So, we've got two big "loomers" here, on the global climate problem stage.
#1: Global Warming! Global warming is:
#2: Nuclear Winter! Nuclear winter is:
So. This is kind of obvious, but bear with me.
All we have to do is, if the global warming starts getting too hot, all we do is - we just set off a couple fuckin' nukes.
Right? Those nukes will cool shit right off! Or if they won't, why won't they? Our best scientific projections suggest that they will. Care to dispute science? Like dropping a few cubes of ice into the atmosphere! Ahhhhh. Cool the whole thing down, by several degrees global. Not too much, now! Go easy on the dosage - but not too easy. It needs megatons upon megatons of nukes to bring on a full-on nuclear winter. What we're after here is less "nuclear winter," and more "nuclear air conditioning." We just need to find a good place to set those suckers off, where the main amount of fallout won't be too troublesome. Not Antarctica though. That's where the ice we're trying to save is! You'd be killing the opposite bird with the stone, there.
A couple points about fallout: people think the nuclear winter is from fallout - they think that all the haze that gets into the atmosphere and blocks the sunlight is radioactive. That's not so. Nuclear winter is an effect that proceeds from plain, ordinary, not-excessively-radioactive smoke, from the fires the nukes will start. It's not from the primary explosion at all!
Obviously, even with this infallible scientific solution, we're not completely out of the woods. Because even supposing we tweak it to get that perfect amount of refreshing, global nuclear cool - this would only take care of the "global warming" part of the danger equation, as laid out above. For the other part, we've got to get India and Pakistan to knock all that belligerent shit off! We might want a controlled nuclear release, but if those two go at it with everything in their stockpiles, you'll get the real deal. Nuclear winter.
It's also a good idea to reduce global stockpiles of nukes, eliminate as much as you can. But do keep a few extra around, firstly, for the occasional "nuclear cooler" you may want to drop into the climate mix. But secondly and of paramount importance: you need some nukes in reserve for that inevitable Texas-sized-asteroid, so we can hit the right spot to deflect its course, and possibly chip off a few New Hampshire-sized or Delaware-sized chunks. Get that damn rock down to Ohio-size, maybe, and deflect it off course so as not to hit us. Save a few nukes for that.
Also, if aliens attack - we'll need to keep some nukes handy to throw out there as a big gesture, so that the dramatic stakes can be all "ratcheted up" once we see our big trumps weapon has no effect at all against the alien's shields. This will really juice up the payoff when we find their whimsical achilles heel and, against all odds, exploit it for a crushing victory.
So yeah, save some nukes for that, too. But we don't need all those piles and piles we've got. Total overkill!
#1: Global Warming! Global warming is:
- Big
- Bad
- Dangerous
- Will totally mess us up! It's too hot! Our ice is melting, we're drowning!
#2: Nuclear Winter! Nuclear winter is:
- Big
- Bad
- Dangerous
- Will totally mess us up! It's too cold! Our crops are freezing, we're starving!
So. This is kind of obvious, but bear with me.
All we have to do is, if the global warming starts getting too hot, all we do is - we just set off a couple fuckin' nukes.
Right? Those nukes will cool shit right off! Or if they won't, why won't they? Our best scientific projections suggest that they will. Care to dispute science? Like dropping a few cubes of ice into the atmosphere! Ahhhhh. Cool the whole thing down, by several degrees global. Not too much, now! Go easy on the dosage - but not too easy. It needs megatons upon megatons of nukes to bring on a full-on nuclear winter. What we're after here is less "nuclear winter," and more "nuclear air conditioning." We just need to find a good place to set those suckers off, where the main amount of fallout won't be too troublesome. Not Antarctica though. That's where the ice we're trying to save is! You'd be killing the opposite bird with the stone, there.
A couple points about fallout: people think the nuclear winter is from fallout - they think that all the haze that gets into the atmosphere and blocks the sunlight is radioactive. That's not so. Nuclear winter is an effect that proceeds from plain, ordinary, not-excessively-radioactive smoke, from the fires the nukes will start. It's not from the primary explosion at all!
Obviously, even with this infallible scientific solution, we're not completely out of the woods. Because even supposing we tweak it to get that perfect amount of refreshing, global nuclear cool - this would only take care of the "global warming" part of the danger equation, as laid out above. For the other part, we've got to get India and Pakistan to knock all that belligerent shit off! We might want a controlled nuclear release, but if those two go at it with everything in their stockpiles, you'll get the real deal. Nuclear winter.
It's also a good idea to reduce global stockpiles of nukes, eliminate as much as you can. But do keep a few extra around, firstly, for the occasional "nuclear cooler" you may want to drop into the climate mix. But secondly and of paramount importance: you need some nukes in reserve for that inevitable Texas-sized-asteroid, so we can hit the right spot to deflect its course, and possibly chip off a few New Hampshire-sized or Delaware-sized chunks. Get that damn rock down to Ohio-size, maybe, and deflect it off course so as not to hit us. Save a few nukes for that.
Also, if aliens attack - we'll need to keep some nukes handy to throw out there as a big gesture, so that the dramatic stakes can be all "ratcheted up" once we see our big trumps weapon has no effect at all against the alien's shields. This will really juice up the payoff when we find their whimsical achilles heel and, against all odds, exploit it for a crushing victory.
So yeah, save some nukes for that, too. But we don't need all those piles and piles we've got. Total overkill!
Comments
Even if we set them off in the middle of the pacific ocean (most sparsely inhabited place I can think of) (oh, and water works too for blocking out sunlight) there's still going to be friggen huge ramifications for the whole planets ecosystem. Any living thing close to the explosion that survive the initial blast will be radiated to death. There will be something of a dead zone where nothing can live. Any migrators that go through that area will mostly die and/or pass radiation up the food chain and/or not provide enough food for predators.
As well, the Chernobyl explosion increased the background radiation all across Europe/Asia. Not to a dangerous level; but that was just 1 meltdown, so, many Nukes is a no-no.
I'll back Sulphur being pumped into the air before I'll support a 'nuclear air-conditioner'
(I read a book on Geoengineering, and now am all cocky and think I know it all)
No, I'm mostly kidding. The more serious point is that we do know things we can do to move climate up or down. According to Al Gore and anybody, we can already influence the climate. These factors aren't limited to the ridiculous extremes, either.
I'd suggest that the only thing needed to turn influence into control is to study the mechanisms of influence. The problem is that whatever influence we have is undirected.
Because otherwise, we know for sure that humanity will see another global melt or another global freeze, just from earth's natural climate change. That's going to happen, unless confronted by a directed influence from us.
Probably not nukes, though. Although if you take the consequences you name, and compare them with the consequences of a full-scale global melt, I'm not sure much of humanity wouldn't be willing to bite the bullet.
Still: it would be ridiculous for us to let it get to that point!