Nuclear War And Environmental Catastrophe

“There are two problems for our species’ survival—nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, ” says Noam Chomsky in this new book on the two existential threats of our time and their points of intersection since World War II. While a nuclear strike would require action, environmental catastrophe is partially defined by willful inaction in response to human-induced climate change. Denial of the facts is only half the equation. Other contributing factors include extreme techniques for the extraction of remaining carbon deposits, the elimination of agricultural land for bio-fuel, the construction of dams, and the destruction of forests that are crucial for carbon sequestration. On the subject of current nuclear tensions, Chomsky revisits the long-established option of a nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, a proposal set in motion through a joint Egyptian Iranian General Assembly resolution in 1974. Intended as a warning, Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe is also a reminder that talking about the unspeakable can still be done with humor, with wit and indomitable spirit.

In 1982, three conservationists in the United States discussed a growing concern they shared about the long-term biological consequences of nuclear war; they wondered what such a war would do to the air, the water, the soils 1 the natural systems upon which all life depends. I was one of those three; the others were executives of two philanthropic foundations, Robert L. Allen of the Henry P. Kendall Foundation and the late Robert W. Scrivner of the Rockefeller Family Fund. Together we began trying to! find out what the scientific community was doing about the problem and what steps could be taken to alert the environmental movement to the need to address the subject. We knew that a large-scale nuclear war might kill from 300 million to a billion people outright and that another billion could suffer serious injuries requiring immediate medical attention, care that would be largely unavailable. But what kind of world wouldisurvivors face? Would the long-term consequences prove to humanity and survival of all species than the to be even more serious immediate effects? We found that comparatively little scientific research had been done about the envifonmental consequences of a nuclear war of the magni tude that toda,y's huge arsenal could unleash . .

Environmentalists often predict an Apocalypse is coming: The earth will heat up like a greenhouse. We will run out of energy. Overpopulation will lead to starvation and war. Nuclear winter will kill all plants and animals. During the past fifty to one hundred years, Americans have heard many prophecies of doom, such as the Club of Rome report predicting the world economy would crash about the year 2020. These do not come as complete surprises without any warnings. Sometimes the United States simply ignores the threats, but other times it makes plans to prevent them. This provocative book asks whether American planning is different for dangers that are truly apocalyptic—ones that could end life on the planet or at least modern economic prosperity. This provocative book begins by asking whether American planning is different for dangers that are truly apocalyptic—ones that could end life on the planet or at least modern economic prosperity. It goes on to ask why Americans ignore so many problems like the greenhouse effect or an oil shortage or nuclear war, problems that have been forecast many times. Then when the United States does plan, why do those plans often go astray?

Proceedings of a seminar focusing on planetary emergencies, followed in a multidisplinary approach since 1980 by permanent monitoring panels.

In 1982, three conservationists in the United States discussed a growing concern they shared about the long-term biological consequences of nuclear war; they wondered what such a war would do to the air, the water, the soils 1 the natural systems upon which all life depends. I was one of those three; the others were executives of two philanthropic foundations, Robert L. Allen of the Henry P. Kendall Foundation and the late Robert W. Scrivner of the Rockefeller Family Fund. Together we began trying to! find out what the scientific community was doing about the problem and what steps could be taken to alert the environmental movement to the need to address the subject. We knew that a large-scale nuclear war might kill from 300 million to a billion people outright and that another billion could suffer serious injuries requiring immediate medical attention, care that would be largely unavailable. But what kind of world wouldisurvivors face? Would the long-term consequences prove to humanity and survival of all species than the to be even more serious immediate effects? We found that comparatively little scientific research had been done about the envifonmental consequences of a nuclear war of the magni tude that toda,y's huge arsenal could unleash . .

Environmentalists often predict an Apocalypse is coming: The earth will heat up like a greenhouse. We will run out of energy. Overpopulation will lead to starvation and war. Nuclear winter will kill all plants and animals. During the past fifty to one hundred years, Americans have heard many prophecies of doom, such as the Club of Rome report predicting the world economy would crash about the year 2020. These do not come as complete surprises without any warnings. Sometimes the United States simply ignores the threats, but other times it makes plans to prevent them. This provocative book asks whether American planning is different for dangers that are truly apocalyptic—ones that could end life on the planet or at least modern economic prosperity. This provocative book begins by asking whether American planning is different for dangers that are truly apocalyptic—ones that could end life on the planet or at least modern economic prosperity. It goes on to ask why Americans ignore so many problems like the greenhouse effect or an oil shortage or nuclear war, problems that have been forecast many times. Then when the United States does plan, why do those plans often go astray?

This book assesses the current available information concerning the major scientific problems related to environmental consequences of a possible nuclear war. The contributors address a broad range of topics, among them the effects of blast, heat, and local radioactive fallout; the likely dispersal patterns and residence times of radioactive debris in the troposphere and stratosphere; the probable long-term effects on both the local and global biosphere and radiological consequences for humans; the effect on the global environment of widespread fires in urban and industrialized regions; and the likely significant decrease of stratospheric ozone with a resulting long-term increase in harmful UV radiation received at the ground. The authors point to problem areas where current information is inadequate or completely lacking and discuss the role of the scientist in developing such information as a contribution to the elimination of the nuclear war threat.