SPARK

NOTES
the older evidence is actually better the stuff from around the early 70's and 80's takes data from actual nuclear
test explosions all the new data is purely computer models
plus there were like 20,000 more nuclear weapons back in the 80's so if we'd survive nuclear war with 50,000
nuclear weapons like we would in the 80's at the height of the cold war we'd be even more likely to survive it
now
weapons smaller
nuclear weapons testing probably disproves stuff like ozone, heres are card for that if you want it
Lots of nuclear testing
Cook 9 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics ,Radiation Effects Research Foundation lumps data together to cover up benefits of low
dose radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Life Span Study (LSS)! http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2009/04/radiation-effects-research-foundation.html
4/29/09)

In total, the U.S.A, U.S.S.R., U.K., France and China detonated 545.4 megatons in the atmosphere , the peak rate of
testing occurring in 1962, see page 295 of Merril Eisenbud and Thomas F. Gesell, Environmental Radioactivity, Academic Press, 4th ed., 1997 (the ten
biggest atmospheric tests are listed on an earlier post, here).

Facts: an all out nuclear war will release the same amount of energy as the sun in 0.2 microseconds, or the
sunlight the Earth receives in 25 minutes, or the energy released by storms in 18 days.
1 supernova = a million million million million nuclear bombs

First off -

1NC

Nuclear wars inevitable

Hellman 1 Professor of E Engineering at Stanford (Martin E., Nuclear War: Inevitable or Preventable?
http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/hellman.html)
Every day, the United States depends on 30,000 nuclear weapons for its security . Every day, the Soviet Union depends on
20,000 nuclear weapons for its security. These weapons are ready for use. There are plans for how to use them , so every
day there is a small probability they will be used. In the metaphor of nuclear roulette, every day, we pull the trigger of the
many-chambered nuclear gun pointed at the head of civilization .Every day, there is a small chance that one of
the forty conflicts going on in the world will escalate. With many of these wars touching upon the perceived
vital interests of the major powers, with the experience of the past forty years in the Middle East, with the experience of the 1962 Cuban
crisis, there is ample evidence that every war pulls the trigger. Every day, there is a small chance that a Third World hot spot will
escalate and push the interlocking command and control systems of the US and the USSR into instability.
There is an unhealthy parallel between today's military plans and those which catapulted Europe into World
War I. Each time the far-flung military forces of the two great powers go on alert, the trigger is pulled in nuclear roulette. Every day, there is a
small chance that failures in high technology military equipment will start an accidental nuclear war. Every
computer error, every false alert, every test missile that goes off course, pulls the trigger. Every day, there is a small
chance that a governmental or military group high up in either nation will succumb to group dynamics to such
a degree that individual judgment will be lost and rash decisions made. Each time a team is called upon to decide how to
respond to a provocative incident, each time warriors gather to decide what steps to take, the trigger is pulled. Each of the hundreds of
thousands of people with responsibility for nuclear weapons who drinks or uses drugs adds a small increment to
the chance for nuclear war. Each time a custodian of nuclear materials, or nuclear plans, or keys to a nuclear facility, uses alcohol or other drugs, the
trigger is pulled. Every day, there is a small chance that terrorists or renegade governments will construct a nuclear

weapon. The know-how, the materials, and the places where such construction can occur are scattered all over
the globe. Fissionable material suitable for use in weapons is produced as an unwanted by-product at every civilian nuclear power plant in the world.
More than 100,000 nuclear weapons could be built from the world's current nuclear wastes. Every coffee cup of fissionable material that a terrorist
might obtain pulls the trigger in nuclear roulette.8 Each of these probabilities, by itself, is small. But taken together over a year's
time, they add up to a cumulative probability which is no longer small. Taken together over

a decade, the probability is significant.

Taken together over a century, they make nuclear war virtually inevitable. We cannot continue
on our present course forever.
Nuclear war is survivable
LFTR 09 (Lifeboat Foundation Technology Research Think Tank, dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity
survive existential risks Brian Wang MA The Science of Nuclear War Effects and Battlestar Galactica http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/nuclearwar-effects-and-battlestar.html)
Executive Summary on Nuclear War 200 million megaton of explosions will not kill the biosphere. The

current nuclear arsenal will not kill

all humans and the pattern of nuclear explosions for a nuclear war between the largest nuclear powers will not
destroy civilization, let alone kill all people or even half of all people . The greatest risks from a total nuclear war are from fire
and starvation and not from the radiation or the blasts. Note: it is not automatic and not even easy to start a firestorm in
modern cities. Nagasaki did not have a firestorm. Nuclear winter was predicated on the assumption that there
would be firestorms in every city hit by a nuclear bomb.
Two reasons why nuclear war now is better than nuclear war later:
A) Global nuclear war halts the industrialization and the population explosion enough to
prevent extinction from global warming all other solutions fail
Jones 10 (Cheryl, Science Journalist, Frank Fenner sees no hope for humanity http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/frank-fennersees-no-hope-for-humans/story-e6frgcjx-1225880091722 6/16/10)

Fenner is an authority on extinction. The emeritus professor in microbiology at the Australian National University played a
leading role in sending one species into oblivion: the variola virus that causes smallpox. And his work on the myxoma virus suppressed wild rabbit
populations on farming land in southeastern Australia in the early 1950s. He made the comments in an interview at his home in a leafy Canberra suburb.
Now 95, he rarely gives interviews. But until recently he went into work each day at the ANU's John Curtin School of Medical Research, of which he was
director from 1967 to 1973. Decades after his official retirement from the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, which he set up in 1973, he
continued a routine established when he was running world-class facilities while conducting research. He'd get to work at 6.30am to spend a couple of
hours writing textbooks before the rest of the staff arrived. Fenner, a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and of the Royal
Society, has received many awards and honours. He has published hundreds of scientific papers and written or co-written 22 books. He retrieves some of
the books from his library. One of them, on smallpox, has physical as well as intellectual gravitas: it weighs 3.5kg. Another, on myxomatosis, was

reprinted by Cambridge University Press last year, 44 years after the first edition came out. Fenner is chuffed, but disappointed that he could not update
it with research confirming wild rabbits have developed resistance to the biological control agent. The study showed that myxo now had a much lower kill
rate in the wild than in laboratory rabbits that had never been exposed to the virus. "The [wild] rabbits themselves had mutated," Fenner says. "It was an
evolutionary change in the rabbits." His deep understanding of evolution has never diminished his fascination with observing it in the field. That
understanding was shaped by studies of every scale, from the molecular level to the ecosystem and planetary levels. Fenner originally wanted to become
a geologist but, on the advice of his father, studied medicine instead, graduating from the University of Adelaide in 1938. He spent his spare time
studying skulls with prehistorian Norman Tindale. Soon after graduating, he joined the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps, serving in Egypt and
Papua New Guinea. He is credited in part with Australia's victory in New Guinea because of his work to control malaria among the troops. "That quite
changed my interest from looking at skulls to microbiology and virology," he says. But his later research in virology, focusing on pox viruses, took him
also into epidemiology and population dynamics, and he would soon zoom out to view species, including our own, in their ecological context. His
biological perspective is also geological. He wrote his first papers on the environment in the early 1970s, when human impact was emerging as a big
problem. He says the Earth has entered the Anthropocene . Although it is not an official epoch on the geological timescale, the
Anthropocene is entering scientific terminology. It spans the time since

industrialisation, when our species started to rival ice ages

driving the climate on a planetary scale. Fenner says the real trouble is the population explosion and
"unbridled consumption". The number of Homo sapiens is projected to exceed 6.9 billion this year, according to the
UN. With delays in firm action on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, Fenner is pessimistic. "We'll undergo the
same fate as the people on Easter Island," he says. "Climate change is just at the very beginning. But we're seeing
remarkable changes in the weather already. "The Aborigines showed that without science and the production of carbon dioxide and
global warming, they could survive for 40,000 or 50,000 years. But the world can't. The human species is likely to go the same way as
many of the species that we've seen disappear. "Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100
years," he says. "A lot of other animals will, too. It's an irreversible situation . I think it's too late. I try not to express that
because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off. " Mitigation would slow things down
a bit, but there are too many people here already."
and comet impacts in

b) Kinetic energy weapons are almost here NASA has already done testing
Loeb 10 Researcher for the Gravity Research Program (Lexi, University of Oregon Nuclear Weapons May
Already Be Obsolete-- New Space Based Weapons of Mass Destruction Are Simpler and Just as Lethal
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2581739/nuclear_weapons_may_already_be_obsolete.html?cat=
Get high enough in the sky and drop a massive object or accelerate it in advance of having it hit the earth's atmosphere and
you have the awesome power of a guided asteroid that can pack the punch of a nuclear weapon without much of any radiation contamination. If you
wanted to blow off the top of a mountain on earth to make it ready for mining purposes you could also use one of these tools to get an instant crater.
These space based tools could also be used for creating lakes or digging canals almost instantaneously. There is a possibility they could also be used to
prevent earthquakes by helping to release ground energy in advance by aiming along faults. Nuclear weapons as the weapons of mass

destruction that give governments deterrence against war can quickly be replaced with a space based kinetic
gravity space based system possibly saving money on the maintenance and disposal of weapons, the maintenance of nuclear fabrication plants,
mining operations and environment degradation perceived to go along with the nuclear weapons industry. The new system does however have high
maintenance expenses too which include lifting heavy massive objects into space and getting them and their launch platforms into stable reliable orbits
or somehow harvesting metals in space and fabricating the weapons there. Very expensive at the moment but maybe not as expensive as making and
maintaining nuclear arsenals and ballistic missile delivery systems. With enough heavy mass sufficiently far away from the earth's surface and the right
design it is possible to make the ultimate bunker buster ground penetrating projectile imaginable. Say you wanted to target a dam like the Aswan Dam in
Egypt or The Three Gorges Dam in China to decommission either one in the advent of war. A nuclear bomb might not do very much good at causing any
damage to these giant concrete/ steel structures because they are designed to take such forces. The best a military planner could hope for might be to
send the water damed up behind the dam over the top with a nuclear explosion. Dropping a weapon with the force of an asteroid concentrated at a hard
pencil point tip could not only take out a big chuck of a concrete dam structure but it could undermine the rock on either side of such large dams.
Calculations by those doing the research shows that a fairly large object in the right shape to concentrate the kinetic energy at a point of impact and not
discharge much of that energy as it comes down though the earth's atmosphere in a fire ball with heat treatment surfacing, could ruin cities just as much
as a nuclear bomb can without all the radiation contamination. That way after dust clears, days or weeks later, an invading army can march right into
ground zero without nearly as much hazard to the troops as a nuclear blast. This weapon can be sized up or down by the size of the target to spare off
limits monuments in cities with pin point accuracy that no bomb blast would be able to match. The whole thing is based on the physics of

gravity and collisions due to acceleration. Gravity provides enough acceleration if you have enough mass far
enough off the ground to maximize kinetic energy release at a point of collision at the surface. The guidance systems
that bring a falling or a gliding ballistic missile down to it's target is all that is required to pin point the selected targets. These weapons could easily
be lifted into space in various rocket payloads including in the space shuttle bays. Chances are some have already been lifted up maybe
even by foreign carriers that did not know they were transporting potential lethal weapons. One way to build a
platform to rev up the initial acceleration of the heavy rod like weapons would be to build massive solar energy farms that would feed into some large fly
wheel battery's that could be used to create an electro magnetic field that could almost instantly accelerate a massive object before gravity took over. A
magnetic launch means that no fuel has to be lost in the trip so that momentum can be maximized. This weapon not only has the power of a smart
asteroid but it has amazing precision and a real simplicity that makes the nuclear weapons trade seem silly and obsolete. There certainly would be
dangers including human error, launch/ lifting accidents, failing orbits. There is also an advantage of being able to scale down so that targets can be
mapped and all disposed of at once or in waves. Smaller weapon can be independently launched or dropped just to hit individual factories,
communication systems, power plants avoiding nuclear plants and just disabling the transmission lines using the best of high resolution spy satellites
and military grade GPS for targeting. Unlike a nuclear bomb attack, here thousands of vary small targets and some large ones could be hit
simultaneously with as much accuracy as pin pointing places on satellite maps. So finally the space program really has paid off for the military. A single
kinetic gravity assist weapon could be put in space to target Russian targets if that is where the US still is doing the targeting or just have a smaller one
aimed at certain areas of the Kremlin. Hypothetically No reason to blow up all of Moscow anymore if the US had to return the favor after a Russian
nuclear strike on Los Angeles. The Russians ruin Los Angeles. We can send them to live there and take Moscow as an uncontaminated city ready to
occupy. That is a military advantage that nukes don't have. It might be possible to aim an objects no bigger than a jack hammer from space with some

acceleration assistance and take down a fairly major target without having to fly though hostile air space, risk a submarine becoming visible after firing a
missile or being in any position to take fire back. It is also possible to program the systems in space so the weapons could be automatically set to target
weapons that might target them by retracing the origin of the offending weapons. Or if the potential attackers are known pre-program the weapons to hit
pre-chosen targets in case the space platform is attacked. Systems like this are probably already being tested. It would be a great way to
eliminate underground Iranian nuclear testing facilities without having to fly any planes or send missiles over Iranian air space or over neighboring
country's air space. The enemy would not really know what hit them because the delivery system is the projectile coming down out of the sky. Made of

hardened heavy metal these things would not be easily deflected with missile shields at least not initially. Unlike a
vulnerable missile that is hollow metal with fuel inside of it these are solid heavy metal objects with a lot more momentum and possibly a redirecting
guidance system operating flaps or louvers to correct for deflection. Another more advanced system might have a number of

objects accelerated to even faster speeds by sending them around the sun or moon using gravity assistance and
then keeping them in orbit at those high speeds until ready to send down to hit a terrestrial target or a lunar target for that mater (perhaps for a mining
operation) The faster an object is moving before it's collision with a part of the earth landscape the more lethal it can become. It is possible to accelerate a
heavy piece of metal send it down to earth where it completely annihilates itself , digs a huge crater proving it self as lethal as a nuclear weapon without
the radiation contamination and better reliable pin pointing of targets. One day in the near future the spaces weapons race

is probably inevitably on the verge of happening. It might take a war of some kind for the technology to be tested. There are
no shortages of wars. It was just 2009 that a similar bit of technology was launched at one of the poles on the moon
for a scientific experiment. This was a less massive object not intended to maximize destruction but just to kick up a plume of dust and debris
for remote analysis. That may have been one of the first real tests of the real technology that will quickly come to
make nuclear weapons obsolete. There are other uses too. An example would be to send down bowling ball size "pellets" from space into
large industrial smelting chambers to allow kinetic energy fire to smelt masses of raw aluminum and other un processed metal without having to hook up
giant electric grids. Finally NASA would have a space industry that could pay for payloads of bowling ball size pellets that could generate more heat at
lower cost than burning coal or diesel to get the same results. If metals could be found in space either from space junk debris or mining on some asteroid
or the moon then kinetic energy from space could beat using microwave beams to send solar energy back to earth. The technology has more peaceful uses
than it does for warfare. Those who really don't like nuclear weapons should probably prefer this system a little more. It will never please anyone who
believes that all weapons are bad.

KE Weapons will cause extinction

Gettings 01 Professor of Geophysics (Paul, at U of Utah, Weapons of Mass Destruction)
Planetary K.E. Munitions. The

current title-holder in pure destructive force is the planetary K.E. munition. Consisting of a
typical large asteroid (160
12
km3) at 0.5c (the limit of a standard Shield drive), the impact energy is 42,464x10 tons of TNT. This is more than 10 million
times the destructive potential of the entire 20th century Terran nuclear arsenal. The impact energy of a planetary
munition will exterminate entire continents. The direct blast can devastate entire hemispheres. There is no report of
large rock (typically tens of cubic km of rock) with a full Shield drive, these weapons are expensive. However, for a

any of these ever being deployed.

Only through nuclear war can we realize our destructive power and live in harmony with the
environment and without inertia weapons preventing a future war that would destroy
civilization and wed become stewards of the environment
Zimmerman 87 (Michael E. Professor of Philosophy at Newcomb. Anthropocentric Humanism and the Arms Race
Today we are faced with facts and evidence about the nuclear arms race that counsel despair. What can an individual do in the face of such weapons in
the hands of the superpowers? Each of us is called on to do at least this: to be willing to experience the anxiety that is the

gateway to vision and declaration . Only when we have gone through that gateway can we make the declarations
that open up the realm for an alternative to the given. We need to let language speak through us in a new way. Further, we must
be willing for the worst to occur: all-out nuclear war. We must not be governed by fear; as long as we resist and deny the
possibility of nuclear way, that possibility will persist and grow stronger. So long as we cling to whatever exists, including the order of things that now
prevails, we cannot be open for alternatives that do not yet exist. When enough of us choose to be open for vision, the needed

shift in human awareness may occur. Perhaps we will be able to create a world beyond the old dichotomy of war
and peace. Perhaps we will then be able to create a new game for humanity, one in which we fulfill our highest
possibility of bearing witness to the presence of all being. In learning to dwell in harmony with all beings,
human and nonhuman, we will become mature daughters and sons of the Earth-co-creators of the cosmic
order.

2NC INEVITABLE OVERVIEW

1) Inevitability means all their impacts are inevitable.
2) Delay only makes it worse - every second they delays nuclear war the body count increases
Caldwell 01 (Joseph George, Professor of Statistics. On saving the Environment and the Inevitability of Global War
www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm
The world political and economic system is committed to world peace and increased industrial production. The United Nations and World Bank press for
increased economic / industrial activity. When small wars break out, the UN and other political / economic coalitions

move quickly to suppress them. The result of this approach is that, when the global industrial system finally
collapses under the strain (mass population, mass industrialization), it will collapse catastrophically. Every year that passes
without a global war means that when it finally occurs, it will be even more massive in size and more nearly
complete in its destruction.
3) Turns all their cooperation and relation impacts no cooperation during a nuclear war
3) Moots all their aff solvency
- Well grant they solve their scenario, but many more will pop up guaranteeing conflict

2NC KE OVERVIEW
KE weapons are ten million times more destructive than nuclear weapons - the blast will
disintegrate entire continents thats Gettings
It turns their impacts as well
LFTR 09 (Lifeboat Foundation Technology Research Think Tank, dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity
survive existential risks Brian Wang MA 10/27/09 Nuclear weapons Issues are Irrelevant for a Truly Space Capable Civilization
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/nuclear-weapon-issues-are-irrelevant.html)
Nuclear weapon proliferation

is generally irrelevant for countries with the capability to move freely around the solar system and having a far
energy is more robust and scales higher than nuclear bombs. Any technology (like a good
fusion rocket) that can get anything to 29% of light speed has military implications. Even moderately advanced VASIMR scale technology and
superior energy source. Kinetic

robotic electric solar sails would let you fairly free roam out to near earth asteroids and the asteroid belt. Big rocks could be diverted to crush fixed
targets on earth. Moving up the kinetic energy scale quickly outclasses any existing nuclear bombs in destructive

force and kinetic energy weapons are harder to defend against than nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb has fragile
mechanisms. A kinetic energy rock still has all of its destructive energy if it is broken into pieces. Think about the
dinosaur killing asteroid versus a nuclear bomb. If a 10km diameter object impacted at the point at which it struck it would have a
velocity of roughly 100,000 km/h. At this velocity there would have been an initial blast (with an estimated force of many millions of tons
of TNT) which would have destroyed everything within a radius of between 400 and 500km, including the object. At the same
time large fires would have been started by the intense shock wave which would have traveled long distances. Trillions of
tons of debris (dust, gases and water vapour) would have been thrown into the atmosphere when the object vaporized.
Many enormous tidal waves would be started causing even more damage, the evidence of such waves has been found all the way round the Gulf
of Mexico. Along with the tidal waves the blast would also start a chain reaction of earthquakes and volcanic activity there would have
also been very high winds caused by the blast. In the days and weeks following the impact the cloud of debris would have been carried over large
distances by the post blast high winds. This will have caused months of darkness and a decrease in global temperatures. After

this there would have been an increase in temperatures caused by the large amounts of CO2 released by what
would have been global fires. Eventually this would cause chemical reactions that would result in the formation of acid rains.
High magnitude impacts always come first the stakes of extinction are one million times
greater
Sandberg, Matheny and Cirkovic, 8Anders Sandberg, James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at
Oxford University, postdoctoral research assistant for the EU Enhance project; Jason G. Matheny, PhD candidate in Health Policy and Management at
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, special consultant to the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and
co-founder of New Harvest, and Milan M. irkovi, senior research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade, assistant professor of physics
at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia and Montenegro; How Can We Reduce the Risk of Human Extinction http://thebulletin.org/webedition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction
These emerging threats are especially challenging as they could become dangerous more quickly than past technologies, outpacing society's ability to
control them. As H.G. Wells noted, "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." Such remote risks may

seem academic in a world plagued by immediate problems, such as global poverty, HIV, and climate change.
But as intimidating as these problems are, they do not threaten human existence. In discussing the risk of nuclear winter,
Carl Sagan emphasized the astronomical toll of human extinction: A nuclear war imperils all of our descendants, for as long as there will be humans.
Even if the population remains static, with an average lifetime of the order of 100 years, over a typical time period for the biological

evolution of a successful species (roughly ten million years), we are talking about some 500 trillion people yet to come. By this
criterion, the stakes are one million times greater for extinction than for the more modest nuclear
wars that kill "only" hundreds of millions of people. There are many other possible measures of the potential loss--including culture and science, the
evolutionary history of the planet, and the significance of the lives of all of our ancestors who contributed to the future of their descendants. Extinction is
the undoing of the human enterprise. There is a discontinuity between risks that threaten 10 percent or even 99 percent of humanity and those that
threaten 100 percent. For disasters killing less than all humanity , there is a good chance that the species could

recover. If we value future human generations, then reducing extinction risks should dominate our
considerations. Fortunately, most measures to reduce these risks also improve global security against a range of lesser catastrophes, and thus
deserve support regardless of how much one worries about extinction. These measures include: Removing nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert and
further reducing their numbers; Placing safeguards on gene synthesis equipment to prevent synthesis of select pathogens; Improving our ability to
respond to infectious diseases, including rapid disease surveillance, diagnosis, and control, as well as accelerated drug development; Funding research
on asteroid detection and deflection, "hot spot" eruptions, methane hydrate deposits, and other catastrophic natural hazards; Monitoring developments
in key disruptive technologies, such as nanotechnology and computational neuroscience, and developing international policies to reduce the risk of
catastrophic accidents.

*INEVITABILITY*

2NC INEVITABILITY
Ill just extend all the warrants of Hellman they dropped that make nuclear war inevitable
1) chance of small conflicts escalating
2) clash of interests between superpowers
3) tech glitches
4) stray missiles
5) government miscalc
6) terrorists
7) rogue states
And any risk of nuclear war means the risk is 100%
Kegley and Schwab 91 (Charles W, professor of international relations at U South Carolina and Kenneth L, After the Cold War Questioning
the Morality of Nuclear Deterrence .Pg 104)
The other function that legitimizes the military is deterrence, that is, the prevention of another military power conquering or dominating a society that
supports its own military. There is a widespread belief, particularly in the United States, that deterrence can be stable, but all the historical evidence
denies this proposition. It can be show logically unstable in the long run. We can see this point dramatically in the case of nuclear deterrence. If the

probability of nuclear weapons going off was zero, then they would not deter. It would be the same as not
having them. If the probability of nuclear weapons going off is not zero, then if we wait long enough, they will
go off. It is a very fundamental principal that any event that has a positive probability must eventually happen.
A good example of this principle is flooding. A 100-year flood in any particular place is a flood with a 1-percent-per-annum probability of happening. It
can easily be calculated that the probability of such a flood happening within 100 years is about 63 percent, in 400 years over 98 percent, and in 1000
years, 99.996 percent.

Wars inevitable Human error, computer glitches, and cyber terrorism

Starr 9 Senior Scientist for Physicians for Social Responsibility (Steven, Climate Effects of Nuclear War
Peace Magazine, Jul-Sep 09, pg 6)
Why are nuclear weapons kept on high alert? There is no defense against a massive first-strike attack by nuclear-tipped missiles, so the military solution
was and is to launch them on warning before they are destroyed by the incoming attack. A false warning believed to be real could cause

a retaliatory launch, thus resulting immediately in an accidental nuclear war (the retaliation could be launched on only
the basis of electronic warning signals before the attack is confirmed by nuclear detonations). And false warnings do
occur -- because of human error, technical error, or potentially because of terrorist sabotage . For example, a
terrorist group might introduce computer viruses or software into the systems of early warning or into the
nuclear command-and-control systems, mimicking a full-scale nuclear attack.
Schell admits it
Schell 82 (Jonathan, teaches nuclear dilemma at Yale and former columnist at the New Yorker on nuclear weapons The Fate of the Earth,
nominated for the Pulitizer, National Book Award, National Critics Award)
If we are honest with ourselves we have to admit that unless we rid ourselves of a

nuclear arsenals a holocaust not only might occur but will

occur- if not today, then tomorrow; if not this year, then the next. We have come to live on borrowed time:
every year of continued human life on earth is a borrowed year, every day a borrowed day

INEV - PROLIF
Proliferation makes war inevitable
Waltz and Sagan 95 (Kenneth and Scott, Professors of IR at U Cal and Stanford The Spread of Nuclear
Weapons: A Debate
In short, while

there have been no catastrophic and clear weapons accidents in the new nuclear states yet, there are good
reasons to anticipate that the probabilities will be high over time. Any serious nuclear weapons accident will have
tragic consequences for the local community; and if an accidental detonation, false warning, or unauthorized use of a
weapons leads to mistake retaliation and accidental war, the consequences would be even more catastrophic. As long as would-be
nuclear states chose not to cross the final threshold of weaponization by actually deploying fully assembled nuclear weapons and launchers, these
safety problems will largely remain dormant. Once these states begin to deploy arsenals, however, such organizational safety

problems are likely to emerge rapidly. The current positive safety record is therefore likely to be only the lull before the
storm.

INEV CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change makes nuclear war inevitable
Townsend and Harris 04 (Mark is the Defense & Legal Affairs Correspondent of The Guardian. Recipient of the British Environmental
Journalist of the Year. Paul, is the US Guardian correspondent Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver)

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and
natural disasters. A secret report, suppressed by US defense chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that
major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020.
Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world . The document predicts
that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to
defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that
of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes
the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

INEV TERRORISM
Nuclear terror makes war inevitable
Dolan 06 (PhD in Physics from West Point, 'Nuclear Effects Project Officer' for the Manhattan Project The Effects of Nuclear Weapons
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/ (His blog, a tribute to Samuel Glasstone, pioneer in nuclear research, is dedicated to articles on nuclear weapons))

'I think it probably is inevitable that a nuclear device will be used by terrorists at some time in the future, either
as a serious threat or with an actual explosion ... there is some probability that the acquisition may come about
by theft of a weapon rather than by fabrication. ... No doubt, there is enough information available in the open
literature to enable a group to build a nuclear warhead ... that would produce somewhere between a few tens of
tons and a few kilotons of yield, which would be adequate for their purposes.'
Guarantees miscalc and Global Nuclear war
Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies, Director of Strategic Studies: New Zealand, Senior Research Associate with Oxfords Centre for
International Studies. After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July 2010,
pages 571-593)

Washington's early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted
(and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and /or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the
immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country's
armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment , when careful planning
runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S.
intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such
actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.
As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a
significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or
states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might
interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of
influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington
that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is
the Chechen insurgents' long-standing interest in all things nuclear. 42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost

certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or
unwilling to provide.

Nuclear terrorism inevitable human error ensures it

Daley 10 (Tad, J.D., PhD in International Policy Analysis RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies, Fellow with International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War, the 1985 Nobel Peace Laureate organization Apocalypse Never May 2010 pg 52)

Screw-ups happen in complex systems managed by fallible human beings. So long as there are thousands of
American nuclear weapons, they will provide both a temptation and an opportunity for someone to figure out a
way to purchase, purloin, or commandeer one. So long as we hold on to a vast American stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium and
HEU, we provide both a temptation and an opportunity for someone to figure out a way to penetrate that stockpile. The
longer we insist that we (but not others) must retain nuclear weapons indefinitely, the more possibilities will exist for theft,
bribery, mishandling, infiltration, missing hard drives turning up behind copying machines (as they did at the
Los Alamos lab in 2000), 1,500 pages of classified material turning up next to methamphetamine pipes in a residential
trailer (as they did in a trailer park just outside the Los Alamos lab in 2006)name your Armageddon scenario. The likelihood
that our own nuclear warheads or materials might somehow end up in the hands of terrorists is probably very low.
Nevertheless, these disturbing reports indicate that the probability is surely greater than zero. And over a long enough
period of time, even a virtually impossible event even becomes virtually inevitable.

INEV HUMAN ERROR

Human error makes nuclear war inevitable
Moore 07 (Carol, BA in political science, former Chair of Libertarian Party. http://carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/)
Needless to say, the possibility of accidental nuclear war between the United States and Russia increases in an atmosphere of
threats and counter-threats, especially relating to specific incidents or ongoing wars -- and especially given
Russia's broken down radar and satellite early warning system which cover only a part of Russia's 11 time zones
at any one time. Computer and radar glitches, misinterpreted missile launches, unexpected large asteroid
explosions -- not to mention a nuclear detonation of unknown origin on either nation -- could lead to a nuclear
exchange between the U.S. and Russia. Both nations have only a few short minutes to decide if a real attack is under-way. Launch on
Warning "Hair Trigger" Alert
The U.S. and Russia both have a nuclear policy of launch on warning--a "hair-trigger"
alert system. This means that less than 15 minutes after detecting a missile attack -- real or false -- through
radar and satellite early warning systems these nation's militaries must launch their 5,000 on-alert nuclear
weapons or possibly loose them to a first strike by the other side. And of this 15 minutes, only two or three minutes are allowed for
actual deliberation by the Presidents of the United States or Russia. Barely time to get a phone call through on their
"red telephones." See a relevant video.

Nuclear war is inevitable for multiple reasons

Lifton 91 (Robert, Professor of psychology at Princeton University. The Genocidal Mentality)
Much has been written about the

kinds of situation that could bring about use of the weapons: the radical
intensification of a political or military conflict between the superpowers, or between other countries with
whom one of the superpowers (or other nuclear weapons-possessing powers) is allied, a conventional war anywhere in the world
in which nuclear powers see themselves as having a national interest, various forms of accident involved
computers or radar screens in which a false technological representation is interpreted to be a nuclear attack by an
adversary, and actions by terrorists, such as the stealing of nuclear material and clandestine building of a weapon
with little compunction about threatening to use it or actually doing so.

A2: DISARMAMENT SOLVES

Disarmament is impossible
Tuttle 10 (A.C., Emeritus Professor at University of Nevada, Atomic obsession: nuclear alarmism from
Hiroshima to al-Qaeda Choice, July 2010, Vol. 47 pg 2192)
This is both a well-written book and an important scholarly contribution. It is a work that is also destined to be controversial, especially with the
antiproliferation community. Mueller (Ohio State Univ.) challenges all of the long-held assumptions about and fears of nuclear weapons. He contends
that while such devices are truly awesome, on some occasions they have received more credit than they deserve. For example, it is contended that the
mere possession of such weapons has prevented wars. Certainly, this was not the case in Korea or in the various armed conflicts in the Middle East,
where Israel has been the sole nuclear and thermonuclear power for some rime. Mueller is critical of the nuclear disarmament and

arms control communities. Also, he discounts the idea that terrorist groups are capable of detonating such devices and causing major damage
in the US. Disarmament is, of course, impossible, and arms control agreements have for the most part limited
delivery systems of the US and Russia. Proliferation is a reality. Policy makers and their staffs could benefit from this piece.
Certainly, it will provide the grist for many lively graduate seminars.

Even disarmament cant solve, well rebuild them

Hellman 1 Professor of E Engineering at Stanford (Martin E., Nuclear War: Inevitable or Preventable?
http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/hellman.html)
Freezing nuclear arsenals at their current levels would help, but would not change the inevitability. Nor would cutting
the number of nuclear weapons in half from 50,000 to 25,000. Twenty-five thousand nuclear weapons is still 25,000 potential accidents,
each far more destructive than Chernobyl. Even eliminating all existing nuclear weapons would not alter the logic . We will
always know how to build new ones and, during war, there would be tremendous pressure to do so . So what can we
do? What is enough?

Only a mindset shift can end the nuclear threat

Hellman 1 Professor of E Engineering at Stanford (Martin E., Nuclear War: Inevitable or Preventable?
http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/hellman.html)
The only thing that will work is to address each of the small probabilities that together add up to inevitability.
We have to change the thinking that drives us to stockpile tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, place them in depots that are increasingly
vulnerable to terrorist attack, and guard them with people subject to the influence of alcohol or other drugs. We can no longer allow the survival of
civilization to be dependent on the error-free operation of high technology defense systems - or on the rational functioning of sometimes irrational
human beings. We have to stop threatening military force. We have to stop engaging in small wars. While we must change
each of these, there is a common source. It

is the mentality of war which spawns each of these individually small, but
collectively disastrous, risks. It is the mentality of war which is the conceptual umbrella. It is the mentality of war which drives us every time
we pull the trigger in nuclear roulette. The only way to survive pistol roulette is to put down the gun. The only way to survive nuclear
roulette is to move from the mentality of war to a totally new way of thinking.
Nuclear war solves extend Zimmerman 88 creates the mindset shift needed

A2: NW AGAIN
1) Wed put down our destructive tendencies after nuclear war thats Zimmerman
2) Turn - they only way there will be nuclear disarmament is through nuclear war
Nye 88 (Joseph S., former Dead of Government at Harvard, PhD in Political Science from Harvard, chaired the National Security Council Group on
Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Fateful Visions pg 17)

For public opinion to help sustain an abolition agreement, there may have to be a shocking event- a series of
disasters at nuclear plants, a nuclear war between two smaller powers (e.g., India and Pakistan), or a nuclear war
involving the superpowers. Otherwise it is difficult to imagine, in the foreseeable future, the wholesale
transference of allegiance at large. The most likely path to an agreement to abolish nuclear weapons may be
nuclear war.

*NW SURVIVABLE*

GENERIC
Nuclear testing disproves
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, Rescue of trapped survivors in megaton
equivalent World War II attacks, and a review of Bolsover's CND "Civil Defence, The Cruellest Confidence
Trick" http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/02/rescue-of-trapped-survivors-in-world.html 2/16/10)
Ignoring practical limitations like anti-Civil Defence propaganda, you would find that it's "theoretically possible" for one rock to be used to kill an infinite
number of people, if they meekly give in without a struggle or opposition. It's not possible to kill an infinite number of people by exploding one nuclear
bomb: in fact, it's possible for most people to survive even very high yield deliverable nuclear explosions in modern brick and concrete cities (which are
not built with medieval style crowded wooden buildings like Hamburg or Hiroshima), as proved by a detailed study of nuclear test effects. America,

Russia, Britain, France and China tested 520 nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, totalling 478.7 megatons , with a
mean yield of 921 kilotons. The mean yield of the 5,192 nuclear warheads and bombs in the deployed Russian nuclear stockpile as of January
2009: 0.317 Mt. That is a total of 1,646 Mt, less than four times the total sum of atmospheric nuclear tests which have
already taken place without destroying the ozone layer, causing a nuclear winter, or "overkilling" everybody. The
mean yield of the 4,552 nuclear warheads and bombs in the deployed U.S. nuclear stockpile as of January 2007: 0.257 Mt. That's a total yield of 1,172 Mt,
little more than twice the total yield of all the nuclear bombs tested in the atmosphere.

Even at the height of the cold war stockpile theres only 5 percent destruction
Cook 9 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, Evidence that inaccurate statements about weapons effects have historically caused
increased threats to national security, instead of reducing them http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2009/11/groupthink-and-proliferation-why.html
11/18/09)

Even a Cold War all-out USSR-US nuclear war before arms reductions would have devastated <5% of the land
area of either country by blast, leaving the people and resources of the surviving >95% area to rebuild it , just as
occurred after other wars where megatons of conventional bombs which are - for equal quantities - much more efficient at causing destruction than a few
nuclear bombs. The commentary of the film of the first 10.4 megaton test, Operation Ivy, argues that the bomb had the energy of all the bombs dropped
in World War II: yeah, more impressively, the daily sunlight received on Earth and even the natural storm energy on the
planet is even more

powerful than a nuclear war as tabulated above. Energy tells you nothing about the
destruction. A protracted war using conventional weapons can kill more people and cause more suffering than
a brief burst of energy which is easily mitigated as explained above.

STOCKPILE NUMBERS
Russian Arsenal
Cook 9 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, Evidence that inaccurate statements about weapons effects have historically caused
increased threats to national security, instead of reducing them http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2009/11/groupthink-and-proliferation-why.html
11/18/09)
Mean yield of the 5,192

nuclear warheads and bombs in the deployed Russian nuclear stockpile as of January 2009: 0.317 Mt.
Total yield: 1,646 Mt. (megatons)
US Arsenal
Cook 9 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, Evidence that inaccurate statements about weapons effects have historically caused
increased threats to national security, instead of reducing them http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2009/11/groupthink-and-proliferation-why.html
11/18/09)
Mean yield of the 4,552

nuclear warheads and bombs in the deployed U.S. nuclear stockpile as of January 2007: 0.257 Mt. Total
yield: 1,172 Mt.(megatons)

A2: NW UNPREDICTABLE
After thousands of nuclear detonations and computer simulations, we know exactly what will
happen in a nuclear war
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming BA Physics, Dirkwood Corporation data on the mortality versus Thermal
Radiation and Blast Parameters in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Texas City Disaster
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/10/dirkwood-analysis-of-mortality-versus.html 10/7/10)
Sequence of events: 1. nuclear weapons effects data is kept secret, 2. critics

of civil defense policy openly publish claims that the secret data
knows the effects of nuclear weapons reliably "), 3. nobody in government is able to disclose the facts, 4.
critics of civil defense policy eventually manage to persuade the public (which is denied the secret data) that the government really has no
idea what the threats are or how to combat them, 5. the public end up influencing government policy through the democratic process. This is what
happened in the 1920s and 1930s. In 1989, Philip J. Dolan's 1972 two-part Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons, DNA-EM-1, 1972, originally Secret - Restricted Data, was declassified with some page change
does not exist ("nobody

updates from 1978 and 1981. Chapters 5 and 7 of this manual are online on this blog, and we have summarized some updates which have been made to this manual which have become declassified, on blast, nuclear radiation, thermal radiation (a
massive change of thermal partitions and transmission data), cratering (massive changes, reducing crater sizes at high yields), fallout, and space effects. In 1992, I requested the earlier Capabilities of Atomic Weapons from the the Library U. K.
Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (now AWE), and was told that Dolan's more recent Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons was then in the British Library on Microfiche. In 1993, William M. Arkin of the Natural Resources Defense Council
requested (under the American Freedom of Information Act) the successor, Harold L. Brode's 1992 version of EM-1, which was subsequently slowly declassified with some important deletions (it is much longer than Dolan's version, with each
chapter a separate lengthy document). Arkin writes about receiving the updated version in the July 1997 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, leering at the depth of research and totally ignoring the civil defense implications of accurate
effects data for survival and damage mitigation during an enemy attack. The Natural Resources Defense Council apparently has decided to keep the actual details of the declassified data from the latest version under wraps (maybe it doesn't fit
their Cold War era political agenda, whereby we will be safe when we disarm). At the same time that it was being declassified, the people of the Defense Special Weapons Agency who were declassifying it decided to summarize the declassified
material (which is not everything) into a single brief summary volume. This was edited in 1996 by John A. Northrop (who as Deputy Director of the U. S. Defense Nuclear Agency in 1972, wrote the notice of promulgation on page iii of the 1972
edition of Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons). Northrop headed S-cubed research into nuclear terrorism effects in the 1970s and 1980s, e.g. J. A. Northrop, The role of civil preparedness in nuclear terrorism mitigation planning, Systems, Science
and Software, Washington Research Center, report SSS-R-80-4185, ADA081560 (1979): An assessment of the objectives and capabilities of terrorist groups leads to the conclusion that although an explosion of a small nuclear bomb in a city is
improbable, planning for an adequate emergency response is necessary. At the Federal level current planning places primary emphasis on management of terrorist events themselves, rather than on subsequent mitigation. The responsible
agencies that will be involved must develop working relationships which will allow a rapid and coherent response to the massive damage and casualties that would result. Some state planning has been made, but local authority planning is very
limited. These plans, and their integration at all levels of government, would be greatly enhanced by the drifting of models which could be adapted to individual state and local requirements. Preliminary assessments of effects of low-yield nuclear
explosions in cities show significant changes, produced by massive building structures, to conventional data. Such data when further developed will provide important guidance to urban nuclear emergency planners. A new methodology is
proposed for modeling the economic impact of terrorist attacks tailored to the nationwide incapacitation of unique industrial processes. See also J. A. Northrop, B. E. Freeman, and R. E. Duff, Program to Develop and Codify Urban Nuclear
Weapon Effects. Final Report, S-Cubed, La Jolla, California, report SSS-R-83-6228, ADA284141 (1983): A program is developed which, if implemented, would assess those effects of a detonation of a terrorist nuclear weapon located in a highly
built-up urban area which are unique to the environment, and consider possible techniques for damage limitation. It is assumed that the weapon is of low-yield, that its hiding place can be located, and that there is sufficient time before its
detonation for the application of mitigation techniques. A series of radiation-hydrodynamic, hydrodynamic, radiation transport, and fallout calculations are defined which would provide insight into the modification to classic nuclear
phenomenology produced by unique urban hiding locations, possible mitigating of the blast and thermal threats by materials deliberately placed around the weapon, and changes in the propagation of blast, fallout, and thermal radiation due to
surrounding buildings. It is anticipated that, were such a theoretical study program to be implemented, it would provide useful guidance to nuclear emergency response planners. Northrop's 1996 Handbook of Nuclear Weapon Effects:
Calculational Tools Abstracted from DSWAs Effects Manual One (EM-1) (Defense Weapons Special Agency, Washington, D.C.) is unclassified but of limited distribution, exactly the status of Dr Carl F. Miller's report Fallout and Radiological
Countermeasures between 1963-9. But it contains data on the prompt high frequency EMP source (the prompt gamma ray output of modern nuclear weapon designs) and the spectrum of the thermal radiation as a function of burst altitude and
weapon yield which is vital for civil defense and is omitted from the 1977 edition of Glasstone and Dolan's Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Dolan's 1972 Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons DNA-EM-1 in Table 5-3 and Table 5-1 as well as many graphs
of data, analyzed the radiation outputs from eight types of nuclear weapons. The revised version by Brode analyzes 13 nuclear weapons designs, and Northrop's 1996 extract handbook gives data from 4 of these designs: type 3 (subkiloton,
unboosted fission implosion), type 5 (boosted fission implosion, 1 to a few tens of kt), type 8 (thermonuclear secondary with single yield, a few tens of kt to 5 Mt), and type 13 (the enhanced radiation weapon, 1-10 kt). Most fission weapons have
neutron outputs on the order of 1023 neutrons/kt (see for instance Table 5-1 in DNA-EM-1), the enhanced radiation weapon emits 1.77 x 10 24 neutrons/kt, according to Northrop (1996). Northrop's data on prompt gamma ray output from different
nuclear weapon designs. The shocking thing is the prompt gamma ray output (from fission and inelastic neutron scattering reactions with heavy nuclei in the bomb over the first 20 nanoseconds). An enhanced radiation bomb emits a prompt
gamma ray output of 6.70 x 1023 MeV/kt with a mean gamma ray energy of 2.0 MeV, according to Northrop (1996). This is about 2.6 % of the weapon yield! Dolan's DNA-EM-1 chapters 5 and 7 (1978) gave a figure of 0.1-0.5 % for the range of
prompt gamma radiation outputs. Additionally, Northrop states that the prompt gamma ray out for the type 8 thermonuclear secondary weapon with a single yield of up to 5 Mt is 3.55 x 10 23Wkt-0.29 MeV/kt, i.e. 1.4Wkt-0.29 % of yield, which is 0.18
for 1 Mt, not 0.1 % as suggested by most unclassified EMP prediction treatments! The high prompt gamma ray output from the neutron bomb provides a example of how the weapon design can be engineered to produce immense outputs of EMP
from a high altitude detonation. In fact, the use of enhanced neutron radiation bombs at high altitude has always been on the cards for ABM defenses, since one way to neutralize incoming enemy warheads is to melt down the fissile material they
contain, using the neutron radiation from a defensive warhead. Neutron bombs have always been of relevance to ABM defense as well as deterring massed tank invasions. Data on the thermal radiation spectrum from nuclear weapons in

In fact,
extensive data exists on the effects of nuclear weapons from intensive scientific studies at weapon tests and
also from extensive computer simulations. The reason that critics of civil defense can falsely claim nothing much is
known and get away with such a claim is simply that there are restraints on the publication of data which is needed for making a convincing case
for civil defense. It's either secret or (when finally declassified) its "not secret but limited in distribution", which amounts to the same thing for the
public (which just wants to know what the facts really are, so they can decide whether civil defense is justified by the data, for
Northrop's limited-distribution handbook. This data is needed in the public domain to help counter anti-civil defense propaganda about there being no reliable data on the details of burn-causing thermal radiation.

themselves).

A2: SMALL RISK

Risk of extinction is secondary
Martin 84 (Brian, PhD, Physics, Specializing in nuclear weapons, Research Associate in the Dept. of
Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Australian National University, and a member of SANA, SANA Update
(Scientists Against Nuclear Arms Newsletter), number 21, October 1984, pp. 15-16.)
It is straightforward to apply my analysis of the

bias of science to disputes about the effects of nuclear war. Barrie assumes that
it is sufficient to show that extinction cannot be excluded as a significant possibility. He then draws the political conclusion from
this that "Even the most politically conservative person must be brought to realize that no cause and no ideal can be served by clinging to reliance on
nuclear weapons". In contrast, I am concerned about the preparedness of peace movements for the political consequences of nuclear crisis or nuclear
war. Therefore for my purposes it is sufficient to show that extinction is not a necessary consequence of

nuclear war.

*NUCLEAR WINTER*

2NC
1. Zero risk of nuclear winter buildings are concrete and brick, not wood and paper like
Hiroshima
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming BA Physics. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons http://glasstone.blogspot.com/ (His blog, a tribute to
Samuel Glasstone, pioneer in nuclear research, is dedicated to articles on nuclear weapons) 2/13/10)

A nuclear winter can't happen because nuclear weapons can't burn brick, steel and concrete buildings. The 9/11
attacks on the Twin Towers were aircraft with a lot of aviation fuel, which burned inside the buildings. A nuclear bomb doesn't deposit aviation fuel
inside buildings, and anyway, buildings shadow one another from the thermal pulse before the blast arrives (by which

time the thermal pulse is generally over). If the thermal pulse is strong, you get immediate surface ablation
which causes a smoke screen that stops further heating and prevents fires. The only way you get ignition is by
having (1) large windows with a direct line-of sight to the fireball (no intervening buildings) with no blinds and rooms filled with junk like old papers,
magazines, and easily inflammable old-type furnishings (not banned by modern fire safety standards) of the 1953 "Encore" nuclear test type, or rooms
again with an unobstructed line of sight to the fireball with black-colored World War II air raid "black out" curtains (which were used in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, to stop city house lights being used to guide American bombers to targets in night-time air raids, something no longer done!) which can ignite
easily, or (2) easily overturned charcoal cooking stoves inside thousands of wooden houses filled with paper

screens and bamboo inflammables, as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the breakfast time and lunch time attacks.
The worst firestorm of WWI was in Hamburg in a medieval crowded part of wooden multistory buildings and
killed 5% of the population at risk, although CND and other propaganda from Ted Postol and others claims that the entire population was
killed. You can't have that happen again: the wooden buildings were replaced with brick and concrete . Although it is possible for
some fires to ignite inside buildings containing some wooden furnishings and non-fire resistant bedding and sofas, the non-wooden buildings don't cause
anything like the same risks of either firespread or the intensity of burning required for firestorms that wooden houses give. The firestorm in Hiroshima
was lethal because the population was in shock from the explosion and survivors outdoors (due to no "duck and cover", just watching the bomb fall and
getting facial burns and blast debris/displacement injury in addition to INR), and so were generally injured and unable to rescue people trapped under
easily-collapsed wooden buildings, before they burned, many taking 30 minutes to 2 hours to ignite! This situation won't occur again . The

centers of even American cities generally don't contain wooden houses anymore: British and most European
cities haven't had wooden houses built for centuries. American wooden houses are generally now in suburbs on the periphery of cities
and are unlikely to be within reach of the thermal effects of modern MIRVed missile warheads (100-300 kt yield range). The TTAPS nuclear
winter people including Sagan were debunked in the 1980s. First, modern cities of brick and concrete can't be
ignited or burn with the intensity of predominantly wooden buildings in Hiroshima: so you don't get a
firestorm. There's not enough smoke to cause a nuclear winter. Sagan and another guy wrote another article and also their
1989 book called "A Path Where No Man Thought", denying the debunkers by claiming that nuclear weapons would all be used
against oil refineries and forests, and the burning oil and trees would produce the soot needed for nuclear
winter. Again, there is evidence that this is a lie: the forests imported to the Nevada test site and naturally on
Bikini Atoll islands and Eniwetok Atoll islands were filmed receiving massive thermal radiation and just
"smoked" during the thermal flash. The smoke shielded thermal radiation. There was no firestorm! The vegetation
shadows and thus protects the fine kindling underbrush from thermal radiation. I've blogged this in detail. Some British tests in Australia and over
Christmas and Malden islands caused isolated fires in dry vegetation, but this was the exception and not the rule. Most of the data given for ignition in
the 1957 edition of Glasstone's "Effects of Nuclear Weapons" was wrong (as Glasstone acknowledged in the Preface to the February 1964 reprinted
edition), because experimenters had exposed dried forest kindling to thermal radiation. In fact, there is almost always some equilibrium moisture in it,
which dramatically increases the thermal energy needed for sustained ignition (not just temporary flaming/smoking which only lasts for the duration of
the thermal pulse). Oil and gas tanks were ignited by the Texas City ship explosion in 1947, but that was from hot fragments of an exploding ship full of
chemical explosive. Nuclear weapons produce thermal flash and blast, and the thermal flash merely scorches the paint on the outside of the oil or gas
tank. When the blast arrives after the thermal flash subsides, it may damage the oil or gas tank, but doesn't ignite it. This is confirmed by nuclear test
data from 1955. In addition, Saddam's army ignited all of the oil fields in Kuwait in the early 1990s, and we're still

alive: in Hiroshima the soot from the firestorm fell out as the "black rain" (which wasn't significantly
radioactive, since the black rain from the firestorm fell an hour after the detonation, when radioactive mushroom cloud
had been blown miles downwind, leaving only trivial diffusive airborne activity in the target area). The "black rain" at Hiroshima tells you
what happens to soot in the atmosphere after a firestorm: it rapidly gets washed out in rain. Even if that doesn't
happen, it won't form a stable, uniform cloud; turbulent instabilities will prevent soot from freezing the whole
planet. So there is no firestorm, no nuclear winter, and the whole thing is a lie.
2. Recent decreases in nuclear warhead stockpiles and yield means their evidence assumes
more destruction. Default neg
3. Leaders will strike military assets not cities no fires for nuclear winter
Kearny 87 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Researcher (Cresson H., received his PhD in Civil Engineering from
Princeton, summa cum laude. Major in the US Army, and worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a research laboratory for US national defense.
Nuclear War Survival Skills.)

leaders are rational they will continue to give first priority to knocking out our weapons and other military
assets that can damage Russia and kill Russians. To explode enough nuclear weapons of any size to completely
As long as Soviet

destroy American cities would be an irrational waste of warheads . The Soviets can make much better use of most of the
warheads that would be required to completely destroy American cities; the majority of those warheads probably already are targeted to
knock out our retaliatory missiles by being surface burst or near-surface burst on their hardened silos, located far from most cities
and densely populated areas. Unfortunately, many militarily significant targets - including naval vessels in port and port facilities, bombers
and fighters on the ground, air base and airport facilities that can be used by bombers, Army installations, and key defense factories are in or close to American cities. In the event of an all-out Soviet attack, most of these '"soft" targets would be
destroyed by air bursts. Air bursting (see Fig. 1.4) a given weapon subjects about twice as large an area to blast
effects severe enough to destroy "soft" targets as does surface bursting (see Fig. 1.1) the same weapon. Fortunately for Americans living outside blast
and fire areas, air bursts produce only very tiny particles . Most of these extremely small radioactive particles
remain airborne for so long that their radioactive decay and wide dispersal before reaching the ground make
them much less life- endangering than the promptly deposited larger fallout particles from surface and near-surface bursts. However, if you
are a survival minded American you should prepare to survive heavy fallout wherever you are. Unpredictable winds may bring fallout from unexpected
directions. Or your area may be in a "hot spot" of life-endangering fallout caused by a rain-out or snow-out of both small and tiny particles from distant
explosions. Or the enemy may use surface or near-surface bursts in your part of the country to crater long runways or otherwise disrupt U.S. retaliatory
actions by producing heavy local fallout. Today few if any of Russia's largest intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are

armed with a 20-megaton warhead. A huge Russian ICBM, the SS-18, typically carries 10 warheads each having a yield of 500 kilotons, each
programmed to hit a separate target. See "Jane's Weapon Systems. 1987-1988." However, in March 1990 CIA Director William Webster told the U.S.
Senate Armed Services Committee that ".... The USSR's strategic modernization program continues unabated," and that the SS-18 Mod 5 can carry 14 to
20 nuclear warheads. The warheads are generally assumed to be smaller than those of the older SS-18s. Myth: A heavy nuclear attack would set
practically everything on fire, causing "firestorms" in cities that would exhaust the oxygen in the air. All shelter occupants would be killed by the intense
heat. Facts: On a clear day, thermal pulses (heat radiation that travels at the speed of light) from an air burst can set fire to easily ignitable materials
(such as window curtains, upholstery, dry newspaper, and dry grass) over about as large an area as is damaged by the blast. It can cause second-degree
skin burns to exposed people who are as far as ten miles from a one-megaton (1 MT) explosion. (See Fig. 1.4.) (A 1-MT nuclear explosion is one that
produces the same amount of energy as does one million tons of TNT.) If the weather is very clear and dry, the area of fire danger could be considerably
larger. On a cloudy or smoggy day, however, particles in the air would absorb and scatter much of the heat radiation, and the area endangered by heat
radiation from the fireball would be less than the area of severe blast damage. "Firestorms" could occur only when the concentration

of combustible structures is very high, as in the very dense centers of a few old American cities. At rural and
suburban building densities, most people in earth- covered fallout shelters would not have their lives endangered by
fires.
4. Even if there is a firestorm it wont go into the stratosphere, rainout and buoyancy
Bridgman 1 Emeritus professor of Nuclear Engineering (Charles J., Air Force Institute of
Technology, Introduction to the Physics of Nuclear Weapons, pg 480)
"These fires will be set by the thermal flash of thousands of separate nuclear bursts. However ,

the bulk of the burning and smoke

generation will occur hours after the nuclear fireballs have risen to their ultimate altitudes. This smoke, like the
smoke from any fire, should remain in the troposphere. This should be the case even if violent fire storms were generated [like Hiroshima and
Hamburg]. These tropospheric smoke particles would be subject to the same removal mechanisms [as tropospheric fallout],
namely rainout. The mean-life of tropospheric particles was given as about 20 days ... recent observations from the
Gulf War oil field fires, indicated that the tropopause rose with the top of the smoke cloud preventing
stratospheric injection. It was postulated that the stable air resisted descending to replace the buoyant air. Furthermore the real smoke
particles cooled at night and became negatively buoyant [descending at night]."

2NC ROBOCK
Robock and Toon use nuclear winter propaganda to scare countries into disarmament not
because nuclear winter will happen - dont evaluate their lying cards Heres proof of what
they try to accomplish
Robock and Toon 10 (Alan, professor of cliatology in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers
University and the associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction and Owen, Local Nuclear
War, Global Suffering Scientific American, Jan 2010, Vol. 302, Issue 1 pg 74-81)
Twenty-five years ago international teams of scientists showed that a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union could produce a "nuclear
winter." The smoke from vast fires started by bombs dropped on cities and industrial areas would envelop the planer and absorb so much sunlight that
the earth's surface would get cold, dark and dry, killing plants worldwide and eliminating our food supply. Surface temperatures would reach winter
values in the summer. International discussion about this prediction, fueled largely by astronomer Carl Sagan, forced the leaders

of the two superpowers to confront the possibility that their arms race endangered not just themselves but the entire
human race. Countries large and small demanded disarmament. Nuclear winter became an important factor in
ending the nuclear arms race. Looking back later, in 2000, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev observed, "Models made by
Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on earth; the
knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and morality, to act."

Robock and Toon assume every city burns just like Hiroshima they are simply wrong their
overzealous exaggerations disprove nuclear winter on their own
LFTR 10 (Lifeboat Foundation Technology Research Think Tank, dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive
existential risks Brian Wang MBA, Nuclear Winter and Fire and Reducing Fire Risks to Cities http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/04/nuclear-winter-andfire-and-reducing.html 4/17/10)
I looked at nuclear winter and city firestorms a few months ago I will summarize the case I made then in the next section. There is significant additions
based on my further research and email exchanges that I had with Prof Alan Robock and Brian Toon who wrote the nuclear winter research. The

Steps needed to prove nuclear winter: 1. Prove that enough cities will have firestorms or big enough fires (the
claim here is that does not happen) 2. Prove that when enough cities in a suffient area have big fire that enough
smoke and soot gets into the stratosphere (trouble with this claim because of the Kuwait fires) 3. Prove that
condition persists and effects climate as per models (others have questioned that but this issue is not addressed
here The nuclear winter case is predictated on getting 150 million tons (150 teragram case) of soot, smoke into
the stratosphere and having it stay there. The assumption seemed to be that the cities will be targeted and the
cities will burn in massive firestorms. Alan Robock indicated that they only included a fire based on the radius of ignition from the
atmospheric blasts. However, in the scientific american article and in their 2007 paper the stated assumptions are: assuming each fire
would burn the same area that actually did burn in Hiroshima and assuming an amount of burnable material
per person based on various studies. The implicit assumption is that all buildings react the way the buildings in
Hiroshima reacted on that day. Therefore, the results of Hiroshima are assumed in the Nuclear Winter models.
* 27 days without rain * with breakfast burners that overturned in the blast and set fires * mostly wood and
paper buildings * Hiroshima had a firestorm and burned five times more than Nagasaki. Nagasaki was not the
best fire resistant city. Nagasaki had the same wood and paper buildings and high population density.
Recommendations Build only with non-combustible materials (cement and brick that is made fire resistant or specially treated wood). Make the roofs,
floors and shingles non-combustible. Add fire retardants to any high volume material that could become fuel loading material. Look at city planning to
ensure less fire risk for the city. Have a plan for putting out city wide fires (like controlled flood from dams which are already near cities.) Fire and Details
If there are not multiple citywide firestorms then there is no trigger for nuclear winter even if the later modeling (which is still uncertain) would even
need to be considered. - The Material of the Houses in India and Pakistan do not appear to be Right for Firestorms
(mostly burnt brick and mud) Firestorms

have always required at least 50% of buildings to be ignited. High percentage

of builtupness is also necessary Hiroshima had most fires from overturned breakfast charcoal braziers. References
that provide the basis of my case Problems of Fire in Nuclear Warfare, Jerome Hill, Rand, 1961 - Nagasaki had no firestorm 4.4 square miles
Hiroshima actual burned area 0.9 square miles Nagasaki 13.5 square miles maximum theoretical . India building census indicates that
most of the buildings are made from Burnt Brick, mud which are non-combustible. Exploratory Analysis of Fire Storms,
Stanford Research Institute, 1965 The frequency of rain in India or Pakistan is important because of the effect of recent
rain on burning of cities. Quantitive - seasonal rainfall patterns for India and Pakistan Fire Factors "Mass fires and Fire Behaviors" which
studies fires in cities and other places indicates that combustible roofing material is a major cause of fires spreading in cities. This document also
discusses how to reduce fire risks and lessen spreading of fires. The usual vegetation management that is commonly mentioned for LA fires

and having non-combustible roofing materials and gaps between buildings. These anti-fire measures would
apply to lessoning fires ignited by nuclear bombs too. Steps to Reduce Damage Simple civil defense and building improvements
would reduce damage from nuclear war and from hurricanes and earthquakes. Haiti and New Orleans show the importance of building better to greatly
reduce problems. Hurriquake nails, outside paint that reflects heat and other cheap retrofits would reduce the damage radius and roofing material that
does not burn. Further improvement for buildings Fighting Fires with Water From Behind Dams There are also some basic counter

measures against city wide fire. More than 2,000 dams near population centers are in the United States are in need of repair, according to

statistics released this month by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. there
need repair. The

are more dams near population centers which do not

water could be released in an emergency to more effectively fight any large area of fire.

Leaders will strike military assets not cities no fires for nuclear winter
Kearny 87 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Researcher (Cresson H., received his PhD in Civil Engineering from
Princeton, summa cum laude. Major in the US Army, and worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a research laboratory for US national defense.
Nuclear War Survival Skills.)

leaders are rational they will continue to give first priority to knocking out our weapons and other military
assets that can damage Russia and kill Russians. To explode enough nuclear weapons of any size to completely
destroy American cities would be an irrational waste of warheads . The Soviets can make much better use of most of the
warheads that would be required to completely destroy American cities; the majority of those warheads probably already are targeted to
knock out our retaliatory missiles by being surface burst or near-surface burst on their hardened silos, located far from most cities
and densely populated areas. Unfortunately, many militarily significant targets - including naval vessels in port and port facilities, bombers
and fighters on the ground, air base and airport facilities that can be used by bombers, Army installations, and key defense factories are in or close to American cities. In the event of an all-out Soviet attack, most of these '"soft" targets would be
destroyed by air bursts. Air bursting (see Fig. 1.4) a given weapon subjects about twice as large an area to blast
effects severe enough to destroy "soft" targets as does surface bursting (see Fig. 1.1) the same weapon. Fortunately for Americans living outside blast
and fire areas, air bursts produce only very tiny particles . Most of these extremely small radioactive particles
remain airborne for so long that their radioactive decay and wide dispersal before reaching the ground make
them much less life- endangering than the promptly deposited larger fallout particles from surface and near-surface bursts. However, if you
As long as Soviet

are a survival minded American you should prepare to survive heavy fallout wherever you are. Unpredictable winds may bring fallout from unexpected
directions. Or your area may be in a "hot spot" of life-endangering fallout caused by a rain-out or snow-out of both small and tiny particles from distant
explosions. Or the enemy may use surface or near-surface bursts in your part of the country to crater long runways or otherwise disrupt U.S. retaliatory
actions by producing heavy local fallout. Today few if any of Russia's largest intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are

armed with a 20-megaton warhead. A huge Russian ICBM, the SS-18, typically carries 10 warheads each having a yield of 500 kilotons, each
programmed to hit a separate target. See "Jane's Weapon Systems. 1987-1988." However, in March 1990 CIA Director William Webster told the U.S.
Senate Armed Services Committee that ".... The USSR's strategic modernization program continues unabated," and that the SS-18 Mod 5 can carry 14 to
20 nuclear warheads. The warheads are generally assumed to be smaller than those of the older SS-18s. Myth: A heavy nuclear attack would set
practically everything on fire, causing "firestorms" in cities that would exhaust the oxygen in the air. All shelter occupants would be killed by the intense
heat. Facts: On a clear day, thermal pulses (heat radiation that travels at the speed of light) from an air burst can set fire to easily ignitable materials
(such as window curtains, upholstery, dry newspaper, and dry grass) over about as large an area as is damaged by the blast. It can cause second-degree
skin burns to exposed people who are as far as ten miles from a one-megaton (1 MT) explosion. (See Fig. 1.4.) (A 1-MT nuclear explosion is one that
produces the same amount of energy as does one million tons of TNT.) If the weather is very clear and dry, the area of fire danger could be considerably
larger. On a cloudy or smoggy day, however, particles in the air would absorb and scatter much of the heat radiation, and the area endangered by heat
radiation from the fireball would be less than the area of severe blast damage. "Firestorms" could occur only when the concentration

of combustible structures is very high, as in the very dense centers of a few old American cities. At rural and
suburban building densities, most people in earth- covered fallout shelters would not have their lives endangered by
fires.
Robock just assumes the smoke ends up the atmosphere, it doesnt rainout
Seitz 6 Visiting Scholar at Harvards Center of International Affairs (Russell, The Nuclear Winter Meltdown
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/12/preherein_honor.html)

Dark smoke clouds in the lower atmosphere dont last long enough to spread across the globe. Cloud droplets
and rainfall remove them. Rapidly washing them out of the sky in a matter of days to weeks- not long enough to
sustain a global pall. Real world weather brings down particles much as soot is scrubbed out of power plant
smoke by the water sprays in smoke stack scrubbers. Robock acknowledges this- not even a single degree
of cooling results when soot is released at lower elevations in his models . The workaround is to
inject the imaginary aerosol at truly Himalayan elevations - pressure altitudes of 300 millibar and higher , where the computer
model's vertical transport function modules pass it off to their even higher neighbors in the stratosphere , where it does not rain and
particles linger. The new studies like the old suffer from the disconnect between a desire to paint the sky black
and the vicissitudes of natural history. As with many exercise in worst case models both at invoke rare phenomena as commonplace,
claiming it prudent to assume the worst. But the real world is subject to Murphy's lesser known second law- if everything must go wrong, don't bet on it.
In 2006 as in 1983 firestorms and forest fires that send smoke into the stratosphere rise to alien prominence in the

modelers re-imagined world , but in the real one remains a very different place , where though every month sees
forest fires burning areas the size of cities - 2,500 hectares or larger , stratospheric smoke injections arise but once in a
blue moon. So how come these neo-nuclear winter models feature so much smoke so far aloft for so long? The
answer is simple- the modelers intervened. Turning off vertical transport algorithms may make Al Gore happyhe has bet on reviving the credibility Sagan's ersatz apocalypse , but there is no denying that in some of these scenarios human desire, not physical forces
accounts for the vertical hoisting of millions of tons of mass ten vertical kilometers into the sky.to the level at which the models take over , with results at
once predictable --and arbitrary. This is not physics, it is computer gamesmanship carried over to a new generation of X-Box. I must
now return to getting and vetting the new papers and their references- this has been a prelimnary examination of what the public has been told, and

more detailed critiques of the science will doubtless be direected to the journals were the new work appeared . This time round , the details are scarcely
worth arguing, because the global frost made famous by the original 'TTAPS' model has disappeared . From the truly frigid 7,000 degree-day "baseine
case" advertised as hard science in 1983 to a tepid results of today, "Nuclear Winter has well and truly melted down. The 1986 review of TTAPS reception
follows. The Melting of 'Nuclear Winter'

He admits it himself they just stick smoke in the upper troposphere and his new models
start there
Robock and Toon 10 (Alan, professor of cliatology in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers
University and the associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction and Owen, Local Nuclear
War, Global Suffering Scientific American, Jan 2010, Vol. 302, Issue 1 pg 74-81)
Robock and his colleagues, being conservative, put five teragrams of smoke into their modeled upper troposphere
over India and Pakistan on an imaginary May 15. The model calculated how winds would blow the smoke around the world
and how the smoke particles would settle out from the atmosphere. The smoke covered all the continents within two weeks. The black, sooty smoke
absorbed sunlight, warmed and rose into the stratosphere. Rain never falls there, so the air is never cleansed by precipitation; particles very slowly settle
out by falling, with air resisting them. Soot particles are small, with an average diameter of only 0.1 micron (m), and so drift down very slowly. They also
rise during the daytime as they are heated by the sun, repeatedly delaying their elimination. The calculations showed that the smoke would reach far
higher into the upper stratosphere than the sulfate particles that are produced by episodic volcanic eruptions. Sulfate particles are transparent and
absorb much less sunlight than soot and are also bigger, typically 0.5 m. The volcanic particles remain airborne for about two years, but smoke from
nuclear fires would last a decade.

XT NO NUCLEAR WINTER
Nuclear winter simply isnt true Modern cities dont provide the fuel for the fires and past
fires disprove
LFTR 10 (Lifeboat Foundation Technology Research Think Tank, dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive
existential risks Brian Wang MBA, Nuclear Winter and City Firestorms http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/nuclear-winter-and-city-firestorms.html)

The nuclear winter case is predictated on getting 150 million tons (150 teragram case) of soot, smoke into the
stratosphere and having it stay there. The assumption seems to be that the cities will be targeted and the cities
will burn in massive firestorms. The burning characteristics of forest fires may not be a perfect analog for cities,
but firestorms with injection of smoke into the upper atmosphere were observed in previous cases of burning
cities, after the earthquake-induced fire in San Francisco in 1906 [London, 1906] and the firebombing of Dresden in
1945 [Vonnegut, 1969]. Note: The pro-nuclear winter need to mention this because there have been massive forest fires that have not
produced the claimed effects. The Steps needed to prove nuclear winter: 1. Prove that enough cities will have firestorms (the claim here is that
does not happen) 2. Prove that when enough cities in a suffient area have firestorms that enough smoke and soot gets into the stratosphere (trouble with
this claim because of the Kuwait fires) 3. Prove that condition persists and effects climate as per models (others have questioned that but this issue is not
addressed here). This Glasstone Blogpost with a lot of links to the effect of fires and thermal radiation Basically there would need to be an

analysis of the building density and composition and loading in cities in Pakistan and India. Plus there would need to
be an analysis of likely war targeting. Would it be cities or military installations ? After the discussion of
firestorm prerequisitites, I look at the composition of cities in India and Pakistan and do not see a correlation
for a firestorm. If there are not multiple citywide firestorms then there is no trigger for nuclear winter even if the
later modeling (which is still uncertain) would even need to be considered. It also shows that civil defense that reduces the likelihood of
fires and firestorms is relevant and useful. Firestorms have always required at least 50% of buildings to be ignited . A 71
pages long report by Robert M. Rodden, Floyd I. John, and Richard Laurino, Exploratory Analysis of Fire Storms, Stanford Research Institute,
California, report AD616638, May 1965, identified the following parameters required by all firestorms: (1) More than 8 pounds of fuel

per
square foot (40 kg per square metre) of ground area. Hence firestorms occurred in wooden buildings, like Hiroshima or the
medieval part of Hamburg. The combustible fuel load in London is just 24 kg/m2, whereas in the firestorm area of Hamburg in 1943 it was 156 kg/m2.
The real reason for all the historical fire conflagrations was only exposed in 1989 by the analysis of L. E. Frost and E.L. Jones, The Fire Gap and the
Greater Durability of Nineteenth-Century Cities (Planning Perspectives, vol.4, pp. 333-47). Each medieval city was built cheaply from inflammable
tinderbox wooden houses, using trees from the surrounding countryside. By 1800, Britain had cut down most of its forests to build wood houses and to
burn for heating, so the price of wood rapidly increased (due to the expense of transporting trees long distances), until it finally exceeded the originally
higher price of brick and stone; so from then on all new buildings were built of brick when wooden ones decayed. This rapidly reduced the fire risk. Also,
in 1932, British Standard 476 was issued, which specified the fire resistance of building materials. In addition, new cities were built with wider streets
and rubbish disposal to prevent tinder accumulation in alleys, which created more effective fire breaks. (2) More than 50% of structures

ignited initially. (3) Initial surface winds of less than 8 miles per hour. (4) Initial ignition area exceeding 0.5
square mile. The fuel loading per unit ground area is equal to fuel loading per unit area of a building , multiplied by
the builtupness fraction of the area. E.g., Hamburg had a 45% builtupness (45% of the ground area was actually covered by buildings), and the buildings
were multistorey medieval wooden constructions containing 70 pounds of fuel per square foot. Hence, in Hamburg the fuel loading of ground area was
0.45*70 = 32 pounds per square foot, which was enough for a firestorm. By contrast, modern cities have a builtupness of only 10-25% in most residential
areas and 40% in commercial and downtown areas. Modern wooden American houses have a fuel loading of 20 pounds per

square foot of building area with a builtupness below 25%, so the fuel loading per square foot of ground is
below 20*0.25 = 5 pounds per square foot, and would not produce a firestorm. Brick and concrete buildings
contain on the average about 3.5 pounds per square foot of floor area, so they can't produce firestorms either,
even if they are all ignited Theodore Poston in his ignorant paper 'Possible Fatalities from Superfires following Nuclear Attacks in or
Near Urban Areas', in the 1986 U.S. National Academy of Sciences book The Medical Implications of Nuclear War, assumes falsely that brick and
concrete cities can burn like the small areas of medieval German cities and like Brode and Small, he simply ignores the mechanism for

the
firestorm in Hiroshima which had nothing to do with thermal radiation but was just due to overturned
breakfast charcoal braziers. Theodore Poston also falsely complains that wooden houses exposed to nuclear tests
didn't burn because they had white paint on them and shutters over the windows . That discredits Theodore Poston's whole
anti-civil defence countermeasure tirade by actually PROVING the value of simple civil defense; but actually if you open your
eyes, you find that most wooden houses are painted white, and in a real city - unlike the empty Nevada desert few windows will have a line of sight to the fireball anyway.

XT COUNTERFORCE
Counterforcing
Mueller, 09 - Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies and Professor of Political Science at Ohio State
University (John, Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda p. 8, Google Books)
To begin to approach a condition that can credibly justify applying such extreme characterizations as societal annihilation, a full-out attack with
hundreds, probably thousands, of thermonuclear bombs would be required. Even in such extreme cases, the area actually devastated
by the bombs' blast and thermal pulse effective would

be limited: 2,000 1-MT explosions with a destructive radius of 5 miles each would

directly demolish less than 5 percent of the territory of the United States , for example. Obviously, if major population centers
were targeted, this sort of attack could inflict massive casualties. Back in cold war days, when such devastating events sometimes seemed uncomfortably
likely, a number of studies were conducted to estimate the consequences of massive thermonuclear attacks . One of the

The most likely scenario--one that could be perhaps considered at least to begin to
a "counterforce" strike in which well over 1,000 thermonuclear weapons would be targeted at
America's ballistic missile silos, strategic airfields, and nuclear submarine bases in an effort to destroy the countrys strategic
ability to retaliate. Since the attack would not directly target population centers, most of the ensuing deaths would
be from radioactive fallout, and the study estimates that from 2 to 20 million, depending mostly on wind, weather, and sheltering,
would perish during the first month.15
most prominent of these considered several probabilities.
approach the rational--was

Counterforce means no nuclear winter

Zutell 88 - Arizona Dept. of Emergency and Military Affairs, Division of Emergency Services (Eugene, 6-1988. http://www.fortfreedom.org/s05.htm)
1. The cooling mechanism as Sagan and associates describe it, could only operate over land masses. Ocean surface water is continually supplied with
heat from below. Even if sunlight were blocked for many months, the temperature at the ocean surface would remain
virtually unchanged. Consequently, weather patterns would continue, with warm moisture laden air from the oceans sweeping
over the land masses and as it cools, rain clouds would form and even more of the sun blocking smoke and dust particles would be washed out of the
atmosphere. Sagan et al indicated that at the very least, 100 million tons of smoke particles would have to be injected into the atmosphere if the nuclear
winter mechanism were to be triggered. They also indicated that cities are the primary source of that smoke. They therefore proposed a

nuclear war scenario in which cities are the primary targets. Since the mid 1960s, the primary targets for both U.S.
and Soviet nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs have not been population centers or cities. They have been the other guy's nuclear
missile launch sites, nuclear bomber bases and other military targets. If those can be eliminated, the cities will be
held hostage. The current list of ten target classes ascribed to Soviet planners by DOD and FEMA, does not specifically contain any population
centers. The list does of course include target classes that in many instances will be located in or adjacent to metropolitan areas. But, even in those
instances, the nuclear weapons employed will not be the huge multi- megaton area destruction bombs of the late 1950s and
early 1960s. ICBM systems and MIRVs are now so accurate that a target may be pin- pointed even within a metropolitan area,
by a relatively small weapon. This is not in any way to say that the effects will not be catastro- phic. It is to say though that the city wide
firestorms necessary for the onset of nuclear winter as described by Sagan and associates, are less than predictable. In fact, they are
improbable

XT NO FIRESTORM
Zero chance of firestorms
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming BA Physics, Rescue of trapped survivors in megaton equivalent World War
II attacks, and a review of Bolsover's CND "Civil Defence, The Cruellest Confidence Trick"
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/02/rescue-of-trapped-survivors-in-world.html 2/16/10)
We have often been accused

of underestimating the fire situation ... we are unrepentant in spite of the television utterances of
renowned academic scientists who know little about fire. ... Firstly the collapse of buildings would snuff out any
incipient fires. Air cannot get into a pile of rubble, 80% of which is incombustible anyway. This is not just guesswork; it
is the result of a very complete study of some 1,600 flying bomb [V1 cruise missile] incidents in London supported by a wealth of
experience gained generally in the last war. Secondly, there is a considerable degree of shielding of one building by another
in general. Thirdly, even when the windows of a building can "see" the fireball, and something inside is ignited,
it by no means follows that a continuing and destructive fire will develop. A window of two square metres would let in about
105 calories at the 5 cal/cm2 range. The heat liberated by one magnesium incendiary bomb is 30 times this and even with the incendiary bomb
the chance of a continuing fire developing in a small room is only 1 in 5; in a large room it is very much less. Thus
even if thermal radiation does fall on easily inflammable material which ignites, the chance of a continuing fire developing is still quite small. In the
Birmingham and Liverpool studies, where the most generous values of fire-starting chances were used, the fraction of

buildings set on fire was rarely higher than 1 in 20.

XT RAINOUT
All the soot and dust will get removed from the atmosphere before nuclear winter happens
Seitz 6 Visiting Scholar at Harvards Center of International Affairs (Russell, The Nuclear Winter Meltdown
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/12/preherein_honor.html)

Dark smoke clouds in the lower atmosphere dont last long enough to spread across the globe. Cloud droplets
and rainfall remove them. Rapidly washing them out of the sky in a matter of days to weeks- not long enough to
sustain a global pall. Real world weather brings down particles much as soot is scrubbed out of power plant
smoke by the water sprays in smoke stack scrubbers. Robock acknowledges this- not even a single degree of
cooling results when soot is released at lower elevations in his models . The workaround is to inject the
imaginary aerosol at truly Himalayan elevations - pressure altitudes of 300 millibar and higher , where the computer model's vertical
transport function modules pass it off to their even higher neighbors in the stratosphere , where it does not rain and particles linger.
The new studies like the old suffer from the disconnect between a desire to paint the sky black and the
vicissitudes of natural history. As with many exercise in worst case models both at invoke rare phenomena as commonplace, claiming it
prudent to assume the worst. But the real world is subject to Murphy's lesser known second law- if everything must go wrong, don't bet on it. In 2006
as in 1983 firestorms and forest fires that send smoke into the stratosphere rise to alien prominence in the modelers
re-imagined world , but in the real one remains a very different place , where though every month sees forest fires
burning areas the size of cities - 2,500 hectares or larger , stratospheric smoke injections arise but once in a blue moon.
So how come these neo-nuclear winter models feature so much smoke so far aloft for so long? The answer is
simple- the modelers intervened. Turning off vertical transport algorithms may make Al Gore happy- he has bet on
reviving the credibility Sagan's ersatz apocalypse , but there is no denying that in some of these scenarios human desire, not physical forces accounts for
the vertical hoisting of millions of tons of mass ten vertical kilometers into the sky.to the level at which the models take over , with results at once
predictable --and arbitrary. This is not physics, it is computer gamesmanship carried over to a new generation of X-Box. I must now
return to getting and vetting the new papers and their references- this has been a prelimnary examination of what the public has been told, and more
detailed critiques of the science will doubtless be direected to the journals were the new work appeared . This time round , the details are scarcely worth
arguing, because the global frost made famous by the original 'TTAPS' model has disappeared . From the truly frigid 7,000 degree-day "baseine case"
advertised as hard science in 1983 to a tepid results of today, "Nuclear Winter has well and truly melted down. The 1986 review of TTAPS reception
follows. The Melting of 'Nuclear Winter'

A2: GAS TANKS

No gas tank explosions
Cook 08 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming BA Physics Professor Bridgemans Introduction to the Physics of Nuclear
Weapons Effects http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html 11/12/08)
Nuclear tests on oil and gas storage tanks in the Nevada showed that even at the highest peak overpressures
and thermal radiation fluences tested, they did not ignite or explode even where they were blasted off their
stands, dented by impacts, or otherwise damaged. The metal containers easily protected the contents from the
brief flash of thermal radiation, while the blast wave arriving some time later later failed to cause ignition.
Individual leaves cast shadows on wooden poles at Hiroshima, proving that even very thin materials stopped an intense thermal radiation flash. No
mention let alone analysis of any of this solid nuclear weapons effects evidence is done by any of the "nuclear
winter" doom mongers, who falsely assume that somehow everything will ignite and then undergo sustained
burning like a dry newspaper in a direct line of sight of the fireball.

A2: TECH BLOWOUTS

EMP blasts shut of any tech that might cause fires
Cook 6 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming BA Physics Ignition of fires by thermal radiation exposure
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/04/ignition-of-fires-by-thermal-radiation.html 4/7/06)
John McAuliffe and Kendall Moll studied the blast wave role in starting fires in their 224 pages long report, Secondary Ignitions from Nuclear Attack,
Stanford Research Institute, California, report AD625173, July 1965. They found that flying debris and building collapse data on fire ignition was
available from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings, high explosive disasters such as the massive Texas City ship explosion in 1947, World War
II bombings, earthquakes and tornadoes. They concluded that for American cities (which don't use Japanese charcoal cooking braziers in indoors in
homes filled with paper screens and bamboo furnishings), there are only 0.006 fires ignited by the blast wave per 1,000 square feet of floor area
damaged by peak overpressures of 2 psi or more. This is approximately 1% ignition of typical American homes, one fire in every three blocks, or 80 fires
per square mile in an area which is 25% builtup with 2-story buildings. Electrical wiring and gas piping were considered equally

vulnerable. (Actually, this will be an overestimate because the source-region cable pick up of light-speed EMP current
surges will automatically shut down transformers within a few microseconds of a surface burst or low air burst on a city;
power stations and substations may be ignited by the EMP, but it will prevent secondary ignitions of electrical
fires by blast wave debris in homes.)

A2: SECONDARIES
1) Shielding means any burnable material like newspapers dont ignite
2) Ignitables arent enough to cause fires
Department of Defense 73 ( DPA Attack Environment Manual: Chapter 3, What the Planner Needs to Know about Fire Ignition and
Spread, U.S. Department of Defense, report CPG 2-1A3, June 1973, Panels 3 and 5:
'Of course, hardly

anyone lives in an area where they would be certainly exposed to thermal radiation ... There would
be buildings, trees, hills ... Virtually any opaque material will serve to shield against the thermal pulse. ... nearly all of the
radiation would be shielded out by objects before they are damaged or moved by the blast wave. ... tinder fuels do not usually contain
sufficient energy by themselves to cause a sustained fire. What is needed is a "fuel array" containing both tinder and
other burnables. ... Hardly anyone puts black curtains at their windows . In the thousands of sites that have been surveyed,
none have been found. Crumpled newspaper and dry leaves are found in urban areas but, like people in the streets, they
are very often not in a position to "see" the fireball and rarely are they located with other burnables to form a
sufficient fuel array to cause a building fire. ... Some fire analysts consider only upholstered furniture and beds as the fuel arrays of
significance. About 35 to 40 calories per square centimetre are required for ignition by a 5-Mt weapon.'

A2: TREES
Turn - trees dont aid in firestorms, they stop firestorms by shielding flammable material
Cook 6 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming BA Physics Ignition of fires by thermal radiation exposure
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/04/ignition-of-fires-by-thermal-radiation.html 4/7/06)
The

foliage making up the crowns [upper branches and leaves] of the trees, while it has a high probability of being exposed to the full
exposure of the forest floor by generating
quantities of smoke and steam, as well as by direct shading . - Philip J. Dolan, Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons, U.S. Defense
Nuclear Agency, 1978 revision, Secret Restricted Data, Chapter 15, "Damage to Forest Stands", paragraph 15-9. "Green leaves and needles on
tree crowns smoke and char but do not ordinarily sustain ignition. This smoke production materially reduces the
radiant exposure of the ground surface." - Capabilities of Atomic Weapons, U.S. Department of Defense, TM 23-200, Confidential, 1960,
page 11-2. Fuels seldom burn vigorously, regardless of the wind conditions , when fuel moisture content exceeds about 16
percent. This corresponds to an equilibrium moisture content for a condition of 80 percent relative humidity. Rainfall of only a fraction of an
inch will render most fuels temporarily nonflammable and may extinguish fires in thin fuels... Surface fuels in the interior of
free-field radiation environment from air bursts... may, however, materially reduce the

timber stands are exposed to reduced wind velocities; generally, these fuels retain their moisture as a result of shielding from the wind and shading from
sunlight by the canopy. - Philip J. Dolan, Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons, U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency, 1978 revision, Secret Restricted Data,
Chapter 15, "Damage to Forest Stands", page 15-60. (This material can also be found in the U.S. Department of Defense's Capabilities of Atomic
Weapons, TM-23-200, Confidential, 1960, p. 11-3.) 175 trees/acre natural Pisona tree stand on Rukoji (codenamed Victor by America) Island of

Bikini Atoll, subjected to 2.4 psi peak overpressure at 62,500 ft or about 12 miles from CASTLE-BRAVO 14.8 Mt surface burst ground zero,
Bikini Atoll, 1954. This photo is identified for distance and nuclear test at 33 minutes and 17-22 seconds time in the declassified film Military Effects
Studies on Operation Castle, below. Pisona is a beech-like broadleaf tree and those in this forest stand has an average height of 80 feet with an average
stem diameter at its base of 3 feet. Where 30% of the trees are blown down by the blast wind pressure , the overall effect is similar to the much
longer-lasting 95 miles/hour winds of a natural hurricane. Notice that neither

natural forest stand at Bikini Atoll was

incinerated by fire! According to Glasstone 1957, this forest stand suffered 30% tree stem breakage, but report WT-921 page 43 states that
65% of the tree stems in this stand were snapped. Glasstone 1957 just used the photographs to illustrate its predictive system which is based on 30% and
90% tree breakage, instead of reporting the actual percentage damage reported in WT-921. The CASTLE-BRAVO shot also produced light tree damage
(no stem breakage, just 30% branch breakage) to a Pisonia forest on Eniirikku (codenamed Uncle by America) Island, 75,400 feet or about 14 miles from
ground zero, where the peak overpressure was 1.7 psi, according to page 28 of W. L. Fons and Theodore G. Storey, Operation Castle, Project 3.3, Blast
Effects on Tree Stand, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Division of Fire Research, Secret - Restricted Data, report WT-921, March 1955.
Other reports on Nevada effects on trees and forest stands are Operation Tumbler-Snapper report WT-509, 1953, and Operation UpshotKnothole report WT-731, 1954. The Upshot-Knothole experiment exposed

a coniferous tree stand of 145 ponderosa pine trees 51 feet in

average height to 4.5 psi peak overpressure. The forest stand smoked during the thermal pulse, but did not ignite.
Hence, both in Pacific and Nevada tests, trees did not burn even relatively close to ground zero. E. H. Engquist C. W.
Forsthoff of Chemical and Radiological Labs., Maryland, reported in Operation Upshot-Knothole, Project 8.4-2, Evaluation of a Thermal Absorbing
Carbon Smoke Screen, WT-769, February 1954, that a smoke screen similar in height to that produced by thermal radiation on a forest canopy, 80-90
feet above the ground, produced by burning about 275 gallons of carbon containing material per square mile, absorbed 78-90% of the thermal radiation
on the ground. a page from the 1957 Effects of Nuclear Weapons indicating the reason why the trees didn't burn is the same as the reason why this
wooden house didn't burn: the thermal pulse from a nuclear weapon is too brief to do more than ablate a thin surface

layer of the material, literally creating a smoke screen which immediately protects the underlying material from
ignition. Dolan explains this in the 1,651 pages long 1972 Secret - Restricted Data U.S. Department of Defense Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons but although he and Glasstone explained it clearly in the 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons - the point was not widely grasped. There were relatively
few fires in nuclear tests, compared to what propaganda forecasts by the use of totally naive assumptions concerning thermal
radiation transmission through the atmosphere, and the energy needed to ignite materials. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were burned entirely by means of
the blast wave overturning charcoal cooking braziers in thousands of homes at the breakfast and lunch times of the bombings, as was revealed in polls of
survivors when the secret volumes of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey were eventually declassified.

A2: OIL
Turn - oil fires disprove
Aldhous 91 (Peter, PhD, Lecturer in Policy and Investigative Reporting, , Oil-well climate catastrophe?,
Nature, vol. 349 (1991), p. 96.)
My estimates of the

smoke produced by destruction of Kuwaits oil wells and refineries and the smoke stabilization altitude do
not support any of the purported impacts. The smoke is not injected high enough to spread over large areas of the
Northern Hemisphere, nor is enough produced to cause a measurable temperature change or failure of the monsoons. It is
significant that oil soot, being 69% elemental carbon, is the most effective particulate known for absorbing sunlight. The
nuclear winter propaganda is a hoax. When you look at the data on liquid petroleum tanks exposed at Nevada nuclear tests,
they did not rupture let alone ignite at the damaging overpressures which dented them, and which the nuclear winter
propaganda people used in their calculations for the ignition of oil facilities! The nuclear winter hoax people
started off by assuming that brick and concrete cities burn, and when that was debunked as unable to cause nuclear winter, they then
exaggerated the ignition and effects of nuclear attacks on oil refineries.

A2: FEW FIRES ENOUGH

Even if they ignited all the houses it wouldnt be enough to start a firestorm
Cook 6 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming BA Physics Ignition of fires by thermal radiation exposure
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/04/ignition-of-fires-by-thermal-radiation.html 4/7/06)
'The density of initial ignitions in the main fire zone, for UK houses, is likely to be very roughly one house in thirty, with a firespread factor of about 2 [i.e., each initial ignition will on average ignite one other building by thermal radiation, wind blown convection flames, and hot
burning firebrands]. About one house in fifteen is expected to become burnt out. This situation would not constitute a "firestorm" or "mass fire", and the
number of fire casualties should be small.' Firestorms have always required at least 50% of buildings to be ignited . A 71

pages long report by Robert M. Rodden, Floyd I. John, and Richard Laurino, Exploratory Analysis of Fire Storms, Stanford Research
Institute, California, report AD616638, May 1965, identified the following parameters required by all firestorms: (1) More
than 8 pounds of fuel per square foot (40 kg per square metre) of ground area. Hence firestorms occurred in wooden buildings, like
Hiroshima or the medieval part of Hamburg. The combustible fuel load in London is just 24 kg/m 2, whereas in the firestorm area of Hamburg in 1943 it
was 156 kg/m2. The real reason for all the historical fire conflagrations was only exposed in 1989 by the analysis of L. E. Frost and E.L. Jones, The Fire
Gap and the Greater Durability of Nineteenth-Century Cities (Planning Perspectives, vol. 4, pp. 333-47). Each medieval city was built cheaply from
inflammable tinderbox wooden houses, using trees from the surrounding countryside. By 1800, Britain had cut down most of its forests to build wood
houses and to burn for heating, so the price of wood rapidly increased (due to the expense of transporting trees long distances), until it finally exceeded
the originally higher price of brick and stone; so from then on all new buildings were built of brick when wooden ones decayed. This rapidly reduced the
fire risk. Also, in 1932, British Standard 476 was issued, which specified the fire resistance of building materials. In addition, new cities were built with
wider streets and rubbish disposal to prevent tinder accumulation in alleys, which created more effective fire breaks. (2) More than 50% of

structures ignited initially. (3) Initial surface winds of less than 8 miles per hour. (4) Initial ignition area exceeding
0.5 square mile. The fuel loading per unit ground area is equal to fuel loading per unit area of a building,
multiplied by the builtupness fraction of the area. E.g., Hamburg had a 45% builtupness (45% of the ground area was actually covered by
buildings), and the buildings were multistorey medieval wooden constructions containing 70 pounds of fuel per square foot. Hence, in Hamburg the fuel
loading of ground area was 0.45*70 = 32 pounds per square foot, which was enough for a firestorm. By contrast, modern cities have a

builtupness of only 10-25% in most residential areas and 40% in commercial and downtown areas. Modern wooden American houses have a fuel
loading of 20 pounds per square foot of building area with a builtupness below 25%, so the fuel loading per square foot of ground is below 20*0.25 = 5
pounds per square foot, and would not produce a firestorm. Brick and concrete buildings contain on the average about 3.5

pounds per square foot of floor area, so they can't produce firestorms either, even if they are all ignited.

A2: DUST NOT SOOT

Its soot not dust
Cook 6 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming BA Physics Ignition of fires by thermal radiation exposure
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/04/ignition-of-fires-by-thermal-radiation.html 4/7/06)
The "nuclear winter" idea relies on soot, not dust such as fallout (which is only about 1% of the crater mass, the remainder being
fallback of rock and crater ejecta which lands within a few minutes). So it is basically an extension of the massive firestorms theory,
which has many issues because modern cities don't contain enough flammable material per square kilometre to start a firestorm even when
using thousands of incendiaries. In cases such as Hiroshima, the heavy fuel loading of the target area created a smoke cloud which carried up a lot of
moisture that condensed in the cool air at high altitudes, bringing the soot back promptly to earth as a black rain.

A2: INDO-PAK
Robocks an idiot, Indo-Pak war wont cause nuclear winter
LFTR 10 (Lifeboat Foundation Technology Research Think Tank, dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive
existential risks Brian Wang MBA, Nuclear Winter and Fire and Reducing Fire Risks to Cities http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/04/nuclear-winter-andfire-and-reducing.html 4/17/10)
I looked at nuclear winter and city firestorms a few months ago I will summarize the case I made then in the next section. There is significant additions
based on my further research and email exchanges that I had with Prof Alan Robock and Brian Toon who wrote the nuclear winter research. The

Steps needed to prove nuclear winter: 1. Prove that enough cities will have firestorms or big enough fires (the
claim here is that does not happen) 2. Prove that when enough cities in a suffient area have big fire that enough
smoke and soot gets into the stratosphere (trouble with this claim because of the Kuwait fires) 3. Prove that
condition persists and effects climate as per models (others have questioned that but this issue is not addressed
here The nuclear winter case is predictated on getting 150 million tons (150 teragram case) of soot, smoke into
the stratosphere and having it stay there. The assumption seemed to be that the cities will be targeted and the
cities will burn in massive firestorms. Alan Robock indicated that they only included a fire based on the radius of ignition from the
atmospheric blasts. However, in the scientific american article and in their 2007 paper the stated assumptions are: assuming each fire
would burn the same area that actually did burn in Hiroshima and assuming an amount of burnable material
per person based on various studies. The implicit assumption is that all buildings react the way the buildings in
Hiroshima reacted on that day. Therefore, the results of Hiroshima are assumed in the Nuclear Winter models.
* 27 days without rain * with breakfast burners that overturned in the blast and set fires * mostly wood and
paper buildings * Hiroshima had a firestorm and burned five times more than Nagasaki. Nagasaki was not the
best fire resistant city. Nagasaki had the same wood and paper buildings and high population density.
Recommendations Build only with non-combustible materials (cement and brick that is made fire resistant or specially treated wood). Make the roofs,
floors and shingles non-combustible. Add fire retardants to any high volume material that could become fuel loading material. Look at city planning to
ensure less fire risk for the city. Have a plan for putting out city wide fires (like controlled flood from dams which are already near cities.) Fire and Details
If there are not multiple citywide firestorms then there is no trigger for nuclear winter even if the later modeling (which is still uncertain) would even
need to be considered. - The Material of the Houses in India and Pakistan do not appear to be Right for Firestorms
(mostly burnt brick and mud) Firestorms

have always required at least 50% of buildings to be ignited. High percentage

of builtupness is also necessary Hiroshima had most fires from overturned breakfast charcoal braziers. References
that provide the basis of my case Problems of Fire in Nuclear Warfare, Jerome Hill, Rand, 1961 - Nagasaki had no firestorm 4.4 square miles
Hiroshima actual burned area 0.9 square miles Nagasaki 13.5 square miles maximum theoretical . India building census indicates that
most of the buildings are made from Burnt Brick, mud which are non-combustible. Exploratory Analysis of Fire Storms,
Stanford Research Institute, 1965 The frequency of rain in India or Pakistan is important because of the effect of recent
rain on burning of cities. Quantitive - seasonal rainfall patterns for India and Pakistan Fire Factors "Mass fires and Fire Behaviors" which
studies fires in cities and other places indicates that combustible roofing material is a major cause of fires spreading in cities. This document also
discusses how to reduce fire risks and lessen spreading of fires. The usual vegetation management that is commonly mentioned for LA fires

and having non-combustible roofing materials and gaps between buildings. These anti-fire measures would
apply to lessoning fires ignited by nuclear bombs too . Steps to Reduce Damage Simple civil defense and building improvements
would reduce damage from nuclear war and from hurricanes and earthquakes. Haiti and New Orleans show the importance of building better to greatly
reduce problems. Hurriquake nails, outside paint that reflects heat and other cheap retrofits would reduce the damage

radius and roofing material that does not burn. Further improvement for buildings Fighting Fires with Water From Behind Dams
There are also some basic counter measures against city wide fire. More than 2,000 dams near population centers are in the
United States are in need of repair, according to statistics released this month by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. there are more
dams near population centers which do not need repair. The water could be released in an emergency to more effectively
fight any large area of fire.

A2: BIG BOMBS

1) Our ev is more recent then theirs this argument flows neg
2) Weapon number has been decreasing dramatically, counteracts their bigger bomb
arguments
3) And bigger bombs are good they give people more time to find cover from the blast wave
and radiation
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, How weapons and war effects exaggerations for
disarmament forced Britain to collaborate with evil racist thugs at Munich in 1938, in the name of peace
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifeboat-analogy-to-civil-defence.html 3/1/10)
Scheer's book is terribly naive on physics, denying that fallout radiation can easily be shielded by something as simple as earth or water. He was ignorant
that the bigger the explosion, the longer the delay time that the blast takes to cover the bigger area of damage,

giving most of the potentially hurt people enough time to duck and cover. He was ignorant that the thermal radiation pulse
takes longer to deliver energy in bigger bombs, giving people time to duck and cover before being burned. He believed that any
civil defense possible in Hiroshima would be useless against bigger nuclear bombs, when the opposite is of course the case, because the blast and
fallout takes longer to arrive over larger areas , while the thermal radiation pulse duration scales up with the square root of bomb yield,
taking ever longer to deliver its energy as the yield increases. Maybe Scheer, like most people, was misled by films like The Atomic Cafe:
4) Size of the bomb doesnt matter
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, Key Facts
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/09/key-facts.html 9/4/10)
Casualty rates are directly proportional to the size of the exposed population, but are only proportional to the two-thirds power
of the weapon yield (equivalent megatonnage for diffraction damage to modern city buildings). Therefore, the precise weapon power is not
the major factor determining casualties, which is instead the number of people who are directly exposed outdoors. Mass media anticivil defense propaganda tried during the Cold War to censor out these facts from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instead
presenting the exaggerated data for an unprotected population outdoors or in obsolete wooden city buildings, and falsely claiming that such
data is valid for all circumstances. In fact, duck and cover countermeasures control response since the exposed body area are the
determining factor in the mortality rate due from either 2nd or 3rd degree thermal flash burns:

A2: OZONE
Their impact card assumes the ozone layer disappears, post war it would only be damaged and
would recover quickly
Turn - Theyre lying nuclear explosions create ozone
Cook 9 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics ,Radiation Effects Research Foundation lumps
data together to cover up benefits of low dose radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Life Span Study (LSS)!
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2009/04/radiation-effects-research-foundation.html 4/29/09)
One of several errors in the 1977 3rd edition of the U.S. Department of Defense book The

Effects of Nuclear Weapons is the false claim on

page 78 that air bursts like those over Hiroshima and Nagasaki damage the ozone (O3) layer which exists at altitudes of 15-30 km: '... nuclear
explosions are accompanied by the formation [in the blast wave at high overpressures] of oxides of nitrogen [causing the red-brown colour to the rising
fireball before condensing water vapor turns it white]. An air burst, for example, is estimated to produce about 10 32 molecules of nitrogen oxides per
megaton of TNT equivalent ... hence, the nitrogen oxides from such explosions would be expected to enhance mechanisms which tend to decrease the
ozone concentration.' This is false because: (1) the initial gamma radiation from both surface and air bursts produce a

large ozone layer around the early fireball, shielding the early thermal radiation from the fireball after nuclear
explosions, and this ozone production is not mentioned in the book. The mechanism for the production of ozone naturally is the
absorption by oxygen molecules (O2) of short-wavelength ultraviolet light, bordering the soft X-ray spectrum. In addition to
ozone formation by gamma radiation, nuclear weapons release typically 70-80% of their energy as such soft X-rays in a
blackbody distribution (Glasstone and Dolan, pp. 23-5) which is soon degraded by air scatter into ultraviolet radiation which forms ozone. The reaction
is: 3O2 + energy -> 2O3. The heat released by the natural ozone-forming process is the reason for the increase in the temperature of the stratosphere with

altitude. The natural chemical reaction produces about 4,500 tons of ozone per second in the
stratosphere, which maintains equilibrium by being broken down at a similar rate by other natural chemical reactions. (2) the nitrogen oxides,
largely nitrogen dioxide, in the fireball soon reacts with moisture in the white mushroom cloud to produce nitric acid, which is later
precipitated in rainfall along with naturally produced nitric acid from lightning storms, and has no effect on the ozone layer. A

lightning storm is qualitatively like a nuclear explosion in that it produces both ozone (from the electrical discharge air ionization) and nitrogen oxides
(from the shock waves formed around the extremely hot lightning bolts, which are later heard as thunder). Nitric acid (HNO 3) production from the
mixing with nitrogen dioxide and water vapour in the fireball is described by the reaction: 3NO 2 + H2O -> 2HNO3 + NO then the nitrogen oxide, NO,
itself gets oxidized into nitric acid by the reaction: 4NO + 3O 2 + 2H2O -> 4HNO3 It was a bigger hoax than Piltdown Man to suggest

that nitrogen oxides from nuclear bomb tests could break down ozone; they instead get oxidised into nitric acid
by atmospheric moisture and oxygen before they can reach the ozone layer. For a published discussion of the nitric
acid production in the air around the fireball from an atmospheric nuclear explosion, see Murray Scheibe, The Increased Attachment Due to IonizationInduced Smog in EMP Environments, Mission Research Corporation, California, MRC-R-532, DNA5077F, ADA087850, 1979: 'The increased electron
attachment due to HNO3 production in the EMP source region is investigated. The HNO 3 produced is found to be roughly linear with the total ionization
up to an ionization value of about 2 x 10 to the 16th power ion pairs. Above this, the HNO 3 production is less than linear.' P. Goldsmith, A. F. Tuck, J. S.
Foot, E. L. Simmons and R. L. Newson, reported in their paper, 'Nitrogen oxides, nuclear weapon testing, Concorde and stratospheric ozone' published
in Nature, vol. 244 (1973), issue 5418, pp. 545-551: 'Although amounts of nitrogen oxides equivalent to the output from many concordes were released
into the atmosphere when nuclear testing was at its peak, the amount of ozone in the atmosphere was not affected.' In total, the U.S.A, U.S.S.R., U.K.,
France and China detonated 545.4 megatons in the atmosphere, the peak rate of testing occurring in 1962, see page 295 of Merril Eisenbud and Thomas
F. Gesell, Environmental Radioactivity, Academic Press, 4th ed., 1997 (the ten biggest atmospheric tests are listed on an earlier post, here). Finally, for

high altitude explosions, there is no high pressure air blast wave, thus no production of nitrogen oxides
whatsoever, but the gamma radiation striking the atmosphere still produces ozone! Therefore, such explosions have
the exact opposite effect on the ozone layer to the claims being made . This has some importance to the issue of
holes in the ozone layer by CFCs, and the way to repair such damage.

Nuclear test data proves

Foot et al 73 (J.S., Professor of Chemistry, University of Toronto, P. Goldsmith, A. F. Tuck, E. L. Simmons, R.
L. Newson, 'Nitrogen oxides, nuclear weapon testing, Concorde and stratospheric ozone' Nature, vol. 244
(1973), issue 5418, pp. 545-551:
'Although amounts of nitrogen oxides equivalent to the output from many concordes were released into the
atmosphere when nuclear testing was at its peak, the amount of ozone in the atmosphere was not affected.'

A2: FALLOUT

Fallout wont come close to killing everyone

JR Nyquist 99, Expert in IR, Specializing in Cold War Studies and Nuclear Survivability, Writer
WorldNetDaily, 5-20-1999, Is nuclear war survivable, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printerfriendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19722
OK, so nuclear winter isn't going to happen. What about nuclear fallout? Wouldn't

the radiation from a nuclear war contaminate

the whole earth, killing everyone?

The short answer is: absolutely not. Nuclear fallout is a problem, but we should not exaggerate its
effects. As it happens, there are two types of fallout produced by nuclear detonations. These are: 1) delayed fallout; and 2) short-term fallout. According
to researcher Peter V. Pry, "Delayed fallout will not, contrary to popular belief, gradually kill billions of people everywhere in the world."
Of course, delayed fallout would increase the number of people dying of lymphatic cancer, leukemia, and cancer of the thyroid. "However," says Pry,
"these deaths would probably be far fewer than deaths now resulting from ... smoking, or from automobile

accidents."

The real hazard in a nuclear war is the short-term fallout. This is a type of fallout created when a nuclear weapon is detonated at ground

short-term fallout
rapidly subsides to safe levels in 13 to 18 days. It is not permanent. People who live outside of the affected areas will be fine. Those
in affected areas can survive if they have access to underground shelters. In some areas, staying indoors may
even suffice. Contrary to popular misconception, there were no documented deaths from short-term or delayed
fallout at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. These blasts were low airbursts, which produced minimal fallout effects. Today's
thermonuclear weapons are even "cleaner ." If used in airburst mode, these weapons would produce few (if any) fallout
casualties.
level. This type of fallout could kill millions of people, depending on the targeting strategy of the attacking country. But

Even the maximum fallout radiation possible cant kill if one is sheltered
Child 86 (James W. received his PhD in history and philosophy of science from Indiana U, Nuclear War: The Moral Dimension)
Not only does Schell exaggerate many times over the effects of a fallout maximizing attack, he completely
ignores the effects of shielding or shelter. Although it would save the lives of cast numbers of Americans, he simply does not bring it up .
A dosage of 1300 rems would be fatal to virtually all human beings who were completely exposed (that is outside all
the time during the full exposure period) But unlike Schells 10,000 rem exposure, there are many things one could do to mitigate it.
So called territorial masking being to the leeward of a hill, for example, would cut exposure by 30 to 60 percent. By simply
staying inside an ordinary residence, one would reduce the exposure to 40 percent of the outside dosage. This
could bring the level of exposure below 50 percent the fatality level (450) rems. Taking shelter in a residential
basement would reduce the exposure to 5 to 10 percent of the outside level, which takes it under the threshold for
any form of manifest radiation sickness. Surprisingly, the dose rate for a typical apartment house is 10 percent of
outside exposure on the ground floor (a reduction of 90 percent) and as little as 1 percent in upper floors (a reduction of 99
percent). All of this mitigation occurs without any sort of preplanned fallout shelter, merely staying inside or
staying in a basement. In short, even in so theoretical a radiation maximizing attack as schell postulates, a very large
proportion of the population could and would survive.

A2: OCEANS / PHYTOPLANKTON

1. This argument is predicated off nuclear winter because nuclear winters a lie, this
arguments irrelevant
2. Nuclear war doesnt destroy ocean ecosystems studies prove.
International Herald Tribune 8
(International Herald Tribune, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/world/asia/15ihtbikini.1.11998906.html?_r=1)
CANBERRA

Coral is again flourishing in the crater left by the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the
United States, 54 years after the blast on Bikini Atoll, marine scientists said Tuesday. A team of research divers visited Bravo
crater, ground zero for the test of a thermonuclear weapon in the Marshall Islands on March 1, 1954, and found
large numbers of fish and coral growing, although some species appeared to be locally extinct. "I didn't know what to expect, some kind of
moonscape perhaps, but it was incredible," Zoe Richards, from Australia's James Cook University, said about the team's trip to the atoll in the South
Pacific. "We saw communities not too far from any coral reef, with plenty of fish, corals and action going on ,

some really striking individual colonies," she said. The 15-megaton hydrogen bomb was 1,000 times more
powerful than the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945, and it vaporized islands with temperatures hitting 55,000
degrees Celsius, or about 99,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The Bikini blast shook islands as far away as 200 kilometers, or 125 miles.

3. No uniqueness and turn Global warming has already killed 40% of the phytoplankton and
will kill more
Suzuki 10 Emeritus professor of Environmental Law UBC (David, Chair of the Suzuki Foundation, 24 honorary degrees of LL.D. and D. Sc.
6/10/10 These tiny plants, which account for half the production of organic matter on Earth, are being threatened by climate change
http://beta.themarknews.com/series/33-threats-to-the-human-species/articles/1990-a-disappearing-phytoplankton)

And so ice in the Arctic and in glaciers continues to melt, ocean temperatures and sea levels continue to rise,
ecosystems and wildlife habitats continue to shift or degrade, and extreme weather events continue to become
more frequent. On top of that, a recent study by Dalhousie University oceanographer Boris Worm and his team found that phytoplankton
populations in the ocean are declining at an alarming rate because of human activity and climate change. Why
should we care? Well, these microscopic plants are the base of the food chain and account for half the production of organic matter on Earth. They also
remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce more than half the oxygen we breathe. According to report co-author Marlon Lewis, " Climate-

driven phytoplankton declines are another important dimension of global change in the oceans, which are
already stressed by the effects of fishing and pollution . The report, published in the July 29 edition of Nature, states that
phytoplankton have declined by about 40 per cent since 1950. We cant live without them.

XT GW KILLS PLANKTON
Global Warming is directly killing phytoplankton outweighs any of their environment
impacts
Connor 10 Director of the Environmental Monitoring Program at the Institute for Climate and Society at Columbia (Stephen, Ph.D. Liverpool
University, The dead sea: Global warming blamed for 40 per cent decline in the ocean's phytoplankton
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-dead-sea-global-warming-blamed-for-40-per-cent-decline-in-the-oceansphytoplankton-2038074.html)

The microscopic plants that support all life in the oceans are dying off at a dramatic rate , according to a study that has
documented for the first time a disturbing and unprecedented change at the base of the marine food web. Scientists have discovered that the
phytoplankton of the oceans has declined by about 40 per cent over the past century, with much of the loss occurring since the
1950s. They believe the change is linked with rising sea temperatures and global warming. If the findings are confirmed by
further studies it will represent the single biggest change to the global biosphere in modern times, even bigger than the
destruction of the tropical rainforests and coral reefs, the scientists said yesterday. Phytoplankton are microscopic marine
organisms capable of photosynthesis, just like terrestrial plants. They float in the upper layers of the oceans, provide much of the oxygen we
breathe and account for about half of the total organic matter on Earth. A 40 per cent decline would represent a
massive change to the global biosphere. "If this holds up, something really serious is underway and has been underway for decades. I've
been trying to think of a biological change that's bigger than this and I can't think of one," said marine biologist Boris Worm of Canada's Dalhousie
University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He said: "If real, it means that the marine ecosystem today looks very different to what

it

was a few decades ago and a lot of this change is happening way out in the open, blue ocean where we cannot see it. I'm concerned about this
finding." The researchers studied phytoplankton records going back to 1899 when the measure of how much of the green chlorophyll pigment of
phytoplankton was present in the upper ocean was monitored regularly. The scientists analysed about half a million measurements taken over the past
century in 10 ocean regions, as well as measurements recorded by satellite. They found that phytoplankton had declined significantly in all but two of the
ocean regions at an average global rate of about 1 per cent per year, most of which since the mid 20th Century. They found that this decline

correlated with a corresponding rise in sea-surface temperatures although they cannot prove that warmer oceans caused the
decline. The study, published in the journal Nature, is the first analysis of its kind and deliberately used data gathered over such a long period of time to
eliminate the sort of natural fluctuations in phytoplankton that are known to occur from one decade to the next due to normal oscillations in ocean
temperatures, Dr Worm said. "Phytoplankton are a critical part of our planetary life support system . They produce half of the
oxygen we breathe, draw down surface CO2 and ultimately support all of our fishes." he said. But some scientists have warned that the Dalhousie
University study may not present a realistic picture of the true state of marine plantlife given that phytoplankton is subject to wide, natural fluctuations.
"Its an important observation and it's consistent with other observations, but the overall trend can be overinterpreted because of the masking effect of
natural variations," said Manuel Barange of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and a phytoplankton expert. However, the Dalhousie scientists behind the
three-year study said they have taken the natural oscillations of ocean temperatures into account and the overall conclusion of a 40 per cent decline in
phytoplankton over the past century still holds true. "Phytoplankton are the basis of life in the oceans and are essential in maintaining the health of the
oceans so we should be concerned about its decline. "It's a very robust finding and we're very confident of it," said Daniel Boyce, the lead author of the
study. "Phytoplankton is the fuel on which marine ecosystems run. A decline of phytoplankton affects everything

up the food chain, including humans," Dr Boyce said. Phytoplankton is affected by the amount of nutrients the well up from the bottom of
the oceans. In the North Atlantic phytoplankton "blooms" naturally in spring and autumn when ocean storms bring nutrients to the surface. One
effect of rising sea temperatures has been to make the water column of some regions nearer the equator more stratified, with warmer
water sitting on colder layers of water, making it more difficult for nutrients to reach the phytoplankton at the
sea surface.

A2: BIODIVERSITY
Species recover rapidly and turn - mutations from nuclear explosions mean more biodiversity
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, How weapons and war effects exaggerations for
disarmament forced Britain to collaborate with evil racist thugs at Munich in 1938, in the name of peace
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifeboat-analogy-to-civil-defence.html 3/1/10)
on
Bogombogo Island (codenamed "Belle Island" by America) at the North-West of Eniwetok Atoll in the North Pacific, which was selected for
detailed ecological studies following two high yield nuclear weapons tests: Dr Ralph F. Palumbo, Radioactivity and Recovery
Stonier cites in his bibliography, but chooses to ignore completely in his text (without explanation) the rapid recovery and lack of insect plagues

of the Land Plants at Eniwetok Atoll, 1954-1957, University of Washington report UWFL-66, July 1960 (PDF linked here), see the recovery photos linked
here. Bogombogo/Belle Island was 2.55 statute miles (4.10 km) from the centre of Elugelab Island, ground zero of the 10.4 megatons IVY-MIKE
thermonuclear weapon test of November 1, 1952, and the 1.69 megatons 80% fission CASTLE-NECTAR test was detonated at the same spot on a barge
over the IVY-MIKE crater on May 14, 1954. It received heavy blast and thermal damage , water wave flooding, and fallout

radiation including extensive beta and gamma irradiation of plants (gamma of over 850 R/hr at 2 hours after IVY-MIKE
according to page 34 of of report WT-615, which - from the mean fallout arrival time and peak dose rate time measured under the cloud - suggests an
infinite dose of over 8,000 R, and then another 400 R to 6 months after CASTLE-NECTAR and beta doses near contaminated surfaces are about ten
times larger, see Stonier p. 143). Dr Palumbo states in his article "Recovery of the Land Plants at Eniwetok Atoll Following a Nuclear Detonation"
(Radiation Botany, vol. 1, 1962, pp. 182-9): "The Mike detonation of 1952 had removed most of the plants and top soil from Belle Island, resulting in the
depletion of some of the elements essential for plant growth. In spite of these deficiencies regrowth of the plants at Belle Island was rapid. ... A
photograph of Belle Island taken [on May 22, 1954] eight days following the Nectar detonation shows the extent of the damage sustained by the plants.
From the air the island looked brown and desolate. On closer inspection it was found that most of the plants had been scorched by the heat wave and
many of them had been blown over or broken by the blast. ... Recovery of the plants was rapid. ... On the eighth day green buds, 1-3 mm in
length, were observed on the stems of Scaevola and Messerschmidia plants. On the thirty-fifth day the shoot leaves were 7-15 cm long, covering much of
the old stems and giving the plants a green and healthy appearance. By this time many of the other plants had formed new leaves and

three species (Portulaca, Triumfetta, and Messerschmidia) had produced new flowers and fruits. The island now had lost its
scorched appearance; from the air it looked green rather than brown as it had one month earlier. "In August, three months after the
detonation, the plants were growing well and some species, such as Boerhaavia, had produced new flowers. The
leaves of most of the species had grown to maximum size, and the branches had grown almost to the preNectar dimensions."
Biodiversity doesnt matter.
Sagoff 1997 (Mark, Senior Research Scholar @ Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs @ U. Maryland, William and Mary Law Review,
Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law Symposium Defining Takings: Private Property And The Future Of Government Regulation: Muddle Or Muddle Through? Takings
Jurisprudence Meets The Endangered Species Act, 38 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 825, March, L/N)

Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the brink of an episode of massive
extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result. On the contrary, skeptics such as
science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100
million species that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold
or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, when you think about
it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that "the elimination of all but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does
not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species
(other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 " The human species could survive
just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1%
that we need." n346 [*906] The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two positions with respect to
redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important, such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable
consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this
position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period
over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function
to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or
ecosystem." n349 Other biologists believe, however, that species are so fabulously redundant in the ecological functions

they perform that the life-support systems and processes of the planet and ecological processes in general will
function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to
remain even if every threatened organism becomes extinct. n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world
depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people
forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any
ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the
system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352 [*907] To
make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the
ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are
concerned. What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species

threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so,

which ones are they? Ecosystems and the species that compose them have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part
of the United States. There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land
where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why
Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly every environment
changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property values keep going up on Martha's
Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen. One might argue that the sheer number and variety of creatures

available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress. Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures
ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions
to that "library.") In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, the number of species has been

increasing dramatically, not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the hordes of exotic
species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of species that are becoming
extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich
all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in
California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11
exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many
birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from
wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services;
indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all
exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such
as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows
that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here,
as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just
as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born
Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that
a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are
concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater
number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359

The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component
in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much of the detail about
species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net
primary productivity, as is likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a point; above a certain
level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference ." n362 What about the use of plants and animals in
agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible ," a
U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are extensively cultivated. " n363 About twenty species, not one of which
is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one
that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even
though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new
foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's
diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore
virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application
in agriculture, but would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? Has anyone found any consumer demand for any

of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet ? There are reasons that farmers cultivate
rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to cause lice
in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are
developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious,
aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action,
of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein compel
our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to
assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in
other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but
someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human welfare, protecting nature often represents a net "cost,"

not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care
about all our fellow creatures. They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for [*912] the marsh may be good in
itself even if it is not, in the economic sense, good for mankind. The most valuable things are quite useless.

non unique and turn a nuclear war will end the current species extinction
Caldwell 03 (Joseph George, Professor of Statistics at U of Arizona) http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm
What can halt the rapid destruction of the worlds forests, atmosphere, oceans, and species
by human overpopulation and global industrialization? Well, any of a number of things. A large asteroid might hit the planet, as is
What can change things?

believed to have occurred 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs disappeared. The atmosphere becomes so filled with dust that sunlight is blocked out
for days or weeks. Many of the planets plant and animal species are destroyed. Food is gone and large animals perish. Massive volcanic activity could
accomplish the same end. The problem with both of these eventualities is that they accomplish the same result as mankinds current overpopulation and
global industrialization the destruction of the biosphere and mass species extinction. How about famine? As long as fossil fuels hold out, it does not
appear that famine will halt the human population explosion. The world can easily feed nine billion, just by converting all forests to cropland and
eliminating meat from the human diet (i.e., use cereal grains for human consumption, rather than for animal feed). The world can continue to feed
billions of people, however, only as long as fossil fuels hold out. The worlds petroleum and natural gas reserves will be exhausted by 2050 (coal will last
somewhat longer), and solar energy can support only about 200-500 million people. When fossil fuels are gone, the era of global industrialization and
large human populations will be over. The human population will indeed drop, but by the time that that happens, mass extinction of the biospheres

species will have taken place. There is continuing debate over whether a suitable energy alternative might be found to replace the energy from oil, as it
runs out. As discussed in Reference 1, there is little evidence, and certainly no compelling evidence, that a comparable substitute will be found.
Moreover, from the point of view of the health of the biosphere, it would be very unfortunate if a substitute energy source were found. The mass species
extinction started in full force at about the beginning of the petroleum age (ca. 1950), i.e., when mankind, numbering in the billions and armed with
modern high-energy-consumption technology, started using vastly more energy than was available from the daily solar energy flux. The biosphere as we
know it evolved with nature using the energy contained in the daily solar energy flux. The Garden-of-Eden biosphere in which we evolved cannot survive
if mankind continues to utilize vastly more energy than this amount. The destruction of the biosphere and the mass species extinction are being caused
by large human numbers and high industrial production / energy use, and this destruction will not stop until human numbers and energy use drop back
to the low levels that prevailed prior to the start of the destruction. The lie that species extinction can be stopped even though high levels of energy use
and industrial production continue has been disproved over and over and over again, year after year after year. Each year that global industrialization
continues spells more destroyed forests; tens of thousands more species are made extinct, and more portions of our biosphere sustain permanent,
irreversible damage. The ecological carnage of global industrialization will not stop until either global industrialization comes to an end or the biosphere
is destroyed. So, from the point of view of what might stop the ongoing destruction of the biosphere, it does not really matter whether fossil fuels exhaust
by 2050 or whether an energy replacement for them is found. The destruction of the biosphere and the mass species extinction began when mankinds
numbers and energy use reached its present high levels, and it will continue as long as those levels remain high, whatever the energy source may be. This
section of this article is not concerned, however, with the issue of whether an energy replacement for oil will or will not be found. The purpose of this
section is to identify events that might halt the destruction of the biosphere and mass species extinction that is being caused by large human numbers
and industrial activity, i.e., to identify events that would reduce human numbers and industrial activity / energy use. One such event is the exhaustion of
fossil fuels, but the biosphere will have been seriously damaged and possibly destroyed long before that, if the present rate of fossil-fuel consumption
continues. We are hence more concerned here with events that might reduce human numbers and industrial activity before the end of the petroleum /
fossil-fuel age. Disease could wipe out mankind. It is clear that HIV/AIDS will not accomplish this it is not even having a significant impact on slowing
the population explosion in Africa, where prevalence rates reach over thirty percent in some countries. But a real killer plague could certainly wipe out
mankind. The interesting thing about plagues, however, is that they never seem to kill everyone historically, the mortality rate is never 100 per cent
(from disease alone). Based on historical evidence, it would appear that, while plagues may certainly reduce human population, they are not likely to
wipe it out entirely. This notwithstanding, the gross intermingling of human beings and other species that accompanies globalization nevertheless
increases the likelihood of global diseases to high levels. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the biosphere poses a danger
similar to that of disease. When a plant GMO is created, its pollen spreads around the world. It is quite conceivable that much of mankinds food supply
could be eliminated, simply by a terrible error in which the introduction of one or more GMOs resulted in the global loss of harvests of a staple food, such
s a cereal grain. And war. War could wipe out mankind. Not small wars, such as the scores of small conflicts that continue year after year.
Not even big wars, such as the First and Second World Wars. But a

really big war, involving thousands of nuclear weapons can

make a real difference. Furthermore, it can bring an immediate halt to the high level of industrial activity that
is destroying the planet. It can reduce human numbers to the point where they no longer have a significant
impact on the planets ecology . The famous astronomer and writer Sir Fred Hoyle once observed that mankind will have only one chance to
do something worthwhile with the energy from fossil fuel and the minerals at the Earths surface: if it ends up destroying the planet it will never have a
second chance. Global industrialization is causing the destruction that Hoyle referred to. Global nuclear war could bring

that process to a halt.

XT - BIODIVERSITY
Turn Biodiversity loss is inevitable unless we end industrialization with nuclear war only a
chance nuclear war solves
Caldwell 03 (Joseph George, Professor of Statistics at U of Arizona) http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm
History offers no cause for optimism that the human population explosion will spare any portion of the world.

Underdeveloped nations
continue to grow in population until they simply run out of natural resources and cause total destruction of their forests and wildlife. Most developed
industrial nations continue to grow in population at about one-half of one percent per year. They strive for maximum and sustained

economic growth, regardless of consequences to the local environment or the planets ecological well-being. The
worlds forests are where many plant and animal species survive, and it is the destruction of forests that is causing much of the ongoing
species extinction. About 94 percent of the forest that existed just sixty years ago has been destroyed. In the past 20 years, forests have
disappeared in 25 countries. At these rates, most of Earths forest cover will soon be gone. As human population continues to increase, the demand for
wood products and land will increase, so that the destruction of the shrinking forests will accelerate. From the point of view of destruction of Earths
natural resources, the US population is the most destructive nation on Earth, since its industrial activity is the largest. Its population is large and its
industrial production per person is one of the highest in the world. Its per capita commercial energy consumption is one of the highest in the world.
Although birth rates for the US white population fell to replacement level years ago, US population growth continues to soar by about three million (one
percent) a year, due in large part to immigration. For each new resident added to the country, about an acre of land is taken permanently out of wildlife
habitat or agricultural production. The US has no plans to reduce its per capita energy consumption, or reduce its industrial production per capita, or
reduce its population. Its policy, quite the contrary, is to increase both the population and the per capita industrial production as fast as possible,
regardless of the consequences to the planets biosphere. Every year, it strives to increase its population size, expand industrial

production, and push the standard of living ever higher, imposing an ever-greater burden on the planets
biosphere and driving more species to extinction. All nations of the Earth strive for increased economic and industrial activity.
Perhaps the simplest readily available measure of industrial activity is the amount of commercial energy consumed, which is usually measured in terms
of kilograms of oil equivalent (goes) per capita per annum. Over the past few decades, the commercial energy consumption of the planet has increased at
an average rate of about three percent a year, somewhat less in recent years. Note that this is about the same as the rate of increase of economic activity
as measured by the standard measure, gross domestic product (GDP). Without energy, there is no industrial activity. See web site
http://www.dieoff.com for much information on the relationship of energy availability to economic production. At the present time, about one-sixth of
the planets population has a high level of industrial production, and the rest of the population is striving to achieve high levels also. What this means is
that, in the absence of war or other phenomena to reduce industrial capacity and activity, the level of industrial production will continue to increase even
if the human population tapers off. The annual GDP per capita of the richest nations is on the order of about $25,000 (GNP per capita, purchasingpower-parity (PPP), current international $), whereas for poor countries it is about $2,000 per year. The world average is about $6,000. At a growth
rate (in industrial production) of three percent a year, it would take the rest of the world about fifty years to catch up to where the developed countries
are today. This means that even if the human population were to level off by 2050, global industrial production would continue to increase throughout
this period, even if the developed nations stood still and the poorer nations just tried to catch up. Given the commitment of all nations to the increased
standards of living associated with increased industrial production, global industrial production is bound to continue to soar as poor countries strive to
become rich, even if population levels off. Under the current world order , industrial production will continue to soar to higher and

higher levels, and the massive destruction of the environment that is caused by industrial activity will intensify .
In summary, even under the wildest assumptions about decreasing fertility rates, human population levels will continue to rise, and industrial activity
will soar exponentially, for generations to come. The destruction to the biosphere will continue unabated. The planets

biosphere and biodiversity already reeling from mankinds assault are doomed. Unless radical change
happens.

A2: PROVES HUMAN MUTATIONS

Nope, plants lack protein p53, thats why they mutate and we dont
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, New book by Sanders on low level radiation
risks http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-book-by-sanders-on-low-level.html 5/16/10)
Protein P53, discovered only in 1979, is encoded by gene TP53, which occurs on human chromosome 17. P53 also occurs in other
mammals including mice, rats and dogs. P53 is one of the proteins which continually repairs breaks in DNA, which easily breaks at
body temperature: the DNA in each cell of the human body suffers at least two single strand breaks every second, and one double strand (i.e. complete
double helix) DNA break occurs at least once every 2 hours (5% of radiation-induced DNA breaks are double strand breaks, while 0.007% of spontaneous
DNA breaks at body temperature are double strand breaks)! Cancer occurs when several breaks in DNA happen to occur by chance at nearly the same
time, giving several loose strand ends at once, which repair proteins like P53 then repair incorrectly, causing a mutation which can be proliferated
somatically. This cannot occur when only one break occurs, because only two loose ends are produced, and P53 will reattach them correctly. But if lowLET ionising radiation levels are increased to a certain extent, causing more single strand breaks, P53 works faster and is able deal with

faster breaks as they occur, so that multiple broken strand ends do not arise. This prevents DNA strands being repaired
incorrectly, and prevents cancer - a result of mutation caused by faults in DNA - from arising. Too much radiation of course overloads the
P53 repair mechanism, and then it cannot repair breaks as they occur, so multiple breaks begin to appear and loose ends of DNA are wrongly connected
by P53, causing an increased cancer risk.

A2: ENVIRONMENT
The environment is resilient nuclear testing on atolls didnt collapse any ecosystems
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, How weapons and war effects exaggerations for
disarmament forced Britain to collaborate with evil racist thugs at Munich in 1938, in the name of peace
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifeboat-analogy-to-civil-defence.html 3/1/10)
on
Bogombogo Island (codenamed "Belle Island" by America) at the North-West of Eniwetok Atoll in the North Pacific, which was selected for
detailed ecological studies following two high yield nuclear weapons tests: Dr Ralph F. Palumbo, Radioactivity and Recovery
Stonier cites in his bibliography, but chooses to ignore completely in his text (without explanation) the rapid recovery and lack of insect plagues

of the Land Plants at Eniwetok Atoll, 1954-1957, University of Washington report UWFL-66, July 1960 (PDF linked here), see the recovery photos linked
here. Bogombogo/Belle Island was 2.55 statute miles (4.10 km) from the centre of Elugelab Island, ground zero of the 10.4 megatons IVY-MIKE
thermonuclear weapon test of November 1, 1952, and the 1.69 megatons 80% fission CASTLE-NECTAR test was detonated at the same spot on a barge
over the IVY-MIKE crater on May 14, 1954. It received heavy blast and thermal damage , water wave flooding, and fallout

radiation including extensive beta and gamma irradiation of plants (gamma of over 850 R/hr at 2 hours after IVY-MIKE
according to page 34 of of report WT-615, which - from the mean fallout arrival time and peak dose rate time measured under the cloud - suggests an
infinite dose of over 8,000 R, and then another 400 R to 6 months after CASTLE-NECTAR and beta doses near contaminated surfaces are about ten
times larger, see Stonier p. 143). Dr Palumbo states in his article "Recovery of the Land Plants at Eniwetok Atoll Following a Nuclear Detonation"
(Radiation Botany, vol. 1, 1962, pp. 182-9): "The Mike detonation of 1952 had removed most of the plants and top soil from Belle Island, resulting in the
depletion of some of the elements essential for plant growth. In spite of these deficiencies regrowth of the plants at Belle Island was rapid. ... A
photograph of Belle Island taken [on May 22, 1954] eight days following the Nectar detonation shows the extent of the damage sustained by the plants.
From the air the island looked brown and desolate. On closer inspection it was found that most of the plants had been scorched by the heat wave and
many of them had been blown over or broken by the blast. ... Recovery of the plants was rapid . ... On the eighth day green buds, 1-3 mm in
length, were observed on the stems of Scaevola and Messerschmidia plants. On the thirty-fifth day the shoot leaves were 7-15 cm long, covering much of
the old stems and giving the plants a green and healthy appearance. By this time many of the other plants had formed new leaves and

three species (Portulaca, Triumfetta, and Messerschmidia) had produced new flowers and fruits. The island now had lost its scorched
appearance; from the air it looked green rather than brown as it had one month earlier. "In August, three months after the detonation, the
plants were growing well and some species, such as Boerhaavia, had produced new flowers. The leaves of most of the
species had grown to maximum size, and the branches had grown almost to the pre-Nectar dimensions."
Turn the only way to save the environment long terms is to collapse industrialized society;
any delay means extinction from environmental catastrophe.
Barry 8 (Glen, Ph.D. in "Land Resources" from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a Masters of Science in
"Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development", 1/14/08, Economic Collapse And Global Ecology,
Counter Currents, http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic
growth. Yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The growth

machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only
lead to human extinction and an end to complex life. With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States,
it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability will be
embraced. This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social
sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later. Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with
capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and
destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection.
Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure. Humanity has proven itself unwilling and

unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action
on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the
economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent
upon their deadly products. Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible.
Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural
capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental
restoration. This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out
necessary environmental policies even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even more
life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption. We know that humanity must
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained
during years of economic downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in
some places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured.
Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all species including humans as the ultimate truth
and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources
remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies. It may be better for the Earth and humanity's future
that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will
be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil.

Many will be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their

identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier
time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life.
Economic collapse now means humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again. Human suffering -already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is

inevitable given the degree to which the planet's

carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much
greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and recover while
emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.
The biosphere would be fine
LFTR 09 (Lifeboat Foundation Technology Research, dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive existential
risks Brian Wang, Director of Research. Sander Olson, Interviews and other articles. Phil Wolff, Communications and social technologist. Alvin Wang.
Computer, technology, social networking, and social media expert. Ect.
The Science of Nuclear War Effects and Battlestar Galactica http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/nuclear-war-effects-and-battlestar.html)
Radioactive Fallout

Would Not Be the Main Problem After 2000 Years Expending the current level (of) or even the
highest nuclear arsenals that we have ever had would do nothing to the long term survival of the biosphere
based on radiation and fallout. The world is too big. The stuff settles out and the most dangerous stuff has a
short life. The long life stuff is long lived because it is giving off low energy level of radiation. That is why the long
term debate about nuclear war is about altering the climate or ozone in a lasting way. Plenty of atmospheric big nuclear tests have been done and the
biosphere can take it. Killing a biosphere with nukes would take lot more nukes and radiation would not be the main

and lasting problem ever after 2000 years.

A2: DISEASE

Infrastructure will only be down for days

Wigner 69 (Eugene P., Noble Laureate Professor, Survival and the Bomb: Methods of Civil Defense, pg 244)
Economic recovery from localized bombing attacks in general has been quite remarkable. In Hiroshima, for example,
power was generally restored to surviving areas on the day after the attack, and through railroad service recommenced on the
following day 'In general, populations of damaged areas have been highly motivated to stay on, even in the
presence of severe deprivation; once having fled, they have been anxious to return. The thesis has even been put forward that a community
hit by disaster rebounds so as to attain higher levels of achievement than would otherwise have been possible.

No disease spread nuclear testing didnt spread any diseases, and hundreds of past epidemics
prove no extinction
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, How weapons and war effects exaggerations for
disarmament forced Britain to collaborate with evil racist thugs at Munich in 1938, in the name of peace
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifeboat-analogy-to-civil-defence.html 3/1/10)
Dr Stonier's chapter 9, "Pestilence and Plague: The Threat of Epidemics" and the remainder of the book is contrived and deceptive, citing in his
bibliography - but ignoring in his text - documentary evidence from nuclear test ecological recovery at Eniwetok Atoll near two
megaton yield tests which contradicts

his case that the insects will inherit the Earth. He entirely ignores the plague of
1348-50 which killed a third of the population in Western Europe as an example of the human recovery potential
after a huge disaster (see Jack Hirshleifer, Disaster and Recovery: The Black Death in Western Europe, RAND Corporation report RM4700,
1966, online PDF linked here). Like his ability to ignore the lack of firestorms in modern London buildings and the limited firestorm intensity even in the
wooden two-storey buildings of Hiroshima, and to misrepresent the Hamburg firestorm in 3-5 storey medieval wooden overcrowded buildings as
illustrative of the threat to modern concrete, steel and brick cities, Stonier misrepresents plague risks. He delves back selectively through

the history of epidemics to find examples that tend to support his thesis (simply ignoring all evidence to the
contrary) such as tularemia (a virulent bacterial infection transmitted by tick bites, skin contact, inhalation and
ingestion, which concentrating in the lymph nodes, causing weakness and fever but not usually death) outbreak of 1941 in Rostov-onDon, Russia, where 37,000 people were infected. This outbreak resulted from the wartime conscription, which left the crops
unharvested in the fields, allowing field mice to proliferate, spreading tularemia through their droppings and
ticks on the hay and grain stored in barns, which were used by soldiers for sleeping quarters. Stonier then studies the second bubonic plague outbreak
that began on 14 August 1907 in San Francisco, infecting 167 people of which 89 died, over a year after the city was devastated by the great earthquake
and fire of 18 April 1906. This plague was spread by fleas living on rats breeding in the insanitary conditions of the wrecked city, which still lacked
functioning sewage disposal systems. Stonier moves on to the more deadly pneumonic plague which broke out in Oakland, California, 1919, when a
hunter infected by flea bites from the fur of a groundhog spread plague, infecting 14 cases of which 13 proved fatal. Stonier then discusses the similar
mechanism for the larger-scale pneumonic plague outbreak amongst fur-trappers in Manchouli, Manchuria, 1910-11. That plague killed 60,000 because
it was spread first in crowded underground inns in Manchouli, and later (as cases appeared) these infected people panicked and fled on the Chinese
Eastern Railway to numerous towns throughout the whole country. On page 131 Stonier attempts to glue these historical plague

examples to the aftermath of nuclear warfare, by claiming that the birds and mammal predators for insect
disease vectors will be killed off by 1,000 roentgens of gamma radiation exposure, whereas adult insects will survive
100,000 roentgens and can reproduce at doses of up to 5,000 roentgens. He points out that conifers like pine trees are about as vulnerable as mammals
(spruce seeds are killed by 1,000 roentgens, he states on p. 143), but in general plants can withstand 5,000 roentgens of gamma radiation, while mustard
seeds can "absorb 92,000 roentgens and still produce viable plants" (Stonier, p. 131). On page 132 Stonier points out that 13 out of 15 flora species were
injured or killed over five years by fallout radiation at the world's most highly contaminated fallout location, Gegen Islet at the northern edge of Rongelap
Atoll, giving the island a grey rather than green colour as seen from aircraft five years later. Gegen Islet was the downwind fallout hotspot location 100
miles downwind of the 15 Mt Bravo test, giving a 3,000 rads gamma dose within 48 hours, and thousands more at a slower rate, later on. Moving
southward in Rongelap Atoll, the radiation doses were smaller, and the damage less. At Kabelle Island, for instance, only 3 species of flora were killed,
including the mangroves, and at Eniwetok Islet in Rongerik Atoll (further downwind) only 2 species of flora were affected by fallout. (References: F. R.
Fosberg, "Plants and Fall-out", Nature, v. 183, 1959, p. 1448, and Robert A. Conard, Brookhaven National Laboratory report BNL-609, 1961, pp. 85-6.)
Stonier believed that radiation kills off most birds and animals that normally keep eat insects, thus allowing plagues of relatively radiation-

resistant insects to breed on the surviving vegetation and spread diseases to surviving humans: "The result: insect plagues.
Associated with the spread of insects would be the spread of certain insect-borne diseases." This was based on ecological studies by G. M. Woodwell at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, who exposed an oak and pine forest on Long Island, New York, to gamma radiation from cesium-137 (G. M. Woodwell,
"Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Terrestrial Ecosystems", Science, v. 138, 1962, pp. 572-7). Stonier observes on p. 135 that "where the oaks received 5
roentgens per day, the defoliation by insects was about five times as great as that observed in control areas." This cesium-137 gamma exposure has no
relevance to the overall effects of radioactive fallout, since it ignores the effects of beta radiation (which is easily stopped by tree bark) upon insects.
Stonier cites in his bibliography, but chooses to ignore completely in his text (without explanation) the rapid recovery and lack

of insect plagues on Bogombogo Island (codenamed "Belle Island" by America) at the North-West of Eniwetok Atoll in the North Pacific,
which was selected for detailed ecological studies following two high yield nuclear weapons tests: Dr Ralph F.
Palumbo, Radioactivity and Recovery of the Land Plants at Eniwetok Atoll, 1954-1957, University of Washington report UWFL-66, July 1960 (PDF
linked here), see the recovery photos linked here. Bogombogo/Belle Island was 2.55 statute miles (4.10 km) from the centre of Elugelab Island, ground
zero of the 10.4 megatons IVY-MIKE thermonuclear weapon test of November 1, 1952, and the 1.69 megatons 80% fission CASTLE-NECTAR test was
detonated at the same spot on a barge over the IVY-MIKE crater on May 14, 1954. It received heavy blast and thermal damage, water

wave flooding, and fallout radiation including extensive beta and gamma irradiation of plants (gamma of over 850
R/hr at 2 hours after IVY-MIKE according to page 34 of of report WT-615, which - from the mean fallout arrival time and peak dose rate time measured
under the cloud - suggests an infinite dose of over 8,000 R, and then another 400 R to 6 months after CASTLE-NECTAR and beta doses near

contaminated surfaces are about ten times larger, see Stonier p. 143). Dr Palumbo states in his article "Recovery of the Land Plants at Eniwetok Atoll
Following a Nuclear Detonation" (Radiation Botany, vol. 1, 1962, pp. 182-9):

Shared genetic interests and burnout mean no extinction.

Lederberg 99 (Joshua, professor of genetics at Stanford University School of Medicine, Epidemic The World of Infectious Disease, p. 13)
The toll of the fourteenth-century plague, the "Black Death," was closer to one third. If

the bugs' potential to develop adaptations that

could kill us off were the whole story, we would not be here. However, with very rare exceptions, our microbial
adversaries have a shared interest in our survival. Almost any pathogen comes to a dead end when we die ; it first
has to communicate itself to another host in order to survive. So historically, the really severe host- pathogen interactions have
resulted in a wipeout of both host and pathogen. We humans are still here because, so far, the pathogens that
have attacked us have willy-nilly had an interest in our survival. This is a very delicate balance, and it is easily disturbed, often in
the wake of large-scale ecological upsets.

Plastic wrap solves wound infection

Wendling 08 (Patrice, reporter of Elsevier Global Medical News, www.acep.org/PrintFriendly.aspx?id=40462b Think Plastic Wrap as Wound
Dressing for Thermal Burns August 08)
CHICAGO - Ordinary

household plastic wrap makes an excellent, biologically safe wound dressing for patients
with thermal burns en route to the emergency department or burn unit. The Burn Treatment Center at the University of Iowa Hospitals and
Clinics, Iowa City, has advocated prehospital and first-aid use of ordinary plastic wrap or cling film on burn wounds for almost two decades with very
positive results, Edwin Clopton, a paramedic and ED technician, explained during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Burn
Association. "Virtually every ambulance in Iowa has a roll of plastic wrap in the back," Mr. Clopton said in an interview. "We just wanted to get the word
out about the success we've had using plastic wrap for burn wounds," he said. Dr. G. Patrick Kealey, newly appointed ABA president and director of
emergency general surgery at the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, said in an interview that plastic wrap reduces pain, wound

contamination, and fluid losses. Furthermore, it's inexpensive, widely available, nontoxic, and transparent, which
allows for wound monitoring without dressing removal.

A2: MUTATIONS
1) This isnt actually an impact we wont all suddenly burst into mutants
2) No heritable mutations ever
Seward and Hamilton 9 Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Dr. James and Dr.
Terry, a US government nuclear research laboratory, Misconceptions about the links between radiation exposure and genetic (birth) defects, Marshall
Islands Monitor, vol. 1, No. 1, 1 January 2009:
No

heritable birth defects from radiation exposure have ever been observed in humans. More specifically, the National
genetic effects attributable to radiation exposures sustained by
the (Japanese) survivors and no significant adverse effects in more than 30,000 progeny from parents who received low doses of radiation.
Research Council found no statistically demonstrable adverse

Similarly, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) says that up to the time a child is conceived, radiation exposure to the testes
and ovaries of either parent has not been shown to cause birth defects in children.

A2: CANCER
1) Timeframe is too long, by the time cancer occurs, our extinction scenarios will have already
occurred
2) Barely a 1% increase in cancer
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, How weapons and war effects exaggerations for
disarmament forced Britain to collaborate with evil racist thugs at Munich in 1938, in the name of peace
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifeboat-analogy-to-civil-defence.html 3/1/10)
The percentage of deaths due to delayed effects has always been dwarfed by the natural cancer and natural
genetic defect rates, see for instance Radiation Research, volume 146, 1996, pp. 1-27. In a controlled sample of 36,500 survivors, 89
people got leukemia over a 40 year period, above the natural leukemia number of 176 in the unexposed control group, due to the thermal unstability of
DNA which is naturally broken due to random molecular impacts from the Brownian motion of water molecules at body temperature, 37 C. There were
4,687 other, "solid", tumour cancer deaths, which was 339 above the unexposed matched control group. Hence in the 36,500 Hiroshima

survivors over 40 years there were 4,863 cancers of all kinds, which is 428 more than the unexposed control group. Hence, 12.2% naturally
died from cancer over 40 years who werent exposed to radiation, while for the irradiated bomb survivors the
figure was 13.3%. No increase whatsoever in genetic malformations could be detected: any effect was so low it was lost in the
statistical noise of natural genetic defects - the effect of body temperature on DNA again - for the sample size. Nature is a way, way, way bigger
problem than radiation from nuclear bombs.

A2: FOOD
Only food in the blast range would be affected, plus canned food and washing solve
contamination
Cook 6 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming BA Physics U.K. Home Office Scientific Advisory Branch
'Protect and Survive' civil defence research http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/nuclear-weapons-1stedition-1956-by.html 7-1-06)
Food: Gamma

rays have no harmful effects upon foodstuffs and the only significant hazard is the deposition of contaminated dist
the area beyond that of general destruction, where buildings are still
standing though damaged, stocks of food, especially those in containers or under cover, are unlikely to be affected.
Deposition of contamination on growing crops will , however, be a hazard [although nearly all of it can be removed by washing
crops, milling wheat and discarding husks, or by simply discarding the outer leaves of leafy crops]. Only food
within the area of complete destruction could be affected by neutron irradiation and become radioactive.
which may eventually find its way into the human system. In

A2: WATER
No risk of water contamination ordinary purifiers solve
Cook 6 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics U.K. Home Office Scientific Advisory Branch
'Protect and Survive' civil defence research http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/nuclear-weapons-1stedition-1956-by.html 7-1-06)
'Water: Broadly the same principles apply as with food. Gamma

rays have no effect upon water, but certainly in the case of hydrogen
A special version
of the contamination meter has been designed for testing water, and water undertakings are well aware of the
problems which face them from this type of hazard should it arise. It is worth noting that an ordinary domestic water softener in
good condition completely removes the dangerous elements (strontium and barium) from contaminated water [since fallout
bomb explosions the deposition of contaminated dust on catchment areas and open reservoirs would constitute a serious hazard.

from surface bursts on silicate based soil is insoluble glassy spheroids, it doesn't dissolve in water and the soluble activity hazards are trivial unless the
detonation occurs on coral, limestone or chalk].

A2: HEG
Americans will work together and get through it
Kearny 87 Researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Cresson H., received his PhD in Civil Engineering from
Princeton, summa cum laude. Major in the US Army, a research laboratory for US national defense. Nuclear War Survival Skills .)
Some maintain that after an atomic attack America would degenerate into anarchy an every- man-for-himself struggle for
existence. They forget the history of great human catastrophes and the self- sacrificing strengths most human
beings are capable of displaying. After a massive nuclear attack starvation would afflict some areas, but America's grain-producing
regions still would have an abundance of uncontaminated food. History indicates that Americans in the food-rich
areas would help the starving. Like the heroic Russians who drove food trucks to starving Leningrad through bursting Nazi bombs and shells.7
many Americans would risk radiation and other dangers to bring truckloads of grain and other necessities to their starving countrymen. Surely, an
essential part of psychological preparations for surviving a modern war is a well- founded assurance that many citizens of a strong society

will struggle to help each other and will work together with little regard for danger and loss.
The US will rebuild
Dowty and Harkabi 08 (Alan, Professor of Policical Science. Yehoshafat, Chief of Israeli military intelligence, guest professor at Princeton.
Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace pg 180)
Kahns main conclusion is that all-out

nuclear war does not, at present, doom a country like the United States to
extinction. Despite the horrors, man would adjust to the post-war situation, to what is termed the post-attack
environment, and out of necessity rebuild his society. Bourgeois values would continue to motivate society
and aid in its recovery. In order to minimize destruction and accelerate the pace of recovery, the United States
should take the possibility of all-out nuclear war into account and prepare for the eventuality, building shelters to
reduce causalities from radiation and fallout, perfecting arrangements for alarm and evacuation, issuing general instructions for conduct,
providing for food and water. Ect. In addition, administrative arrangement that would aid in recovery should be established
in advance. All these measures he term preparation of a preattack mobilization base. The more thorough and precise these measures, the easier
recovery will be. This idea has appeared in the French demand for survival facilities.

Heg doesnt matter we put down destructive tendencies after a nuclear war thats
Zimmerman

A2: ECON
Were rebuild immediately Hiroshima proves
Wigner 69 (Eugene P., Noble Laureate Professor, Survival and the Bomb: Methods of Civil Defense, pg 244)
Economic recovery from localized bombing attacks in general has been quite remarkable. In Hiroshima, for example,
power was generally restored to surviving areas on the day after the attack, and through railroad service recommenced on the
following day 'In general, populations of damaged areas have been highly motivated to stay on, even in the
presence of severe deprivation; once having fled, they have been anxious to return. The thesis has even been put forward that a community
hit by disaster rebounds so as to attain higher levels of achievement than would otherwise have been possible.

*INDICTS*

A2: SAGAN
Sagan propagandizes
Kearny 87 (Cresson H., received his PhD in Civil Engineering from Princeton, summa cum laude. Major in the US Army, and worked at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, a research laboratory for US national defense. Nuclear War Survival Skills.)
Myth: Unsurvivable nuclear winter surely will follow a nuclear war. The world will be frozen if only 100 megatons (less than one percent of all nuclear
weapons) are used to ignite cities. World-0enveloping smoke from fires and the durst from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight and solar hear
from reaching the earths surface. Universal darkness for weeks! Sub-zero temperatures even in summertime! Frozen crops, even in the jungles of South
America! Worldwide famine! Whole species of animals and plants exterminated! The survival of mankind in doubt! Facts: Unsurvivable

nuclear winter is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional
millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by
ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving. Non-propagandizing
scientists recently have calculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear
war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly published by popular astronomer Carl
Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientist. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations
are summarized in an article, Nuclear Winter Reappraised, featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious quarterly of the
Council on Foreign Relations. The authors Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for
Atmospheric Research. They showed that on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be
relegated to a vanishing low level of probability.

Sagan smoked pot, he invented nuclear winter while high

Davidson 99 Sagans Biographer (Keay, and writer for the San Francisco Examiner.
http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm)
For young people of the '60s and '70s, marijuana use was a rite of passage. To the very youngest, smoking the illegal drug was the boldest way to rebel
against parental and governmental authority. But many young adults used "weed" too. The term "groves of academe" took on a new meaning in
universities, where the spiky-leaved plants grew vigorously and covertly under ultraviolet lamps in dormitory closets . Carl Sagan had been a

regular marijuana user from the early '60s on. He believed the drug enhanced his creativity and insights.

His
closest friend of three decades, Harvard psychiatry professor Dr. Lester Grinspoon, a leading advocate of the decriminalization of marijuana, recalls an
incident in the '80s when one of his California admirers mailed him, unsolicited, some unusually high-quality pot. Grinspoon shared the joints with
>Sagan and his last wife, Ann Druyan. Afterward >Sagan said, "Lester, I know you've only got one left, but could I have it? I've got serious work to do
tomorrow and I could really use it." Grinspoon's 1971 book "Marihuana Reconsidered" included a long essay by an unidentified "Mr. X," who described
his happy experiences with the drug. The essay identified Mr. X as "a professor at one of the top-ranking American universities" but disguised his
identity by saying he was "in his early forties." In my interview with Grinspoon, he revealed that Mr. X was >Sagan (who turned 37 the year the book
was published by Harvard University Press).To Grinspoon, >Sagan's use of the drug is dramatic disproof of the popular wisdom that pot diminishes
motivation: "He was certainly highly motivated to work, to contribute." Mr. X's essay is of interest not merely because it reveals >Sagan's use of an
illegal drug but also because it offers a glimpse of feelings he rarely shared. Portions of the account follow, beginning with >Sagan's drug-induced
version of Plato's myth of the cave. It all began about ten years ago. I had reached a considerably more relaxed period in my life - a time when I had
come to feel that there was more to living than science, a time of awakening of my social consciousness and amiability, a time when I was open to new
experiences. I had become friendly with a group of people who occasionally smoked cannabis, irregularly, but with evident pleasure. Initially I was
unwilling to partake, but the apparent euphoria that cannabis produced and the fact that there was no physiological addiction to the plant eventually
persuaded me to try. My initial experiences were entirely disappointing; there was no effect at all, and I began to entertain a variety of hypotheses about
cannabis being a placebo which worked by expectation and hyperventilation rather than by chemistry. After about five or six unsuccessful attempts,
however, it happened. I was lying on my back in a friend's living room idly examining the pattern of shadows on the ceiling cast by a potted plant (not
cannabis!). I suddenly realized that I was examining an intricately detailed miniature Volkswagen, distinctly outlined by the shadows. I was very
skeptical at this perception, and tried to find inconsistencies between Volkswagens and what I viewed on the ceiling. But it was all there, down to
hubcaps, license plate, chrome, and even the small handle used for opening the trunk. When I closed my eyes, I was stunned to find that there was a
movie going on in the inside of my eyelids. Flash...a simple country scene with red farmhouse, blue sky, white clouds, yellow path meandering over
green hills to the horizon. Flash...same scene, orange house, brown sky, red clouds, yellow path, violet fields... Flash...Flash...Flash. The flashes came
about once a heartbeat. Each flash brought the same simple scene into view, but each time with a different set of colors...exquisitely deep hues, and
astonishingly harmonious in their juxtaposition. Since then I have smoked occasionally and enjoyed it thoroughly... I smile, or sometimes even laugh
out loud at the pictures on the insides of my eyelids," Mr. X/>Sagan wrote. Even so, he remained the astute scientific observer: While my early
perceptions were all visual, and curiously lacking in images of human beings, both of these items have changed over the intervening years.... I test
whether I'm high by closing my eyes and looking for the flashes. They come long before there are any alterations in my visual or other perceptions. I
would guess this is a signal-to-noise problem, the visual noise level being very low with my eyes closed.... [Flashed images resemble] cartoons: just the
outlines of figures, caricatures, not photographs. I think this is simply a matter of information compression: it would be impossible to grasp the total
content of an image with the information content of an ordinary photograph, say 108 [100 million] bits, in the fraction of a second which a flash
occupies. "I find that today a single joint is enough to get me high.... in one movie theater recently I found I could get high just by inhaling the cannabis
smoke which permeated the theater." Pot enhanced his pleasure in music and food. ("A potato will have a texture, body, and taste like that of other
potatoes, but much more so.") In sex, too: marijuana "gives an exquisite sensitivity, but on the other hand it postpones orgasm: in part by distracting me
with the profusion of images passing before my eyes." "I find that most of the insights I achieve when high are into social issues," he added. "I can

remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and
invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves. It was a point obvious in a way, but rarely
talked about. I drew the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down. One idea led to
another, and at the end of about an hour of extremely hard work I found I had written 11 short essays on a wide
range of social, political, philosophical, and human biological topics...I have used them in university
commencement addresses, public lectures, and in my books.... "...If I find in the morning a message from
myself the night before informing me that there is a world around us which we barely sense, or that we can

become one with the universe, or even that certain politicians are desperately frightened men, I may tend to
disbelieve; but when I'm high I know about this disbelief. And so I have a tape in which I exhort myself to take
such remarks seriously. I say "Listen closely, you sonofabitch of the morning! This stuff is real!" Sagan added:
"I have on a few occasions been forced to drive in heavy traffic when high. I've negotiated it with no difficulty at
all, although I did have some thoughts about the marvelous cherry-red color of traffic lights."
Sagan assumes the impossible
Ehrlich 88 (Robert, graduated from Columbia U with a PhD in Physics Magna Cum Laude Department chair and professor of Physics at George
Mason University, and his written or edited over 20 books relating to nuclear weapons. Will the Insects Inherit the Earth?.)
*S in TTAPS stands for Sagan
TTAPS uses a very primitive one dimensional model in which all the smoke and dust is artificially assumed to
arise instantaneously from every point on the earths surface . Other calculations have been attempted using
more correct three dimensional models, and these give average temperature declines between one-third and twothirds those of TTAPS. However, even these calculations are still at a very primitive stage. (These are the same
models used to predict weather.)

A2: ROBOCK / TOON

Robock and Toon predict nuclear winter in order to scare countries into disarmament, not
because nuclear winter will happen
Robock and Toon 10 (Alan, professor of cliatology in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers
University and the associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction and Owen, Local Nuclear
War, Global Suffering Scientific American, Jan 2010, Vol. 302, Issue 1 pg 74-81)
Twenty-five years ago international teams of scientists showed that a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union could produce a "nuclear
winter." The smoke from vast fires started by bombs dropped on cities and industrial areas would envelop the planer and absorb so much sunlight that
the earth's surface would get cold, dark and dry, killing plants worldwide and eliminating our food supply. Surface temperatures would reach winter
values in the summer. International discussion about this prediction , fueled largely by astronomer Carl Sagan, forced the leaders

of the two superpowers to confront the possibility that their arms race endangered not just themselves but the entire
human race. Countries large and small demanded disarmament. Nuclear winter became an important factor in
ending the nuclear arms race. Looking back later, in 2000, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev observed, "Models made by
Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on earth; the
knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and morality, to act."

Robock just assumes the smoke ends up the atmosphere, it doesnt rainout
Seitz 6 Visiting Scholar at Harvards Center of International Affairs (Russell, The Nuclear Winter Meltdown
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/12/preherein_honor.html)

Dark smoke clouds in the lower atmosphere dont last long enough to spread across the globe. Cloud droplets
and rainfall remove them. Rapidly washing them out of the sky in a matter of days to weeks- not long enough to
sustain a global pall. Real world weather brings down particles much as soot is scrubbed out of power plant
smoke by the water sprays in smoke stack scrubbers. Robock acknowledges this- not even a single degree
of cooling results when soot is released at lower elevations in his models . The workaround is to
inject the imaginary aerosol at truly Himalayan elevations - pressure altitudes of 300 millibar and higher , where the computer
model's vertical transport function modules pass it off to their even higher neighbors in the stratosphere , where it does not rain and
particles linger. The new studies like the old suffer from the disconnect between a desire to paint the sky black
and the vicissitudes of natural history. As with many exercise in worst case models both at invoke rare phenomena as commonplace,
claiming it prudent to assume the worst. But the real world is subject to Murphy's lesser known second law- if everything must go wrong, don't bet on it.
In 2006 as in 1983 firestorms and forest fires that send smoke into the stratosphere rise to alien prominence in the

modelers re-imagined world , but in the real one remains a very different place , where though every month sees
forest fires burning areas the size of cities - 2,500 hectares or larger , stratospheric smoke injections arise but once in a
blue moon. So how come these neo-nuclear winter models feature so much smoke so far aloft for so long? The
answer is simple- the modelers intervened. Turning off vertical transport algorithms may make Al Gore happyhe has bet on reviving the credibility Sagan's ersatz apocalypse , but there is no denying that in some of these scenarios human desire, not physical forces
accounts for the vertical hoisting of millions of tons of mass ten vertical kilometers into the sky.to the level at which the models take over , with results at
once predictable --and arbitrary. This is not physics, it is computer gamesmanship carried over to a new generation of X-Box. I must
now return to getting and vetting the new papers and their references- this has been a prelimnary examination of what the public has been told, and
more detailed critiques of the science will doubtless be direected to the journals were the new work appeared . This time round , the details are scarcely
worth arguing, because the global frost made famous by the original 'TTAPS' model has disappeared . From the truly frigid 7,000 degree-day "baseine
case" advertised as hard science in 1983 to a tepid results of today, "Nuclear Winter has well and truly melted down. The 1986 review of TTAPS reception
follows. The Melting of 'Nuclear Winter'

He admits it himself they just stick smoke in the upper troposphere

Robock and Toon 10 (Alan, professor of cliatology in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers
University and the associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction and Owen, Local Nuclear
War, Global Suffering Scientific American, Jan 2010, Vol. 302, Issue 1 pg 74-81)
Robock and his colleagues, being conservative, put five teragrams of smoke into their modeled upper troposphere
over India and Pakistan on an imaginary May 15. The model calculated how winds would blow the smoke around the world
and how the smoke particles would settle out from the atmosphere. The smoke covered all the continents within two weeks. The black, sooty smoke
absorbed sunlight, warmed and rose into the stratosphere. Rain never falls there, so the air is never cleansed by precipitation; particles very slowly settle
out by falling, with air resisting them. Soot particles are small, with an average diameter of only 0.1 micron (m), and so drift down very slowly. They also
rise during the daytime as they are heated by the sun, repeatedly delaying their elimination. The calculations showed that the smoke would reach far
higher into the upper stratosphere than the sulfate particles that are produced by episodic volcanic eruptions. Sulfate particles are transparent and
absorb much less sunlight than soot and are also bigger, typically 0.5 m. The volcanic particles remain airborne for about two years, but smoke from
nuclear fires would last a decade.

Robock and Toon assume every city burns just like Hiroshima they are simply wrong their
overzealous exaggerations disprove nuclear winter on their own

LFTR 10 (Lifeboat Foundation Technology Research Think Tank, dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive
existential risks Brian Wang MBA, Nuclear Winter and Fire and Reducing Fire Risks to Cities http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/04/nuclear-winter-andfire-and-reducing.html 4/17/10)
I looked at nuclear winter and city firestorms a few months ago I will summarize the case I made then in the next section. There is significant additions
based on my further research and email exchanges that I had with Prof Alan Robock and Brian Toon who wrote the nuclear winter research. The

Steps needed to prove nuclear winter: 1. Prove that enough cities will have firestorms or big enough fires (the
claim here is that does not happen) 2. Prove that when enough cities in a suffient area have big fire that enough
smoke and soot gets into the stratosphere (trouble with this claim because of the Kuwait fires) 3. Prove that
condition persists and effects climate as per models (others have questioned that but this issue is not addressed
here The nuclear winter case is predictated on getting 150 million tons (150 teragram case) of soot, smoke into
the stratosphere and having it stay there. The assumption seemed to be that the cities will be targeted and the
cities will burn in massive firestorms. Alan Robock indicated that they only included a fire based on the radius of ignition from the
atmospheric blasts. However, in the scientific american article and in their 2007 paper the stated assumptions are: assuming each fire
would burn the same area that actually did burn in Hiroshima and assuming an amount of burnable material
per person based on various studies. The implicit assumption is that all buildings react the way the buildings in
Hiroshima reacted on that day. Therefore, the results of Hiroshima are assumed in the Nuclear Winter models.
* 27 days without rain * with breakfast burners that overturned in the blast and set fires * mostly wood and
paper buildings * Hiroshima had a firestorm and burned five times more than Nagasaki. Nagasaki was not the
best fire resistant city. Nagasaki had the same wood and paper buildings and high population density.
Recommendations Build only with non-combustible materials (cement and brick that is made fire resistant or specially treated wood). Make the roofs,
floors and shingles non-combustible. Add fire retardants to any high volume material that could become fuel loading material. Look at city planning to
ensure less fire risk for the city. Have a plan for putting out city wide fires (like controlled flood from dams which are already near cities.) Fire and Details
If there are not multiple citywide firestorms then there is no trigger for nuclear winter even if the later modeling (which is still uncertain) would even
need to be considered. - The Material of the Houses in India and Pakistan do not appear to be Right for Firestorms
(mostly burnt brick and mud) Firestorms

have always required at least 50% of buildings to be ignited. High percentage

of builtupness is also necessary Hiroshima had most fires from overturned breakfast charcoal braziers. References
that provide the basis of my case Problems of Fire in Nuclear Warfare, Jerome Hill, Rand, 1961 - Nagasaki had no firestorm 4.4 square miles
Hiroshima actual burned area 0.9 square miles Nagasaki 13.5 square miles maximum theoretical . India building census indicates that
most of the buildings are made from Burnt Brick, mud which are non-combustible. Exploratory Analysis of Fire Storms,
Stanford Research Institute, 1965 The frequency of rain in India or Pakistan is important because of the effect of recent
rain on burning of cities. Quantitive - seasonal rainfall patterns for India and Pakistan Fire Factors "Mass fires and Fire Behaviors" which
studies fires in cities and other places indicates that combustible roofing material is a major cause of fires spreading in cities. This document also
discusses how to reduce fire risks and lessen spreading of fires. The usual vegetation management that is commonly mentioned for LA fires

and having non-combustible roofing materials and gaps between buildings. These anti-fire measures would
apply to lessoning fires ignited by nuclear bombs too . Steps to Reduce Damage Simple civil defense and building improvements
would reduce damage from nuclear war and from hurricanes and earthquakes. Haiti and New Orleans show the importance of building better to greatly
reduce problems. Hurriquake nails, outside paint that reflects heat and other cheap retrofits would reduce the damage radius and roofing material that
does not burn. Further improvement for buildings Fighting Fires with Water From Behind Dams There are also some basic counter

measures against city wide fire. More than 2,000 dams near population centers are in the United States are in need of repair, according to
statistics released this month by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. there are more dams near population centers which do not
need repair. The water could be released in an emergency to more effectively fight any large area of fire.

A2: SCHELL
Their own author admits nuclear war is inevitable: We are living on borrowed time
Schell 82 (Jonathan, teaches nuclear dilemma at Yale and former columnist at the New Yorker on nuclear weapons The Fate of the Earth,
nominated for the Pulitizer, National Book Award, National Critics Award)
If we are honest with ourselves we have to admit that unless we rid ourselves of a

nuclear arsenals a holocaust not only might occur but will

occur- if not today, then tomorrow; if not this year, then the next. We have come to live on borrowed time:
every year of continued human life on earth is a borrowed year, every day a borrowed day
Schell ignored the concept of talking shelter, he just assumes we all stand outside
Child 86 (James W. received his PhD in history and philosophy of science from Indiana U, Nuclear War: The Moral Dimension)
Not only does Schell exaggerate many times over the effects of a fallout maximizing attack , he completely
ignores the effects of shielding or shelter. Although it would save the lives of cast numbers of Americans, he simply does not bring it up .
A dosage of 1300 rems would be fatal to virtually all human beings who were completely exposed (that is outside all
the time during the full exposure period) But unlike Schells 10,000 rem exposure, there are many things one could do to mitigate it.
So called territorial masking being to the leeward of a hill, for example, would cut exposure by 30 to 60 percent. By simply
staying inside an ordinary residence, one would reduce the exposure to 40 percent of the outside dosage. This
could bring the level of exposure below 50 percent the fatality level (450) rems. Taking shelter in a residential
basement would reduce the exposure to 5 to 10 percent of the outside level, which takes it under the threshold for
any form of manifest radiation sickness. Surprisingly, the dose rate for a typical apartment house is 10 percent of
outside exposure on the ground floor (a reduction of 90 percent) and as little as 1 percent in upper floors (a reduction of 99
percent). All of this mitigation occurs without any sort of preplanned fallout shelter, merely staying inside or
staying in a basement. In short, even in so theoretical a radiation maximizing attack as schell postulates, a very large
proportion of the population could and would survive.
Schell is wrong he exaggerates his claims and doesnt examine all possibilities for survival.
Martin 84, PhD in theoretical physics, associate professor in Science, Technology and Society at the
University of Wollongong, 1984
(Brian, Extinction Politics, Scientists Against Nuclear Arms (SANA) Newsletter Update,
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/84sana1.html)
Opponents of war, including scientists, have often exaggerated the effects of nuclear war and emphasized worst cases.
Schell continually bends evidence to give the worst impression . For example, he implies that a nuclear attack is
inevitably followed by a firestorm or conflagration. He invariably gives the maximum time for people having to
remain in shelters from fallout. And he takes a pessimistic view of the potential for ecological resilience to
radiation exposure and for human resourcefulness in a crisis. Similarly, in several of the scientific studies of nuclear
winter, I have noticed a strong tendency to focus on worst cases and to avoid examination of ways to overcome
the effects. For example, no one seems to have looked at possibilities for migration to coastal areas away from the
freezing continental temperatures or looked at people changing their diets away from grain-fed beef to direct
consumption of the grain, thereby greatly extending reserves of food.

A2: STARR
Steven Starr has two bachelors degrees in General Studies and Clinical Laboratory Sciences. He doesnt know a
thing about nuclear weapons
Greaney 10 (T.J., 11/4/10 Voice in the wilderness sounds nuclear warning
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/nov/04/voice-in-the-wilderness-sounds-nuclear-warning/)
Starr has almost no formal training as a nuclear weapons expert. He has worked for 25 years as a medical technologist in MidMissouri laboratories.

A2: CALDWELL INDICT

Caldwells theories are supported by other professionals
Wilken 02 - MD (Timothy, Ph.D. Working Together http://solutions.synearth.net/2002/08/29/)
I still have some cards up my sleeve and have not given up, but I worry for this generation. A

very very large number of humans could die,

and die very soon. Many of them women and children, and perhaps to your surprise, many of them American. Joseph George Caldwell is a
man who has studied our human crisis for some time. Frankly, his writings frighten me. They predict a very dark future.
Unfortunately, I am finding less and less argument against his logic. Things are much worse than they seem . In this
his latest treatise, he argues that humanity needs war to protect us from ourselves . That the only hope for any
human future and for the rest of life on the planet the only way to stop human overpopulation and the
industrial rape of the Earth is for most of humanity to die.
Hes more qualified than all of their authors
Caldwell 04 (Joseph George, Professor of Statistics at U of Arizona http://www.foundationwebsite.org/WhoAmI.htm)
Education... Ph.D., Statistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1966 B.S., Mathematics,
Carnegie-Mellon University, 1962 Consultant...
to US government agencies, state governments, and
corporations Director/Supervisor of major projects in...
o strategy and tactics (national security, ballistic
missile defense, theater-level operations) o artificial intelligence / expert systems (automated scenario
generation) o multisensor fusion; situation assessment; estimation, prediction, and control;
correlation/tracking; satellite surveillance systems o simulation and modeling (ocean surveillance, ballistic
missile defense, communications-electronics) o systems and software engineering (structured analysis /
design; object-oriented design) o system development (requirements, design, implementation and test) o
test and evaluation (communications-electronics, C4IEW) o statistical applications (test design, data
analysis, statistical methodology, survey design) o scientific programming (statistics, optimization, graphics;
expert systems, spatial analysis) o operations research and statistics
o geographic information systems,
mapping information systems o programming languages / development environments / tools /
mathematical software packages: C, FORTRAN, Visual Basic, MS-DOS/Windows, UNIX, SAS, SPSS, Statistica, dBASE/FoxPro/Access, SQL,
ArcView GIS, MATLAB, Numerical Recipes, many others o standards: ISO 9000 Quality Management; ISO 12207 Information Technology; DODSTD-2167A, MIL-STD-498 Software Development; Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute Capability Maturity Model (SEI CMM)

Manager of contract research / system development firm (seven years); successful bidder on numerous
technical contracts, including four Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts. Manager of R&D department of major
US Army test and evaluation center. Director of more than twenty projects . Chief information officer of the
central bank of Botswana. Set IT vision, strategy, policy, procedures; supervised all IT operations. Supervised
Year 2000 project and bankwide disaster recovery project. Professor of Statistics at the University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona Developer of technical seminars and computer program packages in defense applications, sample survey, forecasting, and
geographic information systems Languages: Spanish, French; limited German; "street" Arabic; native in English Summary of Experience.
Dr. Caldwell's professional career in systems analysis, system development, research and management has
centered on the use of modern analysis techniques to solve practical problems in government, commercial,
industrial, and defense applications. His career includes founder and manager of Vista Research Corporation,
manager of the R&D Department and Principal Scientist of the US Army Electronic Proving Ground's
Electromagnetic Environmental Test Facility, and consultant or employee to major contract firms (Bell
Technical Operations, SINGER Systems and Software Engineering, General Research Corporation, Planning
Research Corporation, Research Triangle Institute).
Ad Hominem attacks are only valid when they effect the conclusions drawn by the person.
Otherwise they should be ignored.
Raley 08 (Yvonne, Liberal Studies PhD in Philosophy from NYU. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=character-attack

Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather
than concentrating on an individuals character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such
as, Is the doctors advice medically sound? Is the Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbors lawn healthy? Meanwhile ad hominem attacks can
also unfairly discredit an individual, especially because such critiques are often effective. Although ad hominem
arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media
Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad
hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that

although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or

indirectly related to the point being articulated. If Walton is right, distinguishing clearly between these cases is important to evaluating
the validity of statements people make to us about others. Good or fair uses of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted
uses should not. Corruptions Which ad hominem arguments should we aim to ignore? In the so-called abusive ad hominem, someone argues that
because a person has a bad character, we should not accept that persons claims. For instance, during the presidential campaign of 1800, John Adams
was called a fool, a gross hypocrite and an unprincipled oppressor. His rival, Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was deemed an uncivilized atheist,
anti-American, a tool for the godless French. Accusations like these can easily foreclose on intelligent political discourse about what might make either
candidate a good president. Another illegitimate form of the ad hominem is the tu quoque, or you, too version, which is an attempt to discredit a
persons claims because the person has failed to follow his or her own advice. The example of the overweight doctor prescribing weight loss falls into this
category. Its use is unfair because, after all, there are good reasons for losing weight, and the fact that a doctor has not managed to heed her own advice
should not dissuade others from trying to follow it. The Cruise attack, on the other hand, exemplifies poisoning the well, another brand of ad hominem
attacks in which the character assault is launched before the listener has a chance to form his or her own opinion on a subjectin this case, Cruises film.
If successful, the reminder that Cruise is affiliated with Scientology will bias the listener against the movie. This partiality is unjustified, because Cruises
religious affiliation is not germane to his acting abilities or the entertainment value of his movie. Fair Use What types of ad hominems might then be

an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a persons character or actions are
relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap
justified? Walton argues that

arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzers anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from
governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart
was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this
incident would have been spot-on.

For example Carl Sagan invented the Nuclear Winter Theory while high on pot, if you evaluate
ad hominem attacks you have to ignore nuclear winter as well
Caldwell is a rose among weeds
Johnson 1 (P.C. , Great New Book (Ron Patterson),
http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/13122)
Yes, I read the book you mentioned, Joseph

Caldwell's Can America Survive, and it filled me with many thoughts. On the side of the
found it refreshing to encounter a man free of socialism, utopianism, Marxism, feminism, "diversity,"
libertarianism, and other expressions of wish-fulfillment parading as philosophy that people nowadays call thinking.
Clearly Joseph Caldwell represents a new and favorable manifestation among us, a man of European origins with the
courage to look at reality without sentimentality, and to prescribe medicine that might work.
good: I

Here is what others have to say on his articles. They recommend his site.
Carr 08 (Amelia, is the Senior facility in women studies at Allegheny and has taught a course called The end of the World for over then years
http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/a/acarr/endlinks/environment.html)
Foundation: Joseph

George Caldwell, PhD, a Department of Defense consultant, uses this thought-provoking site to
give tactics for controlling the earth, rather than prophecies. This site include articles such as "End of the World," "Can America
Survive?," "Handbook of Planetary Movement," "Strategy for Global Domination and Planetary Management," and "On Slowing the Environment, and
the Inevitability of Global Warming." He provides strategies for slowing down the process of exhausting global resources ,
avoiding global nuclear war, and optimizing human population. This

site is useful for environmentalists, people interested in

planetary control and those concerned with what might cause the world to end.

COOKS THE BEES KNEES

Cook knows what hes talking about - a nuclear fallout meteorologist asked Cook to write a book
Reed 06 Nuclear Fallout Meteorologist Jack W., at Sandia National Laboratory, Lt. Colonel, US Marine
Corps.
Hi Nigel

[Cook], I was amazed last night when I got around to visiting your blog site. Obviously, you're no beginner
at studying nuclear weapons and technology. Much of the stuff there I was not particularly familiar with, but several items brought back
old memories and faces. Thanks. Is your intent to put together a book ?

*WARMING*

2NC WARMING INTERNALS

We have three internal links to solve warming
1) After a nuclear war well gain a connection with the environment, leading to new and greater
environmental protection, thats Zimmerman
2) Nuclear war halts industrialization, that stops halts the production of CO2 ending warming
Caldwell 03 (Joseph George, Professor of Statistics at U of Arizona http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm)
If global war happens this year, no more species will be made extinct from the habitat destruction and pollution of an exploding
industrial human population. If global war happens next year, another 30,000 species are lostforever. If global war happens in ten years,
another 300,000 species are extinct. Delay simply leads to the loss of more species and increases the likelihood
of a hothouse destruction of the biosphere. If a global nuclear war happens now, the production of
greenhouse gases stops. The point mentioned above about the depletion of the plants fossil-fuel reserves warrants additional comment. A
factor motivating a global nuclear war sooner rather than later is the desire to preserve the planets remaining
fossil fuels.
3) Nuclear war directly will reverse warming it will kick up dust and lower the earths
temperature. This isnt nuclear winter.
Yoshiaki 10 Professor of Geo-environmental Engineering (Fujii, Senior Researcher of Rock Mechanics Laboratory at
Hokkaido Japan, Influence of Atmospheric Nuclear Explosions on Climate Change, 90th AMS Annual Meeting "Weather, Climate, and Society: New
Demands on Science and Services". 20 January 2010.
* GST = Global Surface Temperature
1. Introduction The

global-mean surface temperature (GST) has been basically rising in this one hundred and several
ten years (Fig. 1). The rise in GST looks stagnated around 1900. This is because of the biggest eruptions and the
inactiveness of the sun (Fig. 2). The rise in GST looks stagnated again between 1945 and 1976. The difference before (Line
A in Fig.1) and after (Line B in Fig. 1) the stagnation is approx. 0.5K. The stagnation was not simulated well in AR4 by IPCC and causes of this stagnation
are still left unknown. This article suggests that the stagnation was due to the atmospheric nuclear explosions , namely, Gadget,
Little Boy for Hiroshima, Fat Man for Nagasaki and

the succeeding nuclear weapons testing between 1945 and 1980.

Supporting evidences including estimation on GST drop due to the atmospheric nuclear explosions based on
the numerical simulation results will be described. The application of the GST stagnation to the global warming
mitigation will be shown and the possibility of deceleration of the global warming will also be pointed out. 2.
Possible cause of the GST stagnation between 1945 and 1976 The 0.5K stagnation cannot be explained by solar activity since it
showed a maximum in 1957 (Fig. 2). There were no giant eruptions with VEI 6 between 1945 and 1976. It can be noted that the
0.5K stagnation began in 1945 when the atmospheric nuclear weapons testing of Gadget and the atomic bomb
attacks by Little Boy against Hiroshima and Fat Man against Nagasaki were carried out. The stagnation lasted for the
period in which the most atmospheric nuclear weapons testing were carried out. The temperature rise began again in 1977, 14 years after PTBT (Partial
Test Ban Treaty) prohibited atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in 1963, at the almost the same rate (Line B in Fig. 1) as the II and the atmospheric
nuclear weapons testing might have influenced the regime shift between 1940 and 1975. However, the author would like to concentrate on the influence
of the atmospheric nuclear explosions. Thompson et al. (2008) suggested that 0.3K GST drop in 1945 was due to the change in the method to measure
temperature for SST (sea surface temperature) from engine room temperature (US ships) to uninsulated bucket measurement (UK ships). However, the
author is not discussing the shortterm GST drop in 1945 but the stagnation which lasted for 32 years from 1945 to 1976. It is well known that nuclear
wars can induce "nuclear winter" (Ehrlich et al., 1985). The smoke from nuclear war can reach the upper troposphere and

rapidly spread with the jet streams. It can also reach the stratosphere to stay there for several months to years
reflecting insolation. Temperature drop for a 3000 Mt nuclear war without smoke from cities is 10 K
and lasts for approx. one year in the simulation. On the other hand, temperature drop for a 100 Mt nuclear war
with smoke from cities is simulated as 32 K and lasts for several months. The climate model used in Ehrlich et al. (1985) was a
simple one. However, recently, Robock et al. (2007) obtained similar results by using a modern climate model for only cases with smoke from cities. The
amount of radio activity deposition (90Sr, 137Cs and 239, 240Pu) in Tokyo was at a high level from the beginning of the monitoring in 1957 to 1963 and
then decreased to approx. 1/1000 - 1/10000 in 1990 and it has kept the constant low level except for the short-term high levels of 90Sr and 137Cs due to
the Chernobyl accident in 1986 (Igarashi et al., 2008, Fig. 3). Another research shows distinct peaks of 90Sr concentration in horse and cow bones in
Hokkaido, Japan in 1965 and 1966, respectively (Takahashi et al., 1980, Fig. 4). There would be some delay for radioactive to be accumulated in livestock
bones. The properties of smokes by atmospheric nuclear explosions were not clarified yet. However, the diameter of the most

radionuclides from the Chernobyl accident sampled in Tokyo was less than 1 mm (Hirose et al., 1993, Fig. 5). This diameter is small enough
to stay in the stratosphere for a long time as SPM2.5. The above researches indicate that atmospheric nuclear explosion generated PM
(particulate matters) at a high concentration till 1963 (PTBT year) and the concentration decreased to 1990 and now the concentration is at a very low
level. The cause of the variations in radioactivity deposition amount is undoubtedly the atmospheric nuclear explosions. The author has a strong
confidence that a significant amount of PM due to the atmospheric nuclear explosions was incessantly sprinkled to the upper troposphere and the
stratosphere between 1945 and 1980 and the particulate matters caused the 0.5K GST stagnation 3. Estimation of GST drop by atmospheric nuclear
explosions Thompson et al. (2008) estimated that GST drop by only Little Boy (15 kt) and Fat Man (21 kt) was 0.03K based on Robock et al. (2007). GST
drop by Gadget, Little Boy, Fat Man and the 422 times, 545 Mt atmospheric nuclear cumulative GST drop (CGD, Fig. 6a) for the cases with smoke from

cities was roughly calculated based on the numerical results by Ehrlich et al. (1985) and Robock et al. (2007). CGD has an almost linear relationship with
total TNT equivalent mass of nuclear bombs in a nuclear war on the log-log plot as shown in Fig. 7 and Eq. (1). CGD = 0.43M 0.59 (1) where CGD is in K
yr and M is the TNT equivalent mass of nuclear bombs in Mt. However, Eq. (1) should be corrected since atmospheric nuclear weapons testing did not
induce smoke from cities except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. CGD for a 3000 Mt nuclear war without smoke from cities can

roughly be calculated as 6 K yr based on Ehrlich et al. (1985). On the other hand, CGD for a 3000 Mt nuclear war with smoke from cities can
be estimated as 48.4 K yr based on Eq. (1). Namely, CGD becomes 8.1 times by smoke from cities. Therefore Eq. (2) for cases without smoke from cities
can be derived deviding Eq. (1) by 8.1 as follows. CGD = 0.053M 0.59 (2) CGD for 545 Mt nuclear explosions without smoke from cities can be estimated
as 2.2 K yr by Eq. (2). Assuming that the nuclear influence pattern has an isosceles triangle shape, the maximum temperature drop in 1976 can be
estimated as 0.07K. CGD for 423 times of 1.3 Mt nuclear explosions is 26 K yr. The maximum temperature drop in 1976 would be 0.8K. In conclusion,
temperature drop by Gadget, Little Boy, Fat Man and the 422 times nuclear weapons testing of total 545 Mt is estimated as between 0.07K and 0.8K. The
influence of the atmospheric nuclear explosions after PTBT should also be considered for more precise estimation. However, the observed 0.5 K
stagnation is in this estimated range. This supports the idea that the 0.5K GST stagnation between 1945 and 1976 was induced by the atmospheric
nuclear explosions. 4. Application of the finding to the global warming mitigation According to AR4 by IPCC, reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emission
by 50% till 2050 will decrease 2.3K GST rise with 0% CO2 reduction to 1.7K inducing world GDP loss of more than 5.5%. The author does not think that
the global warming of several degree centigrade is fatal for human future, however, he would like to point out that injection of PM to the upper

troposphere and the stratosphere would be very effective to mitigate global warming. The mass of the world biggest
hydrogen bomb, Tsar Bomba (1961) by USSR was 50 Mt TNT equivalent. Mass of the crater created by the explosion can be evaluated as 400 Mt. Let's
assume that a half the emitted PM, namely 4 times the TNT equivalent mass reached the upper troposphere and the stratosphere. This leads that

0.5K GST drop is expected by injecting 545 x 4 / (1963-1945+1) = 114 (Mt/year) of PM to the upper troposphere and the
stratosphere for 19 years. For convenience, the contribution of the atmospheric nuclear explosions after PTBT was ignored in the above
calculation. The author admits that the radiative forcing of various PM should be investigated, however, fine limestone powder would be a candidate for
the injection. 114 Mt/year is 3% the world limestone production (3800 Mt in 2001). Price of 114 Mt fine limestone powder whose average diameter is 2
mm would be around 30 GUSD (Nishiyama, 2009, personal communication). Assuming that a flight of a transport plane can sprinkle 400 t of limestome
powder and costs 10 kUSD, yearly cost would be 3 GUSD. Total yearly cost of 33 GUSD for the whole world is expensive but cheaper than the cost for
CO2 reduction. It should be pointed out that CO2 from 114 Mt limestone powder is negligible compared to 27 Gt world CO2 emission. Neutralization of
acid rain and a small economic contribution are also expected. Deliberate considerations are of course required before the execution of injection,
however, the author also would like to point that artificial rain fall is already often carried out in China by sprinkling silver iodide by missiles. This
technique is apparently effective to mitigate the heat island phenomenon. For example, average temperature rise due to heat island phenomenon is
approx. 2.3K in Tokyo (Fig. 8) for this 100 years. The artificial rainfall would also have some effects to lower GST if it is carried out in a very large scale.
5. Consideration on the true GST behavior Assumed influence of atmospheric nuclear explosions was a triangle shape (Fig. 6a). Superposing a linear
warming pattern and the triangle influence pattern does not make the observed pattern (Fig. 6b). On the other hand, subtracting the influence pattern
from the observation derives a nonlinear, decelerating warming pattern (Fig. 6c). Assuming that the global warming is decelerating, the causes would be
the recent decay in solar activity and/or saturation of the green house effect. Assuming again that the nuclear influence pattern has an isosceles triangle
shape, the nuclear influence should have ended in 2007 since it began in 1945 and showed the peak in 1976. This means that the warming pattern after
2008 might indicate the true warming pattern without the influence of the atmospheric nuclear explosions. GST after 2008 should be very carefully
monitored. 6. Concluding remarks It was pointed out that the cause of the 0.5K GST stagnation between 1945 and 1976

would be due to the atmospheric nuclear explosions including Gadget, Little Boy, Fat Man and the succeeding
at least 422 times atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. The estimated GST drop by the atmospheric nuclear
explosions based on the published simulation results were at least between 0.07 and 0.8K and the observed
0.5K stagnation is within the estimated range. Three more supporting evidences on radioactivity deposition volume in Tokyo, Japan,
radioactivity concentration in livestock bones in Hokkaido, Japan and the diameter of the radionuclides from the Chernobyl accident were also shown.
The atmospheric nuclear explosions can be regarded as full-scale in-situ tests for "nuclear winter". Future precise
analyses will be very useful to improve the accuracy of the global climate models. The accuracy of the simulation on GST in IPCC's AR4 would also be
significantly improved by including the influences of PM by the atmospheric nuclear explosions in their global climate model. A method to lower GST by
injecting fine limestone powder to the upper troposphere and the stratosphere was proposed. Many things are left to be investigated, however, there is a
possibility that the method becomes practical and can be carried out with a reasonable cost inducing economic recovery and preventing the acid rain. A
possibility of global warming deceleration was pointed out based on the observation and the estimated influence of

the atmospheric nuclear explosions. Very careful GST monitoring should be continued. On the other hand, Ehrlich et al. (1985) also pointed
out the possibility of "nuclear summer" which was gradual global warming by CO2 concentration increase after the temporary "nuclear winter". There is
a possibility that we are suffering a "petit nuclear summer" if the stagnation was a "petit nuclear winter". Those countries which have responsibilities to
the atmospheric nuclear explosions should recognize that they might have being significantly influencing the world climate.

XT WARMING INEV
Warmings inevitable, only a collapse of industrialized society from nuclear war can save us
from environmental destruction
Barry 8 (Glen, Ph.D. in "Land Resources" from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a Masters of Science in
"Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development", 1/14/08, Economic Collapse And Global Ecology,
Counter Currents, http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic
growth. Yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The growth

machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only
lead to human extinction and an end to complex life. With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States,
it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability will be
embraced. This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social
sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later. Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with
capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and
destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection.
Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure. Humanity has proven itself unwilling and

unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action
on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the
economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent
upon their deadly products. Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible.
Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural
capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental
restoration. This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out
necessary environmental policies even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even more
life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption. We know that humanity must
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained
during years of economic downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in
some places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured.
Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all species including humans as the ultimate truth
and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources
remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies. It may be better for the Earth and humanity's future
that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will
be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil.

Many will be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their
identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier
time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life.
Economic collapse now means humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again. Human suffering -already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is

inevitable given the degree to which the planet's

carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much
greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and recover while
emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.
Warming is inevitable without massive change reforms have and will fail
The Economist 10 (Global action is not going to stop climate change. The world needs to look harder at how
to live with it 11/25/10 http://www.economist.com/node/17572735?story_id=17572735)
NOVEMBER 29th representatives

of countries from around the world will gather in Cancn, Mexico, for the first highlevel climate talks since those in Copenhagen last December. The organisers hope the meeting in Mexico, unlike the one in Denmark, will be
unshowy but solid, leading to decisions about finance, forestry and technology transfer that will leave the world better placed to do something about
global warming. Incremental progress is possible, but continued deadlock is likeli er. What is out of reach, as at Copenhagen, is
agreement on a plausible

programme for keeping climate change in check. The world warmed by about 0.7C in the 20th century.
Every year in this century has been warmer than all but one in the last (1998, since you ask). If carbon-dioxide levels were
magically to stabilise where they are now (almost 390 parts per million, 40% more than before the industrial revolution) the world would probably warm
by a further half a degree or so as the ocean, which is slow to change its temperature, caught up. But CO2 levels continue to rise. Despite 20

years of climate negotiation, the world is still on an emissions trajectory that fits pretty easily into the business as
usual scenarios drawn up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Copenhagen accord, a non-binding document
which was the best that could be salvaged from the summit, talks of trying to keep the world less than 2 C warmer than in preindustrial timesa level that is rather arbitrarily seen as the threshold for danger. Many countries have, in signing the accord,
promised actions that will or should reduce carbon emissions. In the World Energy Outlook, recently published by the International Energy Agency, an
assessment of these promises forms the basis of a new policies scenario for the next 25 years (see chart 1). According to the IEA, the scenario puts the
world on course to warm by 3.5C by 2100. For comparison, the difference in global mean temperature between the pre-industrial age and the ice ages

was about 6C. The IEA also looked at what it might take to hit a

two-degree target; the answer, says the agencys chief economist, Fatih Birol, is
too good to be believed. Every signatory of the Copenhagen accord would have to hit the top of its range of
commitments. That would provide a worldwide rate of decarbonisation (reduction in carbon emitted per unit of GDP) twice as large in the decade
to come as in the one just past: 2.8% a year, not 1.4%. Mr Birol notes that the highest annual rate on record is 2.5%, in the wake of the first oil shock. But
for the two-degree scenario 2.8% is just the beginning; from 2020 to 2035 the rate of decarbonisation needs to double again, to 5.5%. Though they are
unwilling to say it in public, the sheer improbability of such success has led many climate scientists, campaigners and

policymakers to conclude that, in the words of Bob Watson, once the head of the IPCC and now the chief scientist at Britains Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Two degrees is a wishful dream. The fight to limit global warming to easily
tolerated levels is thus over. Analysts who have long worked on adaptation to climate changefinding ways to live with scarcer water,
higher peak temperatures, higher sea levels and weather patterns at odds with those under which todays settled patterns of farming developedare
starting to see their day in the uncomfortably hot sun. That such measures cannot protect everyone from all harm that climate change may bring does
not mean that they should be ignored. On the contrary, they are sorely needed.

XT - NW SOLVES WARMING
Nuclear war would solve global warming a mini nuclear winter
Larry 07 Researcher, Brackenridge Field Laboratory (Entomologist January 2007 Nuclear Cooling - The
Ultimate Answer to Global Warming? http://www.austinbug.com/larvaluebug/archtabloid1-07.html)
The specter of a predicted runaway warming of the planet, accompanied by widespread icecap and glacier
melting, deadly rises in sea levels, possible cooling over much of Europe, more droughts in some areas,
increased flooding in others, large-scale crop destruction, huge and more frequent hurricanes, vast species
extinctions, greatly inflated insurance claims and premiums, the highest average sustained temperatures in hundreds of thousands,
if not millions, of years, and so forth, could create a sense of hopelessness if generally accepted. But, even were the dire forecasts correct, there are
a variety of means to deal with the situation, if politicians, industry, and our populations are willing in time to bite the bullet. In memory of the great
humorist, Art Buchwald, who died this week, I present one alternative: nuclear cooling. In the 1980s, well known scientists such as
Carl Sagan,

initially using information provided by satellite image analyses of planet-wide Martian dust storms, concluded that a nuclear
weapon exchange as small as 100 megatons (about what could be provided by one US nuclear missile submarine) would decimate the
Earth with a "nuclear winter," dropping surface temperatures for several months by about 50 (to around -9F if the conflict occurred in
summer for the northern hemisphere). Though this effect would be temporary, normal mercury readings expected to be restored in from one to several
years, it might be sufficient to kill off a large proportion of our kind, not to mention other animals and many of the world's plants. This concept was
popularized in the press, books, or movies, and by interest groups, not to mention by governments, such as the USSR, since it was in their interest to
have people think a nuclear war was not survivable and hence no longer a viable option. Although there are plenty of reasons not to have even a modest
nuclear exchange (radiation poisoning spread around the globe, destruction of the upper atmosphere's ozone layer [making everything alive more
vulnerable to ultraviolet rays], agricultural damage, economic devastation, city and population decimation from the nuclear blasts themselves, etc.),
subsequent research has somewhat discredited the notion of a nuclear winter from a merely small-scale nuclear

exchange. More
recent estimates suggest that a "typical," modest nuclear war, involving maybe 50 times the nuclear force of the Hiroshima atomic bomb
detonation, would only lower the world's temperatures in the range of 2 to 20 degrees F, a far more manageable amount. And since
there is general agreement that such heat reductions would be of fairly short duration , a few months to about a decade at
most, it seems now less likely that even a global thermonuclear war would permanently alter the climate , though it
might result in the deaths of many, from altered climate conditions alone, before a proper balance would be restored. On the other hand, the world's
arsenal of nuclear weapons is absolutely huge, with tens of thousands of atomic or hydrogen bombs and missiles at our disposal, plenty
for all the desired obliteration of any conceivable enemy, with still the equivalent of millions and millions of tons of TNT explosive energy left in reserve.
In fact, with up to a couple dozen or so additions to the nuclear club projected over the next 20 or 30 years, and a conflict that could well have led to the
world's first nuclear exchange as recent as the late 1990s (between Pakistan and India), it does not stretch credulity to think that events may overrun
speculation before too much longer. Then we may, willy-nilly, have our next big test of human ingenuity and weather manipulation, once nuclear

missiles are soon being flung back and forth. We can then determine directly whether or not the results are sufficient to offset the
global warming counter-trend. But I suggest a more proactive approach. Why not harness all that energy like a world air-conditioning
system, the "on" switch triggered by a satellite tracking "thermostat" that would show whenever, as is now the case, the globe is starting to heat up again?
Consider that when the biggest recorded volcanic explosion occurred, Tambora (1815), so much extra gas, dust, and

soot were pumped into the atmosphere that they blotted out a significant portion of the sunlight that normally would
have reached Earth, causing a "year without a summer," significantly dropping global temperatures for several months or years afterward. That spring
was terribly cold, and snow still occurred in much of Europe the following June and July. Icebergs drifted into the major Atlantic sea lanes. Current

estimates show such effects also would occur from a major nuclear conflict and could last for up to several
years due to an enormous volume of tiny particles being thrust into the upper atmosphere.

AT: NUCLEAR WAR CAUSES WARMING

Nuke war has a cooling effectdoesnt turn warming

Butler

Rhett
, Mongabay, Nuclear war could cause global cooling (i.e. block global warming), 12/11/
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1211-nuclear.html

2006,

Nuclear war would disrupt global climate for at least a decade according to new research presented Dec. 11 at the annual meeting
of American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The research, based on findings from historic volcano eruptions, found that
a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce millions of tons of "soot" particles that could block solar
radiation, in effect, cooling the planet. "We examined the climatic effects of the smoke produced in a
regional conflict in the subtropics between two opposing nations, each using 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons to
attack the other's most populated urban areas ," said Alan Robock, a professor in the department of environmental sciences at Rutgers
University. "A cooling of several degrees would occur over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including
most of the grain-growing regions. As in the case with earlier nuclear winter calculations, large climatic effects would occur in regions far
removed from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict." The team, also including scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder
(CU-Boulder) and UCLA, say the global impact of nuclear would be akin to climate disruptions caused by volcanic eruptions which cool the planet by
releasing tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere. They cite the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia as an example. "The 1815 eruption of
Tambora in Indonesia the largest in the last 500 years was followed by killing frosts throughout New England in 1816, during what has become
known as 'the year without a summer,'" said a statement from Rutgers. "The weather in Europe was reported to be so cold and wet that the harvest failed
and people starved. This historical event, according to Robock, perhaps foreshadows the kind of climate disruptions that would follow a regional nuclear
conflict." "With the exchange of 100 15-kiloton weapons as posed in this scenario, the estimated quantities of

smoke generated could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any changes experienced in recorded
history," Robock said. "And that's just 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the current world nuclear arsenal." The climate effects of
particulate matter are of increasing interest to climate scientists. Some researchers have postulated that a
similar release of sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere could be used in a worst-case scenario to block global
warming.
The environment is resilient nuclear testing on atolls didnt collapse any ecosystems
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, How weapons and war effects exaggerations for
disarmament forced Britain to collaborate with evil racist thugs at Munich in 1938, in the name of peace
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifeboat-analogy-to-civil-defence.html 3/1/10)
on
Bogombogo Island (codenamed "Belle Island" by America) at the North-West of Eniwetok Atoll in the North Pacific, which was selected for
detailed ecological studies following two high yield nuclear weapons tests: Dr Ralph F. Palumbo, Radioactivity and Recovery
Stonier cites in his bibliography, but chooses to ignore completely in his text (without explanation) the rapid recovery and lack of insect plagues

of the Land Plants at Eniwetok Atoll, 1954-1957, University of Washington report UWFL-66, July 1960 (PDF linked here), see the recovery photos linked
here. Bogombogo/Belle Island was 2.55 statute miles (4.10 km) from the centre of Elugelab Island, ground zero of the 10.4 megatons IVY-MIKE
thermonuclear weapon test of November 1, 1952, and the 1.69 megatons 80% fission CASTLE-NECTAR test was detonated at the same spot on a barge
over the IVY-MIKE crater on May 14, 1954. It received heavy blast and thermal damage , water wave flooding, and fallout

radiation including extensive beta and gamma irradiation of plants (gamma of over 850 R/hr at 2 hours after IVY-MIKE
according to page 34 of of report WT-615, which - from the mean fallout arrival time and peak dose rate time measured under the cloud - suggests an
infinite dose of over 8,000 R, and then another 400 R to 6 months after CASTLE-NECTAR and beta doses near contaminated surfaces are about ten
times larger, see Stonier p. 143). Dr Palumbo states in his article "Recovery of the Land Plants at Eniwetok Atoll Following a Nuclear Detonation"
(Radiation Botany, vol. 1, 1962, pp. 182-9): "The Mike detonation of 1952 had removed most of the plants and top soil from Belle Island, resulting in the
depletion of some of the elements essential for plant growth. In spite of these deficiencies regrowth of the plants at Belle Island was rapid. ... A
photograph of Belle Island taken [on May 22, 1954] eight days following the Nectar detonation shows the extent of the damage sustained by the plants.
From the air the island looked brown and desolate. On closer inspection it was found that most of the plants had been scorched by the heat wave and
many of them had been blown over or broken by the blast. ... Recovery of the plants was rapid . ... On the eighth day green buds, 1-3 mm in
length, were observed on the stems of Scaevola and Messerschmidia plants. On the thirty-fifth day the shoot leaves were 7-15 cm long, covering much of
the old stems and giving the plants a green and healthy appearance. By this time many of the other plants had formed new leaves and

three species (Portulaca, Triumfetta, and Messerschmidia) had produced new flowers and fruits. The island now had lost its scorched
appearance; from the air it looked green rather than brown as it had one month earlier. "In August, three months after the detonation, the
plants were growing well and some species, such as Boerhaavia, had produced new flowers. The leaves of most of the
species had grown to maximum size, and the branches had grown almost to the pre-Nectar dimensions."
The biosphere would be fine
LFTR 09 (Lifeboat Foundation Technology Research, dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive existential
risks Brian Wang, Director of Research. Sander Olson, Interviews and other articles. Phil Wolff, Communications and social technologist. Alvin Wang.
Computer, technology, social networking, and social media expert. Ect.
The Science of Nuclear War Effects and Battlestar Galactica http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/nuclear-war-effects-and-battlestar.html)
Radioactive Fallout

Would Not Be the Main Problem After 2000 Years Expending the current level (of) or even the
highest nuclear arsenals that we have ever had would do nothing to the long term survival of the biosphere
based on radiation and fallout. The world is too big. The stuff settles out and the most dangerous stuff has a

short life. The long life stuff is long lived because it is giving off low energy level of radiation.

That is why the long

term debate about nuclear war is about altering the climate or ozone in a lasting way. Plenty of atmospheric big nuclear tests have been done and the
biosphere can take it. Killing a biosphere with nukes would take lot more nukes and radiation would not be the main

and lasting problem ever after 2000 years.

*KE WEAPONS*

IMPACT XT - EXTINCTION
KE weapons mean extinction, just ignore nuclear weapons
LFTR 09 (Lifeboat Foundation Technology Research Think Tank, dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity
survive existential risks Brian Wang MA 10/27/09 Nuclear weapons Issues are Irrelevant for a Truly Space Capable Civilization
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/nuclear-weapon-issues-are-irrelevant.html)
Nuclear weapon proliferation

is generally irrelevant for countries with the capability to move freely around the solar system and having a far
energy is more robust and scales higher than nuclear bombs. Any technology (like a good
fusion rocket) that can get anything to 29% of light speed has military implications. Even moderately advanced VASIMR scale technology and
superior energy source. Kinetic

robotic electric solar sails would let you fairly free roam out to near earth asteroids and the asteroid belt. Big rocks could be diverted to crush fixed
targets on earth. Moving up the KE scale quickly outclasses any existing nuclear bombs in destructive force and

kinetic energy weapons are harder to defend against than nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb has fragile mechanisms. A kinetic
energy rock still has all of its destructive energy if it is broken into pieces. Think about the dinosaur killing
asteroid versus a nuclear bomb. If a 10km diameter object impacted at the point at which it struck it would have a velocity of roughly
100,000 km/h. At this velocity there would have been an initial blast (with an estimated force of many millions of tons of TNT) which
would have destroyed everything within a radius of between 400 and 500km, including the object. At the same time large fires
would have been started by the intense shock wave which would have traveled long distances. Trillions of tons of debris
(dust, gases and water vapour) would have been thrown into the atmosphere when the object vaporized. Many enormous
tidal waves would be started causing even more damage, the evidence of such waves has been found all the way round the Gulf of Mexico. Along with
the tidal waves the blast would also start a chain reaction of earthquakes and volcanic activity there would have also been very high
winds caused by the blast. In the days and weeks following the impact the cloud of debris would have been carried over large distances by the post blast
high winds. This will have caused months of darkness and a decrease in global temperatures. After this there would have

been an increase in temperatures caused by the large amounts of CO2 released by what would have been global fires.
Eventually this would cause chemical reactions that would result in the formation of acid rains.
Inertia weapons will cause extinction
Smith 03 (Wayne, author of multiple articles about space weaponization for the Guardian and Wired, The Ultimate Weapon
http://www.spacedaily.com)

A
big space rock could wipe out any enemy and the threat alone would equate to political clout beyond human comprehension. A city
can after all be evacuated if a nuclear strike is threatened, but a country? If a nation chose to conquer the high ground of space
then keeping everybody else out of it would be all that's necessary to ensure world dominance. Inertia weapons cannot proliferate unless more than
one nation can actually reach them. The race to space could therefore end up being a race for control of the earth and solar system. I doubt
Whoever reaches deep space first will therefore be faced with the choice of utilising these 'inertia weapons' and the temptation will be great indeed.

any of this has escaped our leaders, both east and west. Would this be a bad thing? No worse than the first atomic bomb. The fact that it's unavoidable if
we want space travel makes the question absurd. Why wouldn't a space faring nation seize a weapon ensuring it world dominance? Suppose this
capability fell into the wrong hands though or was allowed to be owned by many spacefaring nations. Should that happen we might still see nuclear
weapons become redundant and inertia weapons replace them as the newest threat to humanity. It would mean a new "Cold War" on a scale to dwarf the
previous US and Russian one. A nuclear war despite all the bad press is in fact survivable. Not all human life would be eradicated
and if all the nukes in the world were launched then we in the west might be set back a century. It would be nasty but not the end. It might seem like it
but we would eventually recover. The same can't be said for a space war where mountains are directed at the earth.

A2: IMPOSSIBLE
KE weapons are being developed now. NASA has already proved theyre possible by testing one
on the moon thats Loeb 10
Space based kinetic energy weapons have already been invented, all thats left is the
implementation - US patents prove
US Patent 10 number 7,669,802 2010 (Inventor: John Dorman, Chief Technology Officer at Planned Systems
International, Former Systems Manager at Boeing, Primary Examiner: Timothy D. Collins Space Based
Orbital Kinetic Energy Weapon Systems March 2010)
The present invention relates to space based weapons systems and more particularly, relates to a space based orbital kinetic energy
weapon system and related methods for implementing and operating the same. Throughout the history of armed
conflict strategic weapons have evolved to become more powerful, more accurate, and more quickly deployed.
The catapult gave rise to the cannon from which artillery eventually evolved . The range and caliber of artillery increased over
time but eventually artillery began to reach its practical limit thereby creating the need for a new weapons platform. New weapons platforms such as
bomber airplanes extend the practical limits of artillery. Even though the earliest bombers did not have the destructive power of artillery, they were able
to deliver their payload much further than artillery. Bombers progressed in both size and range eventually obtaining the capability of intercontinental
warfare in the early 1950s. Like the artillery before them, however, they also reached their practical limit. Newer weapons systems were developed to
overcome the limitations of the bomber including the ICBM. The ICBM was just as powerful as the bomber but with a farther range. The big advantage of
this system, however, was the relatively short time needed for the ICBM to reach its target. The bombers, even if kept on flight alert, could not reach a
distant target around the world in under 10 hours, whereas an ICBM could reach its target in a little under an hour. While the ICBM can strike a target
anywhere on earth, It has reached its limit regarding the time it takes to engage a selected target, Other more extreme weapons, such as nuclear
warheads have politically undesirable ramifications, and the destructive capability of conventional warheads is not appreciably progressing. Thus, there
exists and unmet need in the art to deliver destructive energy more efficient and effectively. Accordingly, one aspect of the present invention

is to provide a spaced based orbital kinetic energy weapons system that includes a satellite having a control
system configured to maintain an orbit in outer space around the earth and to deorbit the satellite on a desired trajectory
corresponding to an earth based target upon a command, and a projectile object includes a dense mass and a heat shield operably
surrounding the mass such that at least a portion of the mass survives reentry into earths atmosphere and strikes
the earth based target delivering its kinetic energy.
Heres how simple it is
Johnson et al 02 Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown (Dana, PhD IR, USC From a report by RAND to
Congress regarding the USs development of future weapons Space Weapons and Earth Wars)

The most straightforward nonnuclear approach is to attach a device to the asteroid to act as a mass launcher, using
the asteroids own material as propellant and the sun as a power source. Consider a device that could produce exit speeds of
about 1 km/sec.5 Deflecting an asteroid large enough to create effects comparable to those of the Sikhote-Alin event with a lead time before
impact of less than a month would require ejecting at least several tens of tons of asteroid material. This could be done in one day if the
continuous firing rate were 1 kg every few seconds. The launcher would be required to make tens of thousands of shots, and an error in a single shot
would cause a noticeable target error. Prolonged firing would require a greater total number of shots, which would only partially reduce the firing rate.
Beginning the deflection months in advance would reduce the effort required and keep the firing rate low. Here, the v results from a large number of
small nudges over a substantial period, so several times more effort would be needed than for a single large push (if that is even possible). The greater
control that the prolonged multiple-shot process yields is, however, well worth the extra effort..

XT - POSSIBLE
Technology almost there, KE weapons coming
Johnson et al 02 Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown (Dana, PhD IR, USC From a report by RAND to
Congress regarding the USs development of future weapons Space Weapons and Earth Wars)

Industrial-scale rocket propulsion is the fundamental technology necessary for turning asteroids into weapons .
None of its elements are unknown. Proof of principle is well understood . Conceptual design studies are
available in the literature on space and lunar colonization, although particular devices of the right size would need engineering
development. Only the scale of the enterprise gives pause and invites comparison with World War IIs Manhattan Project.

KE Weapons easy current technology could accomplish it

LFTR 09 (Lifeboat Foundation Technology Research Think Tank, dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity
survive existential risks Brian Wang MA 10/27/09 Nuclear weapons Issues are Irrelevant for a Truly Space Capable Civilization
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/nuclear-weapon-issues-are-irrelevant.html)

Any technology (like a good fusion rocket) that can get anything to 29% of light speed has military implications. Even moderately
advanced VASIMR scale technology and robotic electric solar sails would let you fairly free roam out to near
earth asteroids and the asteroid belt. Big rocks could be diverted to crush fixed targets on earth.

A2: NATIONS WONT BUILD

Extend Loeb 10 KE weapons are being tested by NASA right now, post dates. For good
measure heres another card
The U.S. is funding KE weapons right now
Bhagwat 10 Former Chief of the Naval Staff of India (Admiral Vishnu, The Weaponization of Space:
Corporate Driven Military Unleashes Pre-emptive Wars http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=21432 10/17/10)
Encouraged by Donald Rumsfelds Space Commision 2000 which embraced the myth of a Space Pearl
Harbour and basing itself on the dubious interpretation that there is no blanket prohibition in International
law on placing or using weapons in Space , the Space Commision Report also contained the revealing warning that the US must be
cautious of agreements intended for one purpose that when added to a large of treaties or conventions / regulations may have unintended consequences
of restricting future activities in space. The US Space Commands Vision Document calls for dominating the Space

dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investments . Vision 2020 is for dominating ( dominanace ) of
Earth from Space . The US Space Command Vision 2020 document pursues the idea of a Global Area Strike system ,
of which a key element could be ground based high energy laser capability which bounces off space based mirrors , the placement of Directed
Energy Weapons ( DEW ) and Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW), soft kill jammers. The 4 yearly Quadrennial Defense
Reviews, periodical NSSDs and Nuclear Posture Reviews , the latest of April 2010 , are useful reference points for a detailed
analysis of clues as to intentions and plans.
Not just the US
David 2 (Leonard Senior Space Writer, Space Weapons for Earth Wars
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_war_020515-1.html)
RAND's Preston emphasized that

the opportunity to acquire space weapons is not limited to the United States. While
many countries have only modest spacefaring capabilities, each nation knows how space can benefit their
security. "There's probably nobody that's involved in space that doesn't understand its security uses and isn't motivated to some degree by its security
uses," Preston said. Space-based weapons could be a high-leverage, asymmetric response to U.S. military strengths ,
he said.

A2: WONT BE USED

History proves they will be used
Hellman 01 (Martin E, is a Professor at Stanford and received his PhD there) On the Probability of Nuclear War/ hppt://wwwee.stanford.edu/~hellman/opinion/inevitability.html)

History shows the folly in hoping that each new, more destructive weapon will not be used . And yet we dare to
hope that this time it will be different. We and the Soviets have amassed a combined arsenal of 50,000 nuclear
weapons, equivalent in destructive force to some 6,000 World War IIs, capable of reaching their targets in a
matter of minutes, and bale to destroy every major city in the world. All in the belief that they will never be
used.
Inertia Weapons will be used after a nuclear war
Johnson et al 02 Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown (Dana, PhD IR, USC From a report by RAND to
Congress regarding the USs development of future weapons Space Weapons and Earth Wars)
The history of nuclear deterrence would make such a lengthy response delay seem unreasonable. After all, in the time it would take to prepare and
deliver an asteroid strike, an opponent might be able to force the asteroid wielder to relinquish its belated asteroid response. Thus, even with the best of
preparations to shorten delays, the owner of an asteroid deterrent must convince potential opponents of the inevitability of

its response. It helps that an asteroid on a collision path with the earth present s some physical basis for a
perception of inexorabilityparticularly if the identity and location of the asteroid are not readily and quickly available to the defender. But
the real difficulty would be human: conveying the credibility of a commitment to an irreversible, devastating
response, even though a substantial delay that would allow time for second thoughts , recriminations, political changes, and opponent responses. In
some cultures with longer memories and long-held grudges, a few months commitment to purpose
might be trivial.

A2: ARMS CONTROL SOLVES

Arms control agreements have and will continue to fail
Mutschler 10 Director of the Institute of Political Science (Max M., University of Tubingen
Preventive Arms Control in Space: Breaking the Deadlock Paper presented at ECPR-SGIR 7th Pan-European
International Relations Conference, Stockholm 9-11 Sep. 2010.
Notwithstanding these plausible arguments, preventive

arms control is not easy to achieve. Space weapons are a case in

point. Since the early 1980s, the Conference on (CD) in Geneva has debated the issue of space weapons and
how to avoid an arms race in space. Despite this, until today no agreement has been reached and the negotiations
are in a situation of deadlock; even if recent developments such as Chinas anti satellite test in 2007 and the kill
of a proprietary out of control spy satellite by the USA in 2008 call to mind that the need for preventive arms control in space is
becoming increasingly urgent.2 This paper seeks explanations for the deadlock in order to provide a strategy to break it. How come there is no preventive
arms control in space? I conceptualize preventive arms control agreements as international regimes. International regimes can be defined assets of
implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors expectations converge in a given area of international
relations (Krasner 1983, 186). If there is a demand for an international regime and still none of these components is

present, one can speak of a non-regime (Dimitrov et al. 2007). Accordingly, I seek an explanation for the non-regime of preventive arms
control in space. In order to find such an explanation, I draw on theories of international regimes which I categorize according to three key variables of
International Relations: interests, power, and knowledge.3 After a short overview of some basic facts about space weapons and arms control in space in
the second chapter, I discuss these three variables and their explanatory power regarding the non-regime of preventive arms control in space in turn,
devoting one chapter to each variable.

A2: NO FUNDING
The U.S. is funding KE weapons under the US Space Command Vision prefer our evidence
specific to KE weapons
Bhagwat 10 Former Chief of the Naval Staff of India (Admiral Vishnu, The Weaponization of Space:
Corporate Driven Military Unleashes Pre-emptive Wars http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=21432 10/17/10)
Encouraged by Donald Rumsfelds Space Commision 2000 which embraced the myth of a Space Pearl
Harbour and basing itself on the dubious interpretation that there is no blanket prohibition in International
law on placing or using weapons in Space , the Space Commision Report also contained the revealing warning that the US must be
cautious of agreements intended for one purpose that when added to a large of treaties or conventions / regulations may have unintended consequences
of restricting future activities in space. The US Space Commands Vision Document calls for dominating the Space

dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investments . Vision 2020 is for dominating ( dominanace ) of
Earth from Space . The US Space Command Vision 2020 document pursues the idea of a Global Area Strike system ,
of which a key element could be ground based high energy laser capability which bounces off space based mirrors , the placement of Directed
Energy Weapons ( DEW ) and Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW), soft kill jammers. The 4 yearly Quadrennial Defense
Reviews, periodical NSSDs and Nuclear Posture Reviews , the latest of April 2010 , are useful reference points for a detailed
analysis of clues as to intentions and plans .
Massive funding now
Bhagwat 10 Former Chief of the Naval Staff of India (Admiral Vishnu, The Weaponization of Space:
Corporate Driven Military Unleashes Pre-emptive Wars http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=21432 10/17/10)
Indias historical experience has taught us, that superiority in weapon systems, was the cutting edge of the strategy of the imperial powers of fracturing
the unity of societies sought to be colonized . Of course we are all too familiar with how and why atomic bombs were dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki to

dominate, intimidate, induce fear and threaten other nations , in the intervening years, until parity
People have seen the results of the ruinous cold war and an unmatched arms race. There has been
no peace dividend as propaganda would have us believe. In fact the cold war continues with new enemies added
as the axis of evil and an all pervasive war on terror to terrorise the people of the world to maintain the obscene profits of the war corporations.
The present reality is that to maintain the superiority in weapon systems the Pentagon spends not just $ 700
billion , but the United States over 1400 billion dollars on the entire security establishment or three times that of the
was established.

rest of the countries put together . With this preamble let us go back to the international power play.

A2: DEFLECTION
No deflection multiple warrants
a) The asteroids would be deflected at the last second so they target wouldnt have time to react
b) Big asteroids of heavy metal are too large to deflect
c) They would be redirected at the target anyways
Loeb 10 Researcher for the Gravity Research Program (Lexi, University of Oregon Nuclear Weapons May
Already Be Obsolete-- New Space Based Weapons of Mass Destruction Are Simpler and Just as Lethal
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2581739/nuclear_weapons_may_already_be_obsolete.html?cat=
Systems like this are probably already being tested. It would be a great way to eliminate underground Iranian nuclear testing facilities without having to
fly any planes or send missiles over Iranian air space or over neighboring country's air space. The enemy would not really know what hit

them because the delivery system is the projectile coming down out of the sky. Made of hardened heavy metal
these things would not be easily deflected with missile shields at least not initially. Unlike a vulnerable missile that is
hollow metal with fuel inside of it these are solid heavy metal objects with a lot more momentum and possibly a
redirecting guidance system operating flaps or louvers to correct for deflection.
Too large to deflect even if they do see the asteroid coming
Johnson et al 02 Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown (Dana, PhD IR, USC From a report by RAND to
Congress regarding the USs development of future weapons Space Weapons and Earth Wars)

Other observers might eventually detect the changed trajectory and recognize the threat, perhaps using the
same radio signals used for navigation. But what if the asteroid is not detected until the last part of its
trajectory? In this case, the larger the object, the less chance even an advanced nation has of diverting it .
Likewise, if the object is not already on course for impact, even the attacker can do little to correct the situation.

A2: WEAPONS GOOD DETERRENCE

Turn: Space weapons dont mean deterrence, they create wars and competition between
countries and will escalate
Johnson et al 02 Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown (Dana, PhD IR, USC From a report by RAND to
Congress regarding the USs development of future weapons Space Weapons and Earth Wars)
One security interest in Table 6.1 was the protection of deterrent forces. Space

basing does not automatically improve the

survivability of a deterrent. Improvement depends on the terrestrial alternatives available to the country and on the threats available to its
opponents. Basing a deterrent force of weapons of mass destruction in space would create a new arena of
competition between stealth and surveillance similar to that of submarines but without a hard limit on depth
and volume. Deep basing of satellite weapons with deterrent response times on the order of days would create a very large volume for hiding and
searching. Stationing a deterrent in space for greater security would almost certainly include a prerequisite
decision to withdraw from, abrogate, or ignore the Outer Space Treaty, unless the deterrent were not a weapon
of mass destruction. Abandoning the precedent of that treaty might seem a large step for a peer to contemplate,
given the international condemnation one would expect to follow . However, the response might not be as severe a deterrent as
one might hope. In 1966 and 1967, the Soviets tested a fractional orbit nuclear bombardment satellite to the point of operational readiness after signing
the treaty.

KE weapons dont deter

Johnson et al 02 Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown (Dana, PhD IR, USC From a report by RAND to
Congress regarding the USs development of future weapons Space Weapons and Earth Wars)
By the time very small meteoroids impact the ground, they have slowed to several hundred or a few thousand miles per hour. These meteoroids are too
small for this discussion. Very large asteroids or comets penetrate the atmosphere as if it were not there and strike the ground with full force. At the
larger end of this scale (diameter 1 km) are asteroids, whose effects are too great to be useful for strategic deterrence.

Threats of a mass extinction event are not likely to be credible. At the lower end of the scale are meteoroids large enough to
survive reentry to strike the ground; these represent the upper bound of interest for strategic deterrence. Asteroids that can survive to a low enough
altitude to have blast effects represent the lower bound.

Other nations besides the US will develop KE Weapons - escalating

Johnson et al 02 Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown (Dana, PhD IR, USC From a report by RAND to
Congress regarding the USs development of future weapons Space Weapons and Earth Wars)

the United States has no

peer competitors at the moment. That may change, and the military sense is not the only sense of competition
that matters for a decision to acquire space weapons. A peer might decide to acquire them to reduce or bypass
U.S. military advantages. An economic competitor might decide to acquire them to gain an independent ability
to protect its own global interests, not because of a desire for a confrontation with the United States. Although it might be natural to think of
future peers in the same terms once used of the Soviet Union, that would be too narrow here. The previous chapter named a resurgent Russia or
an economically mature China as potential examples of a future peer competitor. By another definition, a politically
cohesive European Union might also become a peer competitor. Therefore, discerning a nations motivations and its interests in
Throughout the Cold War, the United States had only one peer competitor: the Soviet Union. In a military sense,

space weapons and clarifying the range of U.S. concerns and consequences require a careful definition of the term peer competitor.

*MINDSET SHIFT*

2NC BLOCK
Sorry dude, nuclear war will cause a mindset shift allowing us to put down violence and
ending all forms of hatred
Kubler-Ross 86 (Elisabeth, Professor of psychiatry, Ph.D in Science, Law, Humanities, Human Letters, Pedagogy, Humane Science and
Divinity) Voices of Survival
I truly believe that about

five generations from now, we will have learned our lesson maybe the hard way, maybe through
some major, catastrophic events and we will finally learn that we are all brothers and sisters, all people of all
nations, of all colors and all creeds. When we again remember our origin - that we are, in the most literal sense, all children of
God we will learn unconditional love and raise our children with that kind of love, combined with firm,
consistent discipline. Then our world will truly be a paradise.
Nuclear War prevents real doomsday weapons
Lifton 91 (Robert, Professor of psychology at Princeton University. The Genocidal Mentality)
Perhaps Robert Heinlein had a point after all, when he recently suggested that a

good rousing World War III would be a fine thing

for the human race. It would at least reduce the numbers. Better to have it sooner than later, of course, for there is no telling
when a real doomsday weapon will emerge. Better to suffer a nuclear holocaust now than total annihilation
in a few years or a few centuries.

XT- CHANGE
A nuclear war will have more effect on the human conscious than anything else
Mandelbaum 95 (Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy program at the Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced
International Studies, Foreign Affairs, March 95 Lessons of the Next Nuclear War)
The Cold War was not a comparably wrenching experience. The

next nuclear war, however, the next nuclear shot fired in anger, almost surely
shock and horrify the world. To be sure, the post-Cold War era has already occasioned horror at
the starvation in Somalia, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and the slaughter followed by epidemic in Rwanda. But a nuclear
explosion would have a more powerful psychological impact on Americans because they will be able to imagine this
horror happening to them.
would be. It would

Nuclear War sparks change

Katz 82 (Arthur M. PhD in chemistry from U Rochester, Life After Nuclear War)
One neglected aspect of societys response to nuclear war is the philosophical changes toward life and society . It
represents a profound but intangible influence on the course of posttattack society. The effects of the Black Death illustrate how these changes could
intrude into the philosophical and ideological framework of society. The magnitude of the changes could reshape peoples

perceptions of their world and, concomitantly, their ideas and actions.

NW SOLVES GENOCIDE
Self affirmation and breaking the power cycle requires starring annihilation in the face the
affs prevention of nuclear war causes genocide and extinction
Wyschogrod 90 (Edith, Ph.D. Philosophy from Columbia, fellow of the National Humanities Center, former professor of Philosophy, Villanova
and Rice University, Spirit in Ashes: Hegel, Heidegger, and Man-Made Mass Death
We can gain additional perspective on this process by envisioning it in terms of power. In the context of technological

society we can define

power as the exercise of productive capacity. By contrast, power in the death-world is annihilating force. I shall
examine the relationship of these concepts in succeeding chapters when I take up the logic of the death-world and Heideggers view of technology. At
present we need only notice that, in relation to the death-world. Those who have the power to negate ascribe being and

meaning to themselves and non-being to others. But when the meaning of being is parasitic upon annihilartoy
power, it is inherently unstable and thus fails to provide the basis for a unifying paradigm. More, self affirmation
requires accelerating the pace of annihilation since, as Nietzsche notes, power depend upon resistances
to be overcome and preserves itself only by a increase in its exercise. Present-day myths will organize
existence in terms of annihilation lack fixity on other grounds as well. As I hope to show in detail later, the categories of the myths
are both abstract and fluid, so that, under their terms, now one, now another group can be selected for
extinction, a process facilitated by technological societys tendency to transpose existing things and person
into quantifiable homogenous parts.

SPECIES CONSCIOUSNESS
Nuclear war cause the individual to affirm their species consciousness
Lifton 91 (Robert, Professor of psychology at Princeton University. The Genocidal Mentality)
The shift in symbolic immortality, then, involves confrontation with absurd collective death and, inevitably , with
questions of ones own individual death. Indeed, one reclaims ones own individual death from the grotesqueness
and absurdity of collective nuclear destruction. At the same time, one affirms ones larger human connectedness (or
symbolic immortality) as bound up with the continuity of the human species, and lives out the ideology of the species
self.
Species consciousness is necessary for the survival of the species
Lifton 91 (Robert, Professor of psychology at Princeton University. The Genocidal Mentality)
Species consciousness contributes to a sense of self that identifies with the entire human species . But the self
cannot live, so to speak, on the human species alone. Its traditional forms of immediate identification other people, family, work,
play, religion, ethnic group, and nation give substance to the species identification and are necessary to it. As in many things, only by
holding to the particular can one have access to the universal as George Kateb (paraphrasing Nietzsche) means when he speaks of becoming
attached to the particulars in ones life in a new way, without narrowness , exclusiveness, and obsession, in
order to make room for a nonparticularist attachment to existence as such. For existence as such is
inseparable from survival of the human species.

CONSCIOUSNESS SOLVES NUMBING

Species consciousness is the only way to solve numbing and dehumanization
Lifton 91 (Robert, Professor of psychology at Princeton University. The Genocidal Mentality)
At issue is a modest yet far-reaching realignment of elements of the self. Whatever the capacity for the
individual self for concern, caring, loyalty, and even love can now be extended in some degree to the human species
as a whole through one need in no way cease being concerned, about caring for, loyal to, or loving any smaller, unit of human beings or any single
human being. However flawed and partial, the species self is likely to advocate moral and political policies attuned not to
only a single group or nation, but to

all humankind. Only by so doing can we take in the experience larger human
realities of threat and suffering and resist numbing and brutalization

CONSCIOUSNESS SOLVES ENVIROMENT

Species consciousness leads to environmental protection
Lifton 91 (Robert, Professor of psychology at Princeton University. The Genocidal Mentality)
Species awareness inevitably extends to the habitat of all species, to the earth and its ecosystem. Our awareness of our
relationship to the sun, to the oceans, to the earths resources of food, energy, and materials of every kind, to all
animals and plants becomes intensified as both we and that ecosystem are simultaneously threatened. We
experience a deepened respect for all animals that inhabit the greater ecosystem with us. And we question assumptions of
human entitlement that permit us to abuse these fellow inhabitants of ours.

UTIL 1NC/2NC
1. Inevitability if nuclear wars inevitable than then so are the morality impacts means they
arent an impact turn to our disad
2. Every life is an end in and of itselfall lives are infinitely valuable, the only ethical option is
to maximize the number saved
Cummisky, 96 (David, professor of philosophy at Bates, Kantian Consequentialism, p. 131)
Finally, even

if one grants that saving two persons with dignity cannot outweigh and compensate for killing one
because dignity cannot be added and summed this waythis point still does not justify deontological
constraints. On the extreme interpretation, why would not killing one person be a stronger obligation than saving two
persons? If I am concerned with the priceless dignity of each, it would seem that I may still save two; it is just
that my reason cannot be that the two compensate for the loss of one . Consider Hills example of a priceless object: If I can
save two of three priceless statutes only by destroying one, then I cannot claim that saving two is not outweighed by the one that was not destroyed.
Indeed, even if dignity cannot be simply summed up, how is the extreme interpretation inconsistent with the idea that I should save as many priceless
objects as possible? Even if two do not simply outweigh and thus compensate for the loss of one, each is priceless;

thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can.

In short, it is not clear how the extreme interpretation justifies the ordinary

killing/letting-die distinction or even how it conflicts with the conclusion that the

more persons with dignity who are saved, the

better.
3. All their nuke war immoral cards presume nuke war bad. Morality is a function of
consequences because there's no other way to know if something is moral. If we win nuclear
war is good then it is moral.
And we turn this argument nuclear war is more ethical than conventional warfare
Cook 10 (Nigel B. PhD Computer Programming, BA Physics, How weapons and war effects exaggerations for
disarmament forced Britain to collaborate with evil racist thugs at Munich in 1938, in the name of peace
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifeboat-analogy-to-civil-defence.html 3/1/10)
Conventional warfare is not a "soft option". No that's not Hiroshima. It's the so-called "soft option" of the appeasers. It's conventional
warfare. It's Pyongyang, Korea, 1953, at the end of the war that killed 54,000 American soldiers and two million
Koreans in the first large-scale combat against communism. It led to troop training with nuclear weapon test explosions at the Nevada test site. The
neutron bomb inventor, Samuel Cohen, reprints such photos beside those of Hiroshima in his book The Truth About the Neutron Bomb, as a
comparison. His point is that neutron bombs can prevent such destruction; they cause less collateral damage than

conventional weapons, since a 1 kt neutron bomb air burst at 500 m altitude produces no significant thermal,
blast or fallout on the ground. But it does have the deterrence of initial 14.1 MeV neutron flash radiation to tanks,
which can't be protected from such high energy neutrons. The short-term and long-term effects of burns and blast
injuries from incendiaries and fragmentation bombs far outweigh any effects of nuclear radiation when the facts are
examined objectively (Cohen debunks the once popular lie that a man who died after millions of rads to the fingers in a criticality experiment - actually
touching a supercritical plutonium bomb core - illustrates nuclear weapon radiation injuries!).

This moral tunnel vision is complicit with the evil they criticize
Issac 02 Professor of political science at Indiana-Bloomington, Director of the Center for the Study of
Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale (Jeffery C., Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, Ends, Means, and
Politics, p. Proquest)
As a result, the most important political questions are simply not asked. It

is assumed that U.S. military intervention is an act of

"aggression," but no consideration is given to the aggression to which intervention is a response . The status quo
ante in Afghanistan is not, as peace activists would have it, peace, but rather terrorist violence abetted by a
regime--the Taliban--that rose to power through brutality and repression . This requires us to ask a question that most "peace"
activists would prefer not to ask: What should be done to respond to the violence of a Saddam Hussein, or a Milosevic,
or a Taliban regime? What means are likely to stop violence and bring criminals to justice? Calls for diplomacy and international
law are well intended and important; they implicate a decent and civilized ethic of global order. But they are
also vague and empty, because they are not accompanied by any account of how diplomacy or international law
can work effectively to address the problem at hand. The campus left offers no such account. To do so would require it to
contemplate tragic choices in which moral goodness is of limited utility. Here what matters is not purity of intention but the
intelligent exercise of power. Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world. It is the core of politics. Power is the ability to effect
outcomes in the world. Politics, in large part, involves contests over the distribution and use of power. To accomplish

anything in the political world, one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about. And to develop
such means is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say this is not to say that power is beyond morality. It is to say that
power is not reducible to morality. As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught,
an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility . The concern may be morally laudable,
reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one's intention does not ensure the
achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised

parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as
serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters (2) it fails to see that in a world of real
violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in
injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially
immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices
with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about
intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant . Just as the alignment
with "good" may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of "good" that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is
not enough that one's goals be sincere or idealistic ; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these

goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism inhibits
this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political
effectiveness.
4. Extinction turns morality there are no morals when were all dead
5. Their calculus doesnt assume the possibility of extinction
Bok, 1988 (Sissela Bok, Professor of Philosophy, Brandeis, Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory, Ed. David
Rosenthal and Fudlou Shehadi, 1988)
The same argument can be made for Kants other formulations of the Categorical Imperative: So act as to use humanity, both in your own person and in
the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means; and So act as if you were always through actions a law-making
member in a universal Kingdom of Ends. No one with a concern for humanity could consistently will to risk eliminating

humanity in the person of himself and every other or to risk the death of all members in a universal Kingdom of Ends for
the sake of justice. To risk their collective death for the sake of following ones conscience would be , as Rawls said,
irrational, crazy. And to say that one did not intend such a catastrophe, but that one merely failed to stop other
persons from bringing it about would be beside the point when the end of the world was at stake. For although it
is true that we cannot be held responsible for most of the wrongs that others commit , the Latin maxim presents a case
where we would have to take such a responsibility seriouslyperhaps to the point of deceiving, bribing, even killing an
innocent person, in order that the world not perish.
6. Util is inevitable even in deontological frameworks
Green, 02 Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Harvard University (Joshua, November 2002 "The Terrible,
Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality And What To Do About It", 314)
Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding which rights take priority over which. If thats what we mean by
302 balancing rights, then we are wise to shun this sort of talk . Attempting to solve moral problems using a complex

deontological algorithm is dogmatism at its most esoteric, but dogmatism all the same. However, its likely that
when some people talk about balancing competing rights and obligations they are already thinking like
consequentialists in spite of their use of deontological language. Once again, what deontological language does best is express the
thoughts of people struck by strong, emotional moral intuitions: It doesnt matter that you can save five people by pushing him to his death. To do this
would be a violation of his rights!19 That is why angry protesters say things like, Animals Have Rights , Too! rather

than, Animal Testing: The Harms Outweigh the Benefits! Once again, rights talk captures the apparent clarity
of the issue and absoluteness of the answer . But sometimes rights talk persists long after the sense of clarity and absoluteness has faded.
One thinks, for example, of the thousands of children whose lives are saved by drugs that were tested on animals and the rights of those children. One
finds oneself balancing the rights on both sides by asking how many rabbit lives one is willing to sacrifice in
order to save one human life, and so on, and at the end of the day ones underlying thought is as thoroughly
consequentialist as can be, despite the deontological gloss. And whats wrong with that? Nothing, except for the fact that the
deontological gloss adds nothing and furthers the myth that there really are rights, etc. Best to drop it. When
deontological talk gets sophisticated, the thought it represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or
covertly consequentialist.

XT ALL LIVES EQUAL

We think all lives are infinitely valuable and equally worthy of protection so the ONLY ethical
option is to maximize the number savedthats Cumminskykilling or letting die can be
justified on the grounds to maximize all life, we dont calculate valuein fact, the only value to
life is under OUR framework
And, injustice is a reason to vote NEG because they advocate that the group they save is more
important than the rest of humanitysince all lives are equal, you should treat them that way
by protecting the highest number
Dworkin 77 Professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University (Ronald 1977, Taking Rights
Seriously pg 274-5)
The liberal conception of equality sharply limits the extent to which ideal arguments of policy may be used to justify any
constraint on liberty. Such arguments cannot be used if the idea in question is itself controversial within the
community. Constraints cannot be defended, for example, directly on the ground that they contribute to a culturally
sophisticated community, whether the community wants the sophistication or not, because that argument would
violate the canon of the liberal conception of equality that prohibits a government from relying on the claim that certain
forms of life are inherently more valuable than others. Utilitarian argument of policy, however, would seem secure from
that objection. They do not suppose that any form of life is inherently more valuable than any other, but instead base
their claim, that constraints on liberty are necessary to advance some collective goal of the community, just on the fact
that that goal happens to be desired more widely or more deeply than any other. Utilitarian arguments of policy,
therefore, seem not to oppose but on the contrary to embody the fundamental right of equal concern and respect,
because they treat the wishes of each member of the community on a par with the wishes of any other, with no bonus or
discount reflecting the view that that member is more or less worthy of concern, or his views more or less worthy of
respect, than any other. This appearance of egalitarianism has, I think, been the principal source of the great appeal that
utilitarianism has had, as a general political philosophy, over the last century. In Chapter 9, however, I pointed out that the
egalitarian character of a utilitarian argument is often an illusion. I will not repeat, but only summarize, my argument here.

Utilitarian arguments fix on the fact that a particular constraint on liberty will make more people happier, or satisfy more
of their preferences, depending upon whether psychological or preference utilitarianism is in play. But people's overall
preference for one policy rather than another may be seen to include, on further analysis, both preference that are personal,
because they state a preference for the assignment of one set of goods or opportunities to him and preferences that are external,
because they state a preference for one assignment of goods or opportunities to others. But a utilitarian argument that assigns

critical weight to the external preferences of members of the community will not be egalitarian in the sense under
consideration. It will not respect the right of everyone to be treated with equal concern and respect.

XT CONSEQUENCES FIRST
1. Extend our Isaac evidenceyou should evaluate consequences of actions and reject dogmatic
appeals to ethics:
The purity of intentions doesnt achieve political goalsthe aff can only complain about being righteous
without doing anything to change the world. And they cant access their impact if we prove they cause more
harm then they solve, because the only strategy theyve used to achieve their ethics in a practical manner is
destructive. Consequences are more important than intentions and moral absolutism inhibits judgment of
actions and undermines political effectiveness.
2. The affs ethical framework still makes an appeal to cost benefit analysisthey cant actually
prove a reason why their framework is better without describing the costs of not adopting it, which means its
inherently tied to the effectiveness of the precautionary principle because they have no other political strategy.
3. They kill all policymakingthe default to a priori moral obligations makes ALL political choices
impossible because every policy can be justified in terms of some moral value. The only way to decide is to
compare consequences
Ratner, 1984 (Leonard, professor of law at USC, Hofstra Law Journal, Spring, lexis)
A monstrous policy can be categorically rejected by an a priori morality, but proponents of the policy can
defend it with a contrary a priori morality. Only a utilitarian evaluation can resolve the a priori impasse. Such
an evaluation may, in part, underlie the objection of nonutilitarians to monstrous behavior, because all
human choice reflects the needs and wants of the chooser and those needs and wants reflect the chooser's
perceptions of the needs and wants of others.

XT NUKE WAR GIVES MORALITY

Extend Ginsburg: nuclear war reorients our view of morality, we spring forth even stronger
than before
Nuclear war ends all forms of human violence ends all ethical violations
Kubler-Ross 86 (Elisabeth, Professor of psychiatry, Ph.D in Science, Law, Humanities, Human Letters, Pedagogy, Humane Science and
Divinity) Voices of Survival
I truly believe that about

five generations from now, we will have learned our lesson maybe the hard way, maybe through
some major, catastrophic events and we will finally learn that we are all brothers and sisters, all people of all
nations, of all colors and all creeds. When we again remember our origin - that we are, in the most literal sense, all children of
God we will learn unconditional love and raise our children with that kind of love, combined with firm,
consistent discipline. Then our world will truly be a paradise.
Nuclear war allows us to realize the true value of life
Fox 87 (Michael Allen, Professor of Philosophy Queens U at Kingston, Nuclear War)
In this manner we

can break its hold over us and free ourselves to being new initiatives. As Robert Jay Lifton points out,
massive death helps us bring ourselves more in touch with what we card most about in life. We
(will then) find ourselves in no way on a death trip, but rather responding to a call for personal and professional
actions and commitments on behalf of that wondrous and fragile entity we know as human life.
confronting

XT BAD CONSEQUENES OVERRIDE MORALITY

Overriding rights is justified when preventing extinction - considerations trump their nave appeals to
deontology. State policymakers are ethically responsible to EVERYONE, not just a few people, and all of their
actions have to take into account the potential extermination of the human race. Risking collective death for
the sake of ones conscious is the decision of an insane tyrant that has decided their own personal choices
should be imposed upon the entire population. Not taking the consequences of your actions into account in a
nuclear world is itself an immoral act that should be a priori rejected
And, policymakers have to be held to different standards because of their responsibility to
everyonethe affs moral framework is itself immoral
Nye, 86 (Joseph, professor of security affairs at Harvard, Nuclear Ethics, p. 33-4)
While the cosmopolitan approach has the virtue of accepting transnational realities andd avoids the
sanctification of the nation-state, an unsophisticated cosmopolitanism also has serious drawbacks. First, if
morality is about choice, then to underestimate the significance of states and boundaries is to fail to take into
account the main features of the real setting in which choices must be made. To pursue individual justice at the
cost of survival or to launch human rights crusades that cannot hope to be fulfilled, yet interfere with
prudential concerns about order, may lead to immoral consequences. And if such actions, for example the
promotion of human rights in Eastern Europe, were to lead to crises and an unintended nuclear war, the
consequences might be the ultimate immorality. Applying ethics to foreign policy is more than merely
constructing philosophical arguments; it must be relevant to the international domain in which moral choice is
to be exercised.
Horrendous consequences justify escape clauses in absolute morality.
Anscombe, 93 (G.E.M. Anscombe, Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge University, Absolutism and Its
Consequentialist Critics, ed. Joram Graf Haber, 1993, p. 58-59)
Whenever a defender of traditional morality protests that there are moral rules which, whatever the
consequences, must not be broken, such as the rule prohibiting murder- the killing of the materially innocent-a
natural reaction is to confront him with imaginary horror upon imaginary horror, and to inquire whether it
would not be permissible, nay right, to commit murder if these horrors would be the consequences of his not
committing it. And so it has come to seem natural to accept as much of utilitarianism as this: that no moral
system can be philosophically acceptable unless it is supplemented by an escape clause , to the effect that, in all
cases of a choice of evils, if one of those evils is so great that incurring it rather than any of the others would be
calamitous, and if it can only be avoided by taking a certain action, then that action is to be taken even if it is in
breach of a precept of the system.

XT UTIL INEV
We have terminal defense toodespite deontological language, when speaking about
competing rights and ethics, people are already looking at the problem through a
consequentialist perspectivethats Green, utilitarianism is inevitable.
And, ethics contradictits impossible to resolve tradeoffs without defaulting to util
Bailey, 97 (James Wood 1997; Oxford University Press; Utilitarianism, institutions, and Justice pg 9)
A consequentialist moral theory can take account of this variance and direct us in our decision about whether a plausible
right to equality ought to outweigh a plausible right to freedom of expression. 16 In some circumstances the effects
of pornography would surely be malign enough to justify our banning it, but in others they may be not
malign enough to justify any interference in freedom. I? A deontological theory, in contrast, would be required
either to rank the side constraints, which forbid agents from interfering in the free expression of others and from
impairing the moral equality of others, or to admit defeat and claim that no adjudication between the two rights is
possible. The latter admission is a grave failure since it would leave us no principled resolution of a serious policy
question. But the former conclusion is hardly attractive either. Would we really wish to establish as true for all times and
circumstances a lexical ordering between two side constraints on our actions without careful attention to consequences? Would we,
for instance, really wish to establish that the slightest malign inegalitarian effect traceable to a form of expression is adequate
grounds for an intrusive and costly censorship? Or would we, alternatively, really wish to establish that we should be prepared to
tolerate a society horrible for women and children to live in, for the sake of not allowing any infringement on the sacred right of
free expression?18 Consequentialist accounts can avoid such a deontological dilemma . In so doing, they show a certain

healthy sense of realism about what life in society is like. In the world outside the theorist's study, we meet trade-offs at
every tum. Every policy we make with some worthy end in Sight imposes costs in terms of diminished achievement of
some other plausibly worthy end. Consequentialism demands that we grapple with these costs as directly as we can and
justify their incurrence. It forbids us to dismiss them with moral sophistries or to ignore them as if we lived in an ideal
world.

***AFF***
Any nuclear war would destroy the ozone and cause an ice age starving virtually everyone
Starr 9 Nuclear Engineer (Steven, Medical technologist, Climate Effects of Nuclear War Peace Magazine,
Jul-Sep 09, pg 6)
Authoritative new

studies from three US universities have concluded that virtually any nuclear war would gravely impact the
global climate and environment. Scientists studied a range of nuclear wars; they found that 100 nuclear weapons, each the size of the
one that destroyed Hiroshima, if detonated in a war between India and Pakistan, would seriously disrupt Earth's
climate and destroy much of its protective ozone layer. Larger conflicts fought with modern strategic nuclear
weapons were also considered. The detonation of several thousand US and Russian nuclear weapons in urban areas
were predicted to create extreme environmental devastation and Ice Age weather conditions lasting for more than a
decade. This would eliminate growing seasons and create a nuclear famine which would kill most people on
Earth.
Any nuclear war has multiple scenarios for extinction: nuclear winter causing ice age like
temperatures resulting in massive famine, 70 percent of the ozone eliminated, ecosystem
collapse, phytoplankton, chemical agents, and fallout
Starr 9 Nuclear Engineer (Steven, Medical technologist Climate Effects of Nuclear War Peace Magazine,
Jul-Sep 09, pg 6)
How would this happen? Nuclear

weapons are thousands to millions of times more powerful than conventional highexplosives and produce temperatures hotter than those found in the center of the sun. The detonation of nuclear
weapons in cities would ignite enormous mass fires. A Hiroshima-size bomb sets about 12 sq km on fire; an average Russian
warhead would create a firestorm with a total surface area of about 225 sq km. There are currently about 23,200
intact nuclear weapons in the global nuclear arsenals; the US and Russia own about 95% of these weapons. They keep about 7500 of them
deployed and ready for immediate use. About 2200 of these weapons are mounted on approximately 900 missiles which can be launched with only
a few minutes warning. These are the high-alert nuclear weapons; they cannot be recalled once they are launched and
require only 12 to 30 minutes to reach their targets (12 minutes for submarine launched missiles and 30 minutes for land-based
intercontinental ballistic missiles) . See the table {below} for a comparison of the scale of the existing nuclear arsenal to conventional weapons and to the
type of bomb used at Hiroshama. Why are nuclear weapons kept on high alert? There is no defence against a massive first-strike attack by nuclear-tipped
missiles, so the military solution was and is to launch them on warning before they are destroyed by the incoming attack. A false warning believed to be
real could cause a retaliatory launch, thus resulting immediately in an accidental nuclear war (the retaliation could be launched on only the basis of
electronic warning signals before the attack is confirmed by nuclear detonations). And false warnings do occur -- because of human error, technical
error, or potentially because of terrorist sabotage. For example, a terrorist group might introduce computer viruses or software into the systems of early
warning or into the nuclear command-and-control systems, mimicking a full-scale nuclear attack. How does nuclear war cause deadly climate change?
Millions of tons of smoke from hundreds or thousands of nuclear detonations would rise into the stratosphere,

above cloud level, and quickly spread around the planet. A global smoke layer would form and block the warming
sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth. Nuclear darkness would cause rapid drops in surface temperatures and create Ice
Age weather conditions which would last for many years. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed with "low-yield" nuclear weapons.
Scientists estimate that a war which detonated 100 of these size weapons in the large cities of India and Pakistan would cause about 5 million tons of
smoke to enter the stratosphere. This smoke would block about 10% of warming sunlight from reaching the surface of the Northern Hemisphere and
produce the lowest average temperatures experienced there in the last 1,000 years. The cold weather would significantly shorten growing

seasons and reduce average precipitation. This would cause major grain shortages and lead to starvation for much
of the world's already hungry populations. The smoke would also destroy 25-45% of the Earth's protective ozone layer over the
mid-latitudes and 60-70% over the northern high latitudes, vastly increasing the amount of harmful UV light
reaching the surface of Earth. It is clear that this would have significantly harmful effects for all forms of animal
and plant life; e.g., phytoplankton (which form the basis of marine ecosystems) are very sensitive to increases of UV light.
Nuclear war fought with high-yield nuclear weapons What would be the consequences of a war with high-yield nuclear weapons? Scientists estimate that
a US-Russian war, fought with 4400 strategic nuclear weapons (80% of the currently deployed US and Russian nuclear
arsenals)

could cause up to 180 million tons of smoke to enter the stratosphere. This would block 70% of the
light from reaching the surface of the Northern Hemisphere and 35% of the light from reaching the surface of the Southern Hemisphere.
The Earth would become colder than it was 18,000 years ago. Minimum daily temperatures in the largest
agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere would fall below freezing for one to three years. Growing
seasons would be eliminated for a decade. Most people and large animals would starve to death. The most lethal
effects of nuclear war appear to be its predicted impact on global climate. The rapidity of that climate change makes it far more
deadly than the expected climate change from global warming; there is no time for living things to adapt. In
addition to deadly climate change, there would be other toxic environmental effects. A large war would produce massive
radioactive fallout, releasing a million times more radiation than did the accident at Chernobyl. If the bombs
targeted nuclear reactors, this would increase the fallout by a factor of ten. Industrial chemicals (released by

blast and fire) and ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would assault the ecosystems. There would be a
massive decrease in stratospheric ozone, resulting in huge increases in harmful ultraviolet radiation.
KE weapons super difficult, not worth it theyre science fiction
Johnson et al 02 Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown (Dana, PhD IR, USC From a report by RAND to
Congress regarding the USs development of future weapons Space Weapons and Earth Wars)

Aside from the limited range of possible effects and the great uncertainty about the precision of an effect, one clear
argument against asteroids as weapons is that smaller, cheaper means of acquiring an equivalent to a nuclear deterrent are
available. The preceding comparison with the Manhattan Project highlights the fact that the infrastructure costs for asteroid
weapons are at least an order of magnitude greater than the cost for developing and producing nuclear weapons. Had it
not been for the fortunate interruption of the Persian Gulf War, Iraq would have provided an example of the practicality of a covert, third-world
Manhattan Project. With that object lesson still fresh, the availability of nuclear materials and technology may have undergone enough scrutiny to
make other alternatives attractive to those who would like to acquire a weapon of mass destruction. Unfortunately, chemical and biological

weapons are much less expensive and much easier to proliferate than are nuclear weapons (OTA, 1993a; OTA, 1993b).
While the alternatives may lack the impressive physical destruction of a nuclear or asteroid weapon, their potential
for wholesale and indiscriminate lethality should make them reasonable substitutes for deterrence. With some patience, waiting
perhaps a month or two, suitable asteroids could be routinely found that would produce weapon effects equivalent to nuclear weapons with yields
ranging from tens of kilotons to many megatons. With some effort, they could be diverted to weapon using technology (and extensive supporting
infrastructure) similar to that for exploiting lunar materials, generating solar power with satellites, or defending against asteroids. However, at best,

it

would take months after a decision to use one as a weapon to reach the desired conclusion. Because much
cheaper, more responsive weapons of mass destruction are readily available, this one is likely to remain
safely in the realm of science fiction.
Disease will decimate the world
Phillips 00 MD, Radar researcher for the British army (Alan, Medical Problems After Nuclear War
http://www.peace.ca/medicalproblems.htm 11/21/00)
During the months of continued survival, many adverse factors can be identified , which would include medium-term
radiation problems: sub- lethal doses of radiation predispose to infections because of lack of both the immune response
and the leucocyte response to infecting bacteria. Radiation also causes defects of blood coagulation, with anemia from bleeding and from marrow
depression. All of these effects tend to increase mortality from burns and injuries, and from infections that the normal human body combats easily. Fear
of this invisible threat would also be widespread. Many diseases controlled by antibiotics in modern civilised life could

become serious again, with no antibiotics and many people suffering from impaired immunity ; examples are: scarlet
fever, quinsy, meningitis, pneumonia, infections from small wounds, septicaemia. Similarly , a number of diseases now routinely
controlled by immunization could become common again: poliomyelitis, diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, tetanus. Influenza
is common already, but without immunization and without supportive treatment of those who get complications, it could become a major cause of death.

Infectious diseases now regarded as rare or exotic could re- appear in epidemic form, natural immunity having
been lost by a population rarely exposed, and acquired immunity being impaired by irradiation. They include
tuberculosis, typhoid, typhus, cholera, amoebic dysentery, yellow fever, malaria and plague. Plague is carried by rats and other small
mammals, and is transmitted to humans by fleas. The disease is still endemic in the western states of America, and a few
human deaths are reported each year. Epidemics of plague decimated Europe several times in the Middle Ages, and in the absence of
preventive medicine and rodent control could do the same in North America.