Comments on: Support the Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament Movement http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/ Make the World free from WMD Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:47:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: Kenneth http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6162 Kenneth Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:10:20 +0000 http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6162 While I have worked hard to promote the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, the notion that if 1% of the nuclear weapons are used will wipe out all of humanity is pure uneducated crap! Please keep up the good work, but please print more reliable information. Thankyou. While I have worked hard to promote the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, the notion that if 1% of the nuclear weapons are used will wipe out all of humanity is pure uneducated crap! Please keep up the good work, but please print more reliable information. Thankyou.

]]> By: Bruce Roth http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6167 Bruce Roth Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:34:27 +0000 http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6167 Kenneth, Fortnately, that claim has not been tested, and hopefully, it won't be. However, as the post states, it is an edited version of a letter written by Harvey Zendt, Mayors for Peace. He uses it to develop a network of supporters in the USA. Perhaps it would have been safer to state "could endanger the survival of our species" rather than "all humans would perish." Bruce Kenneth,

Fortnately, that claim has not been tested, and hopefully, it won’t be. However, as the post states, it is an edited version of a letter written by Harvey Zendt, Mayors for Peace. He uses it to develop a network of supporters in the USA.

Perhaps it would have been safer to state “could endanger the survival of our species” rather than “all humans would perish.”

Bruce

]]> By: harvey Zendt http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6263 harvey Zendt Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:01:36 +0000 http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6263 I appreciate the challenge to my facts and have gone back to the source of it for confirmation. I heard it from a reputable source but upon further investigation, I think it is too strong a statement. I refer any interested people to www.nucleardarkness.org for more information on the consequences of a nuclear war. The information on the site is quite profound. I am going to revise this piece to read something along the lines of Bruce's suggestion. Again I thank Kenneth for his response. We obviously have the same goals and if we can help each other do a better job of achieving them, so much the better. I appreciate the challenge to my facts and have gone back to the source of it for confirmation. I heard it from a reputable source but upon further investigation, I think it is too strong a statement. I refer any interested people to www.nucleardarkness.org for more information on the consequences of a nuclear war. The information on the site is quite profound. I am going to revise this piece to read something along the lines of Bruce’s suggestion.
Again I thank Kenneth for his response. We obviously have the same goals and if we can help each other do a better job of achieving them, so much the better.

]]> By: Steven Starr http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6295 Steven Starr Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:20:15 +0000 http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6295 The 1% figure was derived from several peer-reviewed studies done at Rutgers, UCLA and the University of Colorado. Scientists used NASA computer models to predict the environmental consequences of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan which detonated 100 Hiroshima-size weapons (15 kiloton weapons) in the cities of these nations. The immense firestorms created by these weapons would cause about 5 million tons of smoke to rise into the stratosphere and form a global stratospheric smoke layer, which would block 7-10% of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth. This would create the coldest temperatures on Earth in the last 1000 years; growing seasons would be seriously shortened and the grain exporting nations would have no exports for at least three to five years. The resulting nuclear famine would kill up to one billion people; those already living on the edge of starvation (800 million) along with populations that rely upon more than 50% of their diets from imported grain. 100 Hiroshima-size weapons have about half of 1% of the combined explosive power in the 7500 deployed and operational strategic nuclear weapons of the United States and Russia (strategic weapons are all about 8 to 90 times more powerful that the Hiroshima-size weapons). If any significant fraction of these strategic weapons are detonated in conflict (there are almost 1000 missiles armed with more than 2000 strategic nuclear warheads which can be launched with only a few minutes warning), the firestorms produced by the detonation of these weapons would put up to 180 million tons of smoke into the stratosphere. This would block 70% of sunlight in the stratosphere and create temperatures on Earth colder than they were 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age. Minimum daily temperatures would be below freezing for several years in the largest agricultural areas of the Northern Hemisphere; growing seasons would be completely eliminated for more than a decade. Most humans and large animal populations would starve to death. This what Harvey was trying to paraphrase. Perhaps the half of one percent figure was an overstatement, but not by a whole lot. Half of one percent could be enough to kill up to a billion people from nuclear famine . . . but what would the consequences of that be? Could we avoid World War in a time when hundreds of millions of people were starving to death? Nuclear weapons threaten human survival. This is what the message should be when discussing nuclear abolition. For more detailed information on this subject, please visit my website at www.nucleardarkness.org Steven Starr The 1% figure was derived from several peer-reviewed studies done at Rutgers, UCLA and the University of Colorado.

Scientists used NASA computer models to predict the environmental consequences of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan which detonated 100 Hiroshima-size weapons (15 kiloton weapons) in the cities of these nations. The immense firestorms created by these weapons would cause about 5 million tons of smoke to rise into the stratosphere and form a global stratospheric smoke layer, which would block 7-10% of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth. This would create the coldest temperatures on Earth in the last 1000 years; growing seasons would be seriously shortened and the grain exporting nations would have no exports for at least three to five years. The resulting nuclear famine would kill up to one billion people; those already living on the edge of starvation (800 million) along with populations that rely upon more than 50% of their diets from imported grain.

100 Hiroshima-size weapons have about half of 1% of the combined explosive power in the 7500 deployed and operational strategic nuclear weapons of the United States and Russia (strategic weapons are all about 8 to 90 times more powerful that the Hiroshima-size weapons). If any significant fraction of these strategic weapons are detonated in conflict (there are almost 1000 missiles armed with more than 2000 strategic nuclear warheads which can be launched with only a few minutes warning), the firestorms produced by the detonation of these weapons would put up to 180 million tons of smoke into the stratosphere. This would block 70% of sunlight in the stratosphere and create temperatures on Earth colder than they were 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age. Minimum daily temperatures would be below freezing for several years in the largest agricultural areas of the Northern Hemisphere; growing seasons would be completely eliminated for more than a decade. Most humans and large animal populations would starve to death.

This what Harvey was trying to paraphrase. Perhaps the half of one percent figure was an overstatement, but not by a whole lot. Half of one percent could be enough to kill up to a billion people from nuclear famine . . . but what would the consequences of that be? Could we avoid World War in a time when hundreds of millions of people were starving to death?

Nuclear weapons threaten human survival. This is what the message should be when discussing nuclear abolition.

For more detailed information on this subject, please visit my website at www.nucleardarkness.org

Steven Starr

]]> By: Bruce Roth http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6297 Bruce Roth Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:48:21 +0000 http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6297 Thanks for that clarification, Steven. You are absolutely right to focus on the big picture message rather than on spurious detail. Bruce Thanks for that clarification, Steven. You are absolutely right to focus on the big picture message rather than on spurious detail.
Bruce

]]> By: Kenneth http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6368 Kenneth Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:49:56 +0000 http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2009/12/23/support-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-movement/#comment-6368 I would like to say a large "thankyou" to all the individuals that are adding comments since many such websites tend to be inactive. We are aware of the great dangers nuclear weapons pose to our families, our country, and all of humanity, however, our governments are not listening. It is easy to be complacent and hold the status quo... In the year 2010 our media is likely to focus itself on healthcare, Republicans and Democrats fighting, terrorists at airports, and global warming. I have seen very little if any news reports on President Obama's work towards nuclear reductions. I have viewed more websites concerned with saving the "whales"! Yes, it is not the eighties when we were focused on all things nuclear, but it is "all" of our responsibility to inform others of the dangers. Of the many dangers in our world nuclear weapons once again need to take center stage. So what can we do----Make your own website to inform, call your state's governor (they will actually talk to you), write letters to those that have influence, email whitehouse.gov every morning and voice your concerns, and much more. President Obama may be our only advocate when it comes to nuclear reductions. Keep up the writing and my own website should be up and running soon. I would like to say a large “thankyou” to all the individuals that are adding comments since many such websites tend to be inactive. We are aware of the great dangers nuclear weapons pose to our families, our country, and all of humanity, however, our governments are not listening. It is easy to be complacent and hold the status quo… In the year 2010 our media is likely to focus itself on healthcare, Republicans and Democrats fighting, terrorists at airports, and global warming. I have seen very little if any news reports on President Obama’s work towards nuclear reductions. I have viewed more websites concerned with saving the “whales”! Yes, it is not the eighties when we were focused on all things nuclear, but it is “all” of our responsibility to inform others of the dangers. Of the many dangers in our world nuclear weapons once again need to take center stage. So what can we do—-Make your own website to inform, call your state’s governor (they will actually talk to you), write letters to those that have influence, email whitehouse.gov every morning and voice your concerns, and much more. President Obama may be our only advocate when it comes to nuclear reductions. Keep up the writing and my own website should be up and running soon.

]]>