Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 49
SDI 2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz ANC Shell os Nuclear War is inevitable Nuclear War Is Survivable Now..... Nuclear War Now Is Better Than Later ‘© Longer we wait, worse the impact. * Nuclear war now = small scale. * Nuclear war now solves for extinction... Nuclear War Leads To Disarmament. Future technology worse than now * New technology is worse and more accessible, Future Weapons Worse Than Now... New Technology Will Lead To Human Extinction. .....csrsees20 ‘+ Developing More Technology Now... 21-22 ‘+ More Future Weapons Worse Than Now. 23-26 AT: Fallout Radiation... 27 AT: Nuclear Winter... 28-29 New Space Tech Key... 80 Democracy Link 31 Nuclear Malthus. ‘+ Prevention of war = overpopulation. cevseeseeeeenB2 ‘+ Overpopulation kills biosphere/war SOIVES....cssecnssm 33 © War Solves... cesstnsnenneee sevens BA-85: Aff Answers Limited War Stil Bad..... Nuclear War Leads To Extinction... Nuclear Winter Leads To Extinction. Nuclear War Leads To Massive Deaths... Nuclear War Destroys The Atmosphere. Nuclear War Leads To Escalation War Isn't Inevitable. Limited Nuclear War Prevents Disarmament. Caldwell Promotes Racism- Must Be Rejected... Caldwell Places No Value On Human Life. The. Durden, On)oe + Kelst. SDI 2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz Kaboom D s 1NC Svbpoint he . Tneortability * puny cba podear Wet VS inewrtoble. a\ widening coltore ga? ‘on of WeofonS 1p) erobferervon & “ the Wafdton class a Joseph George Caldwell, author, theorist, 2002 http: //www.foundation.bw/TheEndOfTheWorld.htmé#_T0c34744197 {{ would appear that global nuclear war is inevitable, for several reasons. A major factor is the “politics of envy” = the desire for the "have-nots" of the world to destroy what the “haves” have 1ap between the industrialized “west” rest of ‘the world is widening, and the hatred and envy are growing as the poorer nations realize that they will never catch up. Each year, millions more human beings are born into direst poverty, overcrowding, misery-and hopelessness. The realization Is dawnin it is global industrialization that is the root cause of human misery. a 1e motivation to bring that inhuma: to an end is growing as fast as the global human population. With the proliferation of plutonium from nuclear rea, terrorists and rogue nations will soon have the capability to produce thousands uitcase-sized nuclear b deliver th cities in the world, As mentioned earlier, no missiles or airplanes or submarines are required. Another feason why global nuclear war appears inevitable js the fact that nuclear war “dominates” all other proposed solutions as a means of stopping the ongoing species extinction. No other alternative accomplishes this._As long as this situation holds. it is just a matter of time until the global- ‘Auclear-war solution is implemented, since continuing on the present course leads to a “dead” planet, SDI2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz a S Ne Second, Unless the tisk of Wat is 2efd, the nuclear War tS \OO% — Tnmirent. ‘Kegley, Charles W. and Schwab. Kenneth L. After the Cold War Questioning the Morality of Nuclear Deterrence. 1991. 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 shown logically that deterrence can be stable only in the short run, at the cost of being ‘unstable in the long run, We can see this point dramatically in the case of nuclear deterrence. If the probabilit . weapons jere zero, then they would not deter. It would be the same as_not ‘were zero, then they would not deter. It_would be the same as no faving them. Ii the probabilty.of nuclear weapons going off isnot zero then if we wait lc enc ill ‘off. It is a very fundamental ua ye a one enol site probably, mut eventually Rappen, A good example of this principle is flooding, A 100-year flood FaBBER lear place isa flood witha I-percent-per-annum probability of heppening. Itcan easily be calculated that the probability of such a flood Rappening within 100 years is about 63 percent, in 400 years over 98 percent, an i 1,000 years, 99.996 percent. SDI 2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz ANC Sebpoint B . Svevivolality , First, @ avcleaf war between even the greatest Nvdear powers wovld be far From she end of human hfe on earth Cresson H. Kearny research engineer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1987 Nuclear War Survival SkillsU http:/Avww.oism.org/nwss/s73p905.htm p11 ‘Af all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States would be the worst catastrophe in history, a tragedy so huge it is difficult to comprehend. Even so, it would be far from the end of human life on earth. The dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated for varied reasons. These exaggerations have become demoralizing myths believe by millions of Americans. While working with hundreds of Americans building expedient shelters and life-support equipment, I have found that many people at first see no sense in talking about details of survival skills. ‘Those who hold exaggerated beliefs about the dangers from nuclear weapons must first be convinced that nuclear war would not inevitably be the end of them and everything worthwhile. Only after they have begun to question the truth of these myths do they become interested, under normal peacetime conditions, in acquiring nuclear war survival skills. Therefore, before giving detailed instructions for making and using survival equipment, we will examine the most harmful of the myths about nuclear war dangers, along with some of the grim facts. Seconds, Winited Dwclear wat would not escalate, Regional Hudlear Cantwet 1S sutuwable, Gray, Colin S. 1999. The Second Nuclear Age. http://www.claonet.org/book/gray/gray04.htm! Asmall nuclear war is an oxymoron. While most probably it is true that a nuclear thar bebveen regional powers would have the effect of encouraging extrareaional aGors to keep their heads down, it is not likely that a “small” nuclear war between Fegional fivals would have negligible, or world system-supporting, consequences. Scholar-theorists like Kenneth N. Waltz probably are correct when they point to the readily confinable domain of a regional nuclear conflict, In Waltz’s brutally teslistic words: “If such [relatively weak] states use nuclear weapons, the world iLnot end. The use of nuclear weapons by lesser powers hardly trioger them elsewhere.”,._No one wants to be a player (target) in other people's. nuclear wars, SDI 2004 4 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz S 1 Ne Third, No Wworties- limited nuclear war solves ovr Anevitabslity claims, Nodear conPlict catalyzes fvclear saim aMment- James N. Miller Jr., 1988, “Fateful Visions”, Ballinger Publishing Company, pg 17 ZERO AND MINIMAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS | 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), ora nuclear war involving the superpowers. Otherwise itis difficult to imag- ine, in the foreseeable future, the wholesale transference of allegiance from individual nations to an international authority, or to humankind at large. The most likely path to an agreement to abolish nuclear weap- ons may be a nuclear war. SDI 2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz ANG Subpoint C Future Weopons, Delaying Such limited nuclear conflicts is only Counters intuitive. Inertia weapons ote coming + they wil WiPe- ovt emiife continents, Smith, Wayne. The Ultimate Weapon. 4/14/03. http:/www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear-blackmarket-03b-html While a nuclear explosion might destroy a maximum radius of approximately 37km due to the curvature of the earth, a large asteroid could decimate an entire continent. ‘Asteroids require no replenishment of fissionable elements or other expensive maintenance and there are millions of them within easier reach than the moon. maintenance and there are millions of them within easier reach than the moon. It's just like playing billiards. Every object in the universe in accordance with Newtonian laws travels in a straight line unless another force is applied to it. Unlike billiards there is virtually no friction in space so an object will maintain any velocity and heading indefinitely. At least until its redirected or something stops it. A spacefaring nation would have no trouble calculating the mathematical solutions for precisely changing an asteroid's trajectory. Then its a simple matter of nudging it. Push in the right spot and maintain the pressure until your gun is pointed at an appropriate target. This might be achieved in many ways. ‘Reaction mass to drive your inertia weapon could be rocket propellant or the asteroids ‘own mass. Just attach explosives or a few mass drivers. Whoever reaches deep space first will therefore be faced with the choice of utilising these ‘inertia weapons’ and the temptation will be great indeed. 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? SDI 2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz, Nuclear War is inevitable Nuclear war is inevitable Caldwell, Joseph George. Can America Survive? 1999. http://www.foundation.bw/canam4x.htm#_Toc499423452 What are the odds that a “minimal-regret” war will occur, and a minimal-regret population established? I’m not sure about the odds that a minimal-regret population will be established, but L strongly that a nuclear war i inevitable. The reason for this conviction is the “politics of envy” ~ the desire of a “have-not” group to destroy an opponent who is better off, even if by doing so his own position is unchanged or even worsened. The politics of envy is a principal tivation of terrorist grou attack the United States. With the proliferation of nuclear-weapon technology and weapons-grade fissionable material, it is just a matter of time until a terrorist group decides to use nuclear weapons against US. cities, The US has lost control of its borders, and has accepted immigrants fro all cultures into all levels of its socie! is very vulnerabl SDI 2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz Nucteae wer will Come soon Nuclear war will occur soon. Caldwell, Joseph George. The End of the Word. 2003 http://www. foundation. bw/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm #_Toc34744198 It would appear that global nuclear war will happen very soon, for two main reasons, alluded to above. First, human poverty and misery are increasing at an incredible rate. There are now three billion more desperately poor people on the planet than there were just forty years ago. Despite decades of industrial development, the number of ‘wretchedly poor people continues to soar. The pressure for war mounts as the population explodes. Second, war is motivated by resource scarcity -- the desire of one group to acquire the land, water, energy, or other resources possessed by another. With each passing year, crowding and misery increase, raising the motivation for war to higher levels. Other nations and terrorists will soon be able to make nuclear weapons. Caldwell, Joseph George. Can America Survive? 1999. http://www. foundation .bw/canam4x.htm#_Toc499423452 Itis not very difficult to make a plutonium bomb. It is not simple, but any dedicated ‘oup with funding can acquire the engineering expertise to accomplish it. In today’s world, building the bomb is the easy part. ‘The most difficult part is obtaining the fissionable material (plutonium or uranium) for the bomb. Although still difficult, this is becoming easier and easier. Libya and Iraq have made concerted efforts to acquire plutonium for nuclear weapons. It is just a matter of time until they succeed. On January 13, 1999, the documentary television program 60 Minutes II broadcast 2 program about the manufacturing of plutonium in Krasnoyarsk-26, Siberia, Russia. Krasnoyarsk is an underground complex ~ hidden deep in a mountain — containing a nuclear reactor that produces a half ton of plutonium a year, It is not the only such facility. One-half ton of plutonium is an amount sufficient to make 100 nuclear bombs a year, or one every three days. Since its inception, the Krasnoyarsk facility has produced 40 tons of plutonium — sufficient to make 10,000 nuclear bombs. So what’s the big deal? Well, the big deal is that Russia is broke, and the workers at Krasnoyarsk have not been paid for three months. They need to keep the reactor operating, in order to provide energy for the city outside the mountain. They have no money, and they are quite upset. The US has agreed to pay some of the cost of operation of the facility, but Russia insists now that the US pay the full bill. The point to this situation is that there is a lot of plutonium in the world, with more being manufactured every day. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bankruptcy of Russia, itis just a matter of time until “rogue” nations and terrorist groups that want plutonium will have it, It is just a matter of time until they have a lot of bombs. Itis just a matter of time until a full-fledged nuclear war. The next big terrorist action against New York City will not be some dynamite or ANFO against the World Trade Center — it will be a suitcase bomb that decimates the entire city! 7 3/ SDI 2004 3 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz Noke wer inevitecie. Unless the world reforms into small peaceful communities who disarm all nuclear weapons, nuclear War is inevitable Carroll Moore, 2004, “Is World Nuclear War Inevitable?”, ttp://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/ The one thing most likely to end the possibility of nuclear war for good and forever is the non-violent dissolution of war-torn and warring nation states into non-violent self-determining communities and city states. These smaller entities would have to destroy all nuclear weapons since they can not afford to keep or use them. (See my site Secession.Net for ideas about this radical decentralist alternative). Unfortunately, barring some unusual rise in human consciousness, such radical dissolution is likely to happen only after a nuclear war has killed millions or billions of people. If you are not ready to pursue this alternative, at least use this page to help END YOUR PERSONAL DENIAL of the fact that WORLD NUCLEAR WAR REMAINS INEVITABLE until such a disarmament movement arises so that you can link up with nuclear disarmament activists and/or begin taking appropriate steps for personal, family and community survival. Feel free to email comments to me. History shows that nuclear war is inevitable Martin E, Hellman, 2001, “On the Probability of Nuclear War", http://www- ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/opinion/inevitability.htm|; 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 II's, capable of reaching their targets in a matter of minutes, and able to destroy every major city in the world, All in the belief that they will never be used. But unless we make a radical shift in our thinking about war, this time will be no different. On our current path, nuclear war is inevitable. \ spr2004 Is Rains/Gstein/Frischherz —Nydeer war is surviveble now Nuclear war is survivable now - 4 reasons Menstuff, 2004, Nuclear Weapons Effects, The National Men’s Resource Center “Nuclear Defense Issues”, http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/emp#emp 1) 2) EMP Effect Most experts agree that a full scale nuclear attack would be initiated by a high altitude (epproximetely 200 mies high) Nuclear explosion, and that it would most probably be deployed from a satellite. A nuclear bomb detonated at that altitude will not damage living tissue, will not cause significant radiation fallout and is not a health threat to the population. me Burpose ofthis explosion ws to damage erica electrical crutry In our retslatory defense weapons and our Pitkacy communeations capabilties: his is accomplished by means ofthe electro magnete pulse (EMP) ‘uvoelsted with dhe explosion. One such explosion could affect an area ofa Wiowsané mies In Giometer Cotecars such as long runs of cable, house wring, condutt, large antennas, overhead power and iephore mes, raroad tracks, ex, gather this enerey In the form ofa strong current and votage surge. All Sit state elecronce Is vulnerable to this eneray surge. The equipment does not have to be attached directly {the collector n order to be damaged, e's possible fora collector to gather In the order ofa Joule of energy omia.one megatan, high altitude explosion. the fact that 8 small fraction of a joule ean cause permanent ‘Somage to electron’ devices, shows tna te EMP threat f @ serous one. The damage to equipment could \felude some or ail ofthe automobile ignition systems, telephone and racio communications, ailing Communications, navigational ade, & computers. Our power grid throughout te Unites States will most robebly fal, Terelore, about 959% of our radio stators wil loose transmission. Ifa power crop Is detected, Fire shld be taken to test telephones, racio stations, and othe equipment for loss of function. Many radio ‘ocone have alternate power sources, but only about 53 of our radio stations have been hardened against the Emp. If, after cnecking & battery powered rasia, you ind that most of te radio stations are not functioning, ou siuld take sheer mmedietely. Immediately ater the Inal EMP explosion, SLBM's and [CBMs woule SPSpaby be lunehed agelns: targets nthe United State. An ICBM from Russia would reach the center of the Conetnentat United States in about 25 minutes. A misle from a submarine could reach usin 8 minutes. Homever, we ae not curently seeing Russian nuclear missle submarines in our coasal waters. The 25 minutes ‘nhich the power fare alarm wil give you could mean the dference between if and deat If you are asleep, 3 imple poner-drop alarm would awaken you when the power falls, Schematics for this alarm and techniques for protecting eauipment against EMP can be found in our book, fuciear Defense Issues on page 78. ‘Strutetions of EMP and testing of aukomables suggest a falure ofthe computerized ignition system could posslly be overcome by removing the battery cables, discharging them against the metal fame, waiting afew ‘moments forthe computerized systems to re-set, and then replacing the cables. 1's worth a try. Radiation If the fireball of the weapon touches the ground, the blast is defined as a “ground burst’, tn aground burst, rock, sol, end other material nthe area wil be vaporized and taken into the coud. This debris is then uniformly fused with fission products and radioactive residues and becomes radioactive itself. 1 then ats 0 the ground as ‘radioactive falout. If the fire ball from the explosion does not reach the ground, the blast is sald to be an “air burst’, Radiation (except for initial radiati not become a factor i The threat of exposure to initial nuclear radiation is ‘of about one and one half miles round zero and woul fatal insheltered individuals. However, In hard. last ai tion shelters, such as. at being built from instructions in" efense I eople i Il nuclear. 5 eff juding initial radiation h mile of around zero. when constructing shelters which may be within the intel reeton zone, careful Eonslderation must be made to the shlalding and geometry ofthe structure and entrances. Gamma radiation is {great heath problem fora two week period. Everyone should stay sheltered in a go0d flout sheer for two Aulvweeks, If bast I note consiceratio, 4 feet of earth cover Is sufficient to shield from gamma radiation Noha and Bete roditon can be stopped by a few layers of paper. However , intemal tothe body, they are = ‘raat health hazard, We must be careful ta wash the lds of cust Sefore opening canned food, and wash and eel alt exposed fruits and vegetables. Water purflstion, food preparation, and post war sural are discussed in chapter 4 of Nuclear Defense Issues. J ot L SDI 2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz Noclear’ wer ig tuevivese now Ceent) L 1 J 3) Blast Effect In the detonation of a one megaton size weapon (wnien is roughiy {quivalent tot milton tons oF TNT) in usta fraction af a second, the rebel grows to 440 fees In 10 ecco, {he freball is over a mile wide. At the same time the Nrebal is forming and growing, a high-pressure wens {evelops and moves outward in al directions. Ths wave ofa causes huge Incresse Ing preseur, Avene {uarter mile from the crater edge, the overpressures are sbout 200 psi. AL_S miles from. center, the winds are 165 mph an verpressure is apx. 5 psi.. M homes would be destroyed, but it Is possible to survive in a basement shelter at that distance, At 6 and 7 miles from the epicenter, there will be moderate damage to residences and the likelihood of surviving ina basement is greater. Survival in hardened blest and radiation shatters, such as the one described in Nuclear Defense issiae Possible a ground zero from an air burst; nd af three quarters ofa mie from a ground bur Ae that Proximity an 8 foot diameter shelter must nave atleast 8 fest of dit cover over Head. A 40 tong sneer of {that dlameter can house 40 people at an installed cost of approximately $250 per person. Detaled iewrutlons for constructon are given in chapter 3 of Nuclear Defense issues. In most war flahting scenarios, e vast majority of our ion: live in areas affected by less than SDSL. Raciation setters should be constructed in every avaliable basernent and every person should know how to find expedient sheltering i caught away trom home, instructions for Moding expectant ences ane using your basement fr shalter are given In chapter 3 starting on page 131 of Nuclear Defense Tasues, 4) Thermal Effect witnin ess than a milionth ofa second of the detonation, large amounts of energy in the form of invisible x-rays are absorbed within just afew fest ofthe atmosphere This leads to the formoten ofan extremely hot and luminous mass caled the fireball If we were starry 50 les amay, te eee ‘would appear to sto be many more times as brillant as the ngon day sun. You should Never Look directly at the fireball of a nuclear explosion, Because of the focusing actio! the lens of the. specially at night when lls are open, thermal radiation can cause temporary and even permanent blindness, The thermal pulse travels at the speed of light and can last for a fraction of a second, up to ‘several seconds. 1O 4s SDI2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz, Noctese rer is suevigalshe nee (com) The world would be able to easily rebound after a nuclear war. Caldwell, Joseph George. Can America Survive? 1999, http://www.foundation.bw/canam4x.htm#_Toc499423452 What would be accomplished by a nuclear war? If the planet continues to be governed by scores or hundreds of countries after the war, nothing will have Shanged. }ginkind wil simply rebuild its destroyed cities, and human population and industrial activity will continue as before, The ultimate size of the population will ke 10 more affected than it was by the “black plague,” that killed a third of 's pobulation in the middle ages — the population quickly rebounded, and soared even her as though ni happened. Studies show that nuclear war is survivable 1.R. Nyquist, 5/20/99, “Is Nuclear War Survivable?”, Worldnetdaily.com On the American side as well, there have been studies which suggest that nuclear war is survivable. The famous 1960 Rand Corporation study, "On Thermonuclear War," says, "Even if 100 metropolitan areas [in the USA] are destroyed, there would be more wealth in this country than there is in all of Russia today and more skills than were available to that country in the forties. The United States is a very wealthy and well-educated country.” \\ SDI 2004 [: Rains/Gstein/Frischherz J ° Nuclear WAT iS Sucvivable Nuclear weapons cannot cause the end of the world 1.R. Nyquist, 5/20/99, “Is Nuclear War Survivable?", Worldnetdaily.com on their side, Russian military experts believe that the next world war will be a puclear missile war. They know that nuclear weapons cannot cause the end of the Tevid. According to the Russian military writer, A. S. Milovidov, "There is profound Sor and harm in the disoriented claims of bourgeois ideologues that there will be no Sictor ina thermonuclear world war." Milovidov explains that Western objections to the mass use of nuclear weapons are based on "a subjective judgment. Tt expresses mere protest against nuclear war." With mild preparation, nations like the US or Russia could handle a nuclear attack Herman Kahn, 1961, On Thermonuclear War", htep://www-jrnyquist.com/war_preps.htm. In spite of the many uncertainties of our study we do have a great deal of confidence in some partial conclusions -- such as, that a nation like the United States or the Soviet Union could handle each of the problems of radioactivity, physical destruction, of likely levels of casualties, if they occurred by themselves. That Is, we believe if either nation were to be dusted with radioactivity in a wartime manner, and if nothing else happened, this radioactivity could, with minor preparations for a small attack and elaborate preparations for a large one, be handled. War now is survivable and the post war environment would be better Sezuph George Caldwell, author, theorist, 200 Joseph George cnation bw /TheEnaorTneworlé.ntm#_Toe34744397 sont nen ar outs yeaa. sil ndsaed natn ‘Wan takes control of the planet, it canbe sustalre solai rs Te mnllion seo have available, however, sufficient fossil fuel last for thousands of years. It-could safely burn the fossil fuel over i rations, wit ars. Jk again covered in forest and with healthy seas tee"! it hytoplankton,_Thi surplus could ically helo the transition of man Po the post-fossil-uel era._ Consuming all of the planet's remaining fossil fuel in \dless, hedonistic oray of fon that is currently in progress ic wastes ary, global war is increasingly likely because the misery and overcrowding xn eved by ene large human population is rapidly increasing and the benefits to be Spetved from war (ie., a planet with full biodiversity and substantial remaining fossi doc eserves, or a planet that is stil biologically alive, 1 ort condition) are raptaly ieereasing, The conditions are ripe for global nuclear wat now. Motive, means, and ‘opportunity are all in abundant supply. 19 SDI2004 Ss i 5 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz Nuciean winter is Survivable — SPgon tS Wrong. Cresson H. Kearny 1987 edition [Nuclear‘War Survival Skills. Chapter 1: The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons: Myths and Facts. http://www.oism.orginwss/s73p912,htm] 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-enveloping smoke from fires and the dust from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight and solar heat from reaching the earth's 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” ig 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 publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet , Tt ho Survive often harbor bitternes that fuels future violence, 7 Those 2b SDI 2004 4 ZL Rains/Gstein/Prischherz pec BNOWERS Limmrep waa Kis Cont.) Even the simplest nuclear weapon would be terrible. Emshwiller, John; Orey, Michael; Machalaba, Daniel, and Smith, Rebecca. (Staff Writers for Wall Street Journal) 10/17/04. Wall Street Journal. P. A. ‘The simplest bomb to build would resemble the one used over Hiroshima. It essentially involves placing two slugs of highly enriched uranium in a tube and driving them together with an explosive charge ~~ a design that is considered so reliabie that bomb experts say it doesn’t even have to be tested. Weapons experts say this sort of bomb could be built with about 125 pounds of uranium -- though more-sophisticated designs require far less material. Such a bomb would produce a blast equivalent to about 15,000 tons of TNT and, ina city, could kill more than 100,000 people, says Robert Gallucci, dean of the © ‘eoraetown University foreign-service schoo! who worked on nuclear-proliferation issues for the State Department. Scientists estimate that the explosions and subsequent fires that took down the World Trade Center released energy the equivalent of about 1,000 tons of TNT. No one is safe with nuclear weapons in existence Arjun Makhijani, 4/29/02, “Past and Future of Nuclear War”, http://www.ieer.org/comments/dsmt/auspeech.html; People have lived in nuclear terror for more than half a century. The fingers on those bombs - well, let me just say that there are no safe hands for nuclear weapons. We live in a situation where the world can be incinerated very fast. No finger is safe, because even if it belonged to a good and moral person, no finger is safe from error. We know we are all prone to error. And none of is perfect. We were not born to be perfect. Nuclear weapons are not safe weapons in any hands. It is not so that there are some wrong hands and some right hands. All hands are the wrong hands for nuclear weapons. The fingers on the nuclear trigger are the ultimate fingers of terrorism, because nuclear weapons are designed to be weapons of terror. You read the documents. This is not my assessment alone. It is the the assessment of those who invented these weapons. Va SDI 2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz AFF ANSWERS Nuclerr war leads to Human Extinction Nuclear war could kill billions by starvation, Carl Sagan and Richard Turco. A Path No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race. 1990. pg.194-195 Itcarries in its wake significant cooling and darkening, drought, massive quantities of pyrotoxins generated, widespread radioactive fallout, and other atmospheric perturbations. Average land temperature drops would be about 10 degrees C. At noon, the Sun would have about one-third its usual brightness. ‘Months later, sunlight would return to more than its usual intensity, enhanced in the ultraviolet by depletion of the high-altitude ozone layer. Collapse of agriculture, and famine, could be widespread. Within the warring nations, these effects might generate casualties approaching those from the prompt effects of the war. Crop failure--from lowered temperatures, failure of the monsoons, and other causes--are expected in many noncombatant nations in the first growing season following the conflict. The most likely such failures would be in India, China, some African nations, and perhaps Japan. Worldwide, as many as 1 to 2 billion people could be placed in jeopardy of starvation. Nuclear Wht Uaill Resto Civitizaian and ONY Sucviving pectle Will die off Arthur M. Katz and Sima R. Osdoby. The Social and ic Effects of Ni 1982. p/w catoore/pabsipaspa009 hum OS Bests of Nuclear Was Even with a successful evacuation, destruction from a well-desi; ned second strike a; major portion of urban economic and physical infrastructure (Factories, housing electricity generation, hospitals, etc.) would not necessarily leave a nation better of th, ho evacuation at all, A surviving population with no basic support systems isa prescription for human suffering, gross political instability, and eventually death on an {ncomprehensive scale, Even an evacuation without an attack would seriously danece th USS. economy. And, as Fred Ikle succinctly put it, "The war will not end imiculoushy ° after the people have been moved into the nearest fields, and further problemeof res 28 SDI 2004 Y “L Rains/Gstein/Frischherz, AFF ANSWERS Nuclere wine leads +o Homan €xhaction Multiple post-war factors contribute to most dying. Sagan, Carl. (Min physics and cara a Ph.D. in astronomy and astrophysics 1960. Taught astronomy at Harvard uti 1968, when he became professor of astronomy and space seiences at Cornell University. He was then appointed tse ofthe lnbeeatry fr Planetary Studs. Sagan was avarded the NASA mel for exceptional sient ackevemeat in 1972) The Nuclear Winter. 1983. hitp://swww.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html ‘Some of what Lam about to describe i horrifying. 1 know, because thors me. There i tency ~pryhiat cll it "dia to putitout of oar minds, net think abou it Buti we are to deal nteligently, wisely, withthe nuclear arms ace, then We must steé] ourselves to contemplate the horrors of nuclear war, ‘The results of our calculations astonished us. In the baseline case, the amount of sunlight at the ground was reduced to a few percent of normal-much darker, in daylight, than in a heavy overcast and too dark for plants to make a living from photosynthesis. At least in the Northern Hemisphere, where the great preponderance of strategic targets lies, an unbroken and deadly gloom would persist for weeks. [ven more unexpected were the temperatures calculated, I the baseline case, land temperatures, except fr narow sis of enastin, zapped to minus 250 Celsius (minus 13 degres Farenhei) and stayed below freezing for months ~ even fora mer wa. (Because the atmospheric stecture becomes much more sible asthe upper atmosphere is heated and the low ait eooled, we may ‘ave severely underestimated how long the cold andthe dirk would lat) The oceans significant heat reservoir, would tot recat, however, anda major ice age woold probably nat be triggered. But because the temperatures would drop so catastrophically, virtually all crops and farm animals, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, would be destroyed, as would most varieties of uncultivated or domesticated food supplies. Most of the human survivors would starve. In addition, tue amount of radioactive fallout is much mot than expected. Many previous calculations simply ignored the intermediate ‘timescale fallout. That i, caluladons were made fr the prompt fallout the plumes of radioactive debris blown downwind from ‘each target-and for de Jog-trm fallout, he ine radioactive pts lied into the statcepere that would descend about a year ltr after most of he radcatvity ha deayed. However, the radioactivity carried into the upper atmosphere (but not as high as the stratosphere) seems to have been largely forgotten. We found for the baseline case that roughly 30 percent of the land at northern midlatitudes could receive a radioactive dose greater than 250 rads, and that about 50 percent of northe: des could receive a dose greater than 100 rads. A 100-rad dose is the equivalent of about 1000 medical rays, A 400-rad dose will, more likely than not, kill you. ‘The cold, the dark and the intense radioactivity, together lasting for months, represent a severe assault on our civilization and our species. Civil and sanitary services would be wiped out. Medical facilities, drugs, the most rudimentary means for relieving the vast human suffering, would be unavailable. Any but the most elaborate shelters would be useless, quite apart from the ‘question of what good it might be to emerge a few months later. Synthetics burned in the destruction of the cities would produce a wide variety of toxic gases, including carbon monoxide, cyanides, dioxins and furans. After the dust and soot settled out, the solar ultraviolet flux would be much larger than its present value. Immunity to disease would decline. Epidemics and emics would ant, especially after the billion or so unburied bodies began to thaw. Moreover, the combined influence of these severe and simultaneous stresses on life are likely to produce even more adverse consequences -- biologists call them synergisms ~- that we are not yet wise enough to foresee. 34 SDI 2004 I Rains/Gstein/Frischherz | AFF ANSWERS Noclene winter lends to Sxtineton Nuclear war would create nuclear winter. Dr. Alan Phillps. Nuclear Winter Revisited. 10/2000. hutp://vww peace. ca/nuclearwinterrevisited.htm Bombs directed at missile silos would burst at ground level and throw a huge amount of ‘dust into the atmosphere, as the explosion of a volcano does. It is as much asa million tonnes from a large nuclear bomb bursting at ground level Bombs bursting over cities and surface installations, like factories or oil stores and Tefineries, would cause huge fires and fire-storms that would send huge amounts of smoke into the air. ‘The 1980's research showed that the dust and the smoke would block out a large fraction of the sunlight and the sun's heat from the earth's surface, so it would be dark and cold like an arctic winter. It would take months for the sunlight to get back to near normal. ‘The cloud of dust and smoke would circle the northern hemisphere quickly. Soon it could affect the tropics, and cold would bring absolute disaster for all crops there. Quite likely it would cross the ‘equator and affect the southern hemisphere to a smaller degree. Nuclear winter force half of all living things into extinction. Dr. Alan Phillps. Nuclear Winter Revisited. 10/2000. http://www. peace.ca/nuclearwinterrevisited. htm Altogether, nuclear winter would be an ecological disaster of the same sort of magnitude as the major extinctions of species that have occurred in the past, the, most famous one being 65 million years ago at the cretaceous extinction, Of all the species living at the time, about half became extinct. The theory is that a large meteor made a great crater in the Gulf of California, putting a trillion tons of rock debris into the atmosphere. That is a thousand times as much rock as is predicted for a nuclear war, but the soot from fires blocks sunlight more effectively than rock debris. In nuclear winter there would also be radioactive contamination givin worldwide background radiation doses many times larger than has ever happened durin: the 3 billion years of evolution. The radiation would notably worsen things for existing species, though it might, by increasing mutations, allow quicker evolution of new species (perhaps mainly insects and grasses) that could tolerate the post-war conditions. (I should just mention that there is no way the radioactivity from a nuclear war could destroy "all life on earth". People must stop saying that. There will be plenty of evolution after a war, but it may not include us.) 40 SDI 2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz APF ANSWERS Nucterr war resolts in massive destns Nuclear war would Kill ax least hale me Popular oy . Sagan, Carl, (M.S. in physics and eamed a Ph.D. in astronomy and astro-physics in 1960. Taught astronomy at Harvard until 1968, when he became professor of astronomy and space sciences at Cornell University. He was then appointed director of the laboratory for Planetary Studies. Sagan was awarded the NASA medal for exceptional scientific achievement in 1972) The Cold and the Dark: The World after Nuclear War: Conference on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological Consequences of Nuclear War. 1983. http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Sagan-Nuclear-Consequences3 loct83.htm, Recent estimates of the immediate deaths from blast, prompt radiation, and fires in a major exchange in which cities were targeted range from several hundred million” to— most recently, in a World Health Organization study in which targets were assumed not to be restricted entirely to NATO and Warsaw Pact countries—1.1 billion people.[13] Serious injuries requiring immediate medical attention (which would be largel unavailable) would be suffered by a comparably large number of people,[14] perhaps an additional 1.1 billion.[13] Thus it is possible that something approaching half the human population on the planet would be killed or seriously injured by the direct effects of a nuclear war. Social disruption; the unavailability of electricity, fuel, transportation, food deliveries, communications, and other civil services; the absence of medical care; the decline in sanitation measures: rampant disease and severe psychiatric disorders would doubtless claim collectively a significant number of further victims. But a range of additional effects—some unexpected, some inadequately treated in earlier studies, some uncovered by us only recently-makes the picture much more somber still. Nuclear testing alone proves The massive eeititel! The Hindu, 12/20/98, “the D httpi//www.brook.edu/fp/projectayn xcs as 1 Th ects/mereos rans pee Brookings Institution, atthe U.S. conducted. ang Gree alt Out from the 215 ountry has taken part nana. §; fotalites In the five wars since 41 SDI 2004 ‘ / ' Rains/Gstein/Frischherz AFF ANSWERS Nuclear WAT hegre the Atmosphere Nuclear war kills the environment- ozone layer. Dr. Alan Phillps. Nuclear Winter Revisited. 10/2000. hutp://www.peace.ca/nuclearwinterrevisited htm Another bad environmental thing that would happen is destruction of the ozone layer. The reduction in the ozone layer could be 50% - 70% over the whole northern hemisphere - very much worse than the current losses that we are properly concemed about, Nitrogen oxides are major chemical agents for this. They are formed by combination of the oxygen and nitrogen of the air in any big fire and around nuclear explosions, as they are on a smaller scale around lightning flashes. So after the smoke cleared and the sun began to shine again, there would be a large increase of UV reaching the earth's surface. This is bad for people in several ways, but don't worry about the skin cancers ? not many of the survivors would live long enough for that to matter. UV is also bad for many other living things, notably plankton, which are the bottom layer of the whole marine food chain. There would likely be enough UV to cause blindness in many animals. Humans can protect their eyes if they are aware of the danger. Animals do not know to do that, and blind animals do not survive. Blind insects do not pollinate flowers, so there is another reason why human ‘crops and natural food supplies for animals would fail. Nuclear war would create poisonous gases in the air. Dr. Alan Phillps. Nuclear Winter Revisited. 10/2000. http://www. peace.ca/nuclearwinterrevisited.htm While the temperature at the surface would be low, the temperature of the upper part of the troposphere (5-11 km) would rise because of sunlight absorbed by the smoke, so there ‘would be an absolutely massive temperature inversion. That would keep many other products of combustion down at the levels people breathe, making a smog such as has never been seen before. PYROTOXINS is a word coined for all the noxious vapours that would be formed by combustion of the plastics, rubber, petroleum, and other products of civilization. It certain that these poisons would be formed, but we do not have quantitative estimates. ‘The amount of combustible material is enormous, and it would produce dioxins, furans, PCB's, cyanides, sulphuric and sulphurous acids, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in amounts that would make current concerns about atmospheric pollution seem utterly trivial. There would also be toxic chemicals like ammonia and chlorine from damaged storage tanks. 42. SDI 2004 Rains/Gstein/Frischherz ARE ANSWERS Nuclear wars > Cscalation Any nuclear war would end up large. Sagan, Carl. (M.S. in physics and eamed a Ph.D. in astronomy and astro-physics in 1960. Taught astronomy at Harvard until 1968, when he became professor of astronomy and space sciences at Cornell University. He was then appointed director of the laboratory for Planetary Studies. Sagan was awarded the NASA medal for exceptional scientific achievement in 1972) The Cold and the Dark: The World after Nuclear War: Conference on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological Consequences of Nuclear War. 1983. http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Sagan-Nuclear-Consequences3 loct83.htm No one knows, of course, how many warheads with what aggregate yield would be detonated in a nuclear war. Because of attacks on strategic aircraft and missiles, and because of technological failures, it is clear that less than the entire world arsenal would be detonated. On the other hand, itis generally accepted, even among most milit Planners, that a "small" nuclear war would be almost impossible to contain before it escalated to include much of the world arsenals. [9] ( Precipitating factors include command and control malfunctions, communications failures, the necessity for instantaneous decisions on the fates of millions, fear, panic, and other aspects of real nuclear war fought by real people.) For this reason alone, any serious attempt to examine the possible consequences of nuclear war must place major emphasis on large-scale exchanges in the 5,000- to 7,000-megaton range—between about a third and a half of the world strategic inventories—and many studies have done so.{10] Many of the effects de~ scribed below, however, can be triggered by much smaller wars ‘Nuclear war would never be limited. Sagan, Carl. (M.S. in physics and earned a Ph.D. in astronomy and astro-physics in 1960. ‘Taught astronomy at Harvard until 1968, when he became professor of astronomy and space sciences at Comell University. He was then appointed director of the laboratory for Planetary Studies. Sagan was awarded the NASA medal for exceptional scientific achievement in 1972) The Nuclear Winter. 1983. http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter. htm! Nobody knows, of course, how many megatons would be exploded in a real nuclear war. There are some who think that a nuclear war can be "contained," bottled up before it runs away to involve much of the world's arsenals. But a number of detailed analyses, war games run by the U.S. Department of Defense, and official Soviet pronouncements all indicate that this containment may be too much to hope for: Once the bombs begin exploding, communications failures, disorganization, fear, the necessity of making in minutes decisions affecting the fates of millions, and the immense psychological burden f knowing that your own loved ones may already have been destroyed are likely to result in a nuclear paroxysm. Many investigations, including a number of studies for the U.S. government, envision the explosion of 5,000 to 10,000 megatons -- the detonation of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that now sit quietly, inconspicuously, in missile silos, submarines and long-range bombers, faithful servants awaiting orders a SDI 2004 UL Rains/Gstein/Frischherz, ALE Answers Nucleose Wax —> Nati A small nuclear attack would spiral out of control into full blown world nuclear war Carroll Moore, 2004, “Is World Nuclear War Inevitable?”, http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/ Isn't it time that Americans and other peoples of the world know what terrorists -- and lots of paid nuclear strategists -- know? The sensationalist, but not impossible, scenario of terrorists using a nuclear explosion against Moscow or Israel in order to destroy the United States is only one of many scenarios by which world nuclear war could unfold. Escalating tensions between the U.S. and China over Taiwan or North Korea, or the U.S. and Russia over U.S. intervention on its borders, could spiral out of control and result in such a war. So could nuclear exchanges between India and Pakistan or Israel, India and Pakistan. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for Power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep and inevitably use, nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups seeking self- determination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors. Any use of nuclear weapons probably will lead to a rapid escalation, “out of control spiral,” to nuclear war among most or all nuclear nations--"world nuclear war." The U.N. cannot stop it. U.S. imperialism and pre-emptive strikes cannot stop it. Only a worldwide disarmament movement can stop it. 44 SDI 2004 Vy | Rains/Gstein/Frischherz, APE ANSWERS War 1s ae _ inevitable War can be avoided through peace, which is inevitable Rolf Witzsche, 2/2/2003, “A ‘Nuclear’ Peace”, http://nuclear.rolf- witzsche.com/nuclear_peace.html War can be avoided, War is not inevitable. Peace alone is inevitable. And, as has always been the case throughout history, this peace can be won before the pains of war destroy the fabric of human society. By winning the peace for once, before the war unfolds, humanity would be winning the war. This is the only way in which a war can be won. No other option exists. It is one's hope therefore, that the urgency of the hour will inspire humanity to muster the courage to win this war in this manner, and to score for itself a victory that leaves the field wide open for a bright and prosperous future. YS V/ SDI 2004 | Rains/Gstein/Frischherz AFF ANSWERS hinted oclesr war steps disaomament Limited nuclear war would reduce the possibility of grassroots disarmament Brian Martin, 1982, “How The Peace Movement Should Be Preparing For Nuclear War", http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82bpp.html; A limited nuclear war might kill some hundreds of thousands or tens of millions of People, surely a major tragedy. But another tragedy could also result: the establishment, possibly for decades, of repressive civilian or military rule in countries Such as Italy, Australia and the US, even if they were not directly involved in the war. The possibility of grassroots mobilization for disarmament and peace would be greatly reduced even from its present levels. For such developments the people and the peace movements of the world are largely unprepared. 4b SDI 2004 | Rains/Gstein/Frischherz AFF ANSWERS Caldwell promates Tacisen and must be kesected Caldwell’s extinction claims are rooted in racism and must be rejected. Here is an excerpt of his writing. Caldwell, Joseph George. Can America Survive? 1999, http://www.foundation. bw/abbrev4.htm. ‘Souther California and Florida are now Hispanic colonies. Many US cities are black, Asian, or foreign-language enclaves. Immigrants by the thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions are swarming over the land, diluting and destroying the Anglo- Saxon culture that established the country and made it great. America is rapidly self- destructing. It is an overpopulated, multicultural, polyglot, multireligion, multiracial that has lost its identity, sense of purpose, and determination to survive, and will soon cease to exist Caldwell’s racism is blatant. He takes pride in people committing genocide in order to have their own country. Caldwell, Joseph George. Can America Survive? 1999, http://www foundation. bw/canam4x.htm#_T0c499423475 South African whites point out that, unlike the Americans, they did not exterminate the indigenous blacks whose lands they conquered, and the fruit of this action is that they have now lost their country to the blacks. Our forefathers committed genocide so that we could have a strong nation, but the last two generations have simply given it away. White South Africans owned the country that they forged out ofthe African wilderness as long as they were willing to kill for it~ to enforce apartheid, to keep it “by any means necessary.” White Rhodesians owned their country for just as long. The previous Seneration of white South Africans did what was required to keep their country — just as the country’s founders, they were prepared to kill for it. The present generation was not Prepared to kill for it. They lost the will to keep their country, and they quickly lost it. Those who accept that this was the proper moral choice must be now content to live in Someone else’s country. If Moses and Joshua had taken this point of view, the Promised Land would have remained in the hands of the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Philistines. 47 a Mi ATF ANSWERS Caldwell places no valve on Homan LiFe Caldwell places no value on human life. Phis-prowes- Caldwell, Joseph George. Can America Survive? 1999. http://www.foundation.bw/canam4x.htm#_Toc499423475 ‘The point is that itis sometimes necessary to kill people — good, hardworking, religious, ibrave people — for no reason other than “they are on the other side.” The enemy is not an “evil empire.” It is men and women competing to survive on a small planet. But if a ‘man is going to put his life on the line, it certainly helps for him to believe in what he is fighting for. The reason for America’s discontent in the Vietnam War was that its heart was not in it. US soldiers were not fighting to save their families, or their country, or their way of life. They were fighting for an ill-defined political purpose. America has brainwashed its youth for so long on the sanctity of human life and the equal worth of all ‘cultures and people that it no longer stands for an’ thing. Americans knew what they ‘were fighting for in the Revolutionary War. They knew what they were fighting for in the War Between the States, and in World War I and World War II. But what does ‘America stand for now? As it balkanizes, its no more a nation than former Yugoslavia or the former Soviet Union. it