India-Pakistan nuclear war would be world catastrophe


This video says about itself:

India and Pakistan Peace Song

September 21, 2015 — A new song explores an India-Pakistan friendship and the similarities between both countries for World Peace Day. Produced by the India-Pakistan Regional Young Leaders Initiative, a local chapter of the Asia 21 Young Leaders Initiative.

From the University of Colorado at Boulder in the USA:

An India-Pakistan nuclear war could kill millions, threaten global starvation

October 2, 2019

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan could, over the span of less than a week, kill 50-125 million people — more than the death toll during all six years of World War II, according to new research.

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder and Rutgers University examines how such a hypothetical future conflict would have consequences that could ripple across the globe. Today, India and Pakistan each have about 150 nuclear warheads at their disposal, and that number is expected to climb to more than 200 by 2025.

The picture is grim. That level of warfare wouldn’t just kill millions of people locally, said CU Boulder’s Brian Toon, who led the research published today in the journal Science Advances. It might also plunge the entire planet into a severe cold spell, possibly with temperatures not seen since the last Ice Age.

His team’s findings come as tensions are again simmering between India and Pakistan. In August, India made a change to its constitution that stripped rights from people living in the long-contested region of Kashmir. Soon after, the nation sent troops to Kashmir, moves that Pakistan criticized sharply.

“An India-Pakistan war could double the normal death rate in the world,” said Toon, a professor in the Laboratory of Atmospheric and Space Physics. “This is a war that would have no precedent in human experience.”

It’s a subject that Toon, also of the Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences, has had on his mind for decades.

He came of age during the height of the Cold War when schoolchildren still practiced ducking-and-covering under their desks. As a young atmospheric scientist in the early 1980s, he was part of a group of researchers who first coined the term “nuclear winter” — a period of extreme cold that would likely follow a large-scale nuclear barrage between the U.S. and Russia.

Toon believes that such weapons are still very much a threat — one that’s underscored by current hostilities between India and Pakistan.

“They’re rapidly building up their arsenals,” Toon said. “They have huge populations, so lots of people are threatened by these arsenals, and then there’s the unresolved conflict over Kashmir.”

In his latest study, Toon and his colleagues wanted to find out just how bad such a conflict could get. To do that, the team drew on a wide range of evidence, from computer simulations of Earth’s atmosphere to accounts of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945.

Based on their analysis, the devastation would come in several stages. In the first week of the conflict, the group reports that India and Pakistan combined could successfully detonate about 250 nuclear warheads over each other’s cities.

There’s no way to know how powerful these weapons would be — neither nation has conducted nuclear tests in decades — but the researchers estimated that each one could kill as many as 700,000 people.

Most of those people wouldn’t die from the blasts themselves, however, but from the out-of-control fires that would follow.

“If you look at Hiroshima after the bomb fell, you can see a huge field of rubble about a mile wide,” Toon said. “It wasn’t the result of the bomb. It was the result of the fire.”

For the rest of the globe, the fires would just be the beginning.

The researchers calculated that an India-Pakistan war could inject as much as 80 billion pounds of thick, black smoke into Earth’s atmosphere. That smoke would block sunlight from reaching the ground, driving temperatures around the world down by an average of between 3.5-9 degrees Fahrenheit for several years. Worldwide food shortages would likely come soon after.

“Our experiment, conducted with a state-of-the-art Earth system model, reveals large-scale reductions in the productivity of plants on land and of algae in the ocean, with dangerous consequences for organisms higher on the food chain, including humans,” said study coauthor Nicole Lovenduski, an associate professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a fellow of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR).

Toon recognizes that the scope of such a war may be hard for people to wrap their heads around. But he hopes that the study will show people around the world that the end of the Cold War didn’t eliminate the risk of global nuclear war.

“Hopefully, Pakistan and India will take note of this paper,” he said. “But mostly, I’m concerned that Americans aren’t informed about the consequences of nuclear war.”

The study also included CU Boulder coauthor Jerry Peterson, a professor emeritus in the Department of Physics. Other coauthors represent Rutgers University, the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Federation of American Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and University of California, Los Angeles.

Advertisements

Trump adviser believes in ‘winning’ nuclear war


This 12 September 2019 video from the USA says about itself:

Acting national security adviser to the President of the United States will be Charles Kupperman — Deputy to John Bolton.

By Nick Baumann in the USA:

Nuclear war is a destructive thing but still in large part a physics problem.” At least that’s what Charles Kupperman, President Donald Trump‘s acting national security adviser, claimed in the 1980s as part of an argument that the United States could prevail in an all-out nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Nick Robins-Early broke that story this week for HuffPost, and we asked him about it.

How did this story come about?

We did a story after Kupperman was made acting national security adviser about how he had served on the board of directors for an anti-Muslim think tank. [HuffPost Enterprise Editor] George Zornick suggested that we keep digging into Kupperman’s past. I found that an arms control expert had mentioned months back that Kupperman had some extremely unusual views on nuclear war, then talked with editors about it and we decided to follow up on that angle.

What was the hardest thing about reporting, writing or editing this story?

Finding and verifying the original source of old quotes is always time-consuming, since they usually get twisted or misattributed over the years. I went through a bunch of books and journals quoting Kupperman but without any proper attribution or context. Eventually I found the original interview was done for a book in 1982, but it wasn’t available online or in any stores around town. The library had a copy in their research room, so I had to go through the process of getting that out of their stacks and confirming that he did indeed say those things — plus I ended up finding more horrifying stuff that we didn’t previously know about.

Trump’s nuclear bombs, Bob Dylan musical parody


This 26 August 2019 musical parody video from Britain is called Blob Dylan – Blowin’ Up the Wind (Trump/hurricanes song).

It is a parody of the Bob Dylan song Blowin’ In the Wind.

It says about itself:

Donald Trump is Blob Dylan on hurricane-nuking new single “Blowin’ Up the Wind”.

LYRICS:

How many nukes must a man deploy
Before he can kill hurricanes?
How many times has the bomb saved our ass?
Just ask ISIS and Saddam Hussein
Yeah, and how many times must I float this idea
Before they stop saying I’m insane?
The answer, my friend, is blowing up the wind
The answer is blowing up the wind

Yeah, wind is tremendously dangerous
Windmills give you cancer, it’s true
You probably ought to listen to me
I’ve got a 150 IQ
I’m not taking shit from no hurricane
They’re worse than a disloyal Jew
The answer, my friend, is blowing up the wind
The answer is blowing up the wind

Senator Warren against nuclear war, chickenhawks angry


This 7 August 2019 video from the USA is called [Washington] DC Cretins Chastise [senator and Democratic party presidential candidate Elizabeth] Warren For Ruling Out Offensive Nuclear Strikes.

After withdrawing from the landmark Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, the United States has been barreling ahead with its preparations to fight a nuclear war with China, Russia, or both, by testing and stockpiling dangerous new weapons in a nuclear arms race: here.

Wall Street Democrats threaten to support Trump or sit out ($$$) 2020 election if Warren is nominated: here.

ZUCKERBERG SAYS HE’LL WIN AGAINST WARREN THREAT Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg told employees he’s ready to “go to the mat and … fight” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other politicians who have called for big tech companies to be broken up, and predicted the social media giant will prevail even if Warren wins the presidency in 2020. [HuffPost]

Donald Trump’s nuclear weapons across Europe


This 22 July 2019 video says about itself:

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Hidden Across Europe

The Belgian newspaper De Morgen pointed out that nuclear bombs are stored in 6 European and US bases.

De Morgen quotes a NATO document:

“In the context of NATO, the United States is deploying around 150 nuclear weapons in Europe, particularly B61 gravity bombs, which can be deployed by both US and Allied planes. These bombs are stored in six American and European bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi-Torre in Italy, Volkel in the Netherlands and Inçirlik in Turkey.”

TRUMP ‘SUGGESTED NUKING HURRICANES’ Trump reportedly suggested “multiple times” that Homeland Security and military officials explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from striking the United States. According to an unnamed source, he said: “We drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can’t we do that?” [HuffPost]

Nuclear weapons proliferation, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Australia?


This 20 February 2019 video from the USA says about itself:

Trump Admin’s Secretive Talks to Sell Saudi Arabia Nuclear Technology Spark New Fear of Arms Race

House Democrats are accusing the Trump administration of moving toward transferring highly sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in potential violation of U.S. law. Critics say the deal could endanger national security while enriching close allies of President Trump. Saudi Arabia is considering building as many as 16 nuclear power plants by 2030, but many critics fear the kingdom could use the technology to develop nuclear weapons and trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

We speak with Democratic Congressmember Ro Khanna of California and Isaac Arnsdorf, a reporter with ProPublica. Arnsdorf first wrote about the intense and secretive lobbying effort to give nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in 2017. His reporting was cited in the House report.

After the threats of Donald Trump proliferating nuclear weapons to the Saudi absolute monarchy, and to his right-wing crony Shinzo Abe in Japan … now Australia?

By Peter Symonds in Australia:

Prominent Australian academic suggests building nuclear weapons

11 July 2019

Strategic analyst Hugh White has reignited a debate in media and security circles about building nuclear weapons to defend the country against the alleged threat posed by nuclear-armed powers, particularly China. His recently published book, How to Defend Australia, argues that nuclear weapons need to be considered because the United States is in relative decline and can no longer be relied upon to defend Australia in a “more contested and more dangerous” region.

This discussion is taking place in the context of a broader dispute in the political establishment over how to position Australian capitalism amid the increasingly belligerent US confrontation with China over economic issues and the US military build-up in the Indo-Pacific in preparation for war.

The dominant position in ruling circles is that Australia has no choice but to stick with the US military alliance, even if it damages relations with its top trading partner, China. Indeed, since US President Barack Obama announced his aggressive “pivot to Asia” against China in the Australian parliament in 2011, Australian military and military bases have been integrated ever more closely with the US, and governments—Labor and Coalition—have toed the line from Washington.

White, a former senior defence official, Labor government adviser and now professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, is one of the dissident voices. He has previously advocated for the US to strike a power-sharing deal with China to defuse tensions, but now suggests that Australia has to be prepared to go it alone. Amid the rising dangers of a US-China war, White lines up with others who, either directly or indirectly, advocate for a more “independent” foreign policy.

White makes clear that the necessary corollary of a so-called independent foreign policy is a huge build-up in the Australian military. He calls for a virtual doubling of military spending—from 2 percent to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product. Such an increase would be extracted from the working class via the further gutting of essential social services.

White’s argument—in public at least—is based on the hoary old lie that the military build-up is purely defensive in character. In reality, the military’s mission has always been to prosecute the economic and strategic interests of Australian imperialism, which, in more recent times, has included interventions in East Timor and Solomon Islands. Australian participation in British and US-led wars has always sought to secure the backing of the major powers for its own regional and international interests. Now, White is arguing, Australia requires more military muscle to do the same.

White claims he is not advocating the acquisition of nuclear weapons but merely encouraging a debate, which he is now fostering with the assistance of the media. It is not the first time that White has advanced this proposal, but the publication of his book has become the occasion for his appearance on a number of TV and radio programs, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s high-profile “Q&A” last Monday night.

Well aware that any decision to build nuclear weapons would face huge public opposition, White was at pains to stress that it was “the hardest issue I’ve ever dealt with in 40 years of thinking about the unpleasant business of war.” White, however, is doing far more than just encouraging a general discussion. He is outlining an entire agenda, including what would be needed to build nuclear weapons and the necessary delivery systems. He advocates creating a nuclear arsenal along the lines of Britain and France, based on submarine-launched missiles.

For all his attempts to disguise the provocative character of his arguments, White was adamant on the central point, saying: “At the moment, we depend on US nuclear weapons to deter any possible nuclear attack on Australia. The less confident we are of that, the less confident we are that we can rely on America to do that, the stronger the arguments for Australia to acquire its own.” Asked whether China or other powers were a future existential threat, he declared they could pose “at least a very, very serious threat, and one which we can no longer rely on America to defend us from.”

White is standing reality on its head. While it is true that the US faces a historic decline vis-a-vis China and other powers, the response of Obama and now Donald Trump has not been to withdraw from Asia but to confront China on all fronts—diplomatically, economically and militarily—to maintain American domination. US imperialism has no intention of being eclipsed in Asia or any other region of the world and is recklessly engaged in an economic war and military provocations in contested waters close to the Chinese mainland that could trigger open conflict. The danger to Australia’s population is not primarily from Chinese aggression, but from being dragged by the US into a war on China that would have incalculable consequences.

Rising geopolitical tensions and rivalries, and the growing danger of a global conflict, have sparked debate not only in Canberra but in other capitals, including Tokyo, Berlin and Seoul, about building nuclear weapons. A nuclear arms race would multiple many-fold the danger of a nuclear war. This prospect barely rated a mention among the politicians and commentators on the “Q&A” program. Both Liberal Senate President Scott Ryan and Labor foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong differed with the need for nuclear weapons, but did not emphatically rule out building a nuclear arsenal. They praised White, in Wong’s words, for grappling with “the most challenging set of external circumstances since World War II.”

Scant reference was made to the fact that acquiring nuclear weapons would be a clear breach of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that Australia has signed. Diana Sayed, a human rights lawyer, declared that it was “astonishing” that the issue was being canvassed. After branding nuclear weapons as “inhumane and indiscriminate” and an environmental disaster, Sayed said: “The fact that Australia would even be entertaining this thought is unfathomable and unconscionable to me, and it goes against everything in international law.” Her remarks were quickly brushed aside.

The growing prominence being afforded in the media to building nuclear weapons is a sure sign that behind the scenes a more intense discussion is underway. This would concern not only the advisability of a nuclear arsenal, but also how to overcome the intense public opposition and anti-war sentiment that such a decision would trigger. The debate is another warning of the advanced preparations being made in capitals around the world for war, not decades down the track, but in the not-too-distant future.

The author also recommends:

Renewed push for Australia to building nuclear weapons
[30 January 2018]