Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: GA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU (Clifford Johnson) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Nuclear winter Message-ID: <6805@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 23 May 89 04:32:14 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 37 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "Clifford Johnson" > Greg Paris > {decuac,necntc,spdcc,sun,uiucdcs,ukma}!rayssd!gmp > The last calculation I ran came up with less warheads than enough > to devastate the land area of the world ONCE, by three orders of > magnitude. Congressional testimony by scientists, notably including Carl Sagan, computed that as few as a couple of thousand nukes could trigger specie-destroying nuclear winter. That means a major counterforce strike against the U.S.S.R. could do it. A two-way all out nuclear war made nuclear winter a likelihood, rather than an improbability. The Pentgaon expressly did not dispute these claims, it admitted they were possibly true. So, please can you repeat your calculations for the net? [mod.note: To (hopefully) head this thread off at the pass... The Nuclear Winter calculations of Sagan, et al, have been discussed in various military/political arenas, and this will not be one of them. Suffice that many hold them to be correct, and others, mistaken. It seems apparent to me that Greg was referring to direct devastation by nuclear blast (q.v. his wording), not after effects such as Nuclear Winter. This topic is "thin ice" for sci.military; I don't think I need to tell anyone how controversial it is. Let me remind one and all that arms control, nuclear policy, and SDI are all non-admissable topics for this group. Future postings in this area will be severely scrutinized, and rejected for the slightest political content. So if you see something that bothers you, please conduct political arguments by email. - Bill ]