Dave R
  • Dave R
  • Toronto , Ontario
  • Canada

This conversation is closed.

To use nuclear weaponry to combat global warming.

I heard that if we had a global nuclear war, that would usher in a new ice ace or 'nuclear winter'. If global warming gets to a critical point, couldn't we just explode a measured amount of nukes, to get a mild nuclear winter to help cool the earth??

Closing Statement from Dave R

If people never had crazy ideas, then much of what you see would not exist.

  • Jul 25 2013: Esquire had an article suggesting a large or moderate number of nukes would make human reproduction impossible.
  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +2
    Jul 25 2013: Quite a risky proposal you have here ... :o)

    First, the concept of a nuclear winter is hypothetical, so far and for gods sake, which means we don't know if it would turn out this way, we assume, not knowing to what extend, for how long by what amount of warheads.

    The 'cooling effect' is based on shielding and reflecting properties of airborne particles towards the radiation of the sun, which, in this scenario, get created by the explosion of nuclear bombs. The same effect can be created by an volcanic eruption, which are reported to have caused climate change in the past.

    The problem of nuclear induced particle creation is the radioactive fallout, of which we know, that is doesn't really help to create a healthy environment for living creatures. Therefore, it doesn't really matter where you detonate the nukes, as the particles they create ARE the hazardous fallout.

    Ideas for less harmful solutions by using the particle conconcept you can find here:

    http://www.livescience.com/16070-geoengineering-climate-cooling-balloon.html
    • Jul 25 2013: TO LEJAN
      i appreciate your knowledge about nukes and global warming,and i presume that you might have heard about "shielding earth from the rays and blah blah ".now my question is -if the topic being triggered above in all levels of educational and research communities really has any solution or shall we " THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN?
      • thumb

        Lejan .

        • +1
        Jul 25 2013: There are no existing solutions in terms of 'climate engineering' to cope with climate change, because of the complexity and magnitude of the problem. But I am certain that several concepts have already been simulated, as the one described in the article linked above.

        What we know at present is, that all forecast of climate change scenarios seem to be overtaken by reality regarding the time frame. It happens faster than expected and we don't know if its just a short term trend, or the way is is going to change.

        I am not quite sure what you mean by '...shall we " THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN?', but if its means that: 'well, we can't change anything, so there is no need for us to change', then I would disagree with this attitude.

        We know that the climate-change is man-made, and we have a a chance either to stop it or to reduce its impact. And because of this chance, we have to start acting upon it.
  • Jul 25 2013: Simpsons did it.
  • Jul 30 2013: This has got to be the single worst idea I've heard in a long time.

    Maybe I'm missing some kind of a joke (a problem on the internet, where tone of voice cannot be used to convey sarcasm, and there are fanatics running around left and right yelling crazier ideas at full seriousness).

    Either way, we hardly understand how the climate works at all. There is less consensus on the whole global warming issue than you'd think.
    We do understand nuclear weapons quite well. The side effects are... troublesome.
    Everything from EMP bursts to radioactive fallout. Its not a pretty picture, especially with the whole nuclear winter theory being completely untested (and a good thing it is), so it may not actually cool down the earth at all.
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2013: At first glance this sounds like a bad idea. Deep down, through and through, this sounds like a bad idea. In retrospect this sounds like a bad idea. In visualizing a projected scenario this looks like a bad idea. Intuitively this sounds like a bad idea. Common sense-wise this sounds like a bad idea. Based on recorded history this sounds like a bad idea. Let's try it!
  • thumb

    Dave R

    • 0
    Jul 24 2013: Also, if this was to work, where would be the best place to explode them?? All together somewhere remote like Antarctica or evenly dispersed globally in non-populated areas or perhaps in the air??
    • Jul 25 2013: one question -
      ARE YOU SERIOUS ?
      • thumb

        Dave R

        • 0
        Jul 25 2013: Humans are a parasite to our planet, and must be destroyed.
        • Jul 25 2013: A troll has risen!!!
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2013: To our planet, all species are parasite, and none of them, including us, is capable to harm it.

          No planet cares about its climate. In fact, many of them don't even have any and they don't seem to be frustrated about that.

          An ecosystem is different, which probably was what you were referring to. But even the ecosystem will adjust to whatever climate we create. So no need to worry about it either.

          The only thing we need to worry about is us and the species we endanger. So your solution actually doesn't change anything, as it will not only destroy us, but also the species we endanger.

          So can you think of something which can actually help those things you obviously care about?
      • thumb

        Dave R

        • 0
        Jul 26 2013: @Lejan You're right, when I said Earth I meant the environment.
        I was joking, but now that you mention it- let's just let everything die.. The Earth doesn't care, anyways right?? Seems like the people on Earth don't seem to care, either. We are more than capable of moderating our emissions and stopping the cutting down of forests, but we actually do little to nothing as a whole because people do little to nothing as individuals.