Arizona Debate Institute 2009

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 1
Russell/Frappier Nuclear Survivability
Nuclear Survivability
Nuclear Survivability..................................................................................................................................................1
Nuclear Survivability.....................................................................................................................1
N.W.  Extinction [1/2].............................................................................................................................................3
N.W.  Extinction [1/2]................................................................................................................3

N.W.  Extinction [2/2].............................................................................................................................................5
N.W.  Extinction [2/2]................................................................................................................5

N.W.  Extinction.....................................................................................................................................................6
N.W.  Extinction.........................................................................................................................6
N.W.  Extinction.....................................................................................................................................................7
N.W.  Extinction.........................................................................................................................7
N.W.  Extinction – Biodiversity [1/2].....................................................................................................................8
N.W.  Extinction – Biodiversity [1/2].......................................................................................8

N.W.  Extinction – Biodiversity [2/2].....................................................................................................................9
N.W.  Extinction – Biodiversity [2/2].......................................................................................9

N.W.  Extinction – Famine [1/2]...........................................................................................................................10
N.W.  Extinction – Famine [1/2].............................................................................................10

N.W.  Extinction – Famine [2/2]...........................................................................................................................11
N.W.  Extinction – Famine [2/2].............................................................................................11

N.W.  Extinction – 100 Megatons [1/2]................................................................................................................12
N.W.  Extinction – 100 Megatons [1/2]..................................................................................12

N.W.  Extinction – 100 Megatons [2/2]................................................................................................................13
N.W.  Extinction – 100 Megatons [2/2]..................................................................................13

Risk of Extinction = Infinite.....................................................................................................................................14
Risk of Extinction = Infinite........................................................................................................14
N.W. Survivable – Nuke Winter [1/2]......................................................................................................................15
N.W. Survivable – Nuke Winter [1/2]........................................................................................15
N.W. Survivable – Nuke Winter [2/2]......................................................................................................................17
N.W. Survivable – Nuke Winter [2/2]........................................................................................17
N.W. Survivable – 10,000 Megatons........................................................................................................................18
N.W. Survivable – 10,000 Megatons...........................................................................................18
N.W. Survivable – Civilization.................................................................................................................................19
N.W. Survivable – Civilization...................................................................................................19
“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – Cancer........................................................................................................................................20
N.W. Survivable – Cancer...........................................................................................................20
N.W. Survivable – Israel...........................................................................................................................................21
N.W. Survivable – Israel.............................................................................................................21
N.W. Survivable – Radiation/Fallout........................................................................................................................22
N.W. Survivable – Radiation/Fallout.........................................................................................22
N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “#”............................................................................................................................23
N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “#”...............................................................................................23
N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “%” [1/2]..................................................................................................................24
N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “%” [1/2]....................................................................................24
N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “%” [2/2]..................................................................................................................25
N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “%” [2/2]....................................................................................25
N.W. Survivable – “#” of Survivors.........................................................................................................................26
N.W. Survivable – “#” of Survivors...........................................................................................26
N.W. Survivable – Ozone.........................................................................................................................................27
N.W. Survivable – Ozone............................................................................................................27
Nuke Winter = Propaganda.......................................................................................................................................28
Nuke Winter = Propaganda........................................................................................................28
US Can Second Strike [1/2]......................................................................................................................................29
US Can Second Strike [1/2].........................................................................................................29
US Can Second Strike [2/2]......................................................................................................................................30
US Can Second Strike [2/2].........................................................................................................30

N.W.  Extinction [1/2]

Nuclear war leads to extinction
Schell 99 [Jonathan, Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation Institute and acclaimed nuclear expert, Fate of
the Earth and the Abolition, Stanford University Press, 1999. p 17-21,]
Whereas most conventional bombs produce only one destructive effect— the shock wave— nuclear
weapons produce many destructive effects. At the moment of the explosion, when the temperature of the
weapon material, instantly gasified, is at the superstellar level, the pressure is millions of times the normal
atmospheric pressure. Immediately, radiation, consisting mainly of gamma rays, which are a very high-
energy form of electromagnetic radiation, begins to stream outward into the environment. This is called
the "initial nuclear radiation," and is the first of the destructive effects of a nuclear explosion. In an air burst
of a one-megaton bomb— a bomb with the explosive yield of a million tons of TNT, which is a medium-
sized weapon in present-day nuclear arsenals— the initial nuclear radiation can kill unprotected human
beings in an area of some six square miles. Virtually simultaneously with the initial nuclear radiation, in a
second destructive effect of the explosion, an electromagnetic pulse is generated by the intense gamma
radiation acting on the air. In a high-altitude detonation, the pulse can knock out electrical equipment over
a wide area by inducing a powerful surge of voltage through various conductors, such as antennas, overhead
power lines, pipes, and railroad tracks. The Defense Department's Civil Preparedness Agency reported in
1977 that a single multi-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated one hundred and twenty five miles over
Omaha, Nebraska, could generate an electromagnetic pulse strong enough to damage solid-state
electrical circuits throughout the entire continental United States and in parts of Canada and Mexico,
and thus threaten to bring the economies of these countries to a halt. When the fusion and fission
reactions have blown themselves out, a fireball takes shape. As it expands, energy is absorbed in the
form of X rays by the surrounding air, and then the air re-radiates a portion of that energy into the
environment in the form of the thermal pulse— a wave of blinding light and intense heat— which is the
third of the destructive effects of a nuclear explosion. (If the burst is low enough, the fireball touches the
ground, vaporizing or incinerating almost everything within it.) The thermal pulse of a one-megaton bomb
lasts for about ten seconds and can cause second-degree burns in exposed human beings at a distance of
nine and a half miles, or in an area of more than two hundred and eighty square miles, and that of a
twenty-megaton bomb (a large weapon by modern standards) lasts for about twenty seconds and can
produce the same consequences at a distance of twenty-eight miles, or in an area of two thousand four
hundred and sixty square miles. As the fireball expands, it also sends out a blast wave in all directions,
and this is the fourth destructive effect of the explosion. The blast wave of an air-burst one-megaton bomb
can flatten or severely damage all but the strongest buildings within a radius of four and a half miles,
and that of a twenty-megaton bomb can do the same within a radius of twelve miles. As the fireball
burns, it rises, condensing water from the surrounding atmosphere to form the characteristic mushroom
cloud. If the bomb has been set off on the ground or close enough to it so that the fireball touches the
surface, in a so-called ground burst, a crater will be formed, and tons of dust and debris will be fused with
the intensely radioactive fission products and sucked up into the mushroom cloud. This mixture will
return to earth as radioactive fallout, most of it in the form of fine ash, in the fifth destructive effect of
the explosion. Depending upon the composition of the surface, from forty to seventy per cent of this fallout—
often called the "early" or "local" fallout— descends to earth within about a day of the explosion, in the
vicinity of the blast and downwind from it, exposing human beings to radiation disease, an illness that is
fatal when exposure is intense. Air bursts may also produce local fallout, but in much smaller quantities.
The lethal range of the local fallout depends on a number of circumstances, including the weather, but under
average conditions a one megaton ground burst would, according to the report by the Office of
Technology Assessment, lethally contaminate over a thousand square miles. (A lethal dose, by
convention, is considered to be the amount of radiation that, if delivered over a short period of time, would
kill half the able-bodied young adult population.) The initial nuclear radiation, the electromagnetic pulse,
the thermal pulse, the blast wave, and the local fallout may be described as the local primary effects of
nuclear weapons. Naturally, when many bombs are exploded the scope of these effects is increased
accordingly. But in addition these primary effects produce innumerable secondary effects on societies
and natural environments, some of which may be even more harmful than the primary ones. To give just
one example, nuclear weapons, by flattening and setting fire to huge, heavily built-up areas, generate

mass fires, and in some cases these may kill more people than the original thermal pulses and blast
<CONTINUED>

N.W.  Extinction [2/2]

<CONTINUED>
waves. Moreover, there are— quite distinct from both the local primary effects of individual bombs and their
secondary effects— global primary effects, which do not become significant unless thousands of bombs are
detonated all around the earth. And these global primary effects produce innumerable secondary effects of their
own throughout the ecosystem of the earth as a whole. For a full-scale holocaust is more than the sum of its local
parts; it is also a powerful direct blow to the ecosphere. In that sense, a holocaust is to the earth what a single
bomb is to a city. Three grave direct global effects have been discovered so far. The first is the "delayed," or
"worldwide," fallout. In detonations greater than one hundred kilotons, part of the fallout does not fall to the
ground in the vicinity of the explosion but rises high into the troposphere and into the stratosphere, circulates
around the earth, and then, over months or years, descends, contaminating the whole surface of the globe—
although with doses of radiation far weaker than those delivered by the local fallout. Nuclear-fission products
comprise some three hundred radioactive isotopes, and though some of them decay to relatively harmless levels of
radioactivity within a few hours, minutes, or even seconds, others persist to emit radiation for up to millions of
years. The short-lived isotopes are the ones most responsible for the lethal effects of the local fallout, and the long
lived ones are responsible for the contamination of the earth by stratospheric fallout. The energy released by all
fallout from a thermonuclear explosion is about five per cent of the total. By convention, this energy is not
calculated in the stated yield of a weapon, yet in a ten-thousand-megaton attack the equivalent of five hundred
megatons of explosive energy, or forty thousand times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb, would be released in the
form of radioactivity. This release may be considered a protracted after burst, which is dispersed into the land,
air, and sea, and into the tissues, bones, roots, stems, and leaves of living things, and goes on detonating there
almost indefinitely after the explosion. The second of the global effects that have been discovered so far is the
lofting, from ground bursts, of millions of tons of dust into the stratosphere; this is likely to produce general
cooling of the earth's surface. The third of the global effects is a predicted partial destruction of the layer of
ozone that surrounds the entire earth in the stratosphere. A nuclear fireball, by burning nitrogen in the air,
produces large quantities of oxides of nitrogen. These are carried by the heat of the blast into the
stratosphere, where, through a series of chemical reactions, they bring about a depletion of the ozone layer.
Such a depletion may persist for years. The 1975 N.A.S. report has estimated that in a holocaust in which ten
thousand megatons were detonated in the Northern Hemisphere the reduction of ozone in this hemisphere
could be as high as seventy per cent and in the Southern Hemisphere as high as forty per cent, and that it
could take as long as thirty years for the ozone level to return to normal. The ozone layer is crucial to life on
earth, because it shields the surface of the earth from lethal levels of ultraviolet radiation, which is present in
sunlight. Glasstone remarks simply, "If it were not for the absorption of much of the solar ultraviolet radiation
by the ozone, life as currently known could not exist except possibly in the ocean." Without the ozone shield,
sunlight, the life-giver, would become a life extinguisher. In judging the global effects of a holocaust,
therefore, the primary question is not how many people would be irradiated, burned, or crushed to death by
the immediate effects of the bombs but how well the ecosphere, regarded as a single living entity, on which all
forms of life depend for their continued existence, would hold up. The issue is the habitability of the earth,
and it is in this context, not in the context of the direct slaughter of hundreds of millions of people by the local
effects, that the question of human survival arises.

N.W.  Extinction
the Earth and the Abolition, Stanford University Press, 1999. p. 93]
The view of the earth as a single system, or organism, has only recently proceeded from poetic metaphor to
actual scientific investigation, and on the whole Dr. Thomas's observation that "we do not really understand
nature, at all" still holds. It is as much on the basis of this ignorance, whose scope we are only now in a
position to grasp, as on the basis of the particular items of knowledge in our possession that I believe that the
following judgment can be made: Bearing in mind that the possible consequences of the detonations of
thousands of megatons of nuclear explosives include the blinding of insects, birds, and beasts all over
the world; the extinction of many ocean species, among them some at the base of the food chain; the
temporary or permanent alteration of the climate of the globe, with the outside chance of "dramatic"
and "major" alterations in the structure of the atmosphere; the pollution of the whole ecosphere with
oxides of nitrogen; the incapacitation in ten minutes of unprotected people who go out into the
sunlight; the blinding of people who go out into the sunlight; a significant decrease in photosynthesis in
plants around the world; the scalding and killing of many crops; the increase in rates of cancer and
mutation around the world, but especially in the targeted zones, and the attendant risk of global
epidemics; the possible poisoning of all vertebrates by sharply increased levels of Vitamin D in their
skin as a result of increased ultraviolet light; and the outright slaughter on all targeted continents of
most human beings and other living things by the initial nuclear radiation, the fireballs, the thermal
pulses, the blast waves, the mass fires, and the fallout from the explosions; and, considering that these
consequences will all interact with one another in unguessable ways and, furthermore, are in all
likelihood an incomplete list, which will be added to as our knowledge of the earth increases, one must
conclude that a full-scale nuclear holocaust could lead to the extinction of mankind.

N.W.  Extinction
the Earth and the Abolition, Stanford University Press, 1999. p 6-7]
The widespread belief that a nuclear holocaust would in some sense bring about the end of the world
has been reflected in the pronouncements of both American and Soviet leaders in the years since the
invention of nuclear weapons. For example, President Dwight Eisenhower wrote in a letter in 1956 that
one day both sides would have to "meet at the conference table with the understanding that the era of
armaments has ended, and the human race must conform its actions to this truth or die." More recently
— at a press conference in 1974— Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that "the accumulation of
nuclear arms has to be constrained if mankind is not to destroy itself." And President Jimmy Carter
said in his farewell address a year ago that after a nuclear holocaust "the survivors, if any, would live
in despair amid the poisoned ruins of a civilization that had committed suicide." Soviet leaders have
been no less categorical in their remarks. In late 1981, for example, the Soviet government printed a
booklet in which it stated, "The Soviet Union holds that nuclear war would be a universal disaster, and
that it would most probably mean the end of civilization. It may lead to the destruction of all
mankind." In these and other statements, examples of which could be multiplied indefinitely, Soviet and
American leaders have acknowledged the supreme importance of the nuclear peril. However, they have not
been precise about what level of catastrophe they were speaking of, and a variety of different outcomes,
including the annihilation of the belligerent nations, the destruction of "human civilization," the extinction of
mankind, and the extinction of life on earth, have been mentioned, in loose rhetorical fashion, more or less
interchangeably. No doubt, the leaders have been vague in part because of the difficulty of making reliable
predictions about an event that has no precedent. Yet it seems important to arrive, on the basis of available
information, at some judgment concerning the likelihood of these outcomes, for they are not the same. Nor,
presumably, would the appropriate political response to all of them be the same. The annihilation of the
belligerent nations would be a catastrophe beyond anything in history, but it would not be the end of
the world. The destruction of human civilization, even without the biological destruction of the human
species, may perhaps rightly be called the end of the world, since it would be the end of that sum of
cultural achievements and human relationships which constitutes what many people mean when they
speak of "the world." The biological destruction of mankind would, of course, be the end of the world
in a stricter sense. As for the destruction of all life on the planet, it would be not merely a human but a
planetary end— the death of the earth. And although the annihilation of other forms of life could hardly be
of concern to human beings once they themselves had been annihilated, this more comprehensive, planetary
termination is nevertheless full of sorrowful meaning for us as we reflect on the possibility now, while we
still exist. We not only live on the earth but also are of the earth, and the thought of its death, or even of its
mutilation, touches a deep chord in our nature. Finally, it must be noted that a number of observers have,
especially in recent years, denied that a holocaust would obliterate even the societies directly attacked. If this
were so, then nuclear weapons, while remaining fearsome, would be qualitatively no different from other
weapons of war, and the greater part of the nuclear predicament would melt away. (In the discussions of
some analysts, nuclear attacks are made to sound almost beneficial. For example, one official of the Office of
Civil Defense wrote a few years back that although it might be "verging on the macabre" to say so, "a nuclear
war could alleviate some of the factors leading to today's ecological disturbances that are due to current high-
population concentrations and heavy industrial production." According to a different, less sanguine view of
things, this observation and other cheerful asides of the kind which crop up from time to time in the literature
go well over the verge of the macabre.)

N.W.  Extinction – Biodiversity [1/2]

1.) Nukes cause global fallout
Lovett 6 (Richard, Staff, “Small Nuclear War Would Devastate Global Climate, Scientists Warn.” National
Geographic News. 12/13/06. Accessed July 29, 2009)
Even a small nuclear conflict would cause long-lasting global devastation that could kill tens of
millions, scientists warned this week. Within a couple of decades, 40 countries could have arsenals large
enough to cause such a disaster, the researchers added. This means the threat of global catastrophe is
higher now than it was during the Cold War—even though worldwide stocks of nuclear weapons have
declined by a factor of three since the end of the four-decades-long conflict. The dire predictions came from
the first ever study of a regional nuclear exchange, unveiled Monday at the fall meeting of the American
Geophysical Union in San Francisco. Previous studies had looked only at the effects of all-out nuclear war
between superpowers. "This is the greatest danger to survival since the dawn of humanity," said study
co-author Owen Toon of the University of Colorado, Boulder. In an exchange in which each side uses only
50 Hiroshima-size bombs—just 0.3 percent of the world's arsenal—the initial explosions could kill more
than 20 million people, the scientists calculate. But more far-reaching would be the resulting fires,
which would fill the upper atmosphere with soot—destroying the Earth's ozone layer, blocking
sunlight, and reducing average global temperatures by 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.25 degrees Celsius), said
co-author Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Jersey.
2.) Global fall-out destroys biodiversity
Lovett 6 (Richard, Staff, “Small Nuclear War Would Devastate Global Climate, Scientists Warn.” National
Geographic News. 12/13/06. Accessed July 29, 2009)
"This would be a global climate change unprecedented in recorded history," Robock said. The increase
in people living in urban areas is magnifying the danger, said Richard Turco of the University of California,
Los Angeles. Densely populated "megacities" would be the most likely targets in a small-scale nuclear war.
Firestorms from the detonations would feed on a combination of wood, plastics, asphalt roofing, and
petroleum products, injecting a black, sooty smoke high into the air, Turco said. The soot would absorb
sunlight before it reached Earth's surface, reducing temperatures and causing the soot to rise dozens of
miles higher. Eventually the soot would settle into the upper layer of the atmosphere known as the
stratosphere, where it would block(ing) sunlight for many years. This would have a devastating impact
on agriculture, causing a 10 percent reduction in rainfall and shrinking the growing season in some parts of
the globe by as much as 30 days. The particles would also destroy much of Earth's ozone layer, which
protects humans and animals from cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation, the scientists predicted. Toon
referred to the result as "a global ozone hole." In the 1980s Turco, Toon, and the late Carl Sagan had similar
concerns about the effects of an all-out war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. They dubbed the
resulting scenario "nuclear winter" because of the devastating impact on climate worldwide, including entire
years with global temperatures below freezing. The researchers didn't realize, however, that a smaller
nuclear exchange would also have dramatic impacts. "Regional-scale nuclear war can cause casualties
similar to those previously predicted for a strategic attack by the U.S.S.R on the U.S.," Toon said. The policy
implications of the research are clear, the scientists noted. Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in Palo
Alto, California, said, "Nobody can use these things [Nuclear weapons] without the effects spilling over
to the rest of the planet."

N.W.  Extinction – Biodiversity [2/2]

3.) Biodiversity loss ends in an absolute extinction
Takacs 96 (David, teaches environmental humanities @ the Institute for Earth Systems Science and Policy @ Cal
State, The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise, p 200-201)
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and
Wilson oblige us to think about the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope
makes this same point; by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and human
futures: “It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid
changes in global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human
beings remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million
species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished.
And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which could
extinguish civilization.” 13 Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama: What then will
happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to
maintain in the face of climatic change, soil erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators,
and ever more serious assaults by pests. Conversion of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts
will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates will
become harsher. Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn
from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will
make little difference. As ecosystem services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease,
natural disasters, and especially famine will lower life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a
disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will bring upon itself consequences depressingly
similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict, it appears that civilization
will disappear some time before the end of the next century – not with a bang but a whimper.14

N.W.  Extinction – Famine [1/2]

1.) Even small nuclear war would cause global environmental catastrophe
Bryner 6 (Jeanna, LiveScience Staff Writer, Small Nuclear War Would Cause Global Environmental Catastrophe,
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061211_nuclear_climate.html, 11 December 2006, Accessed 8/1/09)
SAN FRANCISCO—A small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade
or more, with environmental effects that could be devastating for everyone on Earth, researchers have
concluded. The scientists said about 40 countries possess enough plutonium or uranium to construct
substantial nuclear arsenals. Setting off a Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all
of World War II. "Considering the relatively small number and size of the weapons, the effects are
surprisingly large," said one of the researchers, Richard Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles.
"The potential devastation would be catastrophic and long term." The lingering effects could re-shape the
environment in ways never conceived. In terms of climate, a nuclear blast could plunge temperatures
across large swaths of the globe. "It would be the largest climate change in recorded human history,"
Alan Robock, associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook College and
another member of the research team. The results will be presented here today during the annual meeting of
American Geophysical Union. Blast fatalities In one study, scientists led by Owen "Brian" Toon of the
University of Colorado, Boulder, analyzed potential fatalities based on current nuclear weapons inventories
and population densities in large cities around the world. His team focused on the black smoke generated by
a nuclear blast and firestorms—intense and long-lasting fires that create and sustain their own wind systems.
For a regional conflict, fatalities would range from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. "A small country
is likely to direct its weapons against population centers to maximize damage and achieve the greatest
advantage," Toon said. Chilled climate With the information, Robock and colleagues generated a series of
computer simulations of potential climate anomalies caused by a small-scale nuclear war. "We looked at a
scenario of a regional nuclear conflict say between India and Pakistan where each of them used 50 weapons
on cities in the other country that would generate a lot of smoke," Robock told LiveScience. They
discovered the smoke emissions would plunge temperatures by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.25 degrees
Celsius) over large areas of North America and Eurasia—areas far removed from the countries involved in
the conflict. Typically when sunlight travels through the atmosphere, some rays get absorbed by particles in
the air, before reaching Earth's surface. After a nuclear blast, however, loads of black smoke would settle into
the upper atmosphere and absorb sunlight before it reaches our planet's surface. Like a dark curtain pulled
over large parts of the globe, the smoke would cause cool temperatures, darkness, less precipitation and
even ozone depletion. At the end of the 10 years, the simulated climate still hadn't recovered. Global
upshot The study showed it doesn't take much nuclear power to drive meteoric results. Whereas the
scenarios presumed the countries involved would launch their entire nuclear arsenals, that total is just
three-hundredths of a percent of the global arsenal. Will the conclusions result in worldly changes? "We
certainly hope there will be a political response because nuclear weapons are the most dangerous
potential environmental danger to the planet. They're much more dangerous than global warming,"
Robock said.
2.) The impact is famine
Engvild 3 (KC, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology [Agric. For. Meteorol.]. Vol. 115, no. 3-4, pp. 127-137. Mar
2003. Accessed 8/1/09)
The last major one year temperature drop was 1816, the year without a summer, probably caused by the
cooling effect of the eruption of the volcano Tambora, Indonesia. The last decade-long cooling event
was A.D. 536-545 where dust veil, cold, famine, and plague was recorded in Byzantium and China.
Very large volcanic eruptions or a comet/asteroid impact have been suggested as cause. Nuclear winter
after large-scale nuclear war is a well-known scenario, but climate instabilities may also be caused by
changes in the sun, Milankovitch cycles, changes in ocean currents, volcanoes, asteroid impacts, dusting
from comets passing close, methane released from its hydrate, and pollution. The risks associated with
sudden global cooling are rather smaller than the risks of global warming, but they are real. A
dangerous sudden cooling event will happen sooner or later. Ability to change to cold-resistant crops
rapidly in large parts of the world may be necessary to avoid major famines
N.W.  Extinction – Famine [2/2]

3.) Famine causes a cycle of nuclear wars culminating in extinction
Takacs 96 (David, teaches environmental humanities @ the Institute for Earth Systems Science and Policy @ Cal
State, The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise, p 200-201)
By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have
entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the
famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.” Elsewhere Ehrlich
uses different particulars with no less drama: What then will happen if the current decimation of organic
diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change, soil
erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by
pests. Conversion of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly
inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates will become harsher. Humanity
will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's
wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make
little difference. As ecosystem services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural
disasters, and especially famine will lower life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease
of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will bring upon itself consequences depressingly similar
to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict, it appears that civilization will
disappear some time before the end of the next century – not with a bang but a whimper.

N.W.  Extinction – 100 Megatons [1/2]

Even a limited nuclear war that releases only 100 megatons can trigger nuclear winter and
extinction
Sagan 83 [Carl, Ph.D. in astronomy and astro-physics, "The Nuclear Winter", 1983,
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html]
We knew that nuclear explosions, particularly groundbursts, would lift an enormous quantity of fine soil
particles into the atmosphere (more than 100,000 tons of fine dust for every megaton exploded in a surface
burst). Our work was further spurred by Paul Crutzen of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz,
West Germany, and by John Birks of the University of Colorado, who pointed out that huge quantities of
smoke would be generated in the burning of cities and forests following a nuclear war.
Croundburst -- at hardened missile silos, for example -- generate fine dust. Airbursts -- over cities and
unhardened military installations -- make fires and therefore smoke. The amount of dust and soot generated
depends on the conduct of the war, the yields of the weapons employed and the ratio of groundbursts to
airbursts. So we ran computer models for several dozen different nuclear war scenarios. Our baseline case,
as in many other studies, was a 5000-megaton war with only a modest fraction of the yield (20 percent)
expended on urban or industrial targets. Our job, for each case, was to follow the dust and smoke
generated, see how much sunlight was absorbed and by how much the temperatures changed, figure out how
the particles spread in longitude and latitude, and calculate how long before it all fell out in the air back onto
the surface. Since the radioactivity would be attached to these same fine particles, our calculations also
revealed the extent and timing of the subsequent radioactive fallout.
Some of what I am about to describe is horrifying. I know, because it horrifies me. There is a tendency --
psychiatrists call it "denial" -- to put it out of our minds, not to think about it. But if we are to deal
intelligently, wisely, with the nuclear arms race, then we must steel ourselves to contemplate the horrors of
nuclear war.
The results of our calculations astonished us. In the baseline case, the amount of sunlight at the ground
was reduced to a few percent of normal-much darker, in daylight, than in a heavy overcast and too
dark for plants to make a living from photosynthesis. At least in the Northern Hemisphere, where the
great preponderance of strategic targets lies, an unbroken and deadly gloom would persist for weeks.
Even more unexpected were the temperatures calculated. In the baseline case, land temperatures, except for
narrow strips of coastline, dropped to minus 250 Celsius (minus 13 degrees Fahrenheit) and stayed below
freezing for months -- even for a summer war. (Because the atmospheric structure becomes much more
stable as the upper atmosphere is heated and the low air is cooled, we may have severely underestimated
how long the cold and the dark would last.) The oceans, a significant heat reservoir, would not freeze,
however, and a major ice age would probably not be triggered. But because the temperatures would drop so
catastrophically, virtually all crops and farm animals, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, would be
destroyed, as would most varieties of uncultivated or domesticated food supplies. Most of the human
survivors would starve.
In addition, the amount of radioactive fallout is much more than expected. Many previous calculations
simply ignored the intermediate time-scale fallout. That is, calculations were made for the prompt fallout --
the plumes of radioactive debris blown downwind from each target-and for the long-term fallout, the fine
radioactive particles lofted into the stratosphere that would descend about a year later, after most of the
radioactivity had decayed. However, the radioactivity carried into the upper atmosphere (but not as high as
the stratosphere) seems to have been largely forgotten. We found for the baseline case that roughly 30
percent of the land at northern midlatitudes could receive a radioactive dose greater than 250 rads,
and that about 50 percent of northern midlatitudes could receive a dose greater than 100 rads. A 100-
rad dose is the equivalent of about 1000 medical X-rays. A 400-rad dose will, more likely than not, kill
you.
The cold, the dark and the intense radioactivity, together lasting for months, represent a severe assault
on our civilization and our species. Civil and sanitary services would be wiped out. Medical facilities,
drugs, the most rudimentary means for relieving the vast human suffering, would be unavailable. Any
but the most elaborate shelters would be useless, quite apart from the question of what good it might
be to emerge a few months later. Synthetics burned in the destruction of the cities would produce a
wide variety of toxic gases, including carbon monoxide, cyanides, dioxins and furans. After the dust
<CONTINUED>

N.W.  Extinction – 100 Megatons [2/2]

<CONTINUED>
and soot settled out, the solar ultraviolet flux would be much larger than its present value. Immunity to
disease would decline. Epidemics and pandemics would be rampant, especially after the billion or so
unburied bodies began to thaw. Moreover, the combined influence of these severe and simultaneous
stresses on life are likely to produce even more adverse consequences -- biologists call them synergisms
-- that we are not yet wise enough to foresee.
So far, we have talked only of the Northern Hemisphere. But it now seems - unlike the case of a single
nuclear weapons test -- that in a real nuclear war, the heating of the vast quantities of atmospheric dust
and soot in northern midlatitudes will transport these fine particles toward and across the Equator.
We see just this happening in Martian dust storms. The Southern Hemisphere would experience effects
that, while less severe than in the Northern Hemisphere, are nevertheless extremely ominous. The
illusion with which some people in the Northern Hemisphere reassure themselves -- catching an Air New
Zealand flight in a time of serious international crisis, or the like -- is now much less tenable, even on the
narrow issue of personal survival for those with the price of a ticket.
But what if nuclear wars can be contained, and much less than 5000 megatons is detonated? Perhaps
the greatest surprise in our work was that even small nuclear wars can have devastating climatic
effects. We considered a war in which a mere 100 megatons were exploded, less than one percent of the
world arsenals, and only in low-yield airbursts over cities. This scenario, we found, would ignite
thousands of fires, and the smoke from these fires alone would be enough to generate an epoch of cold
and dark almost as severe as in the 5000 megaton case. The threshold for what Richard Turco has called
The Nuclear Winter is very low.
Could we have overlooked some important effect? The carrying of dust and soot from the Northern to the
Southern Hemisphere (as well as more local atmospheric circulation) will certainly thin the clouds out over
the Northern Hemisphere. But, in many cases, this thinning would be insufficient to render the climatic
consequences tolerable -- and every time it got better in the Northern Hemisphere, it would get worse in the
Southern.
Our results have been carefully scrutinized by more than 100 scientists in the United States, Europe
and the Soviet Union. There are still arguments on points of detail. But the overall conclusion seems to be
agreed upon: There are severe and previously unanticipated global consequences of nuclear war-subfreezing
temperatures in a twilit radioactive gloom lasting for months or longer.
Scientists initially underestimated the effects of fallout, were amazed that nuclear explosions in space
disabled distant satellites, had no idea that the fireballs from high-yield thermonuclear explosions could
deplete the ozone layer and missed altogether the possible climatic effects of nuclear dust and smoke. What
else have we overlooked?
Nuclear war is a problem that can be treated only theoretically. It is not amenable to experimentation.
Conceivably, we have left something important out of our analysis, and the effects are more modest than we
calculate. On the other hand, it is also possible-and, from previous experience, even likely-that there are
further adverse effects that no one has yet been wise enough to recognize. With billions of lives at stake,
where does conservatism lie-in assuming that the results will be better than we calculate, or worse?
Many biologists, considering the nuclear winter that these calculations describe, believe they carry somber
implications for life on Earth. Many species of plants and animals would become extinct. Vast numbers
of surviving humans would starve to death. The delicate ecological relations that bind together
organisms on Earth in a fabric of mutual dependency would be torn, perhaps irreparably. There is
little question that our global civilization would be destroyed. The human population would be reduced
to prehistoric levels, or less. Life for any survivors would be extremely hard. And there seems to be a
real possibility of the extinction of the human species.
It is now almost 40 years since the invention of nuclear weapons. We have not yet experienced a global
thermonuclear war -- although on more than one occasion we have come tremulously close. I do not think
our luck can hold forever. Men and machines are fallible, as recent events remind us. Fools and madmen do
exist, and sometimes rise to power. Concentrating always on the near future, we have ignored the long-term
consequences of our actions. We have placed our civilization and our species in jeopardy.

Risk of Extinction = Infinite

Any risk of extinction via nuclear weapons must be treated as certain
the Earth and the Abolition, Stanford University Press, 1999. p 93-96]
To say that human extinction is a certainty would, of course, be a misrepresentation— just as it would be a
misrepresentation to say that extinction can be ruled out. To begin with, we know that a holocaust may not
occur at all. If one does occur, the adversaries may not use all their weapons. If they do use all their weapons,
the global effects, in the ozone and elsewhere, may be moderate. And if the effects are not moderate but
extreme, the ecosphere may prove resilient enough to withstand them without breaking down
catastrophically. These are all substantial reasons for supposing that mankind will not be extinguished in a
nuclear holocaust, or even that extinction in a holocaust is unlikely, and they tend to calm our fear and to
reduce our sense of urgency. Yet at the same time we are compelled to admit that there may be a holocaust,
that the adversaries may use all their weapons, that the global effects, including effects of which we are as yet
unaware, may be severe, that the ecosphere may suffer catastrophic breakdown, and that our species may be
extinguished. We are left with uncertainty, and are forced to make our decisions in a state of uncertainty. If
we wish to act to save our species, we have to muster our resolve in spite of our awareness that the life of the
species may not now in fact be jeopardized. On the other hand, if we wish to ignore the peril, we have to
admit that we do so in the knowledge that the species may be in danger of imminent self-destruction. When
the existence of nuclear weapons was made known, thoughtful people everywhere in the world realized that
if the great powers entered into a nuclear-arms race the human species would sooner or later face the
possibility of extinction. They also realized that in the absence of international agreements preventing it an
arms race would probably occur. They knew that the path of nuclear armament was a dead end for mankind.
The discovery of the energy in mass— of "the basic power of the universe"—and of a means by which man
could release that energy altered the relationship between man and the source of his life, the earth. In the
shadow of this power, the earth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. In that sense, the
question of human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear
weapon was detonated, and there was no need for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals
before starting to worry about it. At just what point the species crossed, or will have crossed, the boundary
between merely having the technical knowledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand,
ready to be used at any second, is not precisely knowable. But it is clear that at present, with some twenty
thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence, and with more being added every day, we have
entered into the zone of uncertainty, which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. But the mere risk of
extinction has a significance that is categorically different from, and immeasurably greater than, that
of any other risk, and as we make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. Up to
now, every risk has been contained within the frame of life; extinction would shatter the frame. It
represents not the defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purposes would be
drowned for all time. We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless, eternal defeat on the
same footing as risks that we run in the ordinary conduct of our affairs in our particular transient
moment of human history. To employ a mathematical analogy, we can say that although the risk of
extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still
infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to
gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another
chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the
mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are
the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a
certainty that their use would put an end to our species. In weighing the fate of the earth and, with it, our
own fate, we stand before a mystery, and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. We are in
deep ignorance. Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder, our wonder should make us humble, our
humility should inspire us to reverence and caution, and our reverence and caution should lead us to act
without delay to withdraw the threat we now pose to the earth and to ourselves.
In trying to describe possible consequences of a nuclear holocaust, I have mentioned the limitless complexity
of its effects on human society and on the ecosphere— a complexity that sometimes seems to be as great as
that of life itself. But if these effects should lead to human extinction, then all the complexity will give way
to the utmost simplicity— the simplicity of nothingness. We— the human race— shall cease to be.

N.W. Survivable – Nuke Winter [1/2]

Nuclear war is survivable – nuclear winter and fallout won’t kill the planet
Nyquist 99 [J.R., renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, “Is nuclear war survivable?”,
WorldNetDaily, May 20, 1999, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19722]
As I write about Russia's nuclear war preparations, I get some interesting mail in response. Some
correspondents imagine I am totally ignorant. They point out that nuclear war would cause "nuclear winter,"
and everyone would die. Since nobody wants to die, nobody would ever start a nuclear war (and nobody
would ever seriously prepare for one). Other correspondents suggest I am ignorant of the world-destroying
effects of nuclear radiation. I patiently reply to these correspondents that nuclear war would not be the end
of the world. I then point to studies showing that "nuclear winter" has no scientific basis, that fallout from a
nuclear war would not kill all life on earth. Surprisingly, few of my correspondents are convinced. They
prefer apocalyptic myths created by pop scientists, movie producers and journalists. If Dr. Carl Sagan once
said "nuclear winter" would follow a nuclear war, then it must be true. If radiation wipes out mankind in a
movie, then that's what we can expect in real life. But Carl Sagan was wrong about nuclear winter. And
the movie "On the Beach" misled American filmgoers about the effects of fallout. It is time, once and for all,
to lay these myths to rest. Nuclear war would not bring about the end of the world, though it would be
horribly destructive. The truth is, many prominent physicists have condemned the nuclear winter
hypothesis. Nobel laureate Freeman Dyson once said of nuclear winter research, "It's an absolutely
atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight." Professor Michael
McElroy, a Harvard physics professor, also criticized the nuclear winter hypothesis. McElroy said that
nuclear winter researchers "stacked the deck" in their study, which was titled "Nuclear Winter: Global
Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions" (Science, December 1983). Nuclear winter is the theory that
the mass use of nuclear weapons would create enough smoke and dust to blot out the sun, causing a
catastrophic drop in global temperatures. According to Carl Sagan, in this situation the earth would freeze.
No crops could be grown. Humanity would die of cold and starvation. In truth, natural disasters have
frequently produced smoke and dust far greater than those expected from a nuclear war. In 1883
Krakatoa exploded with a blast equivalent to 10,000 one-megaton bombs, a detonation greater than
the combined nuclear arsenals of planet earth. The Krakatoa explosion had negligible weather effects.
Even more disastrous, going back many thousands of years, a meteor struck Quebec with the force of
17.5 million one-megaton bombs, creating a crater 63 kilometers in diameter. But the world did not
freeze. Life on earth was not extinguished. Consider the views of Professor George Rathjens of MIT, a
known antinuclear activist, who said, "Nuclear winter is the worst example of misrepresentation of
science to the public in my memory." Also consider Professor Russell Seitz, at Harvard University's
Center for International Affairs, who says that the nuclear winter hypothesis has been discredited.
Two researchers, Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider, debunked the nuclear winter hypothesis
in the summer 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs. Thompson and Schneider stated: "the global apocalyptic
conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of
probability." OK, so nuclear winter isn't going to happen. What about nuclear fallout? Wouldn't the
radiation from a nuclear war contaminate the whole earth, killing everyone? The short answer is:
absolutely not. Nuclear fallout is a problem, but we should not exaggerate its effects. As it happens,
there are two types of fallout produced by nuclear detonations. These are: 1) delayed fallout; and 2) short-
term fallout. According to researcher Peter V. Pry, "Delayed fallout will not, contrary to popular belief,
gradually kill billions of people everywhere in the world." Of course, delayed fallout would increase
the number of people dying of lymphatic cancer, leukemia, and cancer of the thyroid. "However," says
Pry, "these deaths would probably be far fewer than deaths now resulting from ... smoking, or from
automobile accidents." The real hazard in a nuclear war is the short-term fallout. This is a type of
fallout created when a nuclear weapon is detonated at ground level. This type of fallout could kill millions
of people, depending on the targeting strategy of the attacking country. But short-term fallout rapidly
subsides to safe levels in 13 to 18 days. It is not permanent. People who live outside of the affected
areas will be fine. Those in affected areas can survive if they have access to underground shelters. In
some areas, staying indoors may even suffice. Contrary to popular misconception, there were no
documented deaths from short-term or delayed fallout at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. These blasts
were low airbursts, which produced minimal fallout effects. Today's thermonuclear weapons are even

"cleaner." If used in airburst mode, these weapons would produce few (if any) fallout casualties. On their
<CONTINUED>

N.W. Survivable – Nuke Winter [2/2]

<CONTINUED>
side, Russian military experts believe that the next world war will be a nuclear missile war. They know that
nuclear weapons cannot cause the end of the world. According to the Russian military writer, A. S.
Milovidov, "There is profound error and harm in the disoriented claims of bourgeois ideologues that there
will be no victor in a thermonuclear world war." Milovidov explains that Western objections to the mass use of
nuclear weapons are based on "a subjective judgment. It expresses mere protest against nuclear war." Another
Russian theorist, Captain First Rank V. Kulakov, believes that a mass nuclear strike may not be enough to defeat "a
strong enemy, with extensive territory enabling him to use space and time for the organizations of active and passive
defense. ..."
Russian military theory regards nuclear war as highly destructive, but nonetheless winnable. Russian
generals do not exaggerate the effects of mass destruction weapons. Although nuclear war would be unprecedented
in its death-dealing potential, Russian strategists believe that a well-prepared system of tunnels and underground
bunkers could save many millions of lives. That is why Russia has built a comprehensive shelter system for its urban
populace. On the American side as well, there have been studies which suggest that nuclear war is survivable.
The famous 1960 Rand Corporation study, "On Thermonuclear War," says, "Even if 100 metropolitan areas
[in the USA] are destroyed, there would be more wealth in this country than there is in all of Russia today
and more skills than were available to that country in the forties. The United States is a very wealthy and
well-educated country." The Rand study states that even if half the U.S. population were killed, "the survivors
would not just lie down and die. Nor would they necessarily suffer a disastrous social disorganization." Despite so
many scholarly works and scientific studies, myths about nuclear war persist. These myths serve to confuse
and misinform the American public. Because of these myths the United States government did not bother to
build fallout shelters for its people. Because of these myths we do not take seriously the nuclear war
preparations of Russia and China.
Nuclear winter can be survived
Kearny 87 (Cresson, “Nuclear War Survival Skills,” Published by theOregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Cave Junction, Oregon, p.17. Accessed July 31, 2009)
Myth: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" surely will follow a nuclear war. The world will be frozen if only
100 megatons (less than one percent of all nuclear weapons) are used to ignite cities. World-enveloping
smoke from fires and the dust from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight and solar heat from
reaching the earth's surface. Universal darkness for weeks! Sub-zero temperatures, even in summertime!
Frozen crops, even in the jungles of South America! Worldwide famine! Whole species of animals and
plants exterminated! The survival of mankind in doubt! Facts: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" is a
discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into
believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by
ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving. Non-
propagandizing scientists recently have calculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of
even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly
publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved
Soviet scientists. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations are summarized in an article,
"Nuclear Winter Reappraised", featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious
quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. The authors, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider,
are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They showed " that on
scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now
be relegated to a vanishing low level of probability."

N.W. Survivable – 10,000 Megatons

A 10,000 megaton nuclear explosion is survivable.
Carson 79 [Mark J., Member of the NRC’s Advisory Committee on reactor Safeguards and foreign weapons
group, The Dangers of Nuclear War, A Pugwash symposium, eds. Franklyn Griffiths and John C. Polanyi, p. 18
1979]
Apart from the immediate effects and disruptions already indicated, the question has been raised of whether a
nuclear war would poison the biosphere to such an extent as to imperil prospects for the continuation of
human life. As the result of a study conducted in 1975 by a Committee of the US National Academy of
Sciences it was concluded that, after a war involving the detonation of ten thousand megatons of nuclear
explosives. The fall-out at locations remote from the major target areas – at distances, that is, of the
order of 100km or more, beyond which fall-out is no longer local but is reasonably uniformly distributed on a
world-wide basis – would provide an incremental radiation exposure approximately equal to that
provided by natural background over a 30- to 40-year period. This would apply to the hemisphere
(presumably northern) in which the detonations occurred; in the other hemisphere such effects would be
about one third as large. The gross total of megatons considered was felt to be of about the right order
to allow for as much as the major powers might be in a position to deliver.
In addition to fall-out radiation, other phenomena were identified which would lead to troublesome and
undesirable effects – enhanced ultraviolet radiation persisting for at least a few years, for example, and
possibly changes in climate and average surface temperatures which might substantially shorten growing
seasons for particular crops and could restrict the areas in which they could be grown. Though the extent of
such effects could not be estimated with any precision, it was not expected that the changes induced
would be large enough to be catastrophic. In the most elementary physical sense, then, it was concluded
that, with some increased difficulties and disabilities, the human species could continue to inhabit a major
part of the northern hemisphere. This mere continuation, of course, does not tell one all one could wish to
know about the quality of life, since the species already inhabited the northern hemisphere during the Dark
Ages.

N.W. Survivable – Civilization

Nuclear war would not destroy civilization – there would still be countries that were
unaffected
Clayton 85 (Bruce, PHD in Ecology, “Nuclear War”, pg 99-100)

Myths about the effect on civilization: How many times have you read or heard something like this? “A war
fought with nuclear weapons would put an end to civilization as we know it.” I think it is probably true that a
nuclear war would severely disrupt, perhaps destroy, the economic and social structure of the United States
and western Europe. It is possible that it would also destroy the national structure of the Soviet Union, but
that is less likely. (In rural areas of Russia, for instance, a typical peasant’s standard of living is so low that
there is little which a nuclear war could do to make it worse.)
It is very egotistical of us, however, to state so blatantly our belief that the destruction of America (or even
just Boston) would be the end of civilization.
Humanity could rebuild and resume our civilization
Greene 85 [Jack, Dep. Ass. Dir. Of research for US Civil Preparedness Agency, Nuclear War Opposing
Viewpoints: Humanity can survive a Nuclear War, pg 71]
Common sense indicates that this country could continue to grow the food and fiber necessary to sustain
its citizens after nuclear attack. The United States has a highly efficient agricultural industry. Less
than 4 per cent of the total population is all that is required not only to meet the needs of the nation but
also to provide huge surpluses for export. This industry is almost immune to significant damage in a
nuclear attack. Farm machinery would be scarcely affected at all, and the farm workers themselves are not
very vulnerable providing they take simple precautions against fallout. Priority allocation of fuel for the farm
machinery and of fertilizers and other farm inputs is all that is necessary to bring the agricultural industry
substantially back to its pre-attack rate.
Nuclear war would not kill everyone – opposing claims cause paralysis
On the question of whether the United States would recover following a massive nuclear attack, the jury is
still out – and most probably always will be. Everyone hopes and most people believe the question will
always remain in the abstract. The probability of nuclear war seems very remote, and we will never know for
sure whether recovery is possible unless nuclear war actually occurs. No nation can realistically hope to be
better off after a nuclear exchange than it was before. One might inflict more damage on the other than it
itself sustained, but any such “victory” would be a Pyrrhic one.
The argument that a nuclear war could eliminate the human species or bring an end to civilization as
we know if has not stood up to the light of objective and scientific examination. New hypotheses for
doom and disaster will arise, and they must be examined and evaluated. But no prudent society will allow
unproved hypothesis to exert a paralyzing influence on its preparedness programs.

N.W. Survivable – Cancer

Cancer deaths would not threaten continued survival of humanity
Longer-term radiation effects would include thyroid damage, bone cancer, leukemia, and other forms of
cancer of the types that occur today. Radiation does not induce new forms of cancer; it increases the
frequency of occurrence of those that result from other causes. A physician examining cancer patients in the
post-war world would not be able to discriminate between cancers caused by the fallout radiation and those
that would have occurred anyway. Radiation exposure would increase the incidence of various types of
cancer so that the net effect would be observable on a statistical basis. There is no danger that the
increased incidence would be great enough to pose a threat to the survival of the society.
Cancer is not a threat to wipe out humanity after a nuclear war
Clayton 85 [Bruce, PHD in Ecology, Nuclear war, pg]

Myths about cancer: Some of the more pernicious myths are those which state that even if survival of the war
itself were possible, the survivors would eventually be wiped out by radiation-induced cancers. This story
attains its greatest credibility when spread by physicians, who ought to know better.
The long-tem fallout effects in the countries bombed would give rise to other epidemics. Within five years,
leukemia would be rampant. Within 15 to 20 years, solid cancers of the lung, breast, bowel, stomach, and
thyroid would strike down survivors.
According to Glasstone in The Effects of Nuclear War, the experience of the Japanese indicated that there
would be a surge of leukemia cases 5 to 10 years after the war, but only among those people who had
received large doses of radiation and had been fortunate enough not to die of radiation sickness. The
predicted incidence of leukemia among adults who had been exposed to 100 and 200 rems would be between
two and four cases per thousand former radiation patients. Surviving severely irradiated children who had
been under 10 years old at the time of the war would be twice as susceptible, which means four to eight cases
of leukemia per thousand. Now I admit that a leukemia rate approaching 1 percent of the radiation patients
would be a terrible tragedy, but it wouldn’t exactly mean the end of our species, would it?

N.W. Survivable – Israel

A nuclear war isn’t enough to even kill all of Israel, let alone the whole planet
Leshem 7 (Elie, “US institute: Israel could survive nuclear war”,Dec. 24, 2007 THE JERUSALEM
POST,http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847416688&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter,
Accessed July 31, 2009)
If a nuclear war between Israel and Iran were to break out 16-20 million Iranians would lose their
lives - as opposed to 200,000-800,000 Israelis, according to a report recently published by the
Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is headed by Anthony
H. Cordesman, formerly an analyst for the US Department of Defense. The document, which is largely
theoretical due to the lack of verified knowledge in some areas - specifically in terms of Israel's nuclear
capability - paints various scenarios and attempts to predict the strategies of regional powers, as well as the
US. The report assesses that a nuclear war would last approximately three weeks and ultimately end
with the annihilation of Iran, due to Israel's alleged possession of weapons with a far larger yield. Israel,
according to the assessment, would have a larger chance of survival. The report does not attempt to predict
how many deaths would eventually be caused by possible nuclear fallout. Even if Iran gained the means
and knowledge to create nuclear weapons, according to the report it would still be limited to 100
kiloton weapons, which can cause a far smaller radius of destruction than the 1 megaton bombs Israel
allegedly possesses. Possible targets for an Iranian strike are the Tel Aviv metropolitan area and Haifa bay,
while the list of possible targets in Iran includes the cities Teheran, Tabriz, Qazvin, Esfahan, Shiraz, Yazd,
Kerman, Qom, Ahwaz and Kermanshah. The report cites Israel's Arrow missile defense system as an
obstacle facing a possible Iranian strike and says that it could shoot down most of the missiles. Israel,
on the other hand, would be capable of hitting most of the Iranian cities with pinpoint accuracy due to
the high resolution satellite imagery systems at its disposal. Another scenario presented by the report
includes Syria joining the bandwagon in case of a war and lobbing missiles with chemical and biological
warheads into Israeli cities. According to the report, up to 800,000 Israelis would be killed if that were to
happen. Syria, however, would be forced to grapple with the deaths of approximately 18 million of its
citizens were Israel to respond with its nuclear arsenal. Israel, the report says, would launch a nuclear
attack on Cairo and additional Egyptian cities, and would destroy the Aswan Dam if Egypt joined the fray.

N.W. Survivable – Radiation/Fallout

Fallout args are wrong – 6 reasons
Nyquist 99 [JR Nyquist, Expert in IR, Specializing in Cold War Studies and Nuclear Survivability, Writer
WorldNetDaily, 5-20-1999, “Is nuclear war survivable,” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?
ARTICLE_ID=19722]
OK, so nuclear winter isn't going to happen. What about nuclear fallout? Wouldn't the radiation from a
nuclear war contaminate the whole earth, killing everyone? The short answer is: absolutely not. Nuclear
fallout is a problem, but we should not exaggerate its effects. As it happens, there are two types of fallout
produced by nuclear detonations. These are: 1) delayed fallout; and 2) short-term fallout. According to
researcher Peter V. Pry, "Delayed fallout will not, contrary to popular belief, gradually kill billions of
people everywhere in the world." Of course, delayed fallout would increase the number of people dying of
lymphatic cancer, leukemia, and cancer of the thyroid. "However," says Pry, "these deaths would probably
be far fewer than deaths now resulting from ... smoking, or from automobile accidents." The real
hazard in a nuclear war is the short-term fallout. This is a type of fallout created when a nuclear weapon is
detonated at ground level. This type of fallout could kill millions of people, depending on the targeting
strategy of the attacking country. But short-term fallout rapidly subsides to safe levels in 13 to 18 days. It
is not permanent. People who live outside of the affected areas will be fine. Those in affected areas can
survive if they have access to underground shelters. In some areas, staying indoors may even suffice.
Contrary to popular misconception, there were no documented deaths from short-term or delayed
fallout at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. These blasts were low airbursts, which produced minimal fallout
effects. Today's thermonuclear weapons are even "cleaner." If used in airburst mode, these weapons
would produce few (if any) fallout casualties.
Common sense minimizes radiation exposure
USNRC 8 (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Minimize Your Exposure”,

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/protects-you/protection-principles.html, 5/6/08, Accessed 7/31/09)
Although exposure to ionizing radiation carries a risk, it is impossible to completely avoid exposure.
Radiation has always been present in the environment and in our bodies. We can, however, avoid
undue exposure through the following protection principles: Time, Distance, and Shielding
Containment NRC's System of Radiation Protection Time, Distance, and Shielding Time, distance, and
shielding measures minimize your exposure to radiation in much the same way as they would to protect
you against overexposure to the sun (as illustrated in the figure below): Time: For people who are
exposed to radiation in addition to natural background radiation, limiting or minimizing the exposure time
reduces the dose from the radiation source. Distance: Just as the heat from a fire is less intense the
further away you are, so the intensity and dose of radiation decreases dramatically as you increase
your distance from the source. Shielding: Barriers of lead, concrete, or water provide protection from
penetrating radiation such as gamma rays and neutrons. This is why certain radioactive materials are
stored under water or in concrete or lead-lined rooms, and why dentists place a lead blanket on patients
receiving x-rays of their teeth. Similarly, special plastic shields stop beta particles, and air stops alpha
particles. Therefore, inserting the proper shield between you and a radiation source will greatly reduce
or eliminate the dose you receive.

N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “#”

Nuclear war would only kill a million people – worst case, 30 million
Sharfman 79 [Dr. Peter Sharfman, Group Manager Nat. Sec. Studies, Office Tech. Assessment, May 1979,
Effects of a Nuclear War]
What can be concluded from this? First, if the attack involves surface bursts of many very large weapons,
if weather conditions are unfavorable and if no fallout shelters are created beyond those that presently
exist, U.S. deaths could reach 20 million and Soviet deaths more than 10 million. (The difference is a
result of geography; many Soviet strategic forces are so located that fallout from attacking them would drift
mainly into sparsely populated areas or into China. ) Second, effective fallout sheltering (which is not
necessarily the same thing as a program – this assumes people are actually sheltered and actually remain
there) could save many lives under favorable conditions, but even in the best imaginable case more than a
million would die in either the United States or the U.S.S.R. from a counter-force attack. Third, the
“limited nature” of counterforce attacks may not be as significant as the enormous uncertainty regarding their
results.
Nuclear war results in high casualties but not extinction
Phillips 98 (A.F. Phillips, M.D., “Medical Problems After Nuclear War,”

http://www.peace.ca/medicalproblems.htm Accessed 7/31/09)
Calculations for a Nuclear War appear unbelievably callous. The U.S. "Federal Emergency Management
Agency" has described various scenarios, and a typical one might result in 86,000,000 people dead and
34,000,000 severely injured in the United States [CRPB-2 Model, quoted by Abrams & Von Kaenel{16}].
`Acceptable' or not to the military minds, there is no way that this number of injured could be accommodated
or treated in all the hospitals of the world. There are about 2,000,000 hospital beds in Canada and U.S.A.
combined. Obviously no existing or conceivable medical service could handle a disaster even one tenth of
this size.
There would be survivors, some injured some uninjured. After the bombing, `Nuclear Winter' is
predicted {20}, which would cause darkness and cold for weeks or months. Communication would be
defective or absent; transportation rapidly failing as local fuel supplies ran out; psychological shock would
be extreme; millions of injured would be dying; millions of corpses would lie unburied; radiation fallout
would be universal, and downwind of all near-surface nuclear explosions and disrupted nuclear generators it
would be intense.

N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “%” [1/2]

Nuclear war only affects 5% of the US at maximum
Zuckerman 84 (Edward, “The Day After WW3” New York : Viking Press, Accessed 7/31/009)
Defense Department Studies Show,” the film’s narrator says, that, even under the heaviest possible
attack, less than five percent of our entire land area would be affected by blast and heat from nuclear
weapons. Of course, that five percent contains a large percentage of our population.” Red flashes erupt over
small target areas on a map of the United States. “But, even in these high-risk areas, if there’s sufficient
time to permit evacuation, many millions of lives could be saved.” Pink radioactive clouds drift out of the
red flashes. “The other ninety-five percent of out land would escape untouched. Except possible by
radioactive fallout
Only 5% of the world would be at risk of death during and after a nuclear war
Clayton 85 (Bruce, PHD in Ecology, “Nuclear War”, pg 99-100)

The myth of unprecedented destruction: One of my favorite myths is this one, because it shows such
dramatic historical myopia: The detonation of a single weapon of this nature over any of the world’s major
cities would constitute a disaster unprecedented in human history.
On a qualitative basis, one recalls that the Black Death of the 15th century killed 25 percent of the population
of the then-known world, but even a very severe nuclear war threatens only about 5 percent of today’s world
population. And this passage refers to only one bomb! On the quantitative side, I think the 25 million
Russians who starved to death in the early 1920s deserve at least a nod. Then there were the volcanic
eruptions at Pompeii and St. Pierre which killed almost everyone in these cities. The Romans, and later the
Crusaders, were not above leveling conquered citied (so that no two stones remained together) and putting all
of the defeated inhabitants to death. Neither a nuclear bomb nor a volcano can deal out death and destruction
that thouroughly, Let’s pause, too and remember 11 million innocent people who made a fatal error or
judgment about Hitler and the Nazis. “Unprecedented” isn’t really the right word.
Only 20% of the population would die in a nuclear war – including radiation
Contrary to what…others seem to believe, radiation would not be sufficient to extinguish all life on
earth. A realistic appraisal, based upon existing knowledge, suggests that 20 percent of the population in
their present residences would not need to spend any time in shelters; 33 percent would need to spend two to
three days in shelters, while 45 percent might have to spend from three days to two weeks… With adequate
planning and with dispersal, losses could be reduced to about 20 percent of the population.
Extinction Impossible – not even 50% of the people in the opposing countries could be
killed
Pry 90 (Peter Vincent, US Arms Control Disarmament Agency, “The Strategic Nuclear Balance”
The strategic nuclear balance / by Peter Vincent Pry C. Russak, New York, NY : 1990)
According to Martel and Savage, a thorough countercity war that targets the 304 most populous US
cities and the 306 most populous Soviet cities, and this would include many small cities having
populations down to about 50,000 (see Table 7.4), would place at risk 63 percent of the total US
population and 39 percent of the total Soviet population. About 37 percent of the total US population and
61 percent of the Soviet population that live in small communities and rural areas would probably not be
at risk to direct attack. Interestingly, Martel and Savage calculate that the United States and USSR
cannot kill 100 percent of each other’s inhabitants and cannot easily kill 50 percent of each other’s
people

N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “%” [2/2]

50% of the population of the US would survive a nuclear war
Viewpoints: Humanity can survive a Nuclear War, pg 66-67]
Now picture the United States one or two weeks after a full-scale attack against major military targets and
population centers. Approximately 50 percent of the population would have survived. Certain assumptions,
based on years of research, can be made about the composition of the surviving population: 1. The next
census will show a United States population of a little over 100 million – approximately the same as in 1921.
2. The population is no longer predominately urban, for a considerably higher percentage of the rural
population survived. 3. The male-female ratio remains about the same, but the age distribution is different.
There are considerably fewer of the very old or very young. 4. The life expectancy of the average person is
shortened, perhaps by as much as four to five years. 5. Proportionally there are fewer doctors and hospitals,
corporate headquarters and executives, petroleum-refining and pharmaceutical-production plants, and public
administrators.
One in three people would live in the event of an all out nuclear war
The underlying motive behind these negative hypotheses may be psychological. If everyone “knew” that
nuclear war either directly or indirectly would trigger a mechanism for annihilating the human species,
somehow the world would appear more secure. No sane person would initiate a series of events that would
lead to everyone’s death, including his own. Thus to many people the idea of assured destruction contains
elements of reassurance….
The chances of surviving the immediate effects of the bombs caused by high overpressures and thermal
radiation – effects that killed most of the victims of the atomic bombs in Japan – are about two in
three. There is about one chance in two of the surviving the fallout radiation effects as well. In all, the
chances are about one in three of not receiving a radiation, blast, or burn injury. In short, the prospects
are: one in three of being killed outright by blast or thermal effects; one in six of being killed by fallout-
radiation; one in six of being injured, but non-fatally, by blast, thermal, or fallout radiation; one in three of
being uninjured.

N.W. Survivable – “#” of Survivors

The US would have 40 million survivors in a worst case nuclear war
About 40 million Americans are likely to survive a worst-case large-scale nuclear attack, even without
any protective measures. The total absence of civil defense preparations, the public’s all but complete
ignorance of the realities of nuclear war and the consequent potential for an exacerbation of a nuclear tragedy
are among the most dangerous characteristics of our present defense effort.

N.W. Survivable – Ozone

Observational evidence proves nuclear war doesn’t cause ozone depletion
Cresson H. Kearney, Res. Engineer, Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., 1987, Nuclear War Survival Skills,
www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
° Myth: Blindness and a disastrous increase of cancers would be the fate of survivors of a nuclear war,
because the nuclear explosions would destroy so much of the protective ozone in the stratosphere that far
too much ultraviolet light would reach the earth's surface. Even birds and insects would be blinded. People
could not work outdoors in daytime for years without dark glasses, and would have to wear protective
clothing to prevent incapacitating sunburn. Plants would be badly injured and food production greatly
reduced. ° Facts: Large nuclear explosions do inject huge amounts of nitrogen oxides (gasses that
destroy ozone) into the stratosphere. However, the percent of the stratospheric ozone destroyed by a
given amount of nitrogen oxides has been greatly overestimated in almost all theoretical calculations
and models. For example, the Soviet and U.S. atmospheric nuclear test explosions of large weapons in 1952-
1962 were calculated by Foley and Ruderman to result in a reduction of more than 10 percent in total ozone.
(See M. H. Foley and M. A. Ruderman, 'Stratospheric NO from Past Nuclear Explosions", Journal of
Geophysics, Res. 78, 4441-4450.) Yet observations that they cited showed no reductions in ozone. Nor
did ultraviolet increase. Other theoreticians calculated sizable reductions in total ozone, but interpreted the
observational data to indicate either no reduction, or much smaller reductions than their calculated ones. A
realistic simplified estimate of the increasedultraviolet light dangers to American survivors of a large
nuclear war equates these hazards to moving from San Francisco to sea level at the equator, where the
sea level incidence of skin cancers (seldom fatal) is highest- about 10 times higher than the incidence at San
Francisco. Many additional thousands of American survivors might get skin cancer, but little or no increase
in skin cancers might result if in the post-attack world deliberate sun tanning and going around hatless went
out of fashion. Furthermore, almost all of today's warheads are smaller than those exploded in the large-
weapons tests mentioned above; most would inject much smaller amounts of ozone-destroying gasses, or
no gasses, into the stratosphere, where ozone deficiencies may persist for years. And nuclear weapons
smaller than 500 kilotons result in increases (due to smog reactions) in upper troposphericozone. In a
nuclear war, these increases would partially compensate for the upper-level tropospheric decreases-as
explained by Julius S. Chang and Donald J. Wuebbles of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Nuke Winter = Propaganda

Nuclear Winter is Communist Propaganda
Nyquist 8 (JR, “Misreading the Tea Leaves,” Geopolitical Global Analysis,

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2008/0222.html, 2/22/08, Accessed 7/31/09)
Now and again I write a column about the likelihood of nuclear war. Certain readers like to point out,
again and again, that nuclear war is not a viable option because of “nuclear winter.” Quite foolishly, I
attempt to explain that nuclear winter is not a scientifically valid idea. In fact, it was first put forward
in the 1980s as part of a massive KGB disinformation campaign initiated by Soviet leader Yuri
Andropov. To confirm the facts in this case, one need only consult a recent book by Pete Earley titled
Comrade J. Those readers who believe in nuclear winter, however, refuse to believe that the idea
originated as part of a Communist plot. Many popular ideas concerning the environment, capitalism,
rich vs. poor and the American military are false ideas spread by the KGB or Communist front
groups. There is an extent to which everyone’s thinking has been influenced by Kremlin disinformation. In
fact, public discourse in the United States has been effectively poisoned, over the last six decades, by a
series of successful Communist agitation and propaganda campaigns. One of those campaigns
managed to convince an overwhelming majority of Americans that Communism is dead. Whether we
are talking about presidential candidates or nuclear war, Americans have ingested so much polemical
garbage and disinformation that they are effectively misled on nearly every issue. Our very instincts
are confused. Relying on false concepts and bogus facts, we cling to comfortable illusions that affirm a
comfortable way of life. After this fashion an entire nation has been put to sleep. Consider the three big
lies that everyone accepts without argument: (1) Political subversion does not and cannot take place in
America. (2) Russia is not America’s enemy. (3) There is no threat of nuclear war. In support of these
three lies we have three misunderstandings: McCarthyism, the collapse of communism in Eastern
Europe and “nuclear winter.”

US Can Second Strike [1/2]

The US force posture is designed to survive a nuclear attack and still be able to respond
with devastating force
Flory 6 [Peter C. W., Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, “Nuclear Exchange:
Does Washington Really Have (or Want) Nuclear Primacy?” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2006, AD:
8/2/09, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61931/peter-c-w-flory-keith-payne-pavel-podvig-alexei-arbatov-
keir-a-l/nuclear-exchange-does-washington-really-have-or-]
Publicly available facts contradict Lieber and Press' thesis that the United States is pursuing a first-strike
strategy. President George W. Bush set the nation on a path to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons in a
May 2001 speech at the National Defense University, stating, "I am committed to achieving a credible
deterrent with the lowest possible number of nuclear weapons consistent with our national security needs,
including our obligations to our allies. My goal is to move quickly to reduce nuclear forces."
The Department of Defense acted promptly to implement the president's directive. The result was the
December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, which declared that by 2012 the United States will have decreased
the number of nuclear warheads deployed on its operational forces by two-thirds (we are already halfway to
this goal). Additionally, by 2012 the United States will have cut its total stockpile of nuclear warheads nearly
in half. Already, we have removed from strategic service four ballistic missile submarines, and, perhaps most
relevant to the discussion at hand, we have voluntarily retired the Peacekeeper missiles, our most accurate
and powerful ICBMs. Ironically, during the Cold War, some criticized these land-based missiles, which are
capable of being equipped with ten MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles), as
representing the ultimate first-strike weapon.
Further, in the recently released Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of Defense announced plans
to modify about ten percent of its submarine-launched Trident II missiles so that they will carry nonnuclear
warheads and to retire ten percent of the remaining land-based Minuteman III ICBMs.
These are hardly the moves of an administration seeking, in Lieber and Press words, "to enhance the United
States' nuclear first-strike capabilities."
This administration has continued the policy of previous administrations in that it does not rely on the
ability to conduct a nuclear first strike to ensure the survival of the United States. The Department of
Defense's force posture of dispersed ICBMs and survivable ballistic missile submarines is designed to
make clear to any adversary that might contemplate a first strike against the United States that in the
aftermath of such an attack the U.S. military would retain the ability to respond with such devastating
force that an aggressor could not stand to gain. This is not a first-strike posture.

US Can Second Strike [2/2]

US has second strike capability
FAS 98 (Federation of American Scientists, “SSBN-726 Ohio-Class FBM Submarines”,

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/submarines/ssbn726_ohio.html, Accessed 8/1/09)
SSBN-726 class FBM submarines can carry 24 ballistic missiles with MIRV warheads that can be
accurately delivered to selected targets from almost anywhere in the world's oceans. Earlier FBM ships
carry 16 missiles. A cylindrical pressure hull structure of HY-80 steel is supported by circular frames
and enclosed by hemispherical heads at both ends. The pressure hull provides an enclosure large
enough for weapons, crew, and equipment with enough strength to enable the ship to operate deep
enough to avoid easy detection. A streamlined (fish-shaped) outer hull permits the ship to move quietly
through the water at high speeds. This outer hull surrounds the forward and aft end of the pressure hull and is
not built to withstand deep submergence pressure. It is normally considered as the main ballast tanks. The
superstructure is any part of the ship that is above the pressure hull. This would include the sail or fairwater
area, and the area above the missile tubes. The streamlined hull was designed specifically for efficient
cruising underwater; the Skipjack was the first nuclear-powered ship to adopt this hull form. The larger
hulls accommodate more weapons of larger size and greater range, as well as sophisticated
computerized electronic equipment for improved weapon guidance and sonar performance. Improved
silencing techniques reduce the chances of detection.The Ohio-class submarines are specifically
designed for extended deterrent patrols. To increase the time in port for crew turnover and replenishment,
three large logistics hatches are fitted to provide large diameter resupply and repair openings. These hatches
allow sailors to rapidly transfer supply pallets, equipment replacement modules and machinery components,
significantly reducing the time required for replenishment and maintenance. The class design and modern
main concepts allow the submarines to operate for 15+ years between overhauls. Each SSBN is at sea at least
66 percent of the time, including major overhaul periods of twelve months every nine years. One SSBN
combat employment cycle includes a 70-day patrol and 25-day period of transfer of the submarine to the
other crew, between-deployment maintenance, and reloading of munitions.

Arizona Debate Institute 2009

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Arizona Debate Institute 2009

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 1

Russell/Frappier Nuclear Survivability

N.W.  Extinction [1/2]................................................................................................................3

N.W.  Extinction [2/2]................................................................................................................5

N.W.  Extinction – Biodiversity [1/2].......................................................................................8

N.W.  Extinction – Biodiversity [2/2].......................................................................................9

N.W.  Extinction – Famine [1/2].............................................................................................10

N.W.  Extinction – Famine [2/2].............................................................................................11

N.W.  Extinction – 100 Megatons [1/2]..................................................................................12

N.W.  Extinction – 100 Megatons [2/2]..................................................................................13

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W.  Extinction [1/2]

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W.  Extinction [2/2]

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W.  Extinction – Biodiversity [1/2]

2.) Global fall-out destroys biodiversity

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W.  Extinction – Biodiversity [2/2]

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W.  Extinction – Famine [1/2]

2.) The impact is famine

N.W.  Extinction – Famine [2/2]

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W.  Extinction – 100 Megatons [1/2]

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W.  Extinction – 100 Megatons [2/2]

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

Risk of Extinction = Infinite

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – Nuke Winter [1/2]

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – Nuke Winter [2/2]

Nuclear winter can be survived

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – 10,000 Megatons

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – Civilization

Clayton 85 (Bruce, PHD in Ecology, “Nuclear War”, pg 99-100)

Humanity could rebuild and resume our civilization

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – Cancer

Cancer is not a threat to wipe out humanity after a nuclear war

Clayton 85 [Bruce, PHD in Ecology, Nuclear war, pg]

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – Israel

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – Radiation/Fallout

Common sense minimizes radiation exposure

USNRC 8 (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Minimize Your Exposure”,

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “#”

Nuclear war results in high casualties but not extinction

Phillips 98 (A.F. Phillips, M.D., “Medical Problems After Nuclear War,”

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “%” [1/2]

Clayton 85 (Bruce, PHD in Ecology, “Nuclear War”, pg 99-100)

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

N.W. Survivable – Only Kills “%” [2/2]