Enviromental concerns vs. Neclear technology

Recommended Videos

xXGeckoXx

New member
Jan 29, 2009
1,778
0
0
I was recently playing fallout 3 and it inspired a thought. I am currently not a very big environmentalist. I have the belief that after 4.3 billion years or so the earth is not going to really take too much damage if it gets a bit hotter. As a matter of a fact the fact that we are in the middle of an ice age right now helps a lot. I think that when the world gets hotter the planet won't suffer WE WILL. In the words of George Carlin "Pack your shit folks 'caus we're going away". However there are a few things I believe would have a significant effect on the planet. Amongst these are asteroids, gravitational problems, the fact that the moon is slowly slipping out of the earths gravitational pull and most likely nuclear war. Nuclear war is a big problem in my opinion. There are a few kinds of nuclear war, the first being a nation firing a nuke. This can branch off into a few scenarios. If a nation fires one nuke at another the chances are that this country will respond with a nuke and/or get it's allied countries to do the same. Or a country could go all out which would cause the opposing country to go all out resulting in M.A.D (Mutually assured destruction). This could also lead to the chain reaction. another type of nuclear war is terrorist strikes which thankfully has a lower possibility of the apocalyptic all-out war. In the case of an all out nuclear war most of the world would be destroyed. Radiation would kill of almost all animals and plants (with the exceptions of some cockroaches and scorpions and maybe some mosses and lichens resistant to radiation) and most of the essential bacteria (with the exception on a few types that live off of uranium and plutonium). This basically will reset the world back to the beginning (Well almost the begging) it took billions of years to get to where our planet is now and a nuclear war could reset it. The thing about global warming is that although the cause may not be natural the effect is and that what makes the difference. We know already that unless the planets actually moves there is a limit to how cold the planet can get and at some of the most extreme situations world has prevailed in keeping life...well..."Alive". We can cause an ice age and well...we can also survive it, although increases in temperature may be more disastrous for the human race look at our desserts. We have already seen some rather miraculous feats of biology in those area's and I have confidence that in the case of a heated earth many species would survive. But if you consider the implications of nuclear war then you rtell me how anything could survive that...no seriously tell me I would enjoy hearing it.

So which do you think is more dangerous, Environmental decline or all-out nuclear war?
 

Hutchy_Bear

New member
May 12, 2009
756
0
0
Paragraphs will help your cause.

Anyway I believe all out nuclear war will not happen, well at least until people can leave Earth and live in space. People will not risk a war in which they cannot escape.
 

ILPPendant

New member
Jul 15, 2008
271
0
0
I'm sorry, I really don't get what you're saying. Since all-out nuclear war isn't going to do the planet's ecosystems a "world" of good (oh I kill me) I'd argue that environmental decline goes hand in hand with a nuclear war. Although, if we could have one without the other I'd definitely go for environmental decline since we can at least soften the blow with preparation.

Hutchy_Bear said:
Anyway I believe all out nuclear war will not happen, well at least until people can leave Earth and live in space. People will not risk a war in which they cannot escape.
Oh, you watch Gundam too, huh?
 

vxicepickxv

Slayer of Bothan Spies
Sep 28, 2008
3,126
0
0
You forgot that Keith Richards would survive too.

Environmental decline is the more dangerous one, because it's happening, as opposed to the other one, which we wouldn't know about until it's already too late. The government wouldn't tell anyone, to avoid a panic.
 

Hutchy_Bear

New member
May 12, 2009
756
0
0
ILPPendant said:
I'm sorry, I really don't get what you're saying. Since all-out nuclear war isn't going to do the planet's ecosystems a "world" of good (oh I kill me) I'd argue that environmental decline goes hand in hand with a nuclear war. Although, if we could have one without the other I'd definitely go for environmental decline since we can at least soften the blow with preparation.

Hutchy_Bear said:
Anyway I believe all out nuclear war will not happen, well at least until people can leave Earth and live in space. People will not risk a war in which they cannot escape.
Oh, you watch Gundam too, huh?
Actually I do not but I may do now.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,628
0
0
What I don't understand is why we can't just load up all the earth's garbage onto a bunch of rockets and just launch them into space, or the sun, or dump it all on the moon.

And I think that nuclear war is unlikely, after all, any rational person can realize what will happen if a nuclear war happens. But there is the terrorist theory you said which is a possability. After all, they would gladly die for their cause, and kill anyone who is against them and/or gets in their way.

Although the Cuban Missle Crisis showed how close rational people can come to war. JFK was rational, Krusechev was rational, and yet a nuclear war almost happened.
 

hypothetical fact

New member
Oct 8, 2008
1,601
0
0
Irridium said:
What I don't understand is why we can't just load up all the earth's garbage onto a bunch of rockets and just launch them into space, or the sun, or dump it all on the moon.

And I think that nuclear war is unlikely, after all, any rational person can realize what will happen if a nuclear war happens. But there is the terrorist theory you said which is a possability. After all, they would gladly die for their cause, and kill anyone who is against them and/or gets in their way.

Although the Cuban Missle Crisis showed how close rational people can come to war. JFK was rational, Krusechev was rational, and yet a nuclear war almost happened.
Because it would cost a jillion dollars to send that many rockets with that much crap into space and if even one rocket fails we are talking rubbish raining down on the planet.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,628
0
0
hypothetical fact said:
Irridium said:
What I don't understand is why we can't just load up all the earth's garbage onto a bunch of rockets and just launch them into space, or the sun, or dump it all on the moon.

And I think that nuclear war is unlikely, after all, any rational person can realize what will happen if a nuclear war happens. But there is the terrorist theory you said which is a possability. After all, they would gladly die for their cause, and kill anyone who is against them and/or gets in their way.

Although the Cuban Missle Crisis showed how close rational people can come to war. JFK was rational, Krusechev was rational, and yet a nuclear war almost happened.
Because it would cost a jillion dollars to send that many rockets with that much crap into space and if even one rocket fails we are talking rubbish raining down on the planet.
Damnit I hate that excuse. I know its true but still, all money seems to do is cause problems and make barriers causing us to not do things that could benifit the Human Race and the world.
Isn't clearing out the waste dumps to use the land to grow food which we could use to help end world hunger? Ah well, I guess as long as the world is the way it is, things won't change.

But I'm just rambling, I'll stop now.
 

EMFCRACKSHOT

Not quite Cthulhu
May 25, 2009
2,973
0
0
Both are inevitable. I say we quit now and go live on the moon. With me as emporer
 

UltimatheChosen

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,007
0
0
xXGeckoXx said:
I have the belief that after 4.3 billion years or so the earth is not going to really take too much damage if it gets a bit hotter.
Who ever told you the EARTH would take damage? The problem isn't that the planet will be permanently damaged... it's that it will destroy the ecosystems that we rely on for pesky things like air and food. The planet will stay. It just won't be hospitable toward us any more.[/rant]
 

ILPPendant

New member
Jul 15, 2008
271
0
0
Hutchy_Bear said:
Actually I do not but I may do now.
While certainly a commendable course of action please don't go into it assuming that people are going to be handing out nukes like water. Superweapons naturally make for rather boring action scenes since they're "I Win"-buttons.

Instead, people drop enormous space colonies on each other.