tims@shark.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (11/21/83)
After watching "The Day After", and the follow-up discussion by Sagan, Kissinger etc., I came up with the following points and questions. Nuclear weapons as a deterrent: In order for nuclear weapons to be an effective deterrent, you must take the position that you will use them if they are used by an enemy against you. But once a large scale attack is launched against you, your nuclear arsenal serves you no purpose since you are going to be destroyed anyway, so why launch them? But if you are not ready to launch them, what's to keep someone from taking advantage of that fact? etc. etc. (Catch 22) Nuclear Arms Reduction: It is argued that the number of nuclear weapons in the world today can destroy the world, let alone the US and USSR, so we should internationally reduce the number of these weapons to zero. But that course of action would, sooner or later, bring you to the point where a nuclear war would be survivable, winnable and a viable alternative. Hence, that might actually increase the chances for a nuclear exchange, albeit a reduced one. In effect, nuclear weapon reduction to a survivable level removes the deterrent effect of these weapons, turns them into purely an instrument of war, and removes their effectiveness to prevent a war. (by war, I mean US/USSR, NATO/Warsaw Pact) Nuclear arms can destroy the world: I don't believe this is true. I do believe that most life would be destroyed, and most likely all human life. But somewhere, something would survive, perhaps some dormant microbe in the depths of some ocean. Eventually, maybe as long as a million years, the radiation would dissipate, the dust would settle, the atmosphere would settle, what's left of it anyway, and all human creations would be buried or disintegrated. By and by, the same processes that evolved life as we know it today, would work in a new world. These processes might be given a tremendous head start due to the presence of some radiation resistant microbes or algae that could form the basis of a new chain of evolution. Mountains would continue to come and go. Life forms would be different, the most obvious difference would be that there would be no people to slaughter the animals, strip the forests, erect cities and highways, build cars, pollute the air, land and sea, etc. The point is, that a full-scale nuclear exchange would destroy mankind, would that not actually be a blessing for the earth as a whole? Responses welcome, by mail or net Tim Stoehr tekecs!shark!tims
fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (11/29/83)
Only one problem that I see with `the microbes will outlast us' theory of
Earthly regeneration after Nuclear Holocaust:
How many more billions of years will the Sun last?
Maybe this should be in net.space? Or net.physics? Or ...
thoughtfully yours (network wide),
Erik E. Fair {ucbvax,amd70,zehntel,unisoft}!dual!fair
Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, Californianeal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (12/06/83)
************************************************************************** >Only one problem that I see with `the microbes will outlast us' theory of >Earthly regeneration after Nuclear Holocaust: > > How many more billions of years will the Sun last? I don't pretend to be an expert but since none have responded: The best estimates I have heard give the sun and solar system at least 10-20 billion more years, enough to give the earth a couple more chances anyway--even starting from scratch, i.e. chemical rather than biological evolution. If even microbes survive, we (we--what do you mean "we") can probably cut the time to evolve something of comparable complexity to ourselves about in half. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (12/07/83)
" I think that in about 5 billion years the sun will reach another stage (red giant) and will by engulf most of the plants inside the belt. Because the sun is a middle-of-the-road sized star this should take some time before it burns itself out. Eventually the sun will become a white dwarf and burn itself. I think 10 to 20 billion years is a reasonable estimate, however, I'm not positive (...!philabs!jah)