional or accidental nuclear detonation ignites panic and automatic escalation. But that's not to say it is wrong to protest the madness. I say the same about global warming.
I think their use of the term, "escalation ladder" may be inappropriate; for one can use a ladder simply to go a step or two higher, say, to reach a shelf, paint a ceiling, pick some apples. In other words, it's a tool for enabling one person to reach a bit higher and the ladder-climber will not necessarily go to the top rung; just as far as they want to go to achieve their goal.
Escalation, in a fight or war against another, effectively removes the element of choice; for it is now a competition between two opposing parties, each perceiving danger and threat from the other. Escalation by one will almost always produce an escalation by the other; and the degree of escalation will always be at least equal but, if the threat perception (or motivation) is strong enough, may be asymmetrical, with each responding party not only matching the escalation in kind, but often trying to end the escalations (and conflict) by advancing to an even higher step.
( I recall well that lesson gained from fights with my 2-yrs-older brother, who I eventually learned had lots of internal anger. I learned not to get into any kind of physical fight with him, because if I hit him, he'd hit me harder; and so on. I sensed that effectively, once so engaged (and enraged), he could escalate without limits that I myself might have. It could easily turn to baseball bats, etc. if I didn't keep my own cool.)
In a war, with perceived threats to national security and continuity at stake, escalations have a way of cascading even more predictably; and this is of course, in part a function of how (ir)rational the leadership of the opposing states is on each side. If either is demented, sociopathic or otherwise cognitively unbalanced or impaired, the greater is the risk.
The very existence of nuclear weapons itself creates a grave risk for escalation; because the possessing party(ies) know they can always continue escalating, within their capability, all the way up to that level of terror and finality; and at the point where they see that they can't prevail in conventional warfare, if they (mis)perceive the stakes as high enough (such as when JFK sensed a grave existential threat from Russian-placed ICBMs in Cuba), they may see that using the nukes is the only alternative to capitulation.
The introduction of "tactical" (lower yield) nuclear weapons merely makes that leap a bit easier, and, I'd argue, more likely, since one's use already signals a degree of insanity and/or sociopathic drive that tells the other that they are in mortal danger if they do not respond in kind.
The people pushing the development and arming with such weapons are already, in my view, very dangerous to the entirety of human civilization. Alas, we have no effective peace movement anymore in this country (nor apparently in much of the West); and the effective propagandizing has produced a population refusing to say ANYTHING to counter the saber-rattling of both their leaders and the media. With respect to the latter, I see an ominous sign in so many click-bait stories on the internet that are normalizing conversations about the use of nuclear weapons; talking about how to survive, etc. So I'm glad that the author, and others, continue to offer some counterpoint and push these questions to the fore.
You put far more thought into the notion of escalation as a ladder than the authors did. Their argument was unproblematic. Missing a rung? Build one! Simple as that. Even if the missing rung isn't even really missing.
It's nonsense, really, but very dangerous nonsense.
"...one's use already signals a degree of insanity and/or sociopathic drive that tells the other that they are in mortal danger if they do not respond in kind."
You nailed it, Roger. Post-Hiroshima/Nagasaki, deployment of nukes would indeed be proof of a leader's derangement.
Apparently we have a tactical nuclear missile gap. Not to be confused with JFK's nuclear missile gap, which turned out to be based on an erroneous report and was therefore fictional.
Uplifting as in not.., and to think this Older going on 68 yrs. Ex. SAC Sky-Cop 73-77 Active Duty is/ was just as Old as the first B-52's. (Entered Active Service in 1955) that were on Alert Status 24 hrs. a day 365... At the Bases I was Stationed... The JP-4 Smoke from a full Rolling & Take-off Klaxton of A Wing of B-52's & KC-135's was a thing to remember. It took about 20 mins. from start to fini., and the smoke cleared after about 15 mins. after Take-off. Then the Crews got their Codes to see if it was Real World, or just a SAC Exercise!
my usaf active duty was 1972 to 82. some of it in adcom after active duty I stayed in reserves mixed missions.
I recall early 80’s when both sides could have turned Central Europe to a glass plain…. and after the shah fell… more all out devastation talk….
as I recall…. even small surface burst vaporize a lot of material mixed with the fission material, which is not lessened when the yield is dialed back.
anyway as a good cold warrior I am aware of schilling and Rand selling burglar games and mutual assured destruction
and the low cost counters of faulty logic and immorality!
and the usa would send cluster munitions to seed permanent mine fields….
war making in mainstream professional neocons is both low truth illogic and immoral
Efforts to prevent nuclear war should be greatly intensified – but we must also consider what happens if prevention fails. New Zealand is often cited as most likely to preserve a thriving society through a nuclear aftermath.
Radiation is not a major risk to New Zealand in a Northern Hemisphere nuclear war. It is commonly assumed that far flung Southern Hemisphere islands like New Zealand will fare comparatively well. For example, existential risk scholar Toby Ord writes in The Precipice, “if we consider somewhere like New Zealand… It is hard to see why they wouldn’t make it through with most of their technology and institutions intact” (Ord, 2020).
However, our society is a complex adaptive system heavily dependent on trade. Major perturbations triggered by nuclear war could shift the state of New Zealand society from one of flourishing to one of mere survival.
In what follows we question Ord’s assumption, reiterate the salience of nuclear war as a global catastrophic risk, its far-reaching impacts on society and industry and what New Zealand might do to mitigate the threat, including reprising the work of the 1980s with up-to-date understandings.
Dr Boyd is a catastrophic risk researcher and Director of Adapt Research Ltd. He has funding support for work on this topic from the Centre for Effective Altruism’s Long-Term Future Fund. Prof Wilson is with the Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington. Views are the authors’ own.
I wasn't meaning that the film should be taken literally, just as an illustration. As Clif pointed out above, after deployment of nukes, there would be high-level clouds of radiation. If there was an initial attack and then a counter-attack, those clouds might encircle the globe. Obviously, I don't know how harmful the radiation would be at any given location, but I wouldn't bet the farm that any place would remain unscathed.
And no, no matter how scary the scenario, nothing has prevented the proliferation of nukes!
Denise my friend, Dr Boyd the catastrophic risk researcher and Director of Adapt Research is a scientist who has devoted his career to studying this subject. I dare say he is no dummy and knows a little more about this than us internet keyboard warrior's eh? He claims his research shows that the radiation in New Zealand would not be harmful to the extent of wiping us out. I'm going to take his word for it.
As for the proliferation of nukes - I think that between the Yanks and the Ruskies they have approaching 10,000 bombs! Some BV poster might know better. But irrespectively, I believe after the madmen have deployed about 100, there will not be anybody left alive to keep pushing the button. Or electronic guidance that was still functioning. An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) could potentially disable electronic equipment. Again, I do not know this for a fact. I have <10-years left on this crazy planet by the grace of God. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my Golden Years could not get any worse.
Cheers my dear.
EDIT: According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the worldwide total inventory of nuclear weapons as of 2021 stood at 13,080. Around 30% of these are deployed with operational forces, and more than 90% are owned by either Russia or the United States.
And you know Obama launched a zillion dollar initiative to build more, and "modernize" the ones we have!
Denise, we need to think of more positive things and get a laugh. After all, with Sleepy Joe at the red button, we could all be dead by Monday eh. How about watching this very short video? I don't know whether you will laugh or cry! LOL
Dying a shitty prolonged death of radiation poisoning, and freezing at the same time eh - maybe its better to be in Seattle and get fried in the first seconds eh Denise!
My only question, Dennis, on the survivability of New Zealand after a global nuclear war is: Who in New Zealand would WANT to survive such a war? Knowing that Your two physician Daughters and their families in America had been incinerated or left to starve to death, would You?
Jeff, thinking about it for 10-minutes, I'm thinking that what happened to Michelle and Joanna, my two physician daughters, and my (4) grandkids in America, I'd still have the will to live. Assuming my life was bearable, which the researchers claim it would be. Did you read their paper I linked to?
Would I WANT to survive if they were all killed in an airplane crash flying to New Zealand? I think I would. Same difference, eh?
Without a great deal of thought, one question that comes immediately to mind, Dennis, is as follows:
What percentage of the diesel, fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, and agricultural machinery parts that would enable a post-nuclear war NZ to be "self-sufficient" in food production is currently imported? And from where is it imported?
And what are the chances that that Supply Chain will still be operational after a global nuclear war?
Not sure what Your "risk expert's" paper says about this, Dennis.
But here's what one of Your media outlets ~ The Spinoff ~ has to say about fossil fuel imports to NZ. So the question is: How are You folks going to run Your agriculture system after the nuclear war without these imports? It'll be interesting to see what % of Your fertilizer, seeds, pesticides, and agricultural machinery, equipment, and parts is similarly imported, eh?
"Oil is New Zealand’s largest and most important fuel source. And our fuel security remains tied to a global supply – we import almost 100% of our oil as refined fuel – that is highly vulnerable to geopolitical events.
"Like it or not, New Zealand’s economy and social fabric is deeply dependent on oil. Even as we transition to more sustainable energy sources we still heavily rely on petrol and diesel to run our cars, our public transport, our construction industry, our farms, our supply chains and our planes. It accounts for nearly 50% of our consumer energy demand. Each year we use around 46 million barrels of crude oil – more than 1,600 litres per person. That’s 23 million litres a day."
In the 1950s the modern age of oil exploration emerged in New Zealand. With the advent of seismic data, the onshore Kapuni gas-condensate field was discovered in Taranaki in 1959 and the large Maui gas-condensate field was discovered offshore in 1969. The Maui field made New Zealand self-sufficient in gas. The Maui platform, which began operation in 1979, was at the cutting edge of what could be accomplished offshore at the time. A second platform, Māui B was built in 1993 – which led to the discovery of significant amounts of previously undetected natural gas.
In 1985 a plant was built in Motunui in the Taranaki to convert natural gas into gasoline and diesel fuel using the Fischer Tropsch process. Developed in Germany during World War II to convert natural gas into gasoline and diesel fuel.
The plant ran for only 6-years, proving economically uncompetitive with gasoline and diesel fuel refined in New Zealand refineries from imported oil. It sits idle. At full capacity able to produce about 45% of New Zealand's requirements.
However, with changing World geo-politicals, and changes in the cost of imported oil, an expansion of the plant is a viable solution to enable New Zealand to be self-sufficient in the future for gasoline and diesel fuel, albeit at higher cost.
Source: compiled by yours truly from researching articles in the NZ Petroleum Industry literature.
As for what % of our fertilizer, seeds, pesticides, and agricultural machinery, equipment, and parts is imported. New Zealand is not the shit hole country that you imagine to it be Jeff. Prior to WW2 building its own steam locomotives in government owned and operated factories. New Zealand has its own steel plant. And with Kiwi ingenuity (a Kiwi was the first to split the atom) I'm betting they can survive.
i don't "refuse" to read it, Dennis. i just have more pressing ways to spend my time.
And to be perfectly blunt, i really don't care one way or another whether or not New Zealanders will survive ~ let alone "thrive" after ~a global nuclear war. If one happens, i will be much, much more concerned about the survival of my family, friends, colleagues, cohorts, and compeers in North and Central America, Europe, and parts of Asia.
Assuming Your life in New Zealand would be "bearable" ~ whatever that means ~ based on what those researchers claim is a big, big assumption, Dennis.
And the deaths of a couple hundred people ~ even if it included Your Daughters and Grandkids ~ flying to NZ is a far, far cry from several billions of people killed outright in a nuclear war, and of several billions more dying over time [or wishing they were dead] from starvation, disease, lack of shelter, and other Madd Maxx etceteras.
And no, i haven't read that paper. The survivability of New Zealanders after a nuclear war is not high on my list of things to spend any amount of time on.
Thank you for the link, Bill. It's full of info, but it really didn't answer my questions. It gives so many examples and states different ways to explode smaller nuclear weapons, in the air or on the ground and different kt's that I don't know what to think. What I do know is that with DU which was used on regular bombs in Iraq, that the radiation effect on the surviving population in the city where it was most used is horriffic. The number of children born with truly awful defects (two heads, no limbs, etc) and cancer in adults many times higher than normal. And this is just DU - and it's going on for years. So when the article tries to say that there isn't much danger of radiation from certain types of explosions (we're talking nuclear explosions here , not just DU) I simply don't know what to believe, but I will say that I do not believe the authors have taken into consideration the chaos of war - they are describing testing under controlled conditions.
The Dr. Strangelove film clip of the "mineshaft gap" is quite appropriate and chilling. I wonder if you could explain to your readers who are not current (like me) on what the difference is between "low level" nuclear weapons and actual nuclear bombs? Does a low level only radiate a small area? Does the radiation remain lethal or semi lethal for shorter periods (50 years instead of hundreds)? Or what? What is the difference between low level nuclear arms and depleted uranium bombs in terms of how lethal the radiation is? From what I have read about DU in Iraq, that is pretty deadly for the survivors.
I think (and hope) if more people really knew what we are talking about here, the reaction would be more forceful against blithely creating "low level nuclear" weapons. And by the way, what do we mean by "weapons" - bombs? gun ammo? rockets? So if we use low level weapons will we be creating smaller pockets of uninhabitable towns and farm land allover the country? That's a pretty picture.
Hi Ranney: Good questions. I remember when they developed the neutron bomb in the 1970s (higher radiation, lower blast, to be used primarily against Soviet tank formations in Europe).
DU is used in armor penetrating munitions. It is, supposedly, not that radioactive. But there's no such thing as a "good" amount of radiation.
Some so-called tactical nukes are 10 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not exactly "low-yield"!
So, the fictional computer Joshua from "Wargames" can figure out the correct answer, but these “professionals” can’t? We keep creeping closer and closer to the edge.
Reading this review brings a few different thoughts to mind. 1) First, it's clear that normalizing the use of nuclear weapons is now a main thrust of the National Security State. We are very, very far from the days when Presidents actually tried to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and gave warnings about the danger of armed conflict between nuclear powers, as JFK did about 60 years ago: "Mankind must put an end to war--or war will put an end to mankind." In complete contrast, in today's world, Joe "Cold War" Biden and his cohort of neocons do everything possible to ratchet up the threat by promoting war and direct confrontation with Russia and China; 2) Second, human beings clearly lack the intelligence to realize that they are jeopardizing their own survival as well as the survival of all flora and fauna. Between the creation and use (only by the USA thus far) of nuclear weapons along with the totally suicidal endless burning of fossil fuels, human beings seem determined to wipe themselves out; and 3) I think it's time for me to watch once again Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" in order to ward off the feelings of total hopelessness.
People think "Dr Strangelove" is absurd, but the reality of nuclear weapons theorists and theorizing is even more absurd.
They said the same thing about the movie "Network," made in 1976, showing what the future of TV news would look like. That was 4 years before the phenomenon of cable TV news came into existence and 20 years before the horror of Fox News came on the scene. These two movies were 100% accurate in predicting the looming insanity on the horizon, and both are must see classics for anyone who wants to see what sophisticated movie making looks like and how movies can be a means to try to enlighten people, unlike the overwhelming majority of movies that just provide mindless entertainment.
The Scene with Actor Ned Beatty in the Boardroom Classic!
I recommend everyone go to the AIRNOW site and look at the smoke map from the Canadian wildfires. The coverage is immense and has at times extended to Spain and Britain. Keep in mind that these fires are from wood burning. In a nuclear war there would be multiple cities on fire with all the chemicals associated burning furiously and nobody to even begin to put them out. Nuclear fireballs would raise the cloud to heights far above that of wildfire smoke where it would persist and it would be radioactive. Can anyone doubt nuclear winter? I took my light meter out and measured the sunlight through the smoke cloud at less than half the norm. Any discussion of nuclear weapons should make one sweat and raise the heartbeat. There is no place on Earth that would escape the results. Starvation and radiation reaches the most well stocked "prepper." Where are the billionaires on this subject? Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg never say a thing about it. Do we even have a Greta speaking out?
As I have mentioned, I think it is inevitable, we are complacent and it is only a matter of time before either intentional or accidental nuclear detonation ignites panic and automatic escalation. But that's not to say it is wrong to protest the madness. I say the same about global warming.
Luckily for me, I'm in the "good" range at the moment. Thanks for the link, Clif.
Really great---and timely---point, Clif. So many factors the so-called leaders in the military never consider.
Reasons for eliminating nuclear weapons.. https://ending-nuclear-weapons.org/Reasons_for_Eliminating_Nuclear_Weapons.html
George Carlin: We can bomb the shit out of your country
This skit has aged like good wine eh? RIP George
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hxSiL-g-LqE
Still true today.
I think their use of the term, "escalation ladder" may be inappropriate; for one can use a ladder simply to go a step or two higher, say, to reach a shelf, paint a ceiling, pick some apples. In other words, it's a tool for enabling one person to reach a bit higher and the ladder-climber will not necessarily go to the top rung; just as far as they want to go to achieve their goal.
Escalation, in a fight or war against another, effectively removes the element of choice; for it is now a competition between two opposing parties, each perceiving danger and threat from the other. Escalation by one will almost always produce an escalation by the other; and the degree of escalation will always be at least equal but, if the threat perception (or motivation) is strong enough, may be asymmetrical, with each responding party not only matching the escalation in kind, but often trying to end the escalations (and conflict) by advancing to an even higher step.
( I recall well that lesson gained from fights with my 2-yrs-older brother, who I eventually learned had lots of internal anger. I learned not to get into any kind of physical fight with him, because if I hit him, he'd hit me harder; and so on. I sensed that effectively, once so engaged (and enraged), he could escalate without limits that I myself might have. It could easily turn to baseball bats, etc. if I didn't keep my own cool.)
In a war, with perceived threats to national security and continuity at stake, escalations have a way of cascading even more predictably; and this is of course, in part a function of how (ir)rational the leadership of the opposing states is on each side. If either is demented, sociopathic or otherwise cognitively unbalanced or impaired, the greater is the risk.
The very existence of nuclear weapons itself creates a grave risk for escalation; because the possessing party(ies) know they can always continue escalating, within their capability, all the way up to that level of terror and finality; and at the point where they see that they can't prevail in conventional warfare, if they (mis)perceive the stakes as high enough (such as when JFK sensed a grave existential threat from Russian-placed ICBMs in Cuba), they may see that using the nukes is the only alternative to capitulation.
The introduction of "tactical" (lower yield) nuclear weapons merely makes that leap a bit easier, and, I'd argue, more likely, since one's use already signals a degree of insanity and/or sociopathic drive that tells the other that they are in mortal danger if they do not respond in kind.
The people pushing the development and arming with such weapons are already, in my view, very dangerous to the entirety of human civilization. Alas, we have no effective peace movement anymore in this country (nor apparently in much of the West); and the effective propagandizing has produced a population refusing to say ANYTHING to counter the saber-rattling of both their leaders and the media. With respect to the latter, I see an ominous sign in so many click-bait stories on the internet that are normalizing conversations about the use of nuclear weapons; talking about how to survive, etc. So I'm glad that the author, and others, continue to offer some counterpoint and push these questions to the fore.
Well put, Roger.
You put far more thought into the notion of escalation as a ladder than the authors did. Their argument was unproblematic. Missing a rung? Build one! Simple as that. Even if the missing rung isn't even really missing.
It's nonsense, really, but very dangerous nonsense.
"...one's use already signals a degree of insanity and/or sociopathic drive that tells the other that they are in mortal danger if they do not respond in kind."
You nailed it, Roger. Post-Hiroshima/Nagasaki, deployment of nukes would indeed be proof of a leader's derangement.
Apparently we have a tactical nuclear missile gap. Not to be confused with JFK's nuclear missile gap, which turned out to be based on an erroneous report and was therefore fictional.
There's always a "gap," Alex. Or in this case a missing "rung."
There are places on this planet where one can live, and not worry about this madness every day.
Probably just the Poles as in North & South Dennis I'm thinking based on Carl Sagan's theories on Nuclear Winter...
The Bomb Run-- From: Dr. Strangelove. Music from great American War Films gives me great comfort! Try it... :/ :O)
Uplifting as in not.., and to think this Older going on 68 yrs. Ex. SAC Sky-Cop 73-77 Active Duty is/ was just as Old as the first B-52's. (Entered Active Service in 1955) that were on Alert Status 24 hrs. a day 365... At the Bases I was Stationed... The JP-4 Smoke from a full Rolling & Take-off Klaxton of A Wing of B-52's & KC-135's was a thing to remember. It took about 20 mins. from start to fini., and the smoke cleared after about 15 mins. after Take-off. Then the Crews got their Codes to see if it was Real World, or just a SAC Exercise!
almost every intell element about the Soviets was overstated
I am old.
my usaf active duty was 1972 to 82. some of it in adcom after active duty I stayed in reserves mixed missions.
I recall early 80’s when both sides could have turned Central Europe to a glass plain…. and after the shah fell… more all out devastation talk….
as I recall…. even small surface burst vaporize a lot of material mixed with the fission material, which is not lessened when the yield is dialed back.
anyway as a good cold warrior I am aware of schilling and Rand selling burglar games and mutual assured destruction
and the low cost counters of faulty logic and immorality!
and the usa would send cluster munitions to seed permanent mine fields….
war making in mainstream professional neocons is both low truth illogic and immoral
Thomas schelling economist who worked at Rand for a time before going to harvard
Efforts to prevent nuclear war should be greatly intensified – but we must also consider what happens if prevention fails. New Zealand is often cited as most likely to preserve a thriving society through a nuclear aftermath.
Radiation is not a major risk to New Zealand in a Northern Hemisphere nuclear war. It is commonly assumed that far flung Southern Hemisphere islands like New Zealand will fare comparatively well. For example, existential risk scholar Toby Ord writes in The Precipice, “if we consider somewhere like New Zealand… It is hard to see why they wouldn’t make it through with most of their technology and institutions intact” (Ord, 2020).
However, our society is a complex adaptive system heavily dependent on trade. Major perturbations triggered by nuclear war could shift the state of New Zealand society from one of flourishing to one of mere survival.
In what follows we question Ord’s assumption, reiterate the salience of nuclear war as a global catastrophic risk, its far-reaching impacts on society and industry and what New Zealand might do to mitigate the threat, including reprising the work of the 1980s with up-to-date understandings.
Dr Boyd is a catastrophic risk researcher and Director of Adapt Research Ltd. He has funding support for work on this topic from the Centre for Effective Altruism’s Long-Term Future Fund. Prof Wilson is with the Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington. Views are the authors’ own.
https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/sustained-resilience-impact-nuclear-war-new-zealand-and-how-mitigate-catastrophe
I dunno, Dennis. Remember "On the Beach"? If nuclear winter occurs, it will affect the entire globe.
That was a Hollywood script Denise!
Not science based at all.
But it did scare the shit outta people - but had no effect on reducing the number of atomic bombs eh!
Take care
I wasn't meaning that the film should be taken literally, just as an illustration. As Clif pointed out above, after deployment of nukes, there would be high-level clouds of radiation. If there was an initial attack and then a counter-attack, those clouds might encircle the globe. Obviously, I don't know how harmful the radiation would be at any given location, but I wouldn't bet the farm that any place would remain unscathed.
And no, no matter how scary the scenario, nothing has prevented the proliferation of nukes!
Denise my friend, Dr Boyd the catastrophic risk researcher and Director of Adapt Research is a scientist who has devoted his career to studying this subject. I dare say he is no dummy and knows a little more about this than us internet keyboard warrior's eh? He claims his research shows that the radiation in New Zealand would not be harmful to the extent of wiping us out. I'm going to take his word for it.
As for the proliferation of nukes - I think that between the Yanks and the Ruskies they have approaching 10,000 bombs! Some BV poster might know better. But irrespectively, I believe after the madmen have deployed about 100, there will not be anybody left alive to keep pushing the button. Or electronic guidance that was still functioning. An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) could potentially disable electronic equipment. Again, I do not know this for a fact. I have <10-years left on this crazy planet by the grace of God. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my Golden Years could not get any worse.
Cheers my dear.
EDIT: According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the worldwide total inventory of nuclear weapons as of 2021 stood at 13,080. Around 30% of these are deployed with operational forces, and more than 90% are owned by either Russia or the United States.
And you know Obama launched a zillion dollar initiative to build more, and "modernize" the ones we have!
I hope Dr. Boyd is correct about radiation levels for the sake of you NZ-ers. Nuclear winter might be a problem....
Denise, we need to think of more positive things and get a laugh. After all, with Sleepy Joe at the red button, we could all be dead by Monday eh. How about watching this very short video? I don't know whether you will laugh or cry! LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWEH9R_pxL8
Dying a shitty prolonged death of radiation poisoning, and freezing at the same time eh - maybe its better to be in Seattle and get fried in the first seconds eh Denise!
My only question, Dennis, on the survivability of New Zealand after a global nuclear war is: Who in New Zealand would WANT to survive such a war? Knowing that Your two physician Daughters and their families in America had been incinerated or left to starve to death, would You?
Jeff, thinking about it for 10-minutes, I'm thinking that what happened to Michelle and Joanna, my two physician daughters, and my (4) grandkids in America, I'd still have the will to live. Assuming my life was bearable, which the researchers claim it would be. Did you read their paper I linked to?
Would I WANT to survive if they were all killed in an airplane crash flying to New Zealand? I think I would. Same difference, eh?
Wadda yuh think?
Without a great deal of thought, one question that comes immediately to mind, Dennis, is as follows:
What percentage of the diesel, fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, and agricultural machinery parts that would enable a post-nuclear war NZ to be "self-sufficient" in food production is currently imported? And from where is it imported?
And what are the chances that that Supply Chain will still be operational after a global nuclear war?
Those things are discussed in the paper you refuse to read Jeff.
Not sure what Your "risk expert's" paper says about this, Dennis.
But here's what one of Your media outlets ~ The Spinoff ~ has to say about fossil fuel imports to NZ. So the question is: How are You folks going to run Your agriculture system after the nuclear war without these imports? It'll be interesting to see what % of Your fertilizer, seeds, pesticides, and agricultural machinery, equipment, and parts is similarly imported, eh?
"Oil is New Zealand’s largest and most important fuel source. And our fuel security remains tied to a global supply – we import almost 100% of our oil as refined fuel – that is highly vulnerable to geopolitical events.
"Like it or not, New Zealand’s economy and social fabric is deeply dependent on oil. Even as we transition to more sustainable energy sources we still heavily rely on petrol and diesel to run our cars, our public transport, our construction industry, our farms, our supply chains and our planes. It accounts for nearly 50% of our consumer energy demand. Each year we use around 46 million barrels of crude oil – more than 1,600 litres per person. That’s 23 million litres a day."
Source: https://thespinoff.co.nz/partner/08-06-2022/where-does-our-fuel-come-from ; date June 8, 2022
In the 1950s the modern age of oil exploration emerged in New Zealand. With the advent of seismic data, the onshore Kapuni gas-condensate field was discovered in Taranaki in 1959 and the large Maui gas-condensate field was discovered offshore in 1969. The Maui field made New Zealand self-sufficient in gas. The Maui platform, which began operation in 1979, was at the cutting edge of what could be accomplished offshore at the time. A second platform, Māui B was built in 1993 – which led to the discovery of significant amounts of previously undetected natural gas.
In 1985 a plant was built in Motunui in the Taranaki to convert natural gas into gasoline and diesel fuel using the Fischer Tropsch process. Developed in Germany during World War II to convert natural gas into gasoline and diesel fuel.
The plant ran for only 6-years, proving economically uncompetitive with gasoline and diesel fuel refined in New Zealand refineries from imported oil. It sits idle. At full capacity able to produce about 45% of New Zealand's requirements.
However, with changing World geo-politicals, and changes in the cost of imported oil, an expansion of the plant is a viable solution to enable New Zealand to be self-sufficient in the future for gasoline and diesel fuel, albeit at higher cost.
Source: compiled by yours truly from researching articles in the NZ Petroleum Industry literature.
As for what % of our fertilizer, seeds, pesticides, and agricultural machinery, equipment, and parts is imported. New Zealand is not the shit hole country that you imagine to it be Jeff. Prior to WW2 building its own steam locomotives in government owned and operated factories. New Zealand has its own steel plant. And with Kiwi ingenuity (a Kiwi was the first to split the atom) I'm betting they can survive.
Take care - another Kiwi saying "It's all good".
i don't "refuse" to read it, Dennis. i just have more pressing ways to spend my time.
And to be perfectly blunt, i really don't care one way or another whether or not New Zealanders will survive ~ let alone "thrive" after ~a global nuclear war. If one happens, i will be much, much more concerned about the survival of my family, friends, colleagues, cohorts, and compeers in North and Central America, Europe, and parts of Asia.
Assuming Your life in New Zealand would be "bearable" ~ whatever that means ~ based on what those researchers claim is a big, big assumption, Dennis.
And the deaths of a couple hundred people ~ even if it included Your Daughters and Grandkids ~ flying to NZ is a far, far cry from several billions of people killed outright in a nuclear war, and of several billions more dying over time [or wishing they were dead] from starvation, disease, lack of shelter, and other Madd Maxx etceteras.
And no, i haven't read that paper. The survivability of New Zealanders after a nuclear war is not high on my list of things to spend any amount of time on.
"Ghastly" and "appalling" don't even begin to cover the kind of thinking in that article. "Divorced from reality" is an accurate descriptor, though.
DTRA...go figure
Typo: 'billions' not millions irradiated.
Thank you for the link, Bill. It's full of info, but it really didn't answer my questions. It gives so many examples and states different ways to explode smaller nuclear weapons, in the air or on the ground and different kt's that I don't know what to think. What I do know is that with DU which was used on regular bombs in Iraq, that the radiation effect on the surviving population in the city where it was most used is horriffic. The number of children born with truly awful defects (two heads, no limbs, etc) and cancer in adults many times higher than normal. And this is just DU - and it's going on for years. So when the article tries to say that there isn't much danger of radiation from certain types of explosions (we're talking nuclear explosions here , not just DU) I simply don't know what to believe, but I will say that I do not believe the authors have taken into consideration the chaos of war - they are describing testing under controlled conditions.
The Dr. Strangelove film clip of the "mineshaft gap" is quite appropriate and chilling. I wonder if you could explain to your readers who are not current (like me) on what the difference is between "low level" nuclear weapons and actual nuclear bombs? Does a low level only radiate a small area? Does the radiation remain lethal or semi lethal for shorter periods (50 years instead of hundreds)? Or what? What is the difference between low level nuclear arms and depleted uranium bombs in terms of how lethal the radiation is? From what I have read about DU in Iraq, that is pretty deadly for the survivors.
I think (and hope) if more people really knew what we are talking about here, the reaction would be more forceful against blithely creating "low level nuclear" weapons. And by the way, what do we mean by "weapons" - bombs? gun ammo? rockets? So if we use low level weapons will we be creating smaller pockets of uninhabitable towns and farm land allover the country? That's a pretty picture.
Hi Ranney: Good questions. I remember when they developed the neutron bomb in the 1970s (higher radiation, lower blast, to be used primarily against Soviet tank formations in Europe).
DU is used in armor penetrating munitions. It is, supposedly, not that radioactive. But there's no such thing as a "good" amount of radiation.
Some so-called tactical nukes are 10 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not exactly "low-yield"!
Here's a link on so-called low-yield weapons: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/just-how-radioactive-are-low-yield-nuclear-weapons
Let's hope weapons like this are never used.
So, the fictional computer Joshua from "Wargames" can figure out the correct answer, but these “professionals” can’t? We keep creeping closer and closer to the edge.