Analysis: Nuclear war would be more devastating for Earth’s climate than cold war predictions
Analysis: Nuclear war would be more devastating for Earth’s climate than cold war predictions
Professor Mark Maslin (UCL Geography) highlights in The Conversation research that used modern climate models to map the effects of a nuclear war, and which found the resulting nuclear winter would plunge the planet into a “nuclear little ice age” lasting thousands of years.
You're viewing a single thread.
Yea, I don't think we'd have to worry about it much though.
Given that the US is currently debating whether to start a full on WW3, it's absolutely something to worry about right now.
I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source for that?
It's probably a discussion for allowing Ukraine to do what they want with long range weapons.
Russia has made pretty direct statements about what happens then - they will consider NATO to be in direct war with Russia.
Russia claiming X means war with NATO has been a bit of a recurring theme throughout the war.
Please do provide a previous official quote from Russia stating that. I'll save you the trouble though, cause it doesn't exist.
Ah, I might've mixed it up with threatening or insinuating nuclear war.
Either way, it just seems like more sabre-rattling. Also, it's not something that the US is doing, it's something that Putin's being a pansy about.
This is an absolutely deranged attitude to have towards a possibility of starting a nuclear war. It absolutely isn't going to matter who you think pansy was about what when we all die. One has to be an imbecile to be willing to gamble with the future of all humanity over western hegemonic interests.
Was it western hegemonic interests that started an invasion of Ukraine? I seem to recall it was Russia.
The role the west played in provoking the war is well documented https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
In fact, RAND openly published a whole paper detailing why the US wanted a war in Ukraine in 2019 https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Yet, here we have you acting like a clown.
Nato is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. The only way it could be perceived as a “threat” by Russia is id Russia had intention of expanding in that direction.
And what happened to the self-determination of countries, if countries like, say, Sweden and Finland want to join NATO as additional defence against a militaristic expansionist Russia, that is absolutely their right.
But since you are not debating in good faith, I’m not gonna spend more words and effort on this.
My attitude isn't going to matter if we all die. Neither will yours, lol
[...] gamble the future of humanity over western hegemonic interests
...I thought this was about Ukraine fighting back against the country that's been invading it
That's why avoiding a nuclear war is in everyone's interest. Yet, clearly plenty of imbeciles in the west don't understand that.
…I thought this was about Ukraine fighting back against the country that’s been invading it
That's because you're utterly ignorant on the subject you're attempting to discuss here. Ukraine is just a proxy for the US to attempt and extend Russia as the RAND paper puts it.
Putin: NATO's Approval of Use of Long-Range Missiles by Ukraine Will Mean It is at War With Russia
‘Extremely Clear’: Kremlin Comments on Putin's Warning About West’s Arms Striking Deep Into Russia
Putin Warns NATO Long-Range Missile Strikes Will Put Them at War with Russia
Russia warns NATO of ‘direct war’ over Ukraine
Enemies must realize Russia could go nuclear – ex-Kremlin adviser
Do note that I did not have to look for "western anti russian propaganda media" like.... mainstream news. These are Russian state sponsored news websites.
Yes, all of those say that use of long range missiles within Russia would be the red line. And the reason it would be a red line is because this would be NATO personnel doing strikes directly into Russia.
Idk where you're going with this, I just felt like looking for direct quotes, because you asked for any quote from Russian officials saying that X would mean war with NATO.
While stating :
I’ll save you the trouble though, cause it doesn’t exist.
I was very clearly replying to this statement claiming that Russia has supposedly outlines lots of previous red lines that have been broken.
Russia claiming X means war with NATO has been a bit of a recurring theme throughout the war.
Are you just intentionally ignoring the context here?
No I believe you're being intellectually disingenuous, because you're now paraphrasing the comment you responded to, to try and twist the argument in your favour, the previous interaction was :
- Russia claiming X means war with NATO has been a bit of a recurring theme throughout the war.
To which you directly replied
- Please do provide a previous official quote from Russia stating that. I’ll save you the trouble though, cause it doesn’t exist.
I'm not sure I quite like where this is going and I'm not in the mood for arguing over such a minimal thing, so I'd like to end the interaction here, see ya around !
US is about to approve deep strikes into Russia. The difference here from previous escalations is that the strikes would have to be done by NATO personnel. Russia stated that it would consider this to be a direct act of war by NATO against Russia because it would be NATO troops launching strikes into Russia. At that point we are effectively in WW3 between NATO and Russia.
Thank you! I read most of the first one and skimmed the second -- I don't get why they strikes would need to be done by NATO personnel.
Both articles allude to the fact that Putin considers it to be an attack by NATO because they'd be NATO-supplied weapons, but given his track record, he'd probably say anything more than turning a blind eye is an offense by NATO.
The strikes have to be done by NATO personnel because these missiles use NATO satellite guidance, and are designed to only be operated by military personnel of the respective countries. This was earlier confirmed by Scholtz as a justification for not sending taurus missiles to Ukraine, and the leaked conversation of German officers.
Western media omits the important part of the statement, but If you listen to what he says, he's specifically talking about NATO personnel operating the weapons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBjK08eM1Ys
That could make sense. I'm not familiar enough with military weaponry to know how true it all is
I'm sure Scholz is properly informed on the subject https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/british-soldiers-in-ukraine-germany-b2504462.html
Ah, so if they just provide training to members of the Ukrainian military, then everything's fine in Putin's eyes? Loopholes are great
What part of the concept of a direct conflict are you struggling with?
I'm not talking about nuclear war. I'm talking about the climate after a nuclear war - what the article and the headline is about. The implication of my comment is that there would be no people to worry about the climate because they'd all be dead on account of global thermonuclear war.
Ah yeah, vast majority of human population isn't going to be worried about much of anything once we're dead.