Posted on 06/14/2018 12:16:01 PM PDT by wmileo
New research argues that 100 nuclear weapons is the “pragmatic limit” for any country to have in its arsenal. Any aggressor nation unleashing more than 100 nuclear weapons could ultimately devastate its own society, scientists warn.
The study was published in the journal Safety on Thursday; it was co-authored by Michigan Technological University professor Joshua Pearce and David Denkenberger, assistant professor at Tennessee State University and director of Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED).
“The results found that 100 nuclear warheads is adequate for nuclear deterrence in the worst case scenario, while using more than 100 nuclear weapons by any aggressor nation (including the best positioned strategically to handle the unintended consequences) even with optimistic assumptions (including no retaliation) would cause unacceptable damage to their own society,” the scientists wrote.
There are approximately 15,000 nuclear weapons globally, according to the research, with the U.S. and Russia accounting for nearly 90 percent of that total. With nine nuclear weaponized countries, the paper argues for a disarmament proposal that would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world to 900 or less.
“100 nuclear warheads is the pragmatic limit and use of government funds to maintain more than 100 nuclear weapons does not appear to be rational,” the paper argues.
The scientists discuss the devastating global environmental impact that would occur when a country deploys more than 100 nuclear weapons.
This “environmental blowback” would involve a significant drop in global temperatures as soot from nuclear blasts prevents sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface. This, combined with reduced precipitation, could severely impact food production, experts warn, potentially resulting in mass starvation.
“If the agricultural productivity reverts to preindustrial yields because of a nuclear strike, most countries would not be able to feed themselves,” the study says.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
...and civilization would end if all women were dead.
One is about as likely as the other.
Just drop em in Kilauea. Nobody will know.
Astounding. The “scientists” who wrote this gibberish must be the same or related to the climate “scientists” we all know and love.
This report is sophomoric, poorly conceived and will be laughed at by the professionals.
How many nuclear explosions were conducted in the atmosphere prior to the test ban treaty. I suspect it was more than 100. Some were as high as about 50MTs too, far larger than anything available today. Lastly, there is a great deal of difference between ground explosions and air bursts in the amount of debris tossed into the atmosphere.
While I would not wish to anywhere near any of these things going off, I don’t think 100 would end man kind. BTW, I sleep comfortably within 15 miles of one of our two trident bases.
This is news? We have know a version of this for decades.
Stupid waste of money and time.
This is stupid.
It only takes one bullet.
The obvious solution is to have one government for the entire world. Imagine. No borders. No national pride. No flags (except the rainbow flag, of course). And if we stubborn stubborn clingers would just give up our Judeo-Christian God and our guns, nothing to argue about. And no more war.
I’m sure the Muslims and others around the globe would willingly go along with this. If not, there are ways.
/s
A lot of the assumptions of nuclear winter came from the if we had a nuclear exchange in the middle 1980's, the cities in the Northern Hemisphere would burn non-stop for essentially weeks since all firefighting efforts would effectively cease to exist.
They didn’t say this when bammy gave iran the ability to make nuclear weapons. They waited until Trump got rocket man to get rid of his weapons.
Well, let’s just knock it down to 99 per nation and call it a day.
“Doomsday warning It would only take 100 nuclear weapons to wreak global devastation”
probably less if placed “correctly” ... we live in a world where we are EXTREMELY dependent on an EXTREMELY brittle infrastructure ... the complete loss of either the power grid or the Internet would end civilization as we know it ...
Cool, clear the deck, start afresh!
The correct number of nuclear weapons to have is “enough to deter the other fellow”.
That way they don’t get used by either side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.