It's interesting in itself that human beings occupy only one-eighth of the world's landmass, but I suppose that landmass figure of nearly 149 million square kilometers includes areas that are absolutely uninhabitable by humans, including regions of extreme heat and extreme cold (Antarctica, I'm looking at you!). So while the numbers don't lie, they do seem a bit misleading. But let's continue:
Seeing as how some of the information presented here has been culled from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, I won't argue with the above point.
Now here comes the conclusion:
So the bottom-line conclusion of this analysis is that there are, currently in existence, only about 0.83% of the nuclear weapons needed to destroy humanity. Therefore, while nuclear weapons are indeed devastating instruments, they are by no means the path to Armageddon. Right?
Wrong. What the author of this analysis takes into account very nicely is the immediate effects of a nuclear war, but he fails to consider the long-term impact of multiple explosions. Even a limited, regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons would utterly devastate human populations through a combination of famine, radiation, and sudden global climate change. My friends at IPPNW have written a very succinct analysis of just such a scenario, which you can find here.
It is extremely important to not become focused on short-term consequences. Whether arguing for or against the presence/threat/use of nuclear weapons, keeping in mind the long-term effects and implications will put things into better perspective for most.
(See the original image, article and comments here).
2 comments:
The author also makes the assumption that population density is uniform. I'm pretty sure 10k nukes is enough to wipe out 95% of the human race given that we tend to live in dense communities.
Good point QD. The author later makes that adjustment in his article. Yet even with the revised calculation, the immediate impact is all that is analyzed, with no consideration for long-term consequences.
Good catch, and good thinking!
Post a Comment