humanity

[BlackRampage]

The event that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted in only species between the size of a mole to a large rat in mammals being able to survive and with nuclear weapons we are well within the capability of recreating such an effect on a global scale .

 

A common misconception. It's not their size that enabled them to survive, it's the way they lived. Most of the animals that managed to survive were used to or able to create burrows and live in them. And, as it happens, these were mostly mammals. A lot of aquatic life also managed to survive. All one needs is shelter to survive a global nuclear war. It's not a question whether the human race will survive at all, it's how many of us will be left. And I'm not even counting the fact that there's simply not enough nukes to cover the entire planet.

 

Makes we wonder why "we" would even start a nuclear war on a global scale at all though. Mutual assured destruction is on nobody's agenda.

 

 

So unless you believe in God ya got somewhere around ? a 1 in 1 trillion shot that evolution is gonna recreate the human species . lotsa luck with that.

 

Such eloquence. Regardless, I do not "believe" in anything. You'd be surprised about the changes of evolution recreating a human-like species though. Convergent evolution might just seriously up those chances.

[zombiehunter123]

how many of you watched the vid in link

[Harbringe]

 

The event that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted in only species between the size of a mole to a large rat in mammals being able to survive and with nuclear weapons we are well within the capability of recreating such an effect on a global scale .

 

A common misconception. It's not their size that enabled them to survive, it's the way they lived. Most of the animals that managed to survive were used to or able to create burrows and live in them. And, as it happens, these were mostly mammals. A lot of aquatic life also managed to survive. All one needs is shelter to survive a global nuclear war. It's not a question whether the human race will survive at all, it's how many of us will be left. And I'm not even counting the fact that there's simply not enough nukes to cover the entire planet.

 

Makes we wonder why "we" would even start a nuclear war on a global scale at all though. Mutual assured destruction is on nobody's agenda.

 

 

So unless you believe in God ya got somewhere around ? a 1 in 1 trillion shot that evolution is gonna recreate the human species . lotsa luck with that.

 

Such eloquence. Regardless, I do not "believe" in anything. You'd be surprised about the changes of evolution recreating a human-like species though. Convergent evolution might just seriously up those chances.

 

 

Burrowing played a definite role but size (mass) was critical , even now without a nuclear war if the earth was a few degrees closer to the sun or the ozone layer was say destroyed the amount of radiation penetrating our enviroment would increase and depending on the amount and the mass of each organism involved life would begin dying off and humans are not anywhere near the mass that would have a chance to survive , simply put we would just start absorbing lethal levels of radiation and be poisoned to death. So in the case of a nuclear war your right we do not have enough to blow up every square foot of the earth but can we irradiate every square foot to lethal levels , oh yeah ,multiple times over. And that doesn't even account for having to survive a decade or more without the ability to grow food .

 

As for eloquence wasn't trying for it ,just pointing out your placing an awful lot of faith in some extreme probabilities.

 

By the way scientists have already calculated the mass which you would need to have a reasonable chance to survive such an event and its 28 - 32 lbs . Which falls into line as to why burrowing creatures survived the extinction level event back in the time of the dinosaurs 60 million odd years ago.

 

PS: Zombie "I watched vid"

Edited April 20, 2014 by Harbringe

[BlackRampage]

As for eloquence wasn't trying for it ,just pointing out your placing an awful lot of faith in some extreme probabilities.

 

Noted. Anyway, let's see how "extreme" those probabilities really are:

 

So in the case of a nuclear war your right we do not have enough to blow up every square foot of the earth but can we irradiate every square foot to lethal levels , oh yeah ,multiple times over.

 

Every square foot you say? Let's put that to the test, shall we?

 

First off, the amount of fallout rather depends upon whether the weapon is detonated in the air or upon impact, but let's stick with the impact detonation since it creates the most fallout.

(air detonation or "air burst", as it's called, causes less fallout but more destruction due to a wider radius shock-wave)

 

At the moment, there's about 17.000 nuclear weapons of various sizes. However, only about 4300 are actually operational. The rest is either being decommissioned or otherwise not ready for immediate use.

 

Nukes come in various sizes, but let's stick with the B-83, which is the largest nuke in the US arsenal with a yield of 1.2 megatons. A surface blast from that causes fallout to spread over an area over approximately 34.000 square kilometers.

 

Now then, the Earth's surface measures a whopping 510.072.000 square kilometers.

 

So; 34.000 times 4300 = 146.200.000 square kilometers where Fallout might spread if all nukes were of the B-83 type (which they're not), not counting air burst attacks (which produce less fallout) and not counting areas where fallout from other nukes might overlap, it doesn't even comes close to irradiating the entire surface of the Earth to lethal levels, let alone multiple times over.

 

Oh sure, not the entire surface of Earth consists of land, so let's assume that somehow, magically, the fallout only occurs over land (which it won't, since it's carried by the wind). Total landmass measures 148.940.000 square kilometers.

 

148.940.000 minus 146.200.000 = 2.740.000 square kilometers of unaffected land. Still quite a lot of space to grow food on. And that's still under the most "optimal" conditions mentioned above.

 

As an aside: The impact event that wiped out the dinosaurs had an estimated yield of 100 teratons (100.000.000 megatons). That means you'd need over 83 million B-83 type nukes to produce a similar result. If little mammals can survive something like that, then I think the human race stands quite a good chance of surviving a nuclear "apocalypse". Especially considering we have access to a wide range of technologies that can help us surviving such an event and it's aftermath.

[Nintii]

Things are not going to get any better with us humans, we pass on the desire to kill each other like a

virus from one generation to the next.

We tend to ignore this parasite or should I rather say, that we are blinded to this inherent will to kill each

other by our progress in technology.

We tend to take this progress as a sign of advancement of mankind ... but we fail to ignore that our technological

advancement only gives us new and quicker ways to rid ourselves of each other.

 

Here is a quote from an article in "HistoryToday" ... unfortunately I seem to be having problems uploading the

graph used to Nexus.

 

Here is the link should you wish to view it ... http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2011/07/alarming-increase-wars

 

Quote ...

 

New research by Professors Mark Harrison from the University of Warwick and Nikolaus Wolf from Humboldt University has revealed that between 1870 and 2001, the frequency of wars between states increased steadily by 2% a year on average. Between 1870 and 1913, the frequency of ‘pairwise’ conflicts (the numbers of pairs of countries involved in conflicts) increased on average by 6% per year. The frequency of wars increased by 17% per year in the period of the First and Second World Wars, and by 31% per year during the Cold War. In the 1990s, the frequency of wars between states rose by 36% per year.

Professor Mark Harrison explained how: ‘The number of conflicts has been rising on a stable trend. Because of two world wars, the pattern is obviously disturbed between 1914 and 1945 but remarkably, after 1945 the frequency of wars resumed its upward course on pretty much the same path as before 1913.’

The graph below illustrates this increase in pairwise conflicts. It only includes wars between states and does not include civil wars. Conflicts range from full-scale shooting wars and uses of military force to displays of force (sending warships and closing borders, for example). Although Harrison and Wolf’s study does not measure the intensity of violence, it reflects the readiness of governments to settle disputes by force.

According to Harrison and Wolf, this increase in the frequency of pairwise conflicts can be explained by two principal factors: economic growth and the proliferation of borders. The number of countries has thus almost quadrupled since 1870, rising from 47 countries in 1870 to 187 in 2001.

Harrison continued: ‘More pairs of countries have clashed because there have been more pairs. This is not reassuring: it shows that there is a close connection between wars and the creation of states and new borders.’

Looking specifically at the countries that have initiated disputes, the study shows that there is no tendency for richer countries (defined by a higher GDP per head) to make more frequent military interventions than others. The readiness to engage in war is spread relatively uniformly across the global income distribution.

Thinkers of the Enlightenment believed, and many political scientists still believe today, that the political leaders of richer and more democratic countries have fewer incentives to go to war. Over the course of the twentieth century, on the whole, countries have become richer, more democratic and more interdependent. Yet, Harrison and Wolf’s study disproves the theory that as GDP increases countries are less likely to engage in warfare.

In Harrison’s view, political scientists have tended to focus too much on preferences for war (the ‘demand side’) and have ignored capabilities (the ‘supply side’). Although increased prosperity and democracy should have lessened the incentives for rulers to go to war, these same factors have also increased the capacity of countries to go to war. Economic growth has made destructive power cheaper. It is also easier for modern states to acquire destructive power because they able to tax more easily and borrow more money than ever before.

Mark Harrison concluded that: ‘The very things that should make politicians less likely to want war – productivity growth, democracy, and trading opportunities – have also made war cheaper. We have more wars, not because we want them, but because we can.’

 

End Quote.

 

And because we can, we do.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Nintii

[Harbringe]

@ BlackRampage

 

Your only talking about local fallout (heavy elements) , which doesn't take into account extended fallout of lighter radioactive elements.That's leaving out half the equation. You seem to think that its just a singular event as in boom , fallout no more further consequences . That simply isn't the case . Lets examine the notion of people being left to deal with the consequences of this fallout . Where do the vast majority of people live who have the expertise to deal with it. That would be the northern hemisphere , the same hemisphere that has been heavily nuked . So assume a few survived here and there all over the globe ,where are they gonna get the highly specialized equipment and personnel to deal with it ,that would be in cities where highly specialized equipment of that nature is kept , like nuclear reactors and labs. The same places that rank high on the type of places your enemy is gonna want to nuke. Come to think of it what about all those nuclear reactors , the ones in blast zones are gonna be spewing out radioactivity for decades (hundreds of those) of a far greater magnitude and that's not counting other types of nuclear facilities where they also use reactors of various types and purposes.Even if they are not hit they are likely (almost certainty) they will end up going critical for a whole host of reasons , biggest one being who is gonna volunteer to stay for the hours and hours that is required to shut them down , while all their loved ones may be dying as nukes are raining down. Chernobyl which they managed to shut down and cover over with tons and tons of earth and eventually concrete took about a decade to return to a relatively normal level of radiation being emitted into the atmosphere ,same thing is happening with Fukushima right now and they have yet to bring that fully under control. Who is gonna be around to do the same for all the irradiated cities and nuclear facilities all over the globe , literally thousands of them all over the globe ,no one that's who.

 

Anyway when examining survival scenario's like this it becomes virtually endless the amount of probabilities that have to be accounted for in order to determine which way it will go . So we will have to agree to disagree or we will totally run this thread off track.

 

@ Nintii : Read over the article , Well that's not encouraging.

[BlackRampage]

@ BlackRampage

 

Your only talking about local fallout (heavy elements) , which doesn't take into account extended fallout of lighter radioactive elements.

 

No I didn't. I took everything into account and even gave you every advantage possible by assuming the worst possible and even impossible scenarios and this is what you come up with? Anyway;

 

Nukes come in various sizes, but let's stick with the B-83, which is the largest nuke in the US arsenal with a yield of 1.2 megatons. A surface blast from that causes fallout to spread over an area over approximately 34.000 square kilometers.

 

I wouldn't call 34.000 square kilometers "local fallout". I'm talking about the "plume" of fallout that originates from the blast area and is distributed by the wind over a large sigar-shaped area. Like so:

 

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Fallout-model-original-5mt-blast.jpg

 

Fallout graph based on the Miller scaling model (google it). Not so local after all, is it?

 

And in the case of a surface blast that fallout doesn't even originate from the nuke itself. It's debris from the blast site that's being irradiated and flung into the atmosphere.

In the case of an air burst attack (where the fireball doesn't touch the ground) the affected area is only about as large as the radius of the shockwave because the only radioactive material being spread is from the nuke itself.

A nuclear warhead itself doesn't contain all that much radioactive material. And most of the isotopes released upon detonation have fairly short half-lives. You really think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were left uninhabited for a decade? Come on.

 

A nuclear reactor on the other hand, is filled with loads of radioactive material with extremely long half-lives. You cannot compare a nuclear powerplant with a nuclear warhead just like that, let alone what's released when it blows.

And last I read about Fukushima, it clearly stated that all the reactors that were functioning were automatically shut down when the earthquake hit. As in: without human interference. So far for being so certain they'll melt.

The Fukushima reactors only melted down because the generators that were cooling those reactors were destroyed by the tsnunami that followed, not due to a lack of human interference.

Most nuclear power plants would have to be specifically targeted by nukes though. They tend to be well out of the way of major cities.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the human race would suffer catastrophic losses, there's no doubt about that. I'm arguing that nukes aren't able to wipe out every single one of us, let alone irradiate every spot on the planet, let alone blowing up every square foot of the planet.

 

So we will have to agree to disagree or we will totally run this thread off track.

 

I thought it was actually fairly relevant, but fair enough.

[zombiehunter123]

wow i dient think anyone would take this seriously all the other sites i posted my opinion on they shut me down even armaholic which ive been on for about a year and put up some mods which were also taken down after i made post

[zombiehunter123]

and reading your opinions has been good and your all saying about nukes im more worried about what would lead to the point of nukes being used which is corporate greed like the vid says we have the ablilty to feed everyone in the entire world and put a roof over everyone but the greed of the rich has made that impossible you take away money your are left with only humanity but you make more and humanity is lost to greed which will cause war and their are 2 thngs that has stoped us from being what we can war and religion war is often caused by either religion or greed for example in the past meny great silence discovery's were destroyed by religious riots since the birth of region all the way to the 1800s and war well before the Vietnam war america put a man on the moon and then focused on mares but instead of leaving asia alone or trying to work with them america cut the budget to the space program build an army and invaded Vietnam killing millions on innocent women and children in mass graves and killing off whole towns and then leaving the country have destroyed many familys still feeling the affects today and you still havent answered for those crimes to many people in Vietnam america at the time was just as bad as russia with its poverty and hittler with mass slaughter then you enter the middle east claiming to be fighting against sadam to free the middle east when you were only there for oil then instead of leaveing the middle east at the end of the war you stayed knowing that they dident want you there which gave people like bin lardin exactlywhat they wanted and that is a reason to rally people to attack you

[zombiehunter123]

i know these 3 vids have nothing to do with the post but just cheack them out