Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Ways that nuclear war would benefit the world

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 10:34:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Let's imagine that there's a limited nuclear exchange between, say, India and Pakistan or Russia and the US.
Global temperatures are reduced 10 degrees F in the short term (that is, for the first year or two) and 5 degrees F in the long term (a trend that, barring a significant increase or decrease in human activities, would remain fairly constant for hundreds of years).
Boom. The past 150 years of increasing global temperatures is negated. It logically follows that the polar ice caps re-freeze, meaning that at least moderate amounts of land could be reclaimed from the sea.
Also, upwards of a billion people may die as a combination of both the nuclear explosions and the following spike drop in temperature that screws the world's agriculture for that year. Overpopulation is decreased. The amount of available resources in the world increases and less consumption (after all, there are a billion less consumers now) reduces global temperatures further.

Now, I am not claiming that nuclear war would be an overall good. I'm just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that there would definitely be some good that came of it.
Critiques?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 3:06:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 10:34:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Let's imagine that there's a limited nuclear exchange between, say, India and Pakistan or Russia and the US.
Global temperatures are reduced 10 degrees F in the short term (that is, for the first year or two) and 5 degrees F in the long term (a trend that, barring a significant increase or decrease in human activities, would remain fairly constant for hundreds of years).
Boom. The past 150 years of increasing global temperatures is negated. It logically follows that the polar ice caps re-freeze, meaning that at least moderate amounts of land could be reclaimed from the sea.
Also, upwards of a billion people may die as a combination of both the nuclear explosions and the following spike drop in temperature that screws the world's agriculture for that year. Overpopulation is decreased. The amount of available resources in the world increases and less consumption (after all, there are a billion less consumers now) reduces global temperatures further.

Now, I am not claiming that nuclear war would be an overall good. I'm just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that there would definitely be some good that came of it.
Critiques?

It would take hundreds of nuclear bombs to have even the slightest effect on the climate. As far as population goes. People are spread out and the most you could kill is a few hundred million, if that. All it would do for the most part is cause short term economic damage and make the areas struck uninhabitable for a few years.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 3:41:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 3:06:47 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/22/2016 10:34:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Let's imagine that there's a limited nuclear exchange between, say, India and Pakistan or Russia and the US.
Global temperatures are reduced 10 degrees F in the short term (that is, for the first year or two) and 5 degrees F in the long term (a trend that, barring a significant increase or decrease in human activities, would remain fairly constant for hundreds of years).
Boom. The past 150 years of increasing global temperatures is negated. It logically follows that the polar ice caps re-freeze, meaning that at least moderate amounts of land could be reclaimed from the sea.
Also, upwards of a billion people may die as a combination of both the nuclear explosions and the following spike drop in temperature that screws the world's agriculture for that year. Overpopulation is decreased. The amount of available resources in the world increases and less consumption (after all, there are a billion less consumers now) reduces global temperatures further.

Now, I am not claiming that nuclear war would be an overall good. I'm just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that there would definitely be some good that came of it.
Critiques?

It would take hundreds of nuclear bombs to have even the slightest effect on the climate. As far as population goes. People are spread out and the most you could kill is a few hundred million, if that. All it would do for the most part is cause short term economic damage and make the areas struck uninhabitable for a few years.

I don't think you realize how much more powerful today's nuclear weapons are in comparison to those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 5:41:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 3:41:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/23/2016 3:06:47 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/22/2016 10:34:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Let's imagine that there's a limited nuclear exchange between, say, India and Pakistan or Russia and the US.
Global temperatures are reduced 10 degrees F in the short term (that is, for the first year or two) and 5 degrees F in the long term (a trend that, barring a significant increase or decrease in human activities, would remain fairly constant for hundreds of years).
Boom. The past 150 years of increasing global temperatures is negated. It logically follows that the polar ice caps re-freeze, meaning that at least moderate amounts of land could be reclaimed from the sea.
Also, upwards of a billion people may die as a combination of both the nuclear explosions and the following spike drop in temperature that screws the world's agriculture for that year. Overpopulation is decreased. The amount of available resources in the world increases and less consumption (after all, there are a billion less consumers now) reduces global temperatures further.

Now, I am not claiming that nuclear war would be an overall good. I'm just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that there would definitely be some good that came of it.
Critiques?

It would take hundreds of nuclear bombs to have even the slightest effect on the climate. As far as population goes. People are spread out and the most you could kill is a few hundred million, if that. All it would do for the most part is cause short term economic damage and make the areas struck uninhabitable for a few years.

I don't think you realize how much more powerful today's nuclear weapons are in comparison to those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Ya I do, Even the largest hydrogen bomb is but a spec on the planet
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 5:47:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 5:41:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/23/2016 3:41:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/23/2016 3:06:47 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/22/2016 10:34:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Let's imagine that there's a limited nuclear exchange between, say, India and Pakistan or Russia and the US.
Global temperatures are reduced 10 degrees F in the short term (that is, for the first year or two) and 5 degrees F in the long term (a trend that, barring a significant increase or decrease in human activities, would remain fairly constant for hundreds of years).
Boom. The past 150 years of increasing global temperatures is negated. It logically follows that the polar ice caps re-freeze, meaning that at least moderate amounts of land could be reclaimed from the sea.
Also, upwards of a billion people may die as a combination of both the nuclear explosions and the following spike drop in temperature that screws the world's agriculture for that year. Overpopulation is decreased. The amount of available resources in the world increases and less consumption (after all, there are a billion less consumers now) reduces global temperatures further.

Now, I am not claiming that nuclear war would be an overall good. I'm just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that there would definitely be some good that came of it.
Critiques?

It would take hundreds of nuclear bombs to have even the slightest effect on the climate. As far as population goes. People are spread out and the most you could kill is a few hundred million, if that. All it would do for the most part is cause short term economic damage and make the areas struck uninhabitable for a few years.

I don't think you realize how much more powerful today's nuclear weapons are in comparison to those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Ya I do, Even the largest hydrogen bomb is but a spec on the planet

The earths surface is 197,000,000 square miles, The largest Hydrogen bomb ever detonated, which by the way can't be delivered on a war head, has about a 20 to 30 mile blast radius. A spec.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%