Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 20, 2013
Experts Fear Nuclear Famine: “A Disaster So Massive in Scale that No Preparation is Possible”
At last count, there are eight countries in the world that have officially designed, developed and tested nuclear weapons. Another two (Israel and Iran) deny they have built or are building such weapons, but the probability that Israel has them and that Iran is building them is believed by members of the international community to be extremely high.
Image: Nuclear Explosion (Wikimedia Commons).That being said, it’s only a matter of time before a madman at the helm in any of these ten nuclear-armed states decides to push the button. With the global economy in shambles, the world’s super powers mobilizing military assets, and hundreds of trillions of dollars in unservicable debt soon to be realized by the financial community, how long before history rhymes with previous large-scale events that culminated in the fall of the Roman empire or the World Wars that devastated tens of millions of lives in the 20th century?
War, it seems, is inevitable. Not just because of the many problems faced by mankind, but because of the nature of mankind itself.
Whether that war is a widespread nuclear conflict involving the world’s super powers, or a more limited event in the middle east involving Pakistan and India, according to a new report published by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, a nuclear engagement (even a limited one) would lead to widespread destruction across planet earth, with at least 2 billion people at risk of starvation or death.
The kicker? The effects will be so long-lasting, according to the author of the study, that there’s pretty much nothing we can do to survive it:
The threat of nuclear war has been embedded in global consciousness since the invention of the atomic bomb. Most fears are focused on blast radius and radioactive fallout; but the long-term effects of a nuclear conflict could be far more concerning.
According to new research from the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility, a phenomenon known as “nuclear famine” is keeping experts up at night. The study estimates that more than 2 billion people are at risk.
Its author, Ira Helfand, says even a limited nuclear war could lead to “the end of civilization.”
…
Helfand theorizes it could occur in stages. The first is climate change. Existing literature shows that a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan could drastically affect temperatures throughout the world. A 2007 study published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics predicts that the soot created by such an event could reduce temps by 1.25°C per year for at least a half-decade.
This would wreak havoc on global crops.
…
The final stage of this catastrophe is starvation.
With his best guess, Helfand breaks the at-risk into three groups: (a) 870 million people already facing malnourishment, (b) grain-importing nations, and (c) the entire population of China. The first group gets more than 75% of its nutrition from grain, and a significant portion would not be able to afford higher prices.
Grain-importing nations, like South Korea, Japan, most of North Africa, and the Middle East, would be hard hit by trading partners who suddenly decide to stop exporting. Additionally, China’s 1.3 billion citizens would use up their rice and wheat reserves in a few months, and international hoarding may make open-market purchases impossible.
…
As Helfand has said: ”This is a disaster so massive in scale that really no preparation is possible. We must prevent this.”
…
With the vast majority of the world’s nations still unable to build the bomb, a blanket approach could work. ICAN pleads that the “very survival of humanity depends on nuclear weapons never being used.”
Fool.com via IPNNW Study
The nuclear-armed nations of the world didn’t just build these weapons so they can look at them. Sure, our leaders may claim these weapons are merely deterrents designed to prevent war, but the fact is, advanced weaponry has always been used for the purposes of conquering. Our modern era is no different.
We came dangerously close during the Cuban missile crisis in the early 1960′s. Cooler heads prevailed that day.
And even if starting a war is unintentional, it could happen. On at least one occasion, in 1983, the United States and Russia were literally minutes away from a full-scale confrontation under both country’s policies of mutually assured destruction. It turns out that was a false alarm – but the world was almost destroyed as a result. This is one of the incidents we know about, and given the secrecy behind such military operations, it’s quite possible that there have been more.
The bottom line is that we must assume these weapons will be used at some point – that should be a given. What we don’t know is the scale of the nuclear engagement. It could be that Russia, the United States, Israel, China and North Korea just start lobbing intercontinental ballistic missiles by the hundreds, in which case we’re all pretty much toast. Or, it could be a limited war, with the conflict in India and Pakistan finally coming to a head.
Whatever the case, even if those dropped bombs detonate thousands of miles away from you, there is a strong likelihood that you will feel the direct effects in the form of an almost immediate climate change, food scarcity, extreme price rises, and the riots and looting that are sure to follow.
As with any disaster, whether its a nuclear war, global financial collapse, or a natural disaster, we can fully expect the worst of the worst. As the IPPNW report notes:
We would have to expect panic on a far greater scale following a nuclear war, even if it were a “limited” regional war, especially as it became clear that there would be significant, sustained agricultural shortfalls over an extended period.
It is probable that there would be hoarding on an international scale as food exporting nations suspended exports in order to assure adequate food supplies for their own populations.
Though the report suggests it is impossible to prepare for such an event, one could argue that survival is certainly possible.
Assuming we survive the nuclear impact and fallout because we live in a strategic location (or just got lucky!), your most immediate concerns would be food, water and self defense, all of which must be considered before such an event occurs if you intend to improve your odds of survival.
Surviving a nuclear winter will, of course, not be easy. According to the report, two billion people could die as a result – probably within a matter of months or a year. A similar scenario would play out should a disaster like a Super EMP weapon or solar flare take out our national (or global) power grid.
Regardless of the disaster, the aftermath, like any crisis or emergency, is survivable.
From the standpoint of preparedness, this means having long-term food stores and a preparedness plan to go along with them. You’ll first need to survive the initial “die-off” as millions of people search for food and resources. Then, when your own food stores run out, you’ll need to be able to produce your own by way of micro-farming and raising your own livestock.
What it will boil down to is adaptability. We can’t predict what will happen or what we will face. But understanding the potential threats, how to mitigate them when they occur, and the options we have available should our best laid plans fail gives us a much better chance of surviving disasters than just pretending like they can’t ever happen.
13 Comments on "Experts Fear Nuclear Famine: “A Disaster So Massive in Scale that No Preparation is Possible”"
Makati1 on Fri, 20th Dec 2013 4:38 pm
The roads we have to choose from are all but one leading to extinction this century. The road that does not lead there is the one where we stop ALL pollution instantly and shut down the sources. We know that one is not going to happen, so the alternatives are all just variations on the extinction event and it’s timing. Nuclear war has a high priority if one knows history.
J-Gav on Fri, 20th Dec 2013 6:16 pm
“The very survival of humanity depends on nuclear weapons never being used.”
If that’s not 100% sure, it’s pretty close. And survival in such a world might not be particularly enviable …
A comment on the 1st paragraph. It’s worse than that. Jimmy Carter let the cat out of the bag on Israel – they have at least 150 warheads. In addition, some 35 countries have the technology and some have already done some design work though none, other than the 9 mentioned, have gone into development yet as far as I know.
Stilgar on Fri, 20th Dec 2013 8:29 pm
“War, it seems, is inevitable. Not just because of the many problems faced by mankind, but because of the nature of mankind itself.”
There is a Twilight Zone episode, I think it’s titled ‘The Old Man & The Cave’. There’s this dusty old defunct town where a few dozen people have survived but are near starvation. T^he old man has knowledge of a cave with cans of food in it, but says they are radioactive and would kill people if they ate them, so he is secretive of the cave’s location.
Then some military guys come into town and start to cast aspersions on the old man’s truthfulness, claiming he’s just keeping the food for himself. Finally they force him to divulge it’s location, break down the door and distribute the food to the people. A few days later they are all dead including the two soldiers that perpetrated the incident.
The old man doesn’t eat the food and says some things about humankind at the end. Can’t remember the wording, but essentially it’s about the nature of man. That episode says a lot about people. They are easily led and see authority figures as being more truthful.
We will see what happens regarding possible nuclear war, but as population rises, water tables drop, sea level rises, climate changes, soil degrades, resources become more expensive and debt rises tensions build and to what end we will just have to wait and see.
Bob Inget on Fri, 20th Dec 2013 8:59 pm
“Nuclear Winter” is not a new concept.
The killing of a million individuals,
in a possible nuclear confrontation, people like you and I, is terrible enough w/o drafting new horrors.
WE have several acting up volcanoes spewing sunlight blocking dust particles
this very week. In fact,volcanoes while giving Mother a potent dose of poisonous gasses along with deadly coal
pollution is also offering a bit of shade, there by delaying a more certain end of civilization scenario.
Coal burning is a constant, ongoing threat to mankind’s existence.
WE should be more concerned about ocean
warming then now militarily useless early 20th century killing technologies.
“Useless” yes useless. If warring nation’s goals are resources, those
foodstuffs, minerals including water,
oils etc are rendered valueless for decades. If Sunnis are determined to convert Shiites, it won’t do if both sides are decimated. If several Asian nations seek to control specific
China Sea Islands suspected of harboring oil, only peaceful negotiations will keep vital energy available.
WE squeaked through a 20th cold war w/o a nuclear war. Chances are because of threats far more imminent, we’ll
blunder through the 21st killing each other in a far more manageable fashion.
eugene on Fri, 20th Dec 2013 9:15 pm
The only “madman” so far has been the USA and we consider ourselves as the best, most rational people on the planet. Additionally, several administrations have debated use since. I think the picture is grim.
peakyeast on Fri, 20th Dec 2013 9:29 pm
I dont understand this…
When we use cars and make plastic cups with fossil fuel and let out CO2 and particles then the temperature rises and its dangerous.
When volcanoes let out co2 and particles then the temperature drops.
When nuclear weapons produce dust then the temperature can go down 1,5C and that dangerous even though according to the IPCC we are having a too high temperature by 0,6C and are due for a much larger rise.. So a drop by 0,9C is in the cards with a nuclear war right now. In a few years it will be 0,5C and going down..
It is indeed a strange world…
DC on Fri, 20th Dec 2013 10:42 pm
Q/ Another two (Israel and Iran) deny they have built or are building such weapons, but the probability that Israel has them and that Iran is building them is believed by members of the international community to be extremely high.
LoL! They need to hire a fact-checker I thinks.
There is no ‘probability’ of Jewsrael having nukes, obtained from the US by way of South Africa. Its the worst kept secret in the world.They have them ok? As for Iran…the only ‘members of the international community’ beating that dead horse is the US and its usual gaggle of puppets and bootlicks. The real international community knows Iran doesn’t have them, but their opinion doesn’t count does it?
The only madmen with twitchy nuclear trigger fingers have stars and stripes on there shoulders,and a bible in their desk, right next to the booze and drugs.
I mean yeesh, Nuclear war is bad for you…who knew?
Others on Sat, 21st Dec 2013 1:41 am
Nothing will happen.
America and Russia did not go to war for fear of Nuclear weapons.
These weapons are protectors, not destroyers as projected by Oil companies.
surf on Sat, 21st Dec 2013 6:18 am
“I dont understand this…
When we use cars and make plastic cups with fossil fuel and let out CO2 and particles then the temperature rises and its dangerous.
When volcanoes let out co2 and particles then the temperature drops.”
CCO2 (Carbon Dioxide) causes warming and will stay in the atmosphere for more than 100 years.
SSO2 (Sulfur Dioxide) Causes cooling and stays in the atmosphere a 1 to 3 years.
The Ash from the volcano can stay in the air for a couple of years and causes cooling.
Iin volcanoes the climate effects of SO2 aand ash dominate while the CO2 from the vvolcano has a small effect. So overall Vvolcanoes (especially large eruptions) mmostly cause cooling.
FFor fossil fuels The exhaust is mostly Wwater, CO2, and very small amounts of SO2 and particles. For cars the overall effect is warming from the CO2.
Norm on Sat, 21st Dec 2013 11:47 am
Buy a condo downtown. Then if there is a nuclear war, you don’t have to deal with the chaos afterwards.
Makati1 on Sat, 21st Dec 2013 1:27 pm
Norm, thank for the laugh. I do live ‘downtown, bt I doubt that Manila is on any nuclear target map.
And, Bob, a million will not be the deaths if there is a nuclear exchange now, they will number in the billions. A city strike on Manila will kill 15 million. New York another 15 million, ditto LA, DC, Paris, London, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing, etc..
peakyeast on Sun, 22nd Dec 2013 12:29 am
Thanks surf. I had an idea it was something like that. I just havent seen the documentation proving it.
rollin on Sun, 22nd Dec 2013 2:16 am
Don’t we have enough on our collective plates? Why do we need 1970 era news now. Everybody knows that there are thousands of hydrogen nukes ready to go any minute now and a bunch of old fission ones too. It’s 40 years later and nobody took care of the problem.
Thank goodness tritium has a short half life which will eventually make the fusion bombs useless if left alone.