No to nuclear destruction of all life

This 24 January 2020 video by Iraq war veteran and United States Democratic party presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard says about itself:

Doomsday Clock: It’s time to wake up!

As president and commander-in-chief, my foremost responsibility will be to protect the lives, safety and freedom of the American people — and that means preventing a nuclear holocaust. My personal commitment to you is that on the first day of my presidency, I will contact the leaders of China and Russia to set up a summit to end the new cold war and nuclear arms race, which will inevitably result in a nuclear holocaust.

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists warns of “civilization-ending nuclear war”: here. And here.

Nuclear war, a threat to all life

This 17 December 2019 video by United States Democratic party presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard says about itself:

Nuclear War: Greatest Existential Threat

We talk about “existential threats”, but nothing is more threatening to our world than nuclear war. In the first week of my presidency, I will call for a summit with Russia and China to end the nuclear arms race and agree on steps to move the world back from the nuclear abyss.

It has been 30 years since the end of the Cold War, yet on average, Americans still perceive that the odds of a nuclear weapon detonating on U.S. soil is as likely as a coin toss, according to new research: here.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists warns of “civilization-ending nuclear war”: here.

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.

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.

The US Air Force has for the first time tested a ballistic missile that violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in a threat to Russia and China. The Trump administration withdrew from the INF treaty in August as part of its efforts to vastly expand the US arsenal of nuclear weapons and loosen restrictions on their use: here.

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”.


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]