Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to CNN, if the USA and other nations do not eliminate their nuclear weapons climate change will trigger a nuclear war.
Climate change isn’t our only existential threat
By Ira Helfand
Updated 1907 GMT (0307 HKT) July 6, 2019(CNN)
America confronts a long list of critical problems and they all require urgent attention. But among them, two issues stand out: catastrophic climate change and nuclear war are unique in the threat they pose to the very survival of human civilization. The enormity and imminence of these twin existential threats cannot be overstated and how to confront them must be the central issue of any presidential campaign.Climate change and the danger of nuclear war are closely related. As climate change progresses over the coming decades, large areas of the planet will be unable to support their human population. As a result, there will likely be forced migrations on a scale unknown in human history, and an enormously increased risk of conflict, including nuclear conflict. Nuclear war, should it come, would cause further catastrophic climate disruption and widespread global famine.
…
The danger today demands a similar response, and this time the effort must focus on the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
…
Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/06/opinions/nuclear-war-climate-change-2020-opinion-helfand/index.html
The author ignores the benefits of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons dramatically raise the stakes for aggressors, which contributes to world peace.
The alleged connection between climate change and nuclear conflict seems a bit tenuous.
Away with us! Nothing less will do.
Does CNN still have an audience? Rhetorical question if they unearth Nuclear Winter and mix it with Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Leftists have lost their collective minds…
When the CAGW hypothesis is officially disconfirmed, the blowback against the Left will be profound.
The crazier the Leftist CAGW predictions become, the bigger the repercussions will be against them…
Many moons ago my brother aged 6 came back from church and announced that “Mummy was the root of all evil”.
These days he would have been marched off for concentrated counselling.
Well, his job title says it all. And these days, every man and his dog uses global warming alarmism to promote what ever they were getting alarmed about before global warming came along.
Re. mine about the Atom Bomb. My reading of “”The Guns of August”
seemed to me that it was the Austrian Government furious at the death of
the Crown Prince, wanted a war, and even though Serbia surrendered , the
Austrian Government still wanted a War.
Now I agree that a lot of the German Generals who had been junior at the
time of the small Franco-Prussian war long ago, they wanted a war, the
Kaiser a playboy, who while playing at being a warier, was having a
holiday on his boat.
In a act of stupidity he gave what was a blank cheque to the Austrians to
fix up their problems.
Then the ethnic factored came into it , with the Shari of Russia saying
that he could not stand by and see poor Serbia crushed.
So it was a accidental war.
The German plan of mobilisation using the train service timetable was a
long term plan to fight France, just all a theory at that point.. It was worked
out as a War Game, a very detailed one called I think The SCHIEFFER
Plan.
MJE VK5ELL
It seems to me that the dreaded “Nuclear Winter” would just offset the dreaded “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” that are both so feared by the Warmists. That, along with its associated significant reduction of global population should all be welcomed by these zealots.
I had a cousin that once said he didn’t put money in an IRA or 401K, etc., because if the government fell, he would lose his money. I pointed out that is the government fell, his lost IRA was the very least of his problems. The same applies to nuclear war and climate change. If nuclear war breaks out, the climate and how it is the very least of our problems, probably for decades.
I’m sure if we could cram the nuclear genie back into his bottle, we all would in a heartbeat.
Problem is, there’s not one genie but several, and without fission we can’t generate the energy needed for the next step of civilization, if we can ever get past this stupid social justice nonsense.
The Russians reveal themselves in CNN messaging.
They should be happy. “Nuclear winter” will cancel out AGW, and also eliminate most of the people these misanthropists so obviously hate (the A in AGW), and do so in those evil advanced countries, not the poor ones that aren’t targets. So, a “social justice” approved extinction and no more AGW!!!
“The author ignores the benefits of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons dramatically raise the stakes for aggressors”
What makes you think the left is ignoring this?
During the cold war, there were always calls for the US to disarm, however there were never any calls for the Soviets to disarm.
But…but…. Wouldn’t a “nuclear winter” be the most effective geoengineered solution to Global Warming?
Telling whoppers to save us from our money.
Oohkay.
So it starts again. Nuclear holocaust -> ice age (this time we have more oil) -> AGW -> ACC -> Back to start. History repeats…
Last time “they” were worried that Golf-stream would stop. Surprise, that too is again very big worry.
Next, please…
War, and even nuclear war, is possible because of “climate change.” If many of the alarmists recommended actions are implemented, a future of starvation and civil disobedience in much of the world will follow. This combination is enough to set off numerous wars and could trigger a nuclear war.
Is it me, or is it that “climate change” always seems to be just the latest excuse for policy Progressives have been demanding for decades?
Remember Moab
Interesting. Another way of saying this is:
“Because of Climate Change, the US is going to need its nuclear weapons. “
A Nuclear Winter will solve global warming.
Unilaterally eliminating our nuclear arsenal because when a nation can’t retaliate or respond it kind, it makes war less likely?
Talking about ideology over facts. How often does a country go to war with one that can properly defend itself, versus how many times a country goes to war with one that is weak and defenseless.
If you have realized it already, the climate change movement is not about the climate. It’s about advancing the neo-Marxist progressive ideology. Science be damned.
LOL. The idea of unilaterally disposing of our nuclear weapons could have only been posed by a Russian troll. Russia hackers apparently also spend a lot of time encouraging the greens to do away (here) with fossil fuels too.
Apparently they see the possibility of a soft touch if any of the current crop of democrats take over the presidency. (Apparently even Steyer sees that potential, but somehow cannot manage to rise above the bogus “climate change” alarm.
The reasons for going to war vary over time. Way back it was the Vikings approach, hit a soft target like a Monastry in a remote spot, and take the gold and silver that these places seem to need to praise God with.
That developed with the Viking deciding to settle in the target country,
England . The counties of Norfolk and Suffolk are from the Viking
occupation, the North Folk and the South Folk. Folk means people or folk. They finally mixed well with the already Germanic people who had kicked out the original Celts. Those German people came from the parts of Germany,the tribes of the Engles which was corrupted to Anglo, and the Saxons ,hence the UK is kn own as the Anglo Saxon
people , i.e. German.
Then as populations grew it became a question of living space. A good
example way the take over of the “New World”” the Americas. To bad that there were already people there, Australia too, but far less original people
Finally we come to the likes of Hitler with his desire for Leberstrathan
“Living space” Of curse he also wanted the infearer races such as the
Russian Slaves to use as slave labour.. In common with most politicians Hitler was not good at History. What about the Germanic warreners who went into today’s Denmark and Norway. They became the Vikings who as ‘well as raiding, by using the great rivers of Russia finally took it over .
That became ” European Russia,” who turned out to be still very good
warriors. in 1941 against Hitler.
Today of course manpower, sorry ladies, is no longer as important as
economic output. A good example China is now very dependant on exports and with a very undervalued Yen, is killing off many Western countries economies
Such a devalue of a countries currency morns that export are very cheap a nod imports dear, which suits the Chinese, but its unfair to other nations.
Presently the USA cannot compete fairly, hence Pres.Trump is quite right to object to such unfair trading. Australia is a good example, we one made computers and aircraft . Today we export iron ore, coal and natural gas. plus agricultural products…
Today countries seem to need far less living space, see the Third World cities,
We also need far less people re. automation, so why do countries such as Australia still have a large migration programme ? Of course the final problem is what do we do with the no longer required
“Working class”” ?
MJE VK5ELL
” The counties of Norfolk and Suffolk are from the Viking
occupation, …They finally mixed well with the already Germanic people who had kicked out the original Celts.”
Your rendering of history and geography is very myopic.
FYI we celts are still here.
The UK has far more places than boring flat East Anglia (where of course Margaret’s climate change conmen are now concentrated), and we certainly don’t think people from “down under” are neccessarily have a valid opinion about the original “muther country” when they can’t even spell Lebensraum, rather than leberschnitzel.
Ie. keep such generalisations short
“Climate change and the danger of nuclear war are closely related. As climate change progresses over the coming decades, large areas of the planet will be unable to support their human population. As a result, there will likely be forced migrations on a scale unknown in human history, and an enormously increased risk of conflict, including nuclear conflict. Nuclear war, should it come, would cause further catastrophic climate disruption and widespread global famine.”
__________________________________________________
What’s to come:
large areas of the planet will be unable to transport their human population in times of airport blackouts due to renewable breakdowns production of electricity.
As a result, there will likely be repeated forced migrations on a scale unknown in human history from duty free shops to waiting rooms, to roll ways and back and with buses to other roll ways and back.
… and an enormously increased risk of conflict, and climate scientists will be the first to foresee.