Nuke War Bad File

Notes
This File is Divided Into 3 main sections- The second two are much smaller because nuke war good is
pretty clearly on the margins of arguments. Nuke war doesn’t cause extinction, however, was pretty
mainstream last year. Like 98% of the file is highlighted but I would highlight it down before using it.

First- Extinction Part-

Pretty Simple- Nuclear war causes extinction with multiple warrants. I put together a short 1nc if you don’t
plan on making this a huge debate and a 2nc with extensions (thanks chetan). But if this becomes a
bigger debate/needs lots of cards, use the long 1nc (Extensions are later in the file). I got this a little short
notice so the cards aren’t as recent as I would like, but still pretty good overall.

Second- Spark Part-

Answers to the core Spark Arguments about mindset shift post the nuclear war. Clearly you will have to
add in nuke war causes extinction; this is just answers to their offense. Nothing too complicated here, just
make sure you throw in answers to one of the scenarios they are reading

Third- Nuke Malthus Part-

This argument is dumb. Not really anything here besides a few cards. Throw in nuke war kills the
environment for a thousand reasons in addition to these three cards and you’ll be fine.

-Will
Extinction
Generics
 1nc- Short
MOST RECENT EVIDENCE PROVES NUCLEAR WINTER CAUSES EXTINCTION
Starr 12
[Steven Starr - Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri-Columbia, Associate member of
the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, has been published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, his writings appear on the websites
of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology Center for Arms Control, Energy and
Environmental Studies, Scientists for Global Responsibility, and the International Network of Scientists Against Proliferation, “What
is nuclear darkness?,” http://www.nucleardarkness.org/web/whatisnucleardarkness/]

In a nuclear war, burning cities would create millions of tons of thick, black smoke. This smoke would
rise above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it would quickly spread around the planet . A large
nuclear war would produce enough smoke to block most sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface.
Massive absorption of warming sunlight by a global stratospheric smoke layer would rapidly create
Ice Age temperatures on Earth . The cold would last a long time; NASA computer models predict 40% of the
smoke would still remain in the stratosphere ten years after a nuclear war. Half of 1% of the explosive
power of US-Russian nuclear weapons can create enough nuclear darkness to impact global climate.
100 Hiroshima-size weapons exploded in the cities of India and Pakistan would put up to 5 million tons of smoke in the
stratosphere . The smoke would destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer and drop
temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere to levels last seen in the Little Ice Age. Shortened growing
seasons could cause up to 1 billion people to starve to death. A large nuclear war could put 150 million tons of
smoke in the stratosphere and make global temperatures colder than they were 18,000 years ago during the coldest part of the
last Ice Age. Killing frosts would occur every day for 1-3 years in the large agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere.
Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45%. Earth's ozone layer would be decimated. Growing seasons would be
eliminated. A large nuclear war would utterly devastate the environment and cause most people to
starve to death . Deadly climate change, radioactive fallout and toxic pollution would cause already
stressed ecosystems to collapse. The result would be a mass extinction event that would
wipe out many animals living at the top of the food chains - including human beings.
 2nc- Short
EXTEND THE 1NC STARR EVIDENCE – IT’S FROM THIS YEAR WHICH MEANS IT CITES THE
MOST RECENT SCIENTIFIC MODELS – EVEN A REGIONAL NUCLEAR WAR WOULD CREATE SO
MUCH SMOKE THAT IT WOULD BLOCK OUT THE SUN, REPLICATING THE ICE AGE – THAT
COMBINED WITH RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT WILL RESULT IN MASS EXTINCTION
MULTIPLE ADDITIONAL WARRANTS –
A. FAMINE, DISEASE AND RADIATION
CHOI 11
[Charles Q. Choi – National Geographic News, “Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for
Years”, February 22nd, 2011, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-
winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/, Chetan]

Even a regional nuclear war could spark "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years,
according to U.S. government computer models. Widespread famine and disease would likely follow,
experts speculate. During the Cold War a nuclear exchange between superpowers—such as the one feared for years
between the United States and the former Soviet Union—was predicted to cause a "nuclear winter." In that scenario
hundreds of nuclear explosions spark huge fires, whose smoke, dust, and ash blot out the sun for
weeks amid a backdrop of dangerous radiation levels. Much of humanity eventually dies of starvation and
disease. Today, with the United States the only standing superpower, nuclear winter is little more than a nightmare. But
nuclear war remains a very real threat—for instance, between developing-world nuclear powers, such
as India and Pakistan. To see what climate effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have, scientists from NASA
and other institutions modeled a war involving a hundred Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the
equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT—just 0.03 percent of the world's current nuclear arsenal. (See a
National Geographic magazine feature on weapons of mass destruction.) The researchers predicted the resulting
fires would kick up roughly five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper part of the
troposphere, the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere. In NASA climate models, this carbon then
absorbed solar heat and, like a hot-air balloon, quickly lofted even higher, where the soot would take
much longer to clear from the sky. (Related: "'Nuclear Archaeologists' Find World War II Plutonium.") Reversing Global
Warming? The global cooling caused by these high carbon clouds wouldn't be as catastrophic as a
superpower-versus-superpower nuclear winter, but "the effects would still be regarded as leading to
unprecedented climate change," research physical scientist Luke Oman said during a press briefing Friday
at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. Earth is currently in a
long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would
drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest. At the
extreme, the tropics, Europe, Asia, and Alaska would cool by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C),
according to the models. Parts of the Arctic and Antarctic would actually warm a bit, due to shifted wind and ocean-circulation
patterns, the researchers said. After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5
degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict. (Pictures: "Red Hot" Nuclear-Waste Train Glows in
Infrared.) Years Without Summer For a time Earth would likely be a colder, hungrier planet. "Our results
suggest that agriculture could be severely impacted, especially in areas that are susceptible to late-
spring and early-fall frosts," said Oman, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "Examples
similar to the crop failures and famines experienced following the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815
could be widespread and last several years," he added. That Indonesian volcano ushered in "the year without
summer," a time of famines and unrest. (See pictures of the Mount Tambora eruption.) All these changes would also
alter circulation patterns in the tropical atmosphere, reducing precipitation by 10 percent globally for
one to four years, the scientists said. Even after seven years, global average precipitation would be 5
percent lower than it was before the conflict, according to the model. In addition, researcher Michael Mills, of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, found large decreases in the protective ozone layer,
 leading to much more ultraviolet [uv] radiation reaching Earth's surface and harming the environment
and people. "The main message from our work," NASA's Oman said, "would be that even a regional nuclear conflict
would have global consequences."

B. AGRICULTURE AND GLOBAL COOLING

TOON AND ROBOCK 10
Toon: chair of the Dept of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a member of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics
at the University of Colorado @ Boulder. Robock is a Proff of atmospheric science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New
Jersey Local Nuclear War, Global Suffering; January 2010; Scientific American Magazine; 8 Page(s),
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ISSUEID_CHAR=944156A6-237D-9F22-
E8E572150DCA8E65&ARTICLEID_CHAR=97CA0A88-237D-9F22-E861FD76EBEE2611)

Twenty-five years ago international teams of scientists showed that a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet
Union could produce a “nuclear winter.” The smoke from vast fires started by bombs dropped on cities and industrial areas would

envelop the planet and absorb so much sunlight that the earth’s surface would get cold, dark and dry,
killing plants worldwide and eliminating our food supply. Surface temperatures would reach winter values in the
summer. International discussion about this prediction, fueled largely by astronomer Carl Sagan, forced the leaders of the two superpowers to confront the possibility that
their arms race endangered not just themselves but the entire human race. Countries large and small demanded disarmament. Nuclear winter became an important
Models made by
factor in ending the nuclear arms race. Looking back later, in 2000, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev observed, “

Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that
would be extremely destructive to all life on earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and
morality, to act.” Why discuss this topic now that the cold war has ended? Because as other nations continue to acquire nuclear weapons, smaller, regional nuclear wars
could create a similar global catastrophe. New analyses reveal that a conflict between India and Pakistan, for example, in which 100 nuclear bombs were dropped on
only 0.4 percent of the world's more than 25,000 warheads--would produce enough
cities and industrial areas--

smoke to cripple global agriculture. A regional war could cause widespread loss of life even in
countries far away from the conflict. Regional War Threatens the World By deploying modern computers and
modern climate models, the two of us and our colleagues have shown that not only were the ideas of the
1980s correct but the effects would last for at least 10 years , much longer than previously thought. And by doing
calculations that assess decades of time, only now possible with fast, current computers , and by
including in our calculations the oceans and the entire atmosphere--also only now possible--we have
found that the smoke from even a regional war would be heated and lofted by the sun and remain
suspended in the upper atmosphere for years, continuing to block sunlight and to cool the earth. India
and Pakistan, which together have more than 100 nuclear weapons, may be the most worrisome adversaries capable of a regional nuclear conflict today. But other
countries besides the U.S. and Russia (which have thousands) are well endowed: China, France and the U.K. have hundreds of nuclear warheads; Israel has more than
80, North Korea has about 10 and Iran may well be trying to make its own. In 2004 this situation prompted one of us (Toon) and later Rich Turco of the University of
California, Los Angeles, both veterans of the 1980s investigations, to begin evaluating what the global environmental effects of a regional nuclear war would be and to
take as our test case an engagement between India and Pakistan. The latest estimates by David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security and by
Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council are that India has 50 to 60 assembled weapons (with enough plutonium for 100) and that Pakistan has 60
weapons. Both countries continue to increase their arsenals. Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons tests indicate that the yield of the warheads would be similar to the
15-kiloton explosive yield (equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT) of the bomb the U.S. used on Hiroshima. Toon and Turco, along with Charles Bardeen, now at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research, modeled what would happen if 50 Hiroshima-size bombs were dropped across the highest population-density targets in Pakistan and if
50 similar bombs were also dropped across India. Some people maintain that nuclear weapons would be used in only a measured way. But in the wake of chaos, fear
and broken communications that would occur once a nuclear war began, we doubt leaders would limit attacks in any rational manner. This likelihood is particularly true for
Pakistan, which is small and could be quickly overrun in a conventional conflict. Peter R. Lavoy of the Naval Postgraduate School, for example, has analyzed the ways in
which a conflict between India and Pakistan might occur and argues that Pakistan could face a decision to use all its nuclear arsenal quickly before India swamps its
military bases with traditional forces. Obviously, we hope the number of nuclear targets in any future war will be zero, but policy makers and voters should know what is
possible. Toon and Turco found that more than 20 million people in the two countries could die from the blasts, fires and radioactivity--a horrible slaughter. But the
investigators were shocked to discover that a tremendous amount of smoke would be generated, given the megacities in the two countries, assuming each fire would
burn the same area that actually did burn in Hiroshima and assuming an amount of burnable material per person based on various studies. They calculated that the 50
bombs exploded in Pakistan would produce three teragrams of smoke, and the 50 bombs hitting India would generate four (one teragram equals a million metric tons).
Satellite observations of actual forest fires have shown that smoke can be lofted up through the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and sometimes then
into the lower stratosphere (the layer just above, extending to about 30 miles). Toon and Turco also did some "back of the envelope" calculations of the possible climate
impact of the smoke should it enter the stratosphere. The large magnitude of such effects made them realize they needed help from a climate modeler. It turned out that
one of us (Robock) was already working with Luke Oman, now at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, who was finishing his Ph.D. at Rutgers University on the
climatic effects of volcanic eruptions, and with Georgiy L. Stenchikov, also at Rutgers and an author of the first Russian work on nuclear winter. They developed a climate
model that could be used fairly easily for the nuclear blast calculations. Robock and his colleagues, being conservative, put five teragrams of smoke into their modeled
upper troposphere over India and Pakistan on an imaginary May 15. The model calculated how winds would blow the smoke around the world and how the smoke
particles would settle out from the atmosphere. The smoke covered all the continents within two weeks. The black, sooty smoke absorbed sunlight, warmed and rose into
the stratosphere. Rain never falls there, so the air is never cleansed by precipitation; particles very slowly settle out by falling, with air resisting them. Soot particles are
small, with an average diameter of only 0.1 micron (μm), and so drift down very slowly. They also rise during the daytime as they are heated by the sun, repeatedly
delaying their elimination. The calculations showed that the smoke would reach far higher into the upper stratosphere than the sulfate particles that are produced by
episodic volcanic eruptions. Sulfate particles are transparent and absorb much less sunlight than soot and are also bigger, typically 0.5 μm. The volcanic particles remain
The climatic response to the smoke
airborne for about two years, but smoke from nuclear fires would last a decade. Killing Frosts in Summer

was surprising. Sunlight was immediately reduced, cooling the planet to temperatures lower than any
 experienced for the past 1,000 years. The global average cooling, of about 1.25 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit), lasted for several
years, and even after 10 years the temperature was still 0.5 degree C colder than normal. The models also showed a 10 percent reduction in precipitation worldwide.
Precipitation, river flow and soil moisture all decreased because blocking sunlight reduces
evaporation and weakens the hydrologic cycle. Drought was largely concentrated in the lower latitudes, however, because
global cooling would retard the Hadley air circulation pattern in the tropics, which produces a large
fraction of global precipitation. In critical areas such as the Asian monsoon regions, rainfall dropped
by as much as 40 percent. The cooling might not seem like much, but even a small dip can cause
severe consequences. Cooling and diminished sunlight would, for example, shorten growing seasons
in the midlatitudes. More insight into the effects of cooling came from analyses of the aftermaths of massive volcanic eruptions. Every once in a while such
eruptions produce temporary cooling for a year or two. The largest of the past 500 years, the 1815 Tambora eruption in

Indonesia, blotted the sun and produced global cooling of about 0.5 degree C for a year; 1816 became known
as "The Year.”

C. RESEARCHERS CONFIRM THIS CONCLUSION

WICKERSHAM 10
(University of Missouri adjunct professor of Peace Studies and a member of The Missouri University Nuclear Disarmament
Education Team, author book about nuclear disarmament education (Bill, 4/11/10, “Threat of ‘nuclear winter’ remains New START
treaty is step in right direction.” http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/apr/11/threat-of-nuclear-winter-remains/)

In addressing the environmental consequences of nuclear war, Columbian Steve Starr has written a
summary of studies published by the Bulletin of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists
Against Proliferation, which concludes: “U.S. researchers have confirmed the scientific
validity of the concept of ‘nuclear winter’ and have demonstrated that any conflict which
targets even a tiny fraction of the global arsenal will cause catastrophic disruptions of the global
climate.” In another statement on his Web site, Starr says: “If 1% of the nuclear weapons now ready for war
were detonated in large cities, they would utterly devastate the environment, climate, ecosystems and
inhabitants of Earth. A war fought with thousands of strategic nuclear weapons would leave the
Earth uninhabitable.”

D. PEER REVIEW
STARR 9
University of Sydney, 8/2/09, (Stephen Starr and Peter King, , “Nuclear suicide”, Sunday, 02 August 2009,
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20090208-19496.html)

But there is little evidence yet that either the government or the Commission is fully alert to the most momentous truth of the
present era: Our best science now predicts that nuclear arsenals are fundamentally incompatible with
continued human existence. It is imperative that the message coming from scientists in the US,
Russia and elsewhere about the environmental consequences of nuclear war be included in the
general debate about the control and abolition of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the nuclear
weapon states apparently remain oblivious to the climatic, ecological and biological consequences of
nuclear war. No "environmental impact statement" has ever been created for the US or Russian nuclear
weaponry, which is one of the reasons why there still are 22,000 intact nuclear weapons in their deployed and reserve
arsenals. However, new
peer-reviewed studies done at several US universities predict the
detonation of even a tiny fraction of the global nuclear arsenal will result in major changes
in the global climate and massive destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer (which protects the
Earth from deadly UV light). Even a "regional" nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, fought with 100
Hiroshima-size weapons, is predicted to loft five million tons of smoke above cloud level; there it would
block about 10 per cent of warming sunlight from reaching the surface of the Northern Hemisphere. This
would produce average surface temperatures colder than any experienced for the last 1000 years .
The smoke would remain in the stratosphere for more than a decade and seriously impact global
climate. It would probably be too cold to grow wheat in Canada for several years; grain exports would likely cease
from grain-exporting nations .and global nuclear famine would result, Within a few years, most of the already-hungry
human populations could perish, and the populations of any nation dependent upon grain imports
would be at risk.
 1nc- Long
1. MOST RECENT EVIDENCE PROVES NUCLEAR WINTER CAUSES EXTINCTION
Starr 12
[Steven Starr - Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri-Columbia, Associate member of
the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, has been published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, his writings appear on the websites
of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology Center for Arms Control, Energy and
Environmental Studies, Scientists for Global Responsibility, and the International Network of Scientists Against Proliferation, “What
is nuclear darkness?,” http://www.nucleardarkness.org/web/whatisnucleardarkness/]

In a nuclear war, burning cities would create millions of tons of thick, black smoke. This smoke would rise
above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it would quickly spread around the planet . A large nuclear
war would produce enough smoke to block most sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface. Massive
absorption of warming sunlight by a global stratospheric smoke layer would rapidly create Ice Age
temperatures on Earth . The cold would last a long time; NASA computer models predict 40% of the smoke would still
remain in the stratosphere ten years after a nuclear war. Half of 1% of the explosive power of US-Russian
nuclear weapons can create enough nuclear darkness to impact global climate. 100 Hiroshima-size weapons
exploded in the cities of India and Pakistan would put up to 5 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere . The smoke would
destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer and drop temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere to
levels last seen in the Little Ice Age. Shortened growing seasons could cause up to 1 billion people to
starve to death. A large nuclear war could put 150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere and make global temperatures
colder than they were 18,000 years ago during the coldest part of the last Ice Age. Killing frosts would occur every day for 1-3 years
in the large agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45%. Earth's ozone
layer would be decimated. Growing seasons would be eliminated. A large nuclear war would utterly devastate the
environment and cause most people to starve to death . Deadly climate change, radioactive fallout and
toxic pollution would cause already stressed ecosystems to collapse. The result would be a mass
extinction event that would wipe out many animals living at the top of the food chains - including
human beings.

2. Forced inbreeding after the war guarantees extinction

Bochkov 84
 (Academician, Member of the Medical Academy of Sciences and Director of the Institute of Genetics at the USSR Academy of Sciences, “The Cold and the Dark: The World
After Nuclear War”, p. 141-142)

in thinking about the

Academician Bochkov: When we talk about the ecological and biological consequences of a nuclear war, we are of course focusing on humankind. Thus,

nuclear catastrophe, we should not be afraid to reach the conclusion that the
possibilities of human survival after a

conditions that would prevail would not allow the survival of human beings as a species. We should proceed from the
assumption that man has adapted to his environment during a long evolutionary process and has paid the price of natural selection. Only over the past few thousand

years has he adapted his environment to his needs and has created, so to speak, an artificial environment to provide food, shelter, and other
necessities. Without this, modem man cannot survive . Compared to the dramatic improvements made in the technological environment, biological nature has
not changed in the recent past. In the statements of Dr. Ehrlich and Academician Bayev, we have heard about the many constraints there would be on the possibility of man's survival after a
most long-term effects of a nuclear war will
nuclear catastrophe. Because we also have to look at the more long-range future, I would like to point out that

be genetic. If islands of humanity—or as Dr. Ehrlich has said, groups of people on islands somewhere in the ocean—should survive, what will they face in
terms of genetic consequences? If the population drops sharply, the question then arises of the critical numbers of a population that

would be necessary to ensure its reproduction. On the one hand there will be minimum numbers of human beings; on the other hand, because of the small
numbers, there will be isolation. There will definitely be inbreeding, and lethal mutations will come to the fore as a result

of this, because of fetal and neonatal exposure to radiation and because of exposure to fallout. New
mutations will arise and genes and chromosomes will be damaged as a result of the radiation, so there
will be an additional genetic load to bear. There will be natural aberrations and death at birth, so that the burden of hereditary illnesses will be only part of a
large load. This undoubtedly will be conducive to the elimination of humanity, because humankind will not be

able to reproduce itself as a species.

3. Any risk of war outweighs- the mere possibility of extinction means you should avoid it

Kateb 92
(George, Professor at Princeton, The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture, p. 110-112)

we should all contemplate the nuclear situation from the perspective

The highest worth of Schell’s book lies in his insistence that

of possible human extinction and be overcome by the obligation no matter what to try to avoid human extinction.
Yet as Schell says, human extinction (as well as the extinction of most species in nature) is not the intention of anyone in power. What must be seen is that the

absolute end can come about even though no one intends it. “We can do it,” he says, “only if we don’t quite know what we’re doing.”
Schell’s work attempts to force on us an acknowledgement that sounds far-fetched and even ludicrous, an acknowledgement that the possibility of extinction

is carried by any use of nuclear weapons no matter how limited or how seemingly rational or seemingly morally justified. He himself
acknowledges that there is a difference between possibility and certainty. But in a matter that is more than a matter, more than one practical matter in a vast series of practical
in the “matter” or extinction, we are obliged to treat a possibility – a genuine possibility – as a certainty.
matters,

Humanity is not to take any step that contains even the slightest risk of extinction . The doctrine of no-use us based on
the possibility of extinction. Schell’s perspective transforms the subject. He takes us away from the arid stretches of strategy and asks us to feel continuously, if we can, and
It is of no moral
feel keenly if only for an instant now and then, how utterly distinct the nuclear world is. Nuclear discourse must vividly register that distinctiveness.

account that extinction may be only a slight possibility. No one can say how great the possibility is, but no one has yet
credibly denied that by some sequence or other a particular use of nuclear weapons may lead to human
and natural extinction. If it is not impossible it must be treated as certain; the loss signified by extinction
nullifies all calculations of probability as it nullifies all calculations of costs and benefits. Abstractly put, the
connections between any use of nuclear weapons and human and natural extinction are several. Most obviously, a
sizeable exchange of strategic nuclear weapons can, by a chain of events in nature, lead to the earth’s uninhabitability, to
“nuclear winter”, or to Schell’s “republic of insects and grass.” But the consideration of extinction cannot rest with the
possibility of a sizeable exchange of strategic weapons. It cannot rest with the imperative that a sizeable exchange must not take place. A so-called
tactical or “theater” use, or a so-called limited use, is also prohibited absolutely because of the possibility of

immediate escalation into a sizable exchange or because, even if there were not an immediate escalation, the possibility of
extinction would reside in the precedent for future use set by any use whatever in a world in which more than one power
possesses nuclear weapons. Add other consequences; the contagious effect on nonnuclear powers who may feel compelled by a mixture of fear and vanity to try to acquire
their own weapons, this increasing the possibility of use by increasing the number of nuclear powers; and the unleashed emotions of indignation, retribution, and revenge which,
if not acted on immediately in the form of escalation, can be counted on to seek expression later. Other than full strategic uses are not confined no matter how small the
explosive power each would be a cancerous transformation of the world. All nuclear roads lead to the possibility of extinction. It is true by
definition, but let us make it explicit: the doctrine of no-use excludes any first or retaliatory or later use, whether sizable or not. No-use is the imperative derived from the
By containing the possibility of extinction, any use is tantamount to a declaration of war
possibility of extinction.

against humanity. It is not merely a war crime or a single crime against humanity. Such a war is waged by the user of nuclear weapons against every human
individual as individual present and future, not as citizen of this or that country. It is not only a war against the country that is the target. To respond with nuclear weapons,
where possible, only increases the chances of extinction and can never, therefore, be allowed. The use of nuclear weapons establishes the right of any person or group, acting
officially or not, violently or not, to try to punish those responsible for the use. The aim of the punishment is to deter later uses and thus to try to reduce the possibility of
extinction, if, by chance, the particular use in question did not directly lead to extinction. The form of the punishment cannot be specified. Of course the chaos ensuing from a
sizable exchange could make punishment irrelevant. The important point, however, is to see that those who use nuclear weapons are
qualitatively worse than criminals, and at the least forfeit their offices.

4. And it kills the ozone

Gache 08
Science News Editor 8 [Gabriel, "Regional Nuclear War Would Destroy the World," 4-8, http://news.softpedia.com/news/Regional-Nuclear-War-Would-Destroy-the-World-
82760.shtml]
Global or not, a nuclear war would kill us all. And if nuclear weapons didn't do the job, then the Sun would .
According to recent studies, a regional global war would cause the ozone layer of the Earth to be destroyed in as little

as a decade, all living beings being at the mercy of the Sun's ultraviolet rays. Ultraviolet light has the
ability to alter the human DNA, but other organisms may be at risk as well. 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs would be
enough to determine substantial changes in Earth's atmosphere . Take India and Pakistan for example; both have a nuclear arsenal of
about 50 nuclear warheads bearing 15 kilotons of explosive material. In case the disagreements between the two countries reach very high levels as to make use of their entire
nuclear arsenal, global disaster is soon to follow. "The figure of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs compares pretty accurately to the approximately 110 warheads that both states
Mills of
reportedly possess between them," says professor of non-proliferation and international security in the War Studies Group at King's College, Wyn Bowen. Michael

the University of Colorado at Boulder, US, and colleagues used computer models to study how 100 Hiroshima-
sized bombs would affect the atmosphere. Aftermath Michael Mills from the University of Colorado reckons that such a nuclear war
in South Asia would decay about 40 percent of the ozone layer in the middle latitudes and 70 percent in
the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. "The models show this magnitude of ozone loss would
persist for five years, and we would see substantial losses continuing for at least another five years ," says
Mills. Mills extracted his results from computer models. Previous models were created during the 1980s, however those investigations revealed that impact of the
nucleardetonations would be much more moderate. This might be because the old models do not take into consideration the columns of
soot rising at altitudes of 80 kilometers into Earth's atmosphere, as Mills considers. Once the soot is released into the upper
atmosphere, it would block and absorb most of the solar energy, thus determining a heating of the surrounding atmosphere, process
that facilitates the reaction between nitrogen oxides and ozone. UV light damage Ultraviolet rays influx, caused by the decay of the ozone layer, would

increase by 213 percent, causing DNA damage, skin cancers and cataract in most - if not all - living beings.
Alternatively, plants would suffer damage twice, as the current due to ultraviolet light. "By adopting the Montreal Protocol in 1987, society demonstrated it
was unwilling to tolerate a small percentage of ozone loss because of serious health risks. But ozone loss from a limited nuclear exchange would be more than an order of
magnitude larger than ozone loss from the release of gases like CFCs," says co-author of the study Brian Toon. It starts with one "This study is very conservative in its
nuclear war can destroy our world far faster than carbon dioxide
estimates. It should ring alarm bells to remind us all that

emissions," says Dan Plesch, of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the School of Oriental and African Studies, UK, although he notes that no one
knows how likely a nuclear exchange is. Nevertheless, it is not all about India and Pakistan, other countries have much more significant

nuclear arsenal than the two, such as the US, Russia and Israel. Even some hostile powers around the world have nuclear
capabilities, whether the international community is ready or not to admit it, Bowen reckons. If India and Pakistan were to deploy their
arsenal, then they would launch all warheads at once, in order to avoid the destruction of the nuclear
weapons before being launched.

5. NUKE WAR KILLS AGRICULTURE- CAUSES FOOD CRISES AND KILLS BILLIONS
Helfand 12
[Ira Helfand, MD, has been writing and speaking about the medical consequences of nuclear war on behalf of IPPNW and its US
affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, since the 1980s , “ NUCLEAR FAMINE: A BILLION PEOPLE AT RISK”,May 21, 2012
http://www.psr.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-famine-report.pdf]

Over the last several years, a number of studies have shown that a limited, regional nuclear war between India and
Pakistan would cause significant climate disruption worldwide. Two studies published this year examine the impact on
agricultural output that would result from this climate disruption. In the US, corn production would decline by an average of
10% for an entire decade, with the most severe decline, about 20% in year 5. There would be a similar decline in
soybean production, with, again, the most severe loss, about 20%, in year 5. A second study found a significant decline in
Chinese middle season rice production. During the first 4 years, rice production would decline by an average of
21%; over the next 6 years the decline would average 10%. The decline in available food would be exacerbated by
increases in food prices which would make food inaccessible to hundreds of millions of the world’s
poorest. Even if agricultural markets continued to function normally, 215 million people would be added to the
rolls of the malnourished over the course of a decade. O However, markets would not function normally . Significant,
sustained agricultural shortfalls over an extended period would almost certainly lead to panic and hoarding on an
international scale as food exporting nations suspended exports in order to assure adequate food
supplies for their own populations. This turmoil in the agricultural markets would further reduce accessible food. The 925
million people in the world who are chronically malnourished have a baseline consumption of 1,750 calories or less per day. Even a
10% decline in their food consumption would put this entire group at risk. In addition, the anticipated suspension of exports from
grain growing countries would threaten the food supplies of several hundred million additional people who have adequate nutrition
today, but who live in countries that are highly dependent on food imports. The number of people threatened by nuclear-
war induced famine would be well over one billion
 2nr Framing
Nuclear war should be avoided at all costs-

First- Uncertainty- no one is sure what the consequences would be exactly but we know that
extinction can’t be ruled out as a zero percent possibility- which means we should act to avoid a
war

Second- Draw in- other countries inevitably become involved in a war which means that all of our
scenarios are magnified in the context of geopolitics- makes escalation beyond their generic “no
regional war” claims more likely

Third- Science- Our authors are the only ones who use peer review and who continually back up
scientific findings- their cards are either too old or all rhetoric

Fourth- Magnification- Soot rising, biological destruction, Ozone depletion, and crop reduction
aren’t independent events, each reason why nuclear war is bad compounds upon each other and
create more wars over things like resources which means that if we win even a small risk of
multiple threats you should err to our side due to an increased risk to human extinction.

Now we’ll win our specific scenarios-

Nuke Winter
 Nuke Winter- Frontline
Nuclear war causes a nuclear winter - extinction

SGR 03
(Scientists for Global Responsibility, Newsletter, “Does anybody remember the Nuclear Winter?” July 27, 2003,http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/NuclearWinter_NL27.htm)

Obviously, when  a nuclear bomb hits a target, it causes a massive amount of devastation, with the heat, blast and
radiation killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people instantly and causing huge damage to infrastructure. But
in addition to this, a nuclear explosion throws up massive amounts of dust and smoke . For example, a large nuclear bomb bursting

at ground level would throw up about a million tonnes of dust. As a consequence of a nuclear war, then, the dust and the smoke

produced would block out a large fraction of the sunlight and the sun's heat from the earth's surface, so
it would quickly become be dark and cold - temperatures would drop by something in the region of 10-20ºC - many

places would feel like they were in an arctic winter. It would take months for the sunlight to get back to near normal. The drop in light
and temperature would quickly kill crops and other plant and animal life while humans , already suffering from
the direct effects of the war, would be vulnerable to malnutrition and disease on a massive scale. In the case of
an (e.g.) accidental nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia, the main effects would be felt in the northern hemisphere, as the dust and smoke would quickly circulate
 would soon affect the tropics - where crops and other plant/ animal life are
across this area. But even in this case, it

especially sensitive to cold. Hence, even in these areas there would be major problems.
 Nuke Winter- Extension
Nuclear war throw up tons of dust that blocks out the sun and drops temperatures, kills crops and
plant life, while leading to nuclear winter – that’s SGR

Nuke war triggers extinction through nuclear winter - new science proves

Robock & Toon 10

Toon: chair of the Dept of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a member of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado @ Boulder.
Robock is a Proff of atmospheric science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey Local Nuclear War, Global Suffering; January 2010; Scientific American
Magazine; 8 Page(s), http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ISSUEID_CHAR=944156A6-237D-9F22-
E8E572150DCA8E65&ARTICLEID_CHAR=97CA0A88-237D-9F22-E861FD76EBEE2611)

Twenty-five years ago international teams of scientists showed that a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union
could produce a “nuclear winter.” The smoke from vast fires started by bombs dropped on cities and industrial areas would envelop the
planet and absorb so much sunlight that the earth’s surface would get cold, dark and dry, killing plants
worldwide and eliminating our food supply . Surface temperatures would reach winter values in the summer. International discussion about this
prediction, fueled largely by astronomer Carl Sagan, forced the leaders of the two superpowers to confront the possibility that their arms race endangered not just themselves
but the entire human race. Countries large and small demanded disarmament. Nuclear winter became an important factor in ending the nuclear arms race. Looking back later, in
Models made by Russian and American scientists showed that a
2000, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev observed, “

nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on earth; the
knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and morality, to act.” Why discuss this topic now that the cold war has ended? Because as other nations
continue to acquire nuclear weapons, smaller, regional nuclear wars could create a similar global catastrophe. New analyses reveal that a conflict between India and Pakistan,
only 0.4 percent of the world's more than 25,000
for example, in which 100 nuclear bombs were dropped on cities and industrial areas--

warheads--would produce enough smoke to cripple global agriculture . A regional war could cause
widespread loss of life even in countries far away from the conflict. Regional War Threatens the World By deploying
modern computers and modern climate models, the two of us and our colleagues have shown that not only were
the ideas of the 1980s correct but the effects would last for at least 10 years, much longer than previously thought. And
by doing calculations that assess decades of time, only now possible with fast, current computers , and by including in
our calculations the oceans and the entire atmosphere--also only now possible--we have found that the
smoke from even a regional war would be heated and lofted by the sun and remain suspended in the
upper atmosphere for years, continuing to block sunlight and to cool the earth . India and Pakistan, which together have
more than 100 nuclear weapons, may be the most worrisome adversaries capable of a regional nuclear conflict today. But other countries besides the U.S. and Russia (which
have thousands) are well endowed: China, France and the U.K. have hundreds of nuclear warheads; Israel has more than 80, North Korea has about 10 and Iran may well be
trying to make its own. In 2004 this situation prompted one of us (Toon) and later Rich Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles, both veterans of the 1980s
investigations, to begin evaluating what the global environmental effects of a regional nuclear war would be and to take as our test case an engagement between India and
Pakistan. The latest estimates by David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security and by Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council are
that India has 50 to 60 assembled weapons (with enough plutonium for 100) and that Pakistan has 60 weapons. Both countries continue to increase their arsenals. Indian and
Pakistani nuclear weapons tests indicate that the yield of the warheads would be similar to the 15-kiloton explosive yield (equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT) of the bomb the U.S.
used on Hiroshima. Toon and Turco, along with Charles Bardeen, now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, modeled what would happen if 50 Hiroshima-size
bombs were dropped across the highest population-density targets in Pakistan and if 50 similar bombs were also dropped across India. Some people maintain that nuclear
weapons would be used in only a measured way. But in the wake of chaos, fear and broken communications that would occur once a nuclear war began, we doubt leaders
would limit attacks in any rational manner. This likelihood is particularly true for Pakistan, which is small and could be quickly overrun in a conventional conflict. Peter R. Lavoy of
the Naval Postgraduate School, for example, has analyzed the ways in which a conflict between India and Pakistan might occur and argues that Pakistan could face a decision
to use all its nuclear arsenal quickly before India swamps its military bases with traditional forces. Obviously, we hope the number of nuclear targets in any future war will be
zero, but policy makers and voters should know what is possible. Toon and Turco found that more than 20 million people in the two countries could die from the blasts, fires and
radioactivity--a horrible slaughter. But the investigators were shocked to discover that a tremendous amount of smoke would be generated, given the megacities in the two
countries, assuming each fire would burn the same area that actually did burn in Hiroshima and assuming an amount of burnable material per person based on various studies.
They calculated that the 50 bombs exploded in Pakistan would produce three teragrams of smoke, and the 50 bombs hitting India would generate four (one teragram equals a
million metric tons). Satellite observations of actual forest fires have shown that smoke can be lofted up through the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and
sometimes then into the lower stratosphere (the layer just above, extending to about 30 miles). Toon and Turco also did some "back of the envelope" calculations of the possible
climate impact of the smoke should it enter the stratosphere. The large magnitude of such effects made them realize they needed help from a climate modeler. It turned out that
one of us (Robock) was already working with Luke Oman, now at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, who was finishing his Ph.D. at Rutgers University on the climatic
effects of volcanic eruptions, and with Georgiy L. Stenchikov, also at Rutgers and an author of the first Russian work on nuclear winter. They developed a climate model that
could be used fairly easily for the nuclear blast calculations. Robock and his colleagues, being conservative, put five teragrams of smoke into their modeled upper troposphere
over India and Pakistan on an imaginary May 15. The model calculated how winds would blow the smoke around the world and how the smoke particles would settle out from
the atmosphere. The smoke covered all the continents within two weeks. The black, sooty smoke absorbed sunlight, warmed and rose into the stratosphere. Rain never falls
there, so the air is never cleansed by precipitation; particles very slowly settle out by falling, with air resisting them. Soot particles are small, with an average diameter of only 0.1
micron (μm), and so drift down very slowly. They also rise during the daytime as they are heated by the sun, repeatedly delaying their elimination. The calculations showed that
the smoke would reach far higher into the upper stratosphere than the sulfate particles that are produced by episodic volcanic eruptions. Sulfate particles are transparent and
absorb much less sunlight than soot and are also bigger, typically 0.5 μm. The volcanic particles remain airborne for about two years, but smoke from nuclear fires would last a
The climatic response to the smoke was surprising. Sunlight was immediately
decade. Killing Frosts in Summer

reduced, cooling the planet to temperatures lower than any experienced for the past 1,000 years . The global
average cooling, of about 1.25 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit), lasted for several years, and even after 10 years the temperature was still 0.5 degree C colder than
 Precipitation, river flow and soil moisture all decreased
normal. The models also showed a 10 percent reduction in precipitation worldwide.

because blocking sunlight reduces evaporation and weakens the hydrologic cycle. Drought was largely concentrated in
the lower latitudes, however, because global cooling would retard the Hadley air circulation pattern in the tropics,

which produces a large fraction of global precipitation. In critical areas such as the Asian monsoon
regions, rainfall dropped by as much as 40 percent. The cooling might not seem like much, but even a
small dip can cause severe consequences. Cooling and diminished sunlight would, for example, shorten
growing seasons in the midlatitudes. More insight into the effects of cooling came from analyses of the aftermaths of massive volcanic eruptions. Every
once in a while such eruptions produce temporary cooling for a year or two. The largest of the past 500 years, the 1815 Tambora

eruption in Indonesia, blotted the sun and produced global cooling of about 0.5 degree C for a year; 1816
became known as "The Year”.

Nuclear winter would cause extinction, new studies prove

Robock et. Al 07
 (Alan, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, Luke Oman, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, Georgiy Stenchikov, Department of
Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, “Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic
consequences”, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008235.shtml/)

Twenty years ago, the results of climate model simulations of the response to smoke and dust from a massive nuclear exchange between the
superpowers could be summarized as “nuclear winter,” with rapid temperature, precipitation, and insolation drops at the surface that would
threaten global agriculture for at least a year. The global nuclear arsenal has fallen by a factor of three since then, but there has been an expansion of

the number of nuclear weapons states, with additional states trying to develop nuclear arsenals. We use a
modern climate model to reexamine the climate response to a range of nuclear wars , producing 50 and 150 Tg of
smoke, using moderate and large portions of the current global arsenal , and find that there would be significant climatic responses to

all the scenarios. This is the first time that an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model has been used for

such a simulation and the first time that 10-year simulations have been conducted. The response to the 150 Tg
scenario can still be characterized as “nuclear winter,” but both produce global catastrophic consequences . The
changes are more long-lasting than previously thought, however, because the new model, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies
The indirect
ModelE, is able to represent the atmosphere up to 80 km, and simulates plume rise to the middle and upper stratosphere, producing a long aerosol lifetime.

effects of nuclear weapons would have devastating consequences for the planet, and continued nuclear
arsenal reductions will be needed before the threat of nuclear winter is removed from the Earth .
 A2: Must Be Massive Change
Even a 10 Celsius change in temperature risks extinction

Sagan & Turco 90

astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell and Turco founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment 90 [Carl and Richard, astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell
University, and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment, “A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race,” pg 23-4]

Life on Earth is exquisitely dependent on the climate (see Appendix A). The average surface temperature
of the Earth— averaged, that is, over day and night, over the seasons, over latitude, over land and ocean,
over coastline and continental interior, over mountain range and desert—is about 13°C, 13 Centigrade
degrees above the temperature at which fresh water freezes. (The corresponding temperature on the
Fahrenheit scale is 55°F.) It's harder to change the temperature of the oceans than of the continents,
which is why ocean temperatures are much more steadfast over the diurnal and seasonal cycles than are
the temperatures in the middle of large continents. Any global temperature change implies much larger
local temperature changes, if you don't live near the ocean. A prolonged global temperature drop of a few
degrees C would be a disaster for agriculture; by 10°C, whole ecosystems would be imperiled ; and by
20°C, almost all life on Earth would be at risk.* The margin of safety is thin.
 A2: Assumes Cold War
A NUCLEAR WAR TODAY WOULD STILL CAUSE A NUCLEAR WINTER
Roy 98

Arundhati Roy, published author, September 28, 1998 (The Nation)

There's nothing new or original left to be said about nuclear weapons . There can be nothing more humiliating for
a writer of fiction to have to do than restate a case that has, over the years, already been made by other people in other parts of the world,
and made passionately, eloquently and knowledgeably. I am prepared to grovel. To humiliate myself abjectly, because, in the
circumstances, silence would be indefensible. So those of you who are willing: Let's pick our parts, put on these discarded costumes and
speak our secondhand lines in this sad secondhand play. But let's not forget that the stakes we're playing for are huge . Our
The end of our children and our children's children . Of everything we
fatigue and our shame could mean the end of us.
Once again we are pitifully behind the
love. We have to reach within ourselves and find the strength to think. To fight.
times--not just scientifically and technologically (ignore the hollow claims), but more pertinently in our ability to
grasp the true nature of nuclear weapons . Our Comprehension of the Horror Department is hopelessly obsolete. Here we
are, all of us in India and in Pakistan, discussing the finer points of politics, and foreign policy, behaving for all the world as though our
governments have just devised a newer, bigger bomb, a sort of immense hand grenade with which they will annihilate the enemy (each
other) and protect us from all harm. How desperately we want to believe that. What wonderful, willing, well-behaved, gullible subjects we
have turned out to be. The rest of humanity may not forgive us, but then the rest of the rest of humanity, depending on who fashions its
views, may not know what a tired, dejected, heartbroken people we are. Perhaps it doesn't realize how urgently we need a miracle. How
deeply we yearn for magic. If only, if only, nuclear war was just another kind of war. If only it was about the usual things--nations and
territories, gods and histories. If only those of us who dread it are just worthless moral cowards who are not prepared to die in defense of
our beliefs. If only nuclear war was the kind of war in which countries battle countries and men battle men. But it isn't. If there is a
nuclear war, our foe will not be China or America or even each other. Our foe will be the earth herself. The very
elements--the sky, the air, the land, the wind and water--will all turn against us . Our cities and
forests, our fields and villages, will burn for days. Rivers will turn to poison. The air will become fire.
The wind will spread the flames. When everything there is to burn has burned and the fires die,
smoke will rise and shut out the sun . The earth will be enveloped in darkness. There will be no day .
Only interminable night. What shall we do then, those of us who are still alive? Burned and blind and bald and ill, carrying the cancerous
carcasses of our children in our arms, where shall we go? What shall we eat? What shall we drink? What shall we breathe?
 A2: Testing Empirically Denies
NEW STUDIES ACCOUNT FOR TESTING – THOSE DETONATIONS DON’T MATTER BECAUSE THEY
DIDN’T CAUSE ANY FIRES FROM DESTROYING CITIES
Sagan 84

Carl Sagan, B.A., B.S., and PhD University of Chicago, former professor of biology and genetics at
Stanford and professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Harvard, former Director of the Laboratory for
Planetary Studies at Cornell, two-time winner of the NASA medal for scientific achievement, Peabody
award recipient, and Pulitzer prize winning author, 1984 (Foreign Affairs, “Nuclear War and Climatic
Catastrophe” p. Lexis)

All four of these effects have been treated in our recent scientific investigation. n9 The study, known from the initials
of its authors as TTAPS, for the first time demonstrates that severe and prolonged low
temperatures would follow a nuclear war . (The study also explains the fact that no such climatic
effects were detected after the detonation of hundreds of megatons during the period of U.S.-
Soviet atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, ended by treaty in 1963: the explosions were
sequential over many years, not virtually simultaneous; and, occurring over scrub desert, coral
atolls, tundra and wasteland, they set no fires.) The new results have been subjected to detailed
scrutiny, and half a dozen confirmatory calculations have now been made . A special panel
appointed by the National Academy of Sciences to examine this problem has come to similar
conclusions. n10 Unlike many previous studies, the effects do not seem to be restricted to northern mid-latitudes, where the
nuclear exchange would mainly take place. There is now substantial evidence that the heating by sunlight of
atmospheric dust and soot over northern mid-latitude targets would profoundly change the
global circulation. Fine particles would be transported across the equator in weeks, bringing the cold
and the dark to the Southern Hemisphere. (In addition, some studies suggest that over 100 megatons would be dedicated to
equatorial and Southern Hemisphere targets, thus generating fine particles locally.) n11 While it would be less cold and
less dark at the ground in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern, massive climatic and
environmental disruptions may be triggered there as well.
 A2: Must Be Global
Even a limited nuclear exchange would result in a nuclear winter which leads to extinction

MacKenzie 07 
(Debora, writer for NewScientist, “'Nuclear winter' may kill more than a nuclear war”,http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11287-nuclear-winter-may-kill-more-than-a-nuclear-
war.html/)

A regional exchange of relatively small nuclear weapons could plunge the world into a decade-long
"nuclear winter", destroying agriculture and killing millions, according to a new study. Weapons experts to consider that small-scale
nuclear exchanges are now more likely than the massive US-Soviet exchanges feared during the Cold War. In the 1980s, scientists calculated that such

exchanges would put enough smoke into the atmosphere to shade the Earth from the Sun, causing a
nuclear winter. Now scientists have re-calculated the likelihood of nuclear winter using modern, vastly improved climate models and a more likely modern scenario for
small-scale nuclear war. Brian Toon, head of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Jersey,
cooling would last longer, with potentially
both in the US, predict less cooling than the 1980s modellers. However, they predict the

devastating consequences. Different targets The pair modelled the impact of 100 explosions in subtropical megacities. They modelled 15-
kilotonne explosions, like the Hiroshima bomb. This is also the size of the bombs now possessed by India and Pakistan, among

others. The immediate blast and radiation from the exchange of 100 small nuclear bombs killed between
three million and 16 million people, depending on the targets. But the global effect of the resulting one-to-five million
tonnes of smoke was much worse. "It is very surprising how few weapons are needed to do so much
damage," says Toon. This is partly because modern scenarios aim at different targets. Toon says most of the huge US and Russian nuclear warheads are aimed, in a first
strike, at missile silos in wilderness or suburban military installations. There is not much to burn, and after the first warhead hits, subsequent explosions do not release much
additional smoke. Urban firestorm By contrast,a regional exchange where adversaries target each others' megacities would
ignite huge urban firestorms. Toon calculates the smoke released per kilotonne of explosive yield would be 100
times greater than in the Cold War scenarios. Moreover, it lasts longer. The 1980s models, says Toon, did not extend into the upper atmosphere
far enough, and could not be run long enough to discover this. "Soot from fires is black and absorbs solar radiation ," Robock told New

Scientist. "As it begins to fall it is constantly being heated and lofted." Such particles , they calculate, rise to the

upper atmosphere and stay for more than six years . Global chill In comparison, Robock says, particulates from a volcanic eruption, which stay
in the lower atmosphere and last only about a year, have nevertheless cooled the planet enough to cause famine. Even taking global warming into account, the models predict
the cooling of the planet for a decade following the exchange would be nearly twice as great as the
that

global warming of the past century, causing colder temperatures than Europe's "Little Ice Age" of the 16th
to 18th centuries. Although this might look perversely like a welcome counter-balance to global warming, the researchers say it would cause equally
devastating changes in weather patterns and rainfall. That, plus reduced sunlight, would shorten growing
seasons and destroy crops worldwide, to the detriment of all.
 A2: Martin/Indict of Studies
1. ATTACKS ON CITY TARGETS CAUSES NUCLEAR WINTER- OUR STUDIES SHOULD BE
PREFFERED
Starr 2009
Steven Starr, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and Moscow Inst. Of Physics, 2009, “Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict,” Int’l Network of Engineers and
Scientists Against Proliferation, http://inesap.org/node/11

Nuclear detonations within urban and industrial areas would ignite immense mass fires which would burn everything
imaginable and create millions of tons of thick, black smoke (soot). This soot would ultimately be lofted into the stratosphere . There it would absorb and

block sunlight from reaching the lower atmosphere where greenhouse gases mainly reside, and thus act to reduce the natural greenhouse effect.4 The profound darkness and

global cooling predicted to be result of this process (along with massive amounts of radioactive fallout and pyrotoxins,5 and ozone depletion) was first described in 1983 as nuclear winter.6
Joint research by Western and Soviet scientists led to the realization that the climatic and environmental consequences of nuclear war, in combination with the indirect effects of the collapse of society , could

produce a nuclear winter which would cause famine for billions of people far from the war zones.7 These predictions
led to extensive international research and peer review during the mid-1980s. A large body of work which essentially supported the initial
findings of the 1983 studies was done by such groups as the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE),8 the World Meteorological Organization,9 and the U.S. National Research
Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.10 The idea of nuclear winter, published and supported by prominent scientists, generated extensive public alarm and put political pressure on the U.S. and the

this was anathema to the

U.S.S.R. to terminate a runaway nuclear arms race which, by 1986, had created a global nuclear arsenal of more than 65,000 nuclear weapons. Unfortunately ,

nuclear weapons establishment and thus nuclear winter created a backlash among many powerful conservative
groups, who undertook an extensive media campaign to brand it as “bad science ” and the scientists who discovered it as
“irresponsible.” Critics used various uncertainties in the studies and the first climate models (which are relatively primitive by current standards) as a basis to

denigrate and reject the concept of nuclear winter. In 1986, the Council on Foreign Relations published an article by scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR), who predicted drops in global cooling about half as large as those first predicted by the 1983 studies and described this as a ‘nuclear autumn.’ Subsequent widespread criticism, in such publications as
the Wall Street Journal and Time Magazine, often used the term “nuclear autumn” to imply that no important climatic change would result from nuclear war. In 1987, the National Review called nuclear winter a
“fraud.” In 2000, Discover Magazine published an article which described nuclear winter as one of “The Twenty Greatest Scientific Blunders in History.”11 Sadly enough, for almost two decades this smear

Yet the basic findings of the nuclear winter

campaign limited serious discussion and prevented further studies of nuclear winter – and such criticism will continue.12

research, that extreme climatic changes would result from nuclear war, were never scientifically disproved and have been strengthened
by the latest studies.

2. YOUR ARGUMENT IS GARBAGE – THE 1980’S T-TAPS REPORT OUR EVIDENCE CITES HAS
BEEN PEER REVIEWED AND VERIFIED FOR TWO DECADES SINCE – AND YOUR EVIDENCE IS A
RESULT OF DISINFORMATION BY THE GOVERNMENT
Phillips 00

PhD in physics from Cambridge, former military researcher specializing in radiation and extensive author
and researcher in the field of nuclear weapons and nuclear war, October, 2000

(Alan, Nuclear Winter Revisited, www.peace.ca/nuclearwinterrevisited.htm)

The prediction of nuclear winter was published by a group headed by Carl Sagan in 1983.  The
initials of their names were T-T-A-P-S, so the paper and their book has become known as "t-taps".   It caused some alarm
in government circles in U.S.A. and NATO countries, not so much because this further disaster would follow a nuclear war,
but because of the boost it gave to the Peace Movement .  A number of studies were published in
the next few years, including major reports by The Swedish Academy of Sciences (Ambio), the International Council of
Scientific Unions (SCOPE), and the U.S. National Research Council.  There was a drive by government and the
military establishment to minimize the matter, and after a few years the media were talking
about "nuclear autumn".  (The most astonishing lies were propagated , e.g. that Carl Sagan
admitted that his publication was "a propaganda scam ".)  It was true that islands and coastal areas would have
less severe temperature drops than the original predictions, because of the modifying effect of the ocean.  They would have violent
storms instead, because of the big temperature difference between land and water.  In 1990 another paper was published
by the T-TAPS group reviewing in detail the later studies , and showing that some modifications to their 1983
paper were necessary.  Some of these were in the direction of more severe changes, others towards
milder changes.  The general picture was little changed.  The book: "A Path Where No Man Thought" by
Sagan and Turco (one of the T's), also published in 1990, gives an account of current conclusions for the serious non-specialist
reader.  It gives detailed descriptions of nuclear winters of different severity according to how many weapons were used, and
against what targets.  If oil refineries and storage were the main targets ,
100 bombs would be enough to cause a
nuclear winter, and the smallest sizes of nuclear bombs would be effective in starting the fires .
Population
 Inbreeding-Frontline
Forced inbreeding after the war guarantees extinction

Bochkov 84
 (Academician, Member of the Medical Academy of Sciences and Director of the Institute of Genetics at the USSR Academy of Sciences, “The Cold and the Dark: The World
After Nuclear War”, p. 141-142)

in thinking about the

Academician Bochkov: When we talk about the ecological and biological consequences of a nuclear war, we are of course focusing on humankind. Thus,

nuclear catastrophe, we should not be afraid to reach the conclusion that the
possibilities of human survival after a

conditions that would prevail would not allow the survival of human beings as a species. We should proceed from the
assumption that man has adapted to his environment during a long evolutionary process and has paid the price of natural selection. Only over the past few thousand

years has he adapted his environment to his needs and has created, so to speak, an artificial environment to provide food, shelter, and other
necessities. Without this, modem man cannot survive . Compared to the dramatic improvements made in the technological environment, biological nature has
not changed in the recent past. In the statements of Dr. Ehrlich and Academician Bayev, we have heard about the many constraints there would be on the possibility of man's survival after a
most long-term effects of a nuclear war will
nuclear catastrophe. Because we also have to look at the more long-range future, I would like to point out that

be genetic. If islands of humanity—or as Dr. Ehrlich has said, groups of people on islands somewhere in the ocean—should survive, what will they face in
terms of genetic consequences? If the population drops sharply, the question then arises of the critical numbers of a population that

would be necessary to ensure its reproduction. On the one hand there will be minimum numbers of human beings; on the other hand, because of the small
numbers, there will be isolation. There will definitely be inbreeding, and lethal mutations will come to the fore as a result

of this, because of fetal and neonatal exposure to radiation and because of exposure to fallout. New
mutations will arise and genes and chromosomes will be damaged as a result of the radiation, so there
will be an additional genetic load to bear. There will be natural aberrations and death at birth, so that the burden of hereditary illnesses will be only part of a
large load. This undoubtedly will be conducive to the elimination of humanity, because humankind will not be

able to reproduce itself as a species.

 Inbreeding Extension
Even if a nuclear war doesn’t cause extinction, reproduction is impossible – inbreeding would
become necessary because most life would be killed – that leads to lethal radiation mutations –
ensures extinction – that’s Bochkov.

Nuclear war erodes the human gene pool and causes genetic twilight.

Nissani 92

(Nissani, Moti. (1992). Lives in the Balance: the Cold War and American Politics, 1945-1991, chapter 2,
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies / Department of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University,
http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/PAGEPUB/CH2.html)phol

We have noted earlier that nuclear war may cause harmful mutations and other genetic
I. Genetic Risks.

defects, thereby causing millions of individual tragedies for centuries after the war . In this section I would like to draw
attention to the implications of these defects to the human gene pool as a whole. Two modern developments (which have nothing to do with nuclear war) need to be mentioned
genetically unfit individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce now
in this context. First, owing to medical advances,

than in former ages. Second, the modern environment contains many mutation-causing substances . Both
developments may gradually raise the incidence of deleterious genes in the human gene pool and
thereby bring about a gradual decline in its quality. Some geneticists go as far as to prophesy a genetic
twilight, in which the quality of the human gene pool erodes to the point where everyone is "an invalid ,
with his own special familial twists."23 Now, if it turns out that nuclear war increases the number of genetic defects,
war might reduce the quality of the human gene pool to some unknown extent . Moreover, if the specter of genetic twilight is
real (many geneticists believe that it is not), nuclear war might hasten its coming.
 Radiation Frontline
Radiation from a nuclear winter would wipe out humanity

Phillips 00
PhD in Physics from Cambridge 00 [Alan, Nuclear Winter Revisited, Oct, www.peace.ca/nuclearwinterrevisited.htm]

Altogether, nuclear winter would be an ecological disaster of the same sort of magnitude as the major
extinctions of species that  have occurred in the past, the most famous one being 65 million years ago at the
cretaceous extinction.  Of all the species living at the time, about half became extinct.  The theory is that a large meteor made a great
crater in the Gulf of California, putting a trillion tons of rock debris into the atmosphere.   That is a thousand times as much
rock as is predicted for a nuclear war, but the soot from fires blocks sunlight more effectively than rock debris.   In nuclear

winter there would also be radioactive contamination giving worldwide background radiation doses many
times larger than has ever happened during the 3 billion years of evolution.  The radiation would notably worsen things for
existing species, though it might, by increasing mutations, allow quicker evolution of new species (perhaps mainly
insects and grasses) that could tolerate the post-war conditions.  (I should just mention that there is no way the radioactivity from a nuclear war could destroy "all life on earth".  People must stop
saying that.  There will be plenty of evolution after a war, but it may not include us .)
 Radiation Extension

Nuclear winter causes radiation – soot and smoke would block sunlight, and radioactive
contamination would cause ecological disaster, killing the human race – that’s 1NC Phillips

Radiation from a nuclear war causes starvation, disease, and extinction

Phillips 00
(Dr. Allen, Peace Activist, Nuclear Winter Revisited, October, http://www.peace.ca/nuclearwinterrevisited.htm)

Those of us who were involved in peace activities in the 80's probably remember a good deal about
nuclear winter. Those who have become involved later may have heard little about it. No scientific study has been published since
1990, and very little appears now in the peace or nuclear abolition literature. *It is still important.* With thousands
of rocket-launched weapons at "launch-on-warning", any day there could be an all-out nuclear war by accident. The fact that there are only half as many nuclear bombs as there
Deaths from world-wide starvation after the war would be several times the
were in the 80's makes no significant difference.

number from direct effects of the bombs, and the surviving fraction of the human race might then diminish
and vanish after a few generations of hunger and disease, in a radioactive environment.

Nuclear war causes radiation and extinction and destruction of VTL

Nissani, ‘92

(Nissani, Moti. (1992). Lives in the Balance: the Cold War and American Politics, 1945-1991, chapter 2,
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies / Department of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University,
http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/PAGEPUB/CH2.html)phol

VI. Human Populations. The direct effects of war on human populations have already been discussed. Here I shall only superimpose the war's indirect effects on projection IV
a projection which entailed one billion deaths in targeted countries as a result of near-term effects of
above,

nuclear bombs: blast, heat, initial radiation, and local fallout (the effects of the other three projections would be correspondingly lighter).
The death toll will continue to climb for years after the war, as a consequence of widespread famine in
targeted nations, famine in numerous non-targeted Third World countries whose people partly depend for
survival on food or food-related imports from targeted nations, general deterioration of the health care and
disease prevention system, lingering radioactivity, paucity of shelters, temporary but severe climatic
changes, and the likelihood that some grief-stricken survivors will prefer death to a prolonged struggle for
sheer physical survival. Several years after the war, the world's population may go down by another billion people. The longer-term impact of total war on human
populations depends in part on whether social conditions resembling our own are re-established. If not, human populations could keep declining for decades. But even if such
further reductions seem likely during the first few decades because young children,
conditions are re-created,

infants, and fetuses are more vulnerable to the stresses of a post-nuclear world (radiation, starvation, death of parents,
etc.), and so proportionately more individuals in these age brackets will die. In addition, many people may refrain for years after from having children, so the death rate is likely
to be higher than the birth rate. (I have confined the discussion here to dry statistics not because they are the most interesting, but because books like this one cannot possibly
convey the countless individual tragedies these numbers imply.) It must be admitted that all this will be a nasty Malthusian solution to overpopulation and rapid population
growth. Consequently, for at least half a century after the war, overpopulation and rapid population growth will no longer make appreciable contributions to such ills as
environmental deterioration, species extinction, nationalism, and over-organization.
 Radiation- A2: Hormesis
RADIATION CAUSED BY NUKE WAR IS FATAL
Upton 84

[Arthur C., “Radiation Effects on Humans,” Dir. Of the Inst. of Envtl Medicine, NYU Med Center, M.D. from
U. of Michigan, Pathogen researcher at State U. of NY, spec in radiation inury to endocrine functions and
cancer, The Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, Ed. London & White, Boulder: Westview Press, 1984,
99-100//uwyo-ajl]

A dose of 2-10 gray (Gy), if absorbed within minutes or days, can kill sufficient numbers of germinative cells in the blood-forming
tissues, skin, scalp, bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract, lung, and gonads to interfere with normal function in these organs. The threshold
dose required to cause clinical symptoms varies from organ to organ as can be seen on Table 5-2. The frequency and severity of damage to the
human body also depends on the conditions of irradiation, age at exposure, physiological status of exposed tissues, and other variables (Upton, 1968:
Rubin and Casarett, 1968: UNSCEAR, 1982). The unit commonly used for measuring or expressing the radiation dose in humans is the gray (Gy),
Another commonly used unit is the sievert (Sv).Injury of sufficient severity to cause early death from acute radiation sickness is thought
to require a dose in excess of 2-3 Gy of whole-body radiation, with the probability of death reaching 100 percent in the range of
8-10 Gy if the dose is absorbed wi thin a few days (see, for instance, Fig. 5-1). With prolongation of the period of irradiation, adaptive reactions
enable a progres sively larger dose to be tolerated as shown in Fig. 5-2. Thus, a total body exposure of 9 Gy over 52 weeks would have the same
probability of lethality as a total exposure of 3-5 Gy for the first week.

Hormesis is only in small doses, higher causes disease

Brucer 87

[Marshall, “Radiation Hormesis after 85 Years,” Health Physics Society Newsletter, July,
www.fortfreedom.org/s10.htm, acc 7-7-05//uwyo-ajl]

One of the first studies in radio-biology (1898) found that X- irradiated algae grew faster than unirradiated control groups. Stimu- lated growth was
noted in trees (1908) and increased life span in invertebrates (1918) and insects (1919). X-Rays stimulated seedlings (1927), plant growth (1937),
along with guinea pigs, rabbits and mice (1940's). Increased life span was the rule in low dose irradiated rats, dogs, and even house flies
(1950's). In a 1981 monograph (CRC Press), T. Luckey revived the term "hormesis," but this time with ionizing radiation and backed it up with a review
of over 1250 articles from 85 years of experimental biology. Radiation Danger Takes the Spotlight Before 1900, about ten articles mentioned a
probable hormetic response to X-rays, then two or three articles were published each year, until the death, in 1906, of an English radiotherapist from
overexposure caused the first radiation hysteria. (ArRR, 1906-1910) Skin damage to number of German and French radiotherapists led to a new
emphasis on protection from damage. Before World War I, and into the thirties, about ten articles a year mentioned a hormetic effect, but the idea did
not grow. Why Didn't Hormesis Take Hold? A Russian histologist, Alexander Gurwitsch, had discovered in 1923 that living cells gave off a form of
radiant energy that stimu- lated other growing tissues. (RA 100:11, 1923) "Gurwitsch" rays were confirmed outside of Russia, then denied. During the
1930's, major WPA radiobiology programs studied these "mitogenetic rays," but with World War II, geneticists and biologists dismissed the idea with
shame. The rays taught radiobiologists how to juggle numbers and live off a government dole. In 1925, H. Martland described 18 female radium dial
high dose recipients developed
(like those glow in the dark watch faces, etc.) painters. After tipping brushes with their lips for five years, these
necrosis of the jaw bones and profound anemia. Other high dose patients, including possible osteosarcomas were, and still are,
de- scribed in tabloid scandal sheets. No newspaper ever featured the 30 year followup of 1155 low dose radium
dial painters who had fewer cancers than the general population and lived longer.
 Disease Frontline
Nuclear war cripples medical responses – hastens disease spread

Katz 82
author of Life after Nuclear War and Osdoby graduate student at Johns Hopkins 82 [Arthur M. and Sima R., “The Social and Economic Effects Of Nuclear War”, Cato Institute,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa009.html]

If in the most heavily contaminated and damaged regions, all the doctors
What would this level of destruction mean?

survived and hospitals were usable, there would be one doctor for every 50 or 100 injured, and between 10 and 30
patients per available hospital bed. Even if the entire national health care system was used , the patient-doctor
ratio would be between 25 and 50 to 1 and patients per hospital bed between 10 and 20 to 1 . Care for
patients suffering from other medical problems, such as heart attack and cancer, would be significantly
degraded for an extended time because of the competing and continuing demands of those injured by fallout, the loss of
physicians and hospitals (because of contamination) in specific regions, and potential reductions in the manufacture and distribution of medical

supplies (about 30% of all drugs are manufactured in the regions most affected by fallout). For a more specific example, to treat a single patient exposed to substantial
levels of radiation (200 Radiation Equivalent Man -- REMS -- or more) would require massive medical resources -- intensive care, bone marrow transplants, blood transfusions
In this type of attack hundreds of thousands -- perhaps millions -- would require complex bone
and antibiotics.

marrow transplants to assure survival. Because of reduced resistance to infectious diseases, all clinical
cases (a radiation dose exceeding 50 REMS) would need continuous protection against infection , involving high doses of antibiotics, etc.
Treating large numbers would rapidly drain existing supplies and professional energy. As antibiotics supplies dwindled and immunization proved ineffective in this radiation-
, a huge reservoir of potential disease carriers would develop . Diseases such as polio might
weakened group

reappear. Other key elements of medical care support systems, such as medical insurance and records, would be
disrupted and in chaos after evacuation.

Disease spread will cause extinction

Steinbruner 98
Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution 98 [John D., “Biological weapons: A plague upon all houses,” Foreign Policy, Dec 22]

It s a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized
efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune
system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But
evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt.
Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an
epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century,
including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the mv virus

have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of AIDS each
year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera--once thought to be under control--are now making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-
first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion . The rapid growth

rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the
capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it

has ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental

security problem for the species as a whole.

 Disease Extension

NUCLEAR WAR MAKES DISEASES INEVITABLE- KILLS MEDICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH

MEANS WE CAN’T CONTAIN ILLNESSES- THAT’S KATZ
AND DISEASE CAUSES EXTINCTION, OLD DISEASES MUTATE TO KILL US ALL, THAT’S
STEINBRUNER

Nuclear war results in mass famine and pandemic spread

Loretz 10
John, Program director of the International Physicians for prevention of nuclear weapons citing several studies completed by Alan Robock, B. Toon, Michael Mills and other
physicians who have been studying the nuclear effect for years (“Nuclear Famine” http://ippnweducation.wordpress.com/nuclearfamine/)

Climate scientists who worked with the late Carl Sagan in the 1980s to document the threat of nuclear winter have produced disturbing new research
about the climate effects of low-yield, regional nuclear war. Using South Asia as an example, these experts have
found that even a limited regional nuclear war on the order of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons would result in tens of
millions of immediate deaths and unprecedented global climate disruption. Smoke from urban firestorms caused by
multiple nuclear explosions would rise into the upper troposphere and, due to atmospheric heating, would subsequently be

boosted deep into the stratosphere. The resulting soot cloud would block 7–10% of warming sunlight from reaching the
Earth’s surface, leading to significant cooling and reductions in precipitation lasting for more than a decade. Within 10 days following the

explosions, there would be a drop in average surface temperature of 1.25° C. Over the following year , a 10% decline in average global rainfall and

a large reduction in the Asian summer monsoon would have a significant impact on agricultural
production. These effects would persist over many years. The growing season would be shortened by 10 to 20 days in
many of the most important grain producing areas in the world, which might completely eliminate crops that had

insufficient time to reach maturity. There are currently more than 800 million people in the world who are chronically
malnourished. Several hundred million more live in countries that depend on imported grain. Even a
modest, sudden decline in agricultural production could trigger significant increases in the prices for basic
foods, as well as hoarding on a global scale, making food inaccessible to poor people in much of the
world. While it is not possible to estimate the precise extent of the global famine that would follow a regional nuclear war, it seems reasonable to anticipate a total
global death toll in the range of one billion from starvation alone. Famine on this scale would also lead to major epidemics of
infectious diseases, and would create immense potential for mass population movement, civil conflict, and war. These findings have significant implications for nuclear weapons
policy. They are powerful evidence in the case against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and against the modernization of arsenals in the existing nuclear weapon states.
Even more important, they argue for a fundamental reassessment of the role of nuclear weapons in the world. If even a relatively small nuclear war, by Cold War standards—
within the capacity of eight nuclear-armed states—could trigger a global catastrophe, then the only viable response is the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. Two other
famine on this scale would lead to major epidemics of
issues need to be considered as well. First, there is a very high likelihood that

infectious diseases. Previous famines have been accompanied by major outbreaks of plague, typhus,
malaria, dysentery, and cholera. Despite the advances in medical technology of the last half century, a global
famine on the anticipated scale would provide the ideal breeding ground for epidemics involving any or all
of these illness, especially in the vast megacities of the developing world.

Nuclear war devastates the pharmaceutical industry – prevents new drugs

Cochrane & Mileti 86

professors at Colorado State University 86 [Hal Cochrane and Dennis Mileti, “The Medical Implications of Nuclear War”, editors: Fred Solomon and Robert Q. Marston, pg. 394,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=940&page=394]
How quickly might the pharmaceutical industry be rebuilt and sufficient production of pharmaceuticals and
biologicals be resumed? There is, of course, no definitive answer to such a question; however, some indicators are worth noting. Most industry
analysts would agree that a nuclear attack on the Northeast would devastate pharmaceutical research and
development. The high concentration of skilled lab technicians and scientists in the region would be difficult to
replace, given that many of the nation’s prestigious institutions of higher learning would perish in the same attack. Such losses would have an
incalculable impact on the nation’s ability to advance pharmacological research , one which may take
decades to recover. The impact such a loss would have on a global scale may, however, be less significant since the Swiss and Japanese have made great strides
to advance their own capacity to carry on independent research.

Nuclear war collapses global infrastructure and causes mass disease pandemics

Sagan 85
Former Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University 85 [Carl, “The Nuclear Winter,” http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html]

fallout is much more than expected. Many previous calculations simply ignored the
In addition, the amount of radioactive

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
The cold, the dark
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.

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 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.
Risk Assesment
 Risk Frontline
Any risk of nuclear use should be avoided at all costs – it must be evaluated first because
extinction is the inevitable result

Kateb 92
(George, Professor at Princeton, The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture, p. 110-112)

we should all contemplate the nuclear situation from the perspective

The highest worth of Schell’s book lies in his insistence that

of possible human extinction and be overcome by the obligation no matter what to try to avoid human extinction.
Yet as Schell says, human extinction (as well as the extinction of most species in nature) is not the intention of anyone in power. What must be seen is that the

absolute end can come about even though no one intends it. “We can do it,” he says, “only if we don’t quite know what we’re doing.”
Schell’s work attempts to force on us an acknowledgement that sounds far-fetched and even ludicrous, an acknowledgement that the possibility of extinction

is carried by any use of nuclear weapons no matter how limited or how seemingly rational or seemingly morally justified. He himself
acknowledges that there is a difference between possibility and certainty. But in a matter that is more than a matter, more than one practical matter in a vast series of practical
in the “matter” or extinction, we are obliged to treat a possibility – a genuine possibility – as a certainty.
matters,

Humanity is not to take any step that contains even the slightest risk of extinction . The doctrine of no-use us based on
the possibility of extinction. Schell’s perspective transforms the subject. He takes us away from the arid stretches of strategy and asks us to feel continuously, if we can, and
It is of no moral
feel keenly if only for an instant now and then, how utterly distinct the nuclear world is. Nuclear discourse must vividly register that distinctiveness.

account that extinction may be only a slight possibility. No one can say how great the possibility is, but no one has yet
credibly denied that by some sequence or other a particular use of nuclear weapons may lead to human
and natural extinction. If it is not impossible it must be treated as certain; the loss signified by extinction
nullifies all calculations of probability as it nullifies all calculations of costs and benefits. Abstractly put, the
connections between any use of nuclear weapons and human and natural extinction are several. Most obviously, a
sizeable exchange of strategic nuclear weapons can, by a chain of events in nature, lead to the earth’s uninhabitability, to
“nuclear winter”, or to Schell’s “republic of insects and grass.” But the consideration of extinction cannot rest with the
possibility of a sizeable exchange of strategic weapons. It cannot rest with the imperative that a sizeable exchange must not take place. A so-called
tactical or “theater” use, or a so-called limited use, is also prohibited absolutely because of the possibility of

immediate escalation into a sizable exchange or because, even if there were not an immediate escalation, the possibility of
extinction would reside in the precedent for future use set by any use whatever in a world in which more than one power
possesses nuclear weapons. Add other consequences; the contagious effect on nonnuclear powers who may feel compelled by a mixture of fear and vanity to try to acquire
their own weapons, this increasing the possibility of use by increasing the number of nuclear powers; and the unleashed emotions of indignation, retribution, and revenge which,
if not acted on immediately in the form of escalation, can be counted on to seek expression later. Other than full strategic uses are not confined no matter how small the
explosive power each would be a cancerous transformation of the world. All nuclear roads lead to the possibility of extinction. It is true by
definition, but let us make it explicit: the doctrine of no-use excludes any first or retaliatory or later use, whether sizable or not. No-use is the imperative derived from the
By containing the possibility of extinction, any use is tantamount to a declaration of war
possibility of extinction.

against humanity. It is not merely a war crime or a single crime against humanity. Such a war is waged by the user of nuclear weapons against every human
individual as individual present and future, not as citizen of this or that country. It is not only a war against the country that is the target. To respond with nuclear weapons,
where possible, only increases the chances of extinction and can never, therefore, be allowed. The use of nuclear weapons establishes the right of any person or group, acting
officially or not, violently or not, to try to punish those responsible for the use. The aim of the punishment is to deter later uses and thus to try to reduce the possibility of
extinction, if, by chance, the particular use in question did not directly lead to extinction. The form of the punishment cannot be specified. Of course the chaos ensuing from a
sizable exchange could make punishment irrelevant. The important point, however, is to see that those who use nuclear weapons are
qualitatively worse than criminals, and at the least forfeit their offices.
 Risk Extension
We have an obligation to avoid human extinction – preventing the possibility of nuclear use, no
matter how limited or unlikely, must be our utmost priority

Nuclear war nullifies all cost-benefit analysis – nuclear war is different – we must go against even
our strictest moral duty to prevent the risk of eliminating humanity – that’s Kateb

Even if nuclear war doesn’t cause extinction, we should always try to reduce the risk of it.

Nissani 92
M. Lives in the balance: The Cold War and American Politics (“Types of Nuclear Bombs” http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/PAGEPUB/CH2.html)

VIII. Extinction? Extinction of humankind is often mentioned in this context. However, based on what we know now of the
effects of nuclear war, extinction is highly improbable: under any likely set of assumptions, it seems that some of our kind will be able to pull through the

hardships and survive. But because extinction cannot be completely ruled out , and because it is the worst imaginable outcome of nuclear war

(actually I find it hard to imagine at all-no people walking this earth-forever), it should be rendered even more improbable by reducing

the risk of nuclear war.

Nuclear war outweighs—causes total extinction

Schell 82
professor at Wesleyan University, Distinguished Fellow at the Yale Center 82 [Jonathan, former writer and editor at the New Yorker, “The Fate of the Earth,” pg. 93-94]

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

We can’t experiment with the consequences of nuclear war. If there is a chance it might cause
extinction we need to prevent it

Weart 09
 (Wintery Doom, june 2009, in “the discovery of global warming”, Spencer weart, Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics,
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Winter.htm)phol

In 1939 the physicists Leo Szilard and Enrico Fermi had joined forces to see if they could create a chain reaction that would release the nuclear power in uranium. " Fermi
thought the conservative thing was to play down the possibility," Szilard later recalled, "...and I thought the
conservative thing was to assume that it would happen and take the necessary precautions ." As the historian
Lawrence Badash remarks, "Fermi was thinking of a scientific phenomenon, while Szilard had progressed to the

political consequences." The same divergence on what it means to be "conservative" permeated the debate about controlling greenhouse gases . As with
nuclear winter, so with global warming, scientists could only estimate the size of the problem by using
computer models, standing on a pile of uncertain assumptions . As with nuclear winter, so with global warming, many people
thought it would be foolish to introduce radically new policies just because a bunch of scientists had come
up with a hypothesis as unlikely-sounding as anything in science fiction. Only a few scientists were
prepared to reply that the scientific uncertainty itself was an argument for action. As Sagan said in
reference to nuclear war, injuring the atmosphere was "an experiment that can be performed once,
at most
 Schell- Fraction of Infinity
Even if the risk of nuclear war is small – the probability must be evaluated as definite and the
impact as infinite

Schell 82
professor at Wesleyan University 82 [Jonathan, former writer and editor at the New Yorker, “The Fate of the Earth,” pg. 93-94]

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
we are compelled to
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

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
if the great powers entered into a nuclear-arms race the human species would sooner or later face
the world realized that

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
human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear
sense, the question of

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.
 Existential Risk
Nuclear arms race reduction is the ultimate existential risk reducer- any other threat can be
countered later or by other actors

Bostrom 2002

Nick, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School, Director of the Future of Humanity
Institute, and Director of the Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology at the University of Oxford,
recipient of the 2009 Eugene R. Gannon Award for the Continued Pursuit of Human Advancement, holds
a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the London School of Economics, 2011, “Analyzing Human Extinction
Scenarios and Related Hazards,” http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

Some of the lesser existential risks can be countered fairly cheaply. For example, there are organizations
devoted to mapping potentially threatening near-Earth objects (e.g. NASA’s Near Earth Asteroid Tracking
Program, and the Space Guard Foundation). These could be given additional funding . To reduce the
probability of a “physics disaster”, a public watchdog could be appointed with authority to commission advance peer-review of
potentially hazardous experiments. This is currently done on an ad hoc basis and often in a way that relies on the integrity of
researchers who have a personal stake in the experiments going forth. The existential risks of naturally occurring or
genetically engineered pandemics would be reduced by the same measures that would help prevent and
contain more limited epidemics. Thus, efforts in counter-terrorism, civil defense, epidemiological monitoring and reporting,
developing and stockpiling antidotes, rehearsing emergency quarantine procedures, etc. could be intensified. Even abstracting from
existential risks, it would probably be cost-effective to increase the fraction of defense budgets devoted to such programs.[23]
Reducing the risk of a nuclear Armageddon, whether accidental or intentional, is
a well-recognized priority. There is a vast literature on the related strategic and political issues to
which I have nothing to add here. The longer-term dangers of nanotech proliferation or arms race
between nanotechnic powers, as well as the whimper risk of “evolution into oblivion”, may necessitate,
even more than nuclear weapons, the creation and implementation of a coordinated global strategy.
Recognizing these existential risks suggests that it is advisable to gradually shift the focus of security
policy from seeking national security through unilateral strength to creating an integrated international
security system that can prevent arms races and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Which
particular policies have the best chance of attaining this long-term goal is a question beyond the scope of this paper.

Eliminating existential risk is impossible- maximizing short term protection from catastrophe
opens the potential for future protection and is better than vague attempts to defend against any
chance of extinction

Bostrom 2002

Nick, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School, Director of the Future of Humanity
Institute, and Director of the Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology at the University of Oxford,
recipient of the 2009 Eugene R. Gannon Award for the Continued Pursuit of Human Advancement, holds
a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the London School of Economics, 2011, “Analyzing Human Extinction
Scenarios and Related Hazards,” http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

Previous sections have argued that the combined probability of the existential risks is very substantial.
Although there is still a fairly broad range of differing estimates that responsible thinkers could make, it is
nonetheless arguable that because the negative utility of an existential disaster is so enormous, the
objective of reducing existential risks should be a dominant consideration when acting out of concern for
humankind as a whole. It may be useful to adopt the following rule of thumb for moral action ; we can call
it Maxipok: Maximize the probability of an okay outcome, where an “okay outcome” is any outcome that
avoids existential disaster. At best, this is a rule of thumb, a prima facie suggestion, rather than a principle
of absolute validity, since there clearly are other moral objectives than preventing terminal global disaster.
Its usefulness consists in helping us to get our priorities straight. Moral action is always at risk to diffuse
its efficacy on feel-good projects[24] rather on serious work that has the best chance of fixing the worst
ills. The cleft between the feel-good projects and what really has the greatest potential for good is likely to
be especially great in regard to existential risk. Since the goal is somewhat abstract and since existential
risks don’t currently cause suffering in any living creature[25], there is less of a feel-good dividend to be
derived from efforts that seek to reduce them. This suggests an offshoot moral project, namely to reshape
the popular moral perception so as to give more credit and social approbation to those who devote their
time and resources to benefiting humankind via global safety compared to other philanthropies. Maxipok,
a kind of satisficing rule, is different from Maximin (“Choose the action that has the best worst-case
outcome.”)[26]. Since we cannot completely eliminate existential risks (at any moment we could be sent
into the dustbin of cosmic history by the advancing front of a vacuum phase transition triggered in a
remote galaxy a billion years ago) using maximin in the present context has the consequence that we
should choose the act that has the greatest benefits under the assumption of impending extinction . In
other words, maximin implies that we should all start partying as if there were no tomorrow. While that
option is indisputably attractive, it seems best to acknowledge that there just might be a tomorrow,
especially if we play our cards right.

Nuclear war is an existential risk- the chance of extinction is sufficient to justify the label

Bostrom 2002
Nick, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute, and Director of the
Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology at the University of Oxford, recipient of the 2009 Eugene R. Gannon Award for the
Continued Pursuit of Human Advancement, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the London School of Economics, 2011, “Analyzing
Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards,” http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html,

4.2 Nuclear holocaust The US and Russia still have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons . But would an
all-out nuclear war really exterminate humankind? Note that: (i) For there to be an existential risk it
suffices that we can’t be sure that it wouldn’t. (ii) The climatic effects of a large nuclear war are not well
known (there is the possibility of a nuclear winter ). (iii) Future arms races between other nations cannot
be ruled out and these could lead to even greater arsenals than those present at the height of the Cold
War. The world’s supply of plutonium has been increasing steadily to about two thousand tons, some ten
times as much as remains tied up in warheads ([9], p. 26). (iv) Even if some humans survive the short-
term effects of a nuclear war, it could lead to the collapse of civilization. A human race living under stone-
age conditions may or may not be more resilient to extinction than other animal species.
 A2: Selection Bias
Your impacts are too long term and improbable- nuclear war comes first- this assumes selection
bias

Bostrom 2005
Nick, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute, and Director of the
Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology at the University of Oxford, recipient of the 2009 Eugene R. Gannon Award for the
Continued Pursuit of Human Advancement, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the London School of Economics, 2011, “How Unlikely
is a Doomsday Catastrophe?” http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0512204v2.pdf

Suppose planets get randomly sterilized or destroyed at some rate τ −1 which we will now constrain. This means that the probability
of a planet surviving a time t decays exponentially, as e −t/τ . The most straightforward way of eliminating observer
selection bias is to use only information from objects whose destruction would not yet have affected life
on Earth. We know that no planets from Mercury to Neptune in our solar system have been converted to
black holes or blobs of strange matter during the past 4.6 Gyr, since their masses would still be
detectable via their gravitational perturbations of the orbits of other planets. This implies that the
destruction timescale τ must be correspondingly large — unless their destruction is be linked to ours, either by a
common cause or by their implosion resulting in the emission of doomsday particles like black holes or strangelets that would in turn
destroy Earth. This observer selection effect loophole is tightened if we consider extrasolar planets that have been seen to partially
eclipse their parent star [8] and are therefore known not to have imploded. The doomsday particles discussed in the literature would
be more readily captured gravitationally by a star than by a planet, in which case the observed abundance of very old (∼ > 10 Gyr)
stars (e.g., [9]) would further sharpen the lower bound on τ. The one disaster scenario that exploits the remaining observer bias
loophole and evades all these constraints is vacuum decay, either spontaneous or triggered by a highenergy event. Since the
bubble of destruction expands with the speed of light, we are prevented from observing the destruction of other objects: we only see
their destruction at the instant when we ourselves get destroyed. In contrast, if scenarios 2 or 3 involved doomsday particle emission
and proceed as a chain reaction spreading subluminally, we would observe spherical dark regions created by expanding destruction
fronts that have not yet reached us. We will now show that the vacuum decay timescale can be bounded by a different argument.
The formation rate fp(tp) of habitable planets as a function of time since the Big Bang is shown in Figure 1 (left panel, shaded
distribution). This estimate is from [10], based on simulations including the effects of heavy element buildup, supernova explosions
and gamma-ray bursts. If regions of space get randomly sterilized or destroyed at a rate τ −1 , then the probability that a random
spatial region remains unscathed decays as e −t/τ . This implies that the conditional probability distribution f ∗ p (tp) for the planet
formation time tp seen by an observer is simply the shaded distribution fp(tp) multiplied by e −tp/τ and rescaled to integrate to unity,
giving the additional curves in Figure 1 (left panel). 1 As we lower the catastrophe timescale τ, the resulting distributions (left panel)
are seen to peak further to the left and the probability that Earth formed as late as observed (9.1 Gyr after the Big Bang) or later
drops (right panel). The dotted lines show that we can rule out the hypothesis that τ < 2.5 Gyr at 95% confidence, and that the
corresponding 99% and 99.9% confidence limits are τ > 1.6 Gyr and τ > 1.1 Gyr, respectively. Risk category 4 is unique in that we
have good direct measurements of the frequency of impacts, supernovae and gamma-ray bursts that are
free from observer selection effects Our analysis therefore used the habitable planet statistics from [10]
that folded in such category 4 measurements. Our bounds do not apply in general to disasters of
anthropogenic origin, such as ones that become possible only after certain technologies have been
developed, e.g., nuclear annihilation or extinction via engineered microorganisms or nanotechnology. Nor
do they apply to natural catastrophes that would not permanently destroy or sterilize a planet. In other
words, we still have plenty to worry about [11, 12, 13, 14]. However, our bounds do apply to exogenous
catastrophes (e.g., spontaneous or cosmic ray triggered ones) whose frequency is uncorrelated with
human activities, as long as they cause permanent sterilization. Our numerical calculations made a
number of assumptions. For instance, we treated the exogenous catastrophe rate τ −1 as constant, even
though one could easily imagine it varying by of order 10% over the relevant timescale, since our bound
on τ is about 10% of the age of the Universe. 2 Second, the habitable planet formation rate involved
several assumptions detailed in [10] which could readily modulate the results by 20%. Third, the risk from
events triggered by cosmic rays will vary slightly with location if the cosmic ray rate does. Fourth, due to
cosmological mass density fluctuations, the mass to scatter off of varies by about 10% from one region of
size cτ ∼ 10 9 lightyear region to another, so the risk of cosmic-ray triggered vacuum decay will vary on
the same order. In summary, although a more detailed calculation could change the quantitative bounds
by a factor of order unity, our basic result that the exogenous extinction rate is tiny on human and even
geological timescales appears 2 As pointed out by Jordi Miralda-Escude (private communication), the
constraint from vacuum decay triggered by bubble nucleation is even stronger than our conservative
estimate. The probability that a given point is not in a decayed domain at time t is the probability of no
bubble nucleations in its backward light cone, whose spacetime 4-volume ∝ t 4 for both matter-dominated
and radiation-dominated expansion. A constant nucleation rate per unit volume per unit time therefore
gives a survival probability e−(t/τ) 4 for some destruction timescale τ. Repeating our analysis with e −t/τ
replaced by the sharper cutoff e −(t/τ) 4 sharpens our constraint. Our quoted bound corresponds to the
conservative case where τ greatly exceeds the age of the universe at the dark energy domination epoch,
which gives a backward lightcone volume ∝ t. rather robust III. CONCLUSION We have shown that life on
our planet is highly unlikely to be annihilated by an exogenous catastrophe during the next 10^9 year s.
This numerical limit comes from the scenario on on which we have the weakest constraints: vacuum decay, constrained only by the
relatively late formation time of Earth. conclusion also translates into a bound on hypothetical anthropogenic disasters caused by
high-energy particle accelerators (risks 1-3). This holds because the occurrence of exogenous catastrophes, e.g., resulting from
cosmic ray collisions, places an upper bound on the frequency of their anthropogenic counterparts. Hence our result closes the
logical loophole of selection bias and gives reassurance that the risk of accelerator-triggered doomsday is
extremely small, so long as events equivalent to those in our experiments occur more frequently in the
natural environment. Specifically, the Brookhaven Report [2] suggests that possible disasters would be
triggered at a rate that is at the very least 10^3 times higher for naturally occurring events than for high-
energy particle accelerators. Assuming that this is correct, our 1 Gyr limit therefore translates into a
conservative upper bound of 1/10 3 × 10 9 = 10 −12 on the annual risk from accelerators, which is
reassuringly small.
Environment
 Ozone Frontline
Nuclear war leads to extinction - ozone

Gache 08
Science News Editor 8 [Gabriel, "Regional Nuclear War Would Destroy the World," 4-8, http://news.softpedia.com/news/Regional-Nuclear-War-Would-Destroy-the-World-
82760.shtml]

Global or not, a nuclear war would kill us all. And if nuclear weapons didn't do the job, then the Sun would .
According to recent studies, a regional global war would cause the ozone layer of the Earth to be destroyed in as little

as a decade, all living beings being at the mercy of the Sun's ultraviolet rays. Ultraviolet light has the
ability to alter the human DNA, but other organisms may be at risk as well. 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs would be
enough to determine substantial changes in Earth's atmosphere . Take India and Pakistan for example; both have a nuclear arsenal of
about 50 nuclear warheads bearing 15 kilotons of explosive material. In case the disagreements between the two countries reach very high levels as to make use of their entire
nuclear arsenal, global disaster is soon to follow. "The figure of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs compares pretty accurately to the approximately 110 warheads that both states
Mills of
reportedly possess between them," says professor of non-proliferation and international security in the War Studies Group at King's College, Wyn Bowen. Michael

the University of Colorado at Boulder, US, and colleagues used computer models to study how 100 Hiroshima-
sized bombs would affect the atmosphere. Aftermath Michael Mills from the University of Colorado reckons that such a nuclear war
in South Asia would decay about 40 percent of the ozone layer in the middle latitudes and 70 percent in
the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. "The models show this magnitude of ozone loss would
persist for five years, and we would see substantial losses continuing for at least another five years ," says
Mills. Mills extracted his results from computer models. Previous models were created during the 1980s, however those investigations revealed that impact of the
nucleardetonations would be much more moderate. This might be because the old models do not take into consideration the columns of
soot rising at altitudes of 80 kilometers into Earth's atmosphere, as Mills considers. Once the soot is released into the upper
atmosphere, it would block and absorb most of the solar energy, thus determining a heating of the surrounding atmosphere, process
that facilitates the reaction between nitrogen oxides and ozone. UV light damage Ultraviolet rays influx, caused by the decay of the ozone layer, would

increase by 213 percent, causing DNA damage, skin cancers and cataract in most - if not all - living beings.
Alternatively, plants would suffer damage twice, as the current due to ultraviolet light. "By adopting the Montreal Protocol in 1987, society demonstrated it
was unwilling to tolerate a small percentage of ozone loss because of serious health risks. But ozone loss from a limited nuclear exchange would be more than an order of
magnitude larger than ozone loss from the release of gases like CFCs," says co-author of the study Brian Toon. It starts with one "This study is very conservative in its
nuclear war can destroy our world far faster than carbon dioxide
estimates. It should ring alarm bells to remind us all that

emissions," says Dan Plesch, of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the School of Oriental and African Studies, UK, although he notes that no one
knows how likely a nuclear exchange is. Nevertheless, it is not all about India and Pakistan, other countries have much more significant

nuclear arsenal than the two, such as the US, Russia and Israel. Even some hostile powers around the world have nuclear
capabilities, whether the international community is ready or not to admit it, Bowen reckons. If India and Pakistan were to deploy their
arsenal, then they would launch all warheads at once, in order to avoid the destruction of the nuclear
weapons before being launched.

Nuclear war depletes the ozone layer – causes extinction by food chain collapse

Sagan & Turco 90

astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell and Turco founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment 90 [Carl and Richard, astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell
University, and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment, “A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race,” pg 57-8]

depletion of the ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere following

Not all of these factors are taken into account in the new calculations. The eventual

a nuclear war could reach 70%: that is, only 30% of the present ozone would be left In the Southern Hemisphere, where less than 15% of the human
population lives, the ozone content would initially increase by 30% or more, due to the arrival of Northern Hemisphere ozone. Later, some reduction would occur—
although whether to less than prewar levels is currently unknown. The resulting ultra-violet hazards are very serious , including a
greatly enhanced incidence of skin cancer, especially in light-skinned people; cataracts; and a further assault on the human immune system. These effects, of course,
the
would be restricted to those who venture out-of-doors—but in the aftermath of a nuclear war, a large number of survivors would have to be out-of- doors. By far

most serious consequence of such severe depletion of the ozone layer, however, applies to people indoors
and outdoors, because everyone has to eat: Ozone depletion threatens the food chains on which almost all life
on Earth depends. In the oceans, there are tiny microscopic plants, called phytoplankton, which are highly vulnerable to increases in
ultraviolet light; and which, directly or indirectly, other animals in the marine food chain—including humans—eat. Land plants, including crops,
are also vulnerable to increased ultraviolet light, as are most microbes, including those essential for the food chain . (Ultraviolet lamps
were once used in hospital operating rooms to kill potential disease microorganisms.) We are far too ignorant of the global ecological

interactions to understand fully what propagating biological consequences an assault on the ozone layer
would entail (refs. 4. 10, 6.3). But it doesn’t take a great depth of understanding to recognize that if you rip up the base of the food chain,
you may generate a disaster among the beings that totter precariously near the pinnacle. Recovery of the ozone shield would probably take several years.
By then enormous damage would have been wrought.
 Ozone Extension
Extend the Gache evidence – even if a nuclear war wasn’t global, it would still kill the ozone layer
by unleashing soot and dust that cripples 40-% of ozone – UV light would penetrate the Earth and
destroy all humans by altering their DNA – UV radiation would increase by 213% causing
everyone to have skin cancer

Nuclear war collapses the ozone layer – smoke, dust, and nitrogen oxide from nukes would be
injected into the ozone layer, destroying around 70% of the ozone layer and creating a permanent
hole – that’s Sagan and Turco

Ozone depletion ruins the food chain – crops, animals, and oceans are harmed by UV rays – if
they spiked, it would cause a collapse of the chain – that’s Sagan and Turco

That independently leads to extinction – crops would be unable to survive, meaning all species
would collapse as they don’t get enough food – even humans would eventually die.

Ozone depletion causes extinction – makes Earth uninhabitable

Greenpeace 95
[“Full of Homes: The Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer, http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html]

When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but
The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the
taken seriously nonetheless.
Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to
Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in
humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly -
the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth.

Using weapons on cities takes out the ozone

Mosher 11
Dave, Journalist citing the American Association for The Achievement of Science (“How One Nuclear Skirmish Could Wreck The Planet”
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/nuclear-war-climate-change/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wiredscience+(Blog+-
+Wired+Science)

Michael Mills: The initial explosions ignite fires in the cities, and those fires would build up for hours. What you eventually
get is a firestorm, something on the level we saw in World War II in cities like Dresden, in Tokyo, Hiroshima and so on. Today we have larger cities than we did then
— mega cities. And using 100 weapons on these different mega cities, like those in India and Pakistan, would cause these firestorms

to build on themselves. They would create their own weather and start sucking air through bottom. People and objects would be sucked
into buildings from the winds, basically burning everything in the city. It’ll burn concrete, the temperatures get so hot. It converts mega cities
into black carbon smoke. Wired.com: I see — the firestorms push up the air, and ash, into the atmosphere? Mills: Yeah. You sometimes see these
firestorms in large forest fires in Canada, in Siberia. In those cases, you see a lot of this black carbon getting into the stratosphere, but not on the level we’re talking about in a
The primary cause of ozone loss is the heating of the stratosphere by that smoke . Temperatures
nuclear exchange.

increase by more than 100 degrees Celsius, and remain more than 30 degrees higher than normal for more than 3 years. The higher temperatures
initially

increase the rates of two reaction cycles that deplete ozone . Wired.com: And the ozone layer is in the stratosphere, correct?
Mills: OK, so we live in the troposphere, which is about 8 kilometers [5 miles] thick at the poles, and 16 km [10 miles] at the equator. At the top of the troposphere, you start
to encounter the stratosphere. It’s defined by the presence of the ozone layer, with the densest ozone at the lowest part, then it tails off at the stratopause, where the
stratosphere ends about 50 km [30 miles] up. We have a lot of weather in the troposphere. That’s because energy is being absorbed at the Earth’s surface, so it’s warmest at
ozone is
the surface. As you go up in the atmosphere it gets colder. Well, that all turns around as you get to the ozone layer. It starts getting hotter because

absorbing ultraviolet radiation, until you run out of ozone and it starts getting colder again. Then you’re at the
mesosphere.Wired.com: Where do the nukes come in? I mean, in eroding the ozone layer? Mills: It’s not the explosions that do it, but the

firestorms. Those push up gases that lead to oxides of nitrogen, which act like chlorofluorocarbons. But let’s back up a little. There are two
important elements that destroy ozone, or O3, which is made of three atoms of oxygen. One element involves oxides of nitrogen, including nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, which can
be made from nitrous oxide, or N2O — laughing gas. The other element is a self-destructive process that happens when ozone reacts with atomic oxygen, called O. When they
react together, they form O2, which is the most common form of oxygen on the planet. This self-reaction is natural, but takes off the fastest in the
first year after the nuclear war. In years two, three and four, the NO2 builds up. It peaks in year two because the N2O, the stuff that’s
abundant in the troposphere, rose so rapidly with the smoke that it’s pushed up into the stratosphere. There , it breaks down into the oxides like NO2,

which deplete ozone.

Nuclear war causes massive ozone depletion

Sagan & Turco 90

astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell and Turco founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment 90 [Carl and Richard, astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell
University, and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment, “A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race,” pg 57-8]

But in a nuclear war, the atmosphere would be so perturbed that our normal way of thinking about the ozone layer needs to be modified. To help refocus our
understanding, several research groups have constructed models that describe the ozone layer following nuclear war. The principal work has been carried out by
research teams at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (ref. 4.9). Both
find that there is an additional mechanism by which nuclear war threatens the ozone layer. With massive
quantities of smoke injected into the lower atmosphere by the fires of nuclear war , nuclear winter would grip not only the
Earth's surface, but the high ozone layer as well. The severely disturbed wind currents caused by solar heating of smoke would,

in a matter of weeks, sweep most of the ozone layer from the northern midlatitudes deep into the Southern
Hemisphere. The reduction in the ozone layer content in the North could reach a devastating 50% or more
during this phase. As time progressed, the ozone depletion would be made still worse by several effects: injection of
large quantities of nitrogen oxides and chlorine-bearing molecules along with the smoke clouds; heating of
the ozone layer caused by intermingling of hot smoky air (as air is heated, the amount of ozone declines); and decomposition
of ozone directly on smoke particles (carbon particles are sometimes used down here near the ground to cleanse air of ozone).
 Ozone- A2: Must Be Global
Even a regional war would destroy the ozone layer – older studies don’t take into account massive
firestorms

Fox 08
Science Editor at ABC 8 [Maggie, “South Asian nuclear war would destroy ozone” http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/08/2210789.htm]

Nuclear war between India and Pakistan would knock a big hole in the ozone layer, affecting crops, animals and people
worldwide, researchers say. Fires from burning cities would send 5 million tonnes of soot or more into the lowest part of
earth's atmosphere, the troposphere, the US researchers report today online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And heat from
the sun would carry these blackened particles into the stratosphere , say the University of Colorado scientists. "The sunlight
really heats it up and sends it up to the top of the stratosphere ," says Dr Michael Mills of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space
Physics, who chose nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan as one of several possible examples. Up in the stratosphere, the soot would absorb

radiation from the sun and heat surrounding gases, causing chemical reactions that break down ozone.
"We find column ozone losses in excess of 20% globally, 25-45% at mid-latitudes, and 50- 70% at northern high latitudes persisting for five years, with

substantial losses continuing for five additional years," the researchers write. This would let in enough ultraviolet
radiation to cause cancer, damage eyes and skin, damage crops and other plants and injure animals. Mills
and colleagues based their computer model on other research on how much fire would be produced by a regional nuclear conflict. "Certainly there is a growing

number of large nuclear-armed states that have a growing number of weapons. This could be typical of
what you might see," Mills says. Smoke is the key Eight nations are known to have nuclear weapons, and Pakistan and India are believed to have at least 50
weapons apiece, each with the power of the weapon the US used to destroy Hiroshima in 1945. Mills says the study adds a new factor to the

worries about what might damage the world's ozone layer, as well as to research about the effects of
even a limited nuclear exchange. "The smoke is the key and it is coming from these firestorms that build up actually several hours after the explosions,"
he says. "We are talking about modern megacities that have a lot of material in them that would burn. We saw these kinds of megafires in World War Two in Dresden and
Nothing natural could create this
Tokyo. The difference is we are talking about a large number of cities that would be bombed within a few days."

much black smoke in the same way, Mill notes. Volcanic ash, dust and smoke are of a different nature, for example, and forest fires are not big or hot
enough. The University of Colorado's Professor Brian Toon, who also worked on the study, says the damage to the ozone layer would be worse

than what has been predicted by 'nuclear winter' and 'ultraviolet spring' scenarios. "The big surprise is that
this study demonstrates that a small-scale, regional nuclear conflict is capable of triggering ozone losses
even larger than losses that were predicted following a full-scale nuclear war," Toon says.

Even regional nuclear war can create a hole in the ozone

Human 08
[Katy Human, “CU study: Regional nuclear war means global ozone devastation,” http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8851151]

even a regional nuclear war could create an

In 2001, India and Pakistan nearly came to nuclear blows over Kashmir. Now, a new study shows that

ozone hole around most of the planet, making skin cancer and cataract rates skyrocket, killing fish, amphibians and other organisms. An ozone
hole would last for at least a decade, according to work published in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Co-
authors include University of Colorado researchers Michael Mills and Brian Toon, and National Center for Atmospheric Research scientists Douglas Kinnison and Rolando
Garcia. Two years ago, the team of scientists showed that a small-scale nuclear war could kill as many people as
World War II did and disrupt climate for more than a decade. In the latest work, the scientists scrutinized the potential effect of a
conflict on the Earth's ozone layer, which protects people and other organisms from damaging solar radiation. They concluded that 25 to 40 percent of the

ozone would be lost at mid-latitudes, with a 50 to 70 percent loss at northern high latitudes - the federal
Environmental Protection Agency estimated that a one percent reduction in ozone concentration can lead to a one-to-three percent increase in certain types of skin cancer.
"The world has become a far more dangerous place when the actions of two countries on the other side
of the world could have such a drastic impact on the planet ," Toon said.
 Ozone- A2: Martin
Even Martin concedes that the biggest threat to ozone is nuclear war

Martin 82
– Brian, Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong, Ph.D from the University of Sydney, ‘The global health effects of nuclear war’,
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82cab/index.html/JK

Another major threat to ozone comes from nuclear explosions . Nitric oxide is produced essentially by the
'burning' of nitrogen in the atmosphere, and this occurs whenever air temperatures are sufficiently hot: in
automobile engines, in aircraft engines and in nuclear explosions. Studies of the creation of oxides of nitrogen by nuclear explosions were first undertaken as part
of the SST debate, to determine whether the nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s and 1960s had reduced observed ozone levels.[28] It was only in 1974 that John
Hampson made a point which had been overlooked, namely that large-scale nuclear war could cause a
major and disastrous reduction in ozone levels.[29]
 Ocean Frontline
Nuclear war destroys ocean ecosystems

Harte 84
Professor of Energy and Resources at UC Berkeley 84 [John, “The Cold and the Dark: The World After Nuclear War”, p. 112-113]

The effect of a period of prolonged darkness on aquatic organisms has been estimated by experimentation in my laboratory and by mathematical modeling carried out by Drs.
. Food chains composed of phytoplankton, zooplankton,
Chris McKay and Dave Milne. Both types of research produced similar results

and fish are likely to suffer greatly from light extinction . After just a few days of darkness, phytoplankton—
the base of the food chain—would die off or go into a dormant stage. Within roughly two months in the temperate zone in late spring or summer, and

within three to six months in that zone in winter, aquatic animals would show drastic population declines that for many

species could be irreversible. These estimates (based on light reduction) probably underestimate the consequences
for marine life of post–nuclear-war conditions because they take no account of thermal effects, and they
do not include the effect of increased water turbidity arising from shoreline erosion and from soot and dust
deposition. The sensitivity of marine life in the tropics to prolonged darkness is likely to be greater than
that of marine life in the temperate zone because nutrient reserves are lower and metabolic requirements
are greater in the tropics. In the polar regions, where adaptation to dark winters is a requirement for life, the sensitivity would be lessened. Freshwater lakes
would become highly anoxic after the dust settles and the temperatures increase. Massive amounts of organic wastes, including thawing corpses, would render water supplies
There is little reason to believe that the major forms of aquatic life that presently serve as food
lethal.

sources for us would survive a nuclear war occurring in spring or summer in sufficient numbers to be of much use to human beings, at least in the
first few postwar years.

Extinction

NOAA 98
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 98 [Year of the Ocean Report, http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/mar_env_316.html]

The ocean plays a critical role in sustaining the life of this planet. Every activity, whether natural or anthropogenic, has far
reaching impacts on the world at large. For example, excessive emissions of greenhouse gases may contribute to an increase the sea level, and cause potential flooding or an
increase in storm frequency; this flooding can reduce wetland acreage and increase sediment and nutrient flows into the Gulf of Mexico, causing adverse impacts on water quality and reducing habitat for commercial
The environment and the economic health of marine and coastal
fisheries. This in turn drives up the cost of fish at local markets nationwide.

waters are linked at the individual, community, state, regional, national and international levels. The
interdependence of the economy and the environment are widely recognized . The United States has moved beyond viewing health,
safety, and pollution control as additional costs of doing business to an understanding of broader stewardship, recognizing that economic and social prosperity would be

useless if the coastal and marine environments are compromised or destroyed in the process of
development (President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1996).Much about the ocean, its processes, and the interrelationship between land and sea is unknown. Many
harvested marine resources depend upon a healthy marine environment to exist. Continued research is needed so that
sound management decisions can be made when conflicts among users of ocean resources arise. Although much progress has been made over the past 30 years to enhance
marine environmental quality and ocean resources, much work remains. The challenge is to maintain and continue to improve marine water quality as more people move to the
coasts and the pressures of urbanization increase. Through education, partnerships, technological advances, research, and personal responsibility, marine environmental
"It does not matter where on Earth you live, everyone is
quality should continue to improve, sustaining resources for generations to come.

utterly dependent on the existence of that lovely, living saltwater soup. There’s plenty of water in the
universe without life, but nowhere is there life without water. The living ocean drives planetary chemistry,
governs climate and weather, and otherwise provides the cornerstone of the life-support system for all
creatures on our planet, from deep-sea starfish to desert sagebrush. That’s why the ocean matters. If the
sea is sick, we’ll feel it. If it dies, we die. Our future and the state of the oceans are one ."
 Ocean Extension
Nuclear war kills ocean ecosystems – plankton and fish wouldn’t be able to get light anymore, and
they would almost completely die off in a matter of days – the result is irreversible – that’s Harte

The impact is the extinction of the human species – without ocean ecosystems, humans have no
hope of surviving. Environmental prosperity depends on the thousands of species in the ocean –
life without water leads to an uninhabitable world – that’s NOAA

Nuclear war would result in the death of the entire ocean ecosystem

Perkins 01
professor 1 [Simon Perkins, professor in the effects of nuclear war, May 22, 2001, “Climate Conditions” http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~samp/nuclearage/lonterm.html]

of a nuclear explosion what would happen next? Above ground zero the
Assuming that you have been lucky enough to survive the initial hazards

huge clouds of dust and debris will rise to 10 miles into the atmosphere. When merged together these clouds will effectively block
out all sunlight plunging the sky into darkness for at least several weeks after. During this period the temperature will fall
dramatically. Along the continent this could be as much as a 40°c drop. For counties along the Northern Hemisphere this is enough produce an Arctic winter.
Fortunately for us small islands like the UK will have a less dramatic temperature decrease due tot he warming effect of the oceans. Looking at some past examples of volcanic
rivers would freeze over and many animals
eruptions can give us some idea of biological effects; the severe cold would destroy most crops,

would die of cold and hunger. The effect on tropical plants and creatures would be even more profound and biologists have concluded that many
species will become extinct. Surely most of the plants and animals in the deep oceans would have a better chance? The average drop in the world's oceans
3
would be only about 1 °C and as most species are acclimatised to the cold conditions anyway. This would be the case in the Artic regions were species are used to long dark

The lack of light would disrupt the food chain of

periods but for those in tropical waters most would die from lack of nutrients and light.

microscopic creatures dependent of photoplankton (algae). Within a few months all the fish would die off , the
population decline for many species would be irreversible .

Maintaining ocean biodiversity is key to human survival

Craig 03
Associate Professor at Indiana University School of Law 3 [Robin Kundis, “Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection”, McGeorge Law Review, Winter, 34 McGeorge
L. Rev. 155, LN]

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely
been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs
protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. 856 Waste treatment is another
"ocean ecosystems play a major role in
significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. 857 More generally,

the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living
organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but
necessary elements." 858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the
planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of
marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of
disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity , "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." 859 Coral reef ecosystems
are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is
higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and
that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. 860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine
ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the
wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. 861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or
economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and
merit." 862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine
ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that
such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should
inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness
We may not know
whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world.

much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take
most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, 863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of
comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." 864 More importantly, the Black
Sea is not necessarily unique.

Leads to ocean destruction

Parkinson 03
Stuart, Organization comprised of scientists, architects, engineers and technologists (“Does anyone Remember the Nuclear Winter” http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/does-
anybody-remember-nuclear-winter)

Obviously, when a nuclear bomb hits a target, it causes massive

a amount of devastation , with the heat, blast and radiation killing tens or
hundreds of thousands of people instantly and causing huge damage to infrastructure. But in addition to this, a nuclear explosion throws up massive amounts of dust and
the dust
smoke. For example, a large nuclear bomb bursting at ground level would throw up about a million tonnes of dust. As a consequence of a nuclear war, then,

and the smoke produced would block out a large fraction of the sunlight and the sun's heat from the earth's
surface, so it would quickly become be dark and cold - temperatures would drop by something in the region of 10-20ºC - many places would
feel like they were in an arctic winter. It would take months for the sunlight to get back to near normal. The drop in light and temperature would quickly kill crops and other plant
and animal life while humans, already suffering from the direct effects of the war, would be vulnerable to malnutrition and disease on a massive scale.

In the case of an (e.g.) accidental nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia, the main effects would be felt in the northern hemisphere, as the dust and smoke would
quickly circulate across this area. But even in this case, it would soon affect the tropics - where crops and other plant/ animal life are especially sensitive to cold. Hence, even in
these areas there would be major problems.

While the temperature at the surface would be low, the temperature of the upper part of the troposphere (5-11 km) would rise because of sunlight absorbed by the smoke, so
there would be a huge temperature inversion. That would keep many other pollutants produced by widespread fires (e.g. dioxins, PCBs, sulphurous gases) down at the levels
people breathe, making a very dense and highly toxic smog. One further environmental problem would be widespread destruction of the ozone layer caused by high levels of
nitrogen oxides. The average loss of ozone could be as much as 70% - much higher than that currently cause by CFCs. So after several months when the smoke cleared and
the sun began to shine again, there would be a large increase of UV radiation reaching the earth's surface. This would be bad for humans (e.g. eye and
skin damage ), but the major effect would be for other living things, notably sensitive plankton, which are at the
bottom layer of the whole marine food chain. Animals would also suffer - blindness would be common - and blind animals would
quickly starve. Altogether, nuclear winter would be an ecological disaster of a similar magnitude to the major extinctions of the past, such as that at the end of the

Cretaceous period 65 million years ago when 75% of all species died out, including the dinosaurs. An
added factor after a nuclear war would be radioactive contamination giving worldwide background
radiation doses many times larger than has ever happened during the 3 billion years of evolution.
 Biodiversity Frontline
Nuclear war collapses ecosystems and kills biodiversity

Ehrlich et. Al 83
[Ehrlich PR, Harte J, Harwell MA, Raven PH, Sagan C, Woodwell GM, Berry J, Ayensu ES, Ehrlich AH, Eisner T, “Long -term biological consequences of nuclear war” Pub
Med, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6658451?ordinalpos -1&itool -EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum]

The 2 billion to 3 billion survivors of the immediate effects of the war would be forced to turn to natural
ecosystems as organized agriculture failed. Just at the time when these natural ecosystems would be asked to
support a human population well beyond their carrying capacities, the normal functioning of the ecosystems
themselves would be severely curtailed by the effects of nuclear war. Subjecting these ecosystems to low
temperature, fire, radiation, storm, and other physical stresses (many occurring simultaneously) would result in
their increased vulnerability to disease and pest outbreaks, which might be prolonged. Primary productivity
would be dramatically reduced at the prevailing low light levels; and, because of UV-B, smog, insects,
radiation, and other damage to plants, it is unlikely that it would recover quickly to normal levels, even after
light and temperature values had recovered. At the same time that their plant foods were being limited
severely, most, if not all, of the vertebrates not killed outright by blast and ionizing radiation would either
freeze or face a dark world where they would starve or die of thirst because surface waters would be frozen and
thus unavailable. Many of the survivors would be widely scattered and often sick, leading to the slightly
delayed extinction of many additional species. Natural ecosystems provide civilization with a variety of crucial
services in addition to food and shelter. These include regulation of atmospheric composition, moderation of
climate and weather, regulation of the hydrologic cycle, generation and preservation of soils, degradation of
wastes, and recycling of nutrients. From the human perspective, among the most important roles of ecosystems
are their direct role in providing food and their maintenance of a vast library of species from which Homo
sapiens has already drawn the basis of civilization (27). Accelerated loss of these genetic resources through
extinction would be one of the most serious potential consequences of nuclear war. Wildfires would be an
important effect in north temperate ecosystems, their scale and distribution depending on such factors as the
nuclear war scenario and the season. Another major uncertainty is the extent of fire storms, which might heat
the lower levels of the soil enough to damage or destroy seed banks, especially in vegetation types not adapted
to periodic fires. Multiple airbursts over seasonally dry areas such as California in the late summer or early fall
could burn off much of the state's forest and brush areas, leading to catastrophic flooding and erosion during
the next rainy season. Silting, toxic runoff, and rainout of radio- nuclides could kill much of the fauna of fresh
and coastal waters, and concentrated radioactivity levels in surviving filter-feeding shellfish populations could
make them dangerous to consume for long periods of time. Other major consequences for terrestrial
ecosystems resulting from nuclear war would include: (i) slower detoxification of air and water as a secondary
result of damage to plants that now are important metabolic sinks for toxins; (ii) reduced evapotranspiration by
plants contributing to a lower rate of entry of water into the atmosphere, especially over continental regions,
and therefore a more sluggish hydrologic cycle; and (iii) great disturbance of the soil surface, leading to
accelerated erosion and, probably, major dust storms (28). Revegetation might superficially resemble that
which follows local fires. Stresses from radiation, smog, erosion, fugitive dust, and toxic rains, however, would
be superimposed on those of cold and darkness, thus delaying and modifying postwar succession in ways that
would retard the restoration of ecosystem services (29). It is likely that most ecosystem changes would be short
term. Some structural and functional changes, however, could be longer term, and perhaps irreversible, as
ecosystems undergo qualitative changes to alternative stable states (30). Soil losses from erosion would be
serious in areas experiencing widespread fires, plant death, and extremes of climate. Much would depend on
the wind and precipitation patterns that would develop during the first postwar year (4, 5). The diversity of
many natural communities would almost certainly be substantially reduced, and numerous species of plants,
animals, and microorganisms would become extinct.

Extinction

Diner 94
Judge Advocate General’s Corps 94 [Major David N., United States Army Military Law Review Winter, p. lexis]

By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity
increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are
relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and
intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk
of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 mankind may be
edging closer to the abyss.
 Biodiversity Extension
Nuclear war would irreversibly cripple ecosystems with silt, toxic runoff, dust, fires, radiation,
smog, erosion, and toxic rain – the results are irreversible and much of the ocean species would
go extinct as well as numerous others – that’s Ehrlich

That leads to extinction – every simplification and extinction of any species, even an insignificant
one, eventually leads to ecological disaster and human extinction – that’s Diner

Causes biodiversity loss and famine

Mosher 11
Dave, Journalist citing the American Association for The Achievement of Science (“How One Nuclear Skirmish Could Wreck The Planet”
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/nuclear-war-climate-change/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wiredscience+(Blog+-
+Wired+Science)

Mills: UV has big impacts on whole ecosystems. Plant height reduction, decreased shoot mass, reduction in foliage area. It can affect
genetic stability of plants, increase susceptibility to attacks by insects and pathogens, and so on. It changes the whole competitive
balance of plants and nutrients, and it can affect processes from which plants get their nitrogen. Then there’s marine
life, which depends heavily on phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are essential; they live in top layer of the ocean and they’re the plants of the ocean.
They can go a little lower in the ocean if there’s UV, but then they can’t get as much sunlight and produce as much energy . As soon as you cut off plants in the
ocean, the animals would die pretty quickly. You also get damage to larval development and reproduction in fish, shrimp, crabs and other
animals. Amphibians are also very susceptible to UV. A 16 percent ozone depletion could result in a 5 percent loss in phytoplankton, which could result in a 7 percent loss in
fisheries and aquaculture. And in our model we see a much greater global average loss of ozone for many years; the global average hides a lot.
Wired.com: This doesn’t sound very good at all. Mills: No, as we said it’s a real bummer. It’s pretty clear this would lead to a global nuclear
famine. You have the inability to grow crops due to severe, colder temperatures and also the severe increases in UV light. You have the loss of plants and
proteins in the oceans, and that leads to widespread food shortages and famine (PDF).

Loss of biodiversity leads to ecological disaster and human extinction

Dutton 12
John, professor of meteorology of Penn state and college of Earth and Mineral Sciences. Chairman of the UCAR Foundation, a foundation for technological development and
commercialization. (“Geographic Perspectives on Sustainability and Human – Environment Systems” https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog030/node/398)

Biodiversity loss. Earlier in this module, we used the house of cards (or Jenga) metaphor for ecosystem resilience. As more species go extinct, it
becomes more likely for ecosystems to collapse. Given how many species are endangered , it is difficult to put an upper limit on how severe

the ecosystem collapses could be. The collapses could be so severe that human extinction is threatened . The

current honey bee colony collapse situation illustrates this. Without honey bees, humans would struggle - and
perhaps fail - to grow many important crops. As more biodiversity is lost, we may find ourselves learning the hard way
how important it is to our civilization and indeed our very survival.

A nuclear war would destroy biological support system and cause imminent extinction

Ehrlich et. Al 83
[Ehrlich PR, Harte J, Harwell MA, Raven PH, Sagan C, Woodwell GM, Berry J, Ayensu ES, Ehrlich AH, Eisner T, “Long -term biological consequences of nuclear war” Pub
Med, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6658451?ordinalpos -1&itool -EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum]
 a large -scale nuclear war could
Subfreezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet radiation extending for many months after

destroy the biological support systems of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. Productivity in natural and
agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or more . Postwar survivors would face starvation as well as freezing

conditions in the dark and be exposed to near -lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems possible, the Southern Hemisphere
were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the

areas not affected directly, because of the interdependence of the world economy. In either case the extinction
of a large fraction of the Earth's animals, plants, and microorganisms seems possible. The population size
of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric levels or below, and extinction of the human
species itself cannot be excluded.
 Biodiversity- A2: Doesn’t Kill All Environment
Nuclear war destroys ecosystems – exacerbates all environmental issues

Harwell & Harwell 86

Harwell and Harwell, professors at Cornell University 86 [Mark A. Harwell and Christine C. Harwell, “The Medical Implications of Nuclear War”, editors: Fred Solomon and
Robert Q. Marston, pg. 122-123, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=940&page=122]

These conclusions were based primarily on the understanding of plant responses to light, temperature, and moisture levels; by contrast, animal responses, especially with
respect to propagation of effects of one species to another through species-species interactions, were considered to be more speculative and probably never fully predictable. It
is clear that inadequate data bases and simulation model resources exist for precise characterization of ecosystem responses, particularly to the less extreme range of physical
disturbances. Nevertheless, the various approaches outlined above suggest the cross-system vulnerability estimates provided in Table 3. Other analyses addressed by
The consensus was that nuclear war-
prospects for recovery for various ecosystems and the processes by which recovery could be affected.

induced disturbances to the environment would include virtually every environmental problem of concern
today—habitat destruction, species extinction, air pollutants, toxic chemicals, acid precipitation, ozone
depletion—only on a scale of totally unprecedented extent and intensity . Precisely what the full ecological ramifications of every
such stresses would be and the specific pathways that subsequent recovery would follow are urgently in need of a concerted research effort in the general field of stress
even without any disturbance to ecosystems, these natural systems
ecology. Other considerations, however, show clearly that

could support only a very small fraction, on the order of 1 percent or less, of the current human population on Earth. The reason
for this is that there would simply not be the base of utilizable energy sufficient to maintain 5 billion people if we did not have agricultural and other human-controlled systems to
rely on. Thus, the carrying capacity of natural ecosystems is greatly exceeded by the current human population, and disruptions in human support systems that would force
humans to rely substantially on natural systems for sustenance would necessarily lead to reductions in the human population. This fact provides the overriding incentive to
examine the vulnerability of agricultural and food distribution systems to disruptions following a nuclear war.

Nuclear war destroys ecosystems – UV radiation

ACDA 96
ACDA independent agency in the US government 96 [US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, “Worldwide effects of nuclear war”, October 1996, Project Gutenberg,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13364069/Worldwide-Effects-of-Nuclear-War]

a major increase in solar ultraviolet might overwhelm the defense of some and perhaps many
It is possible, however, that

terrestrial life forms. Both direct and indirect damage would then occur among the bacteria, insects,
plants, and other links in the ecosystems on which human well-being depends. This disruption , particularly if it
occurred in the aftermath of a major war involving many other dislocations, could pose a serious additional threat to the recovery of

postwar society. The National Academy of Sciences report concludes that in 20 years the ecological systems would have essentially recovered from the increase in
ultraviolet radiation—though not necessarily from radioactivity or other damage in areas close to the war zone. However, a delayed effect of the increase in ultraviolet radiation
would be an estimated 3 to 30 percent increase in skin cancer for 40 years in the Northern Hemisphere’s mid-latitudes.
 Phytoplankton Frontline
Nuclear war would produce aerosol spikes – crushes phytoplankton

Crutzen & Birks 83

 (Paul, Director of the Air Chemistry Division of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, and John, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences, in “The Aftermath: The Human and Ecological Consequences of Nuclear War”, ed. Peterson, p.84)

If the production of aerosol by fires is large enough to cause reductions in the penetration of sunlight to ground level by a
factor of a hundred, which would be quite possible in the event of an all-out nuclear war, most of the phytoplankton and

herbivorous zooplankton in more than half of the Northern Hemisphere oceans would die (36). This effect is due to the fast
consumption rate of phytoplankton by zooplankton in the oceans. The effects of a darkening of such a magnitude have been
discussed recently in connection with the probable occurrence of such an event as a result of the impact of a large extraterrestrial
body with the earth (37). This event is believed by many to have caused the widespread and massive extinctions which
took place at the Cretacious-Tertiary boundary about 65 million years ago.

This collapses the carbon cycle causing extinction

Bryant 03

 (Donald, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Penn State, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “The beauty in small things revealed”, Volume
100, Number 17, August 19, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/17/9647)

Oxygenic photosynthesis accounts for nearly all the primary biochemical production of organic matter on Earth. The
byproduct of this process, oxygen, facilitated the evolution of complex eukaryotes and supports their/our continuing

existence. Because macroscopic plants are responsible for most terrestrial photosynthesis, it is relatively easy to appreciate the importance of photosynthesis on land
when one views the lush green diversity of grasslands or forests. However, Earth is the "blue planet," and oceans cover nearly 75% of

its surface. All life on Earth equally depends on the photosynthesis that occurs in Earth's oceans. A rich
diversity of marine phytoplankton, found in the upper 100 m of oceans, accounts only for 1% of the total photosynthetic biomass,
but this virtually invisible forest accounts for nearly 50% of the net primary productivity of the biosphere (1).
Moreover, the importance of these organisms in the biological pump, which traps CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in the deep
sea, is increasingly recognized as a major component of the global geochemical carbon cycle (2). It seems obvious that it is as
important to understand marine photosynthesis as terrestrial photosynthesis, but the contribution of marine photosynthesis to the global

carbon cycle was grossly underestimated until recently. Satellite-based remote sensing (e.g., NASA sea-wide field sensor) has allowed
more reliable determinations of oceanic photosynthetic productivity to be made (refs. 1 and 2; see Fig. 1).
 Phytoplankton Extension
Nuclear war ensures lots of aerosol in the air, reducing the amount of sunlight – that kills
phytoplankton and zooplankton – that’s Crutzen and Birks – collapses the carbon cycle and
ensures no oxygen, causing extinction – that’s Bryant.

Nuclear war kills phytoplankton

Loretz 10
John, Program director of the International Physicians for prevention of nuclear weapons citing several studies completed by Alan Robock, B. Toon, Michael Mills and other
physicians who have been studying the nuclear effect for years (“Ozone Loss” http://ippnweducation.wordpress.com/a-nuclear-ozone-hole/)

A nuclear war using only a small fraction of current global arsenals would quickly cause prolonged and catastrophic stratospheric ozone depletion.
The impact on human and animal health and on fundamental ecosystems would be disastrous. Scientists have known for more than two
decades that a global nuclear war—an event that came perilously close during the Cold War between the US and the former Soviet Union, and which cannot be ruled out as
long as those massive arsenals exist—would severely damage the Earth’s protective ozone layer. Studies in the 1980s by the US National Research Council and others showed
the smoke produced by massive fires would displace and destroy significant amounts of
that solar heating of

stratospheric ozone. Early in 2008, physicists and atmospheric scientists from the University of Colorado, UCLA, and the National Center for Atmospheric
Research published important new findings that a regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs would result in severe losses in stratospheric ozone. The scientists
concluded that a regional nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan in which each used 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons (~15 kt) would produce an estimated 6.6 teragrams (Tg)
The global mean ozone
of black carbon. [1] In addition to the global surface cooling described above, large losses in stratospheric ozone would persist for years.

column would be depleted by as much as 25% for five years after the nuclear exchange. At mid-latitudes (25-45%) and at northern high latitudes
(50-70%), ozone depletion would be even more severe and would last just as long. Substantial increases in ultraviolet radiation

would have serious consequences for human health. Those consequences, as we know from earlier studies of stratospheric ozone loss—the “ozone hole” that
prompted the Montreal Protocol and the phasing out of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)—include steep increases in skin cancer, crop damage, and
destruction of marine phytoplankton.

Nuclear war wipes out plankton

Seymour 83
(Allyn, Marine Biologist and Professor Emeritus at University of Washington, in “The Aftermath: The Human andEcological Consequences of Nuclear War”, ed. Peterson, p.
113)

Other effects may result from a drastic reduction in the incidence of solar light at the earth's surface or a
significant increase in the flux of ultraviolet light following a nuclear war. Both factors have the potential to produce
devastating effects upon marine populations at the bottom of the food chain . Crutzen and Birks (10) state , "If the
production of aerosol by fires is large enough to cause reductions in the penetration of sunlight to ground
level by a factor of a hundred, which would be quite possible in the event of an all-out nuclear war, most
of the phytoplanktonand herbivorous zooplankton in more than half of the Northern Hemisphere oceans would die . . . This effect
is due to the fast consumption rate of phytoplankton by zooplankton in the oceans ."The increase in the flux of ultraviolet
(uv) light at the earth's surface is associated with the introduction of nitrous oxide (NO,,) into the stratosphere, which wouldreduce the ozone reservoir and permit uv penetration.
Bacteria and yeasts in the surface film of the ocean would receive the greatest exposure, but their vulnerabilityto
injury may be tempered by their long history of exposure to natural uv. However, other marine organisms appear to have little reserve

tolerance to uv, and the effectiveness of uv-B in killing bactera and other microorganisms is well
established (11).

Nuclear war crushes plankton collapsing the base of the ocean food chain

Seymour 83
 (Allyn, Marine Biologist and Professor Emeritus at University of Washington, in “The Aftermath: The Human andEcological Consequences of Nuclear War”, ed. Peterson, p.
113)

Two other consequences of nuclear war, however, do have the potential for devastating effects upon marine ecosystems . It
has been predicted (10) that a100-fold reduction in solar light intensity at the earth’s surface due to particles in the

atmosphere is possible; this would result in deathto most of the phytoplankton and herbivorous
zooplankton in more than half of the oceans of the Northern Hemisphere. And under some circumstances the depletion of ozone in the
stratosphere by NOx could increase uv radiation at the earth’s surface, and the magnitude of the change
would be sufficientto seriously reduce the populations of organizations at the base of the food web (11).
Temperature changes would be of little consequence. Although the impact of ionizingradiation on ocean systems may be less than elsewhere, nothing that has been said here
should be interpreted as an argument lending credence to or justifying a nuclear war.
 Phytoplankton- A2: Martin
Martin Concedes- Nuclear war kills phytoplankton and other animal and plant species

Martin 82
– Brian, Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong, Ph.D from the University of Sydney, ‘The global health effects of nuclear war’,
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82cab/index.html/JK

Fires and smoke In mid 1982, Paul Crutzen and John Birks[40] drew attention to a previously overlooked major effect of
nuclear war. They note that nuclear attacks would ignite numerous fires in cities, industry and especially in
forests, crop areas and oil and gas fields. These fires would produce immense amounts of particulate
matter which would remain in the lower atmosphere for weeks even after the fires ceased . The smaller particles,
called aerosols, would absorb sunlight . A large nuclear war with many fires and large aerosol production could

lead to a reduction in sunlight in the mid-northern hemisphere by 90 per cent or more for a period of a few
months. This reduction would pose no direct threat to human health, but indirect effects could be widespread. If the nuclear war
occurred during the agricultural growing season of the northern hemisphere, food production could be
virtually eliminated for that season. This could greatly increase the chance of mass starvation in the north, though it
is possible that stored food and changes in dietary habits could prevent this.[41] If the reduction in ground level sunlight were 99 per cent or more, this could lead to

the death of most of the phytoplankton and herbivorous zooplankton in half the northern oceans. This could lead to
extinction of species and unpredictable changes in the balance of life on earth . Another effect of the fires would be
production of large amounts of oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons in the lower atmosphere,
changes in lower atmospheric dynamics, and creation of ozone and other potent air pollutants . (While ozone plays
a useful role in the stratosphere it can be harmful to living things at ground level.) In effect, much of the northern hemisphere could be

exposed to severe photochemical smog for a period of weeks . This could cause health problems in susceptible people, especially the
aged. Potentially more disastrous would be the negative effect of the smog on agricultural productivity,

further increasing the chance of crop failure and consequent starvation.

 Warming Frontline
Nuclear war causes warming

Turco et. Al 08
Toon: chair of the Dept of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a member of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado @ Boulder.
Robock is a Proff of atmospheric science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Turco is a professor of atmospheric science at the University of California, Los
Angeles, (Owen B. Toon, Alan Robock, and Richard P. Turco, “Environmental consequences of nuclear war,” 2008 American Institute of Physics, December 2008 Physics
Today 37-42, http://www.plu.edu/~haykm/332_Course_Material/current_events/NuclearWar.pdf)

Complementary to temperature change is radiative forcing, the change in energy flux . Figure 3b shows
how nuclear soot changes the radiative forcing at Earth’s surface and com- pares its effect to those of two
well-known phenomena: warming associated with greenhouse gases and the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic
eruption, the largest in the 20th century. Since the Industrial Revolution, greenhouse gases have
increased the energy flux by 2.5 W/m. The transient forcing from the Pinatubo eruption peaked at about −4 W/m
2 (the minus sign means the flux decreased). One implication of the figure is that even a regional war
between India and Pakistan can force the climate to a far greater degree than the greenhouse gases that
many fear will alter the climate in the foreseeable future . Of course, the durations of the forcings are different: The radiative forcing by
nuclear-weapons-gen- erated soot might persist for a decade, but that from green- house gases is expected to last for a century or more, allow- ing time for the climate system
to respond to the forcing. Accordingly, while the Ice Age–like temperatures in figure 3a could lead to an expansion of sea ice and terrestrial snow- pack, they probably would not
be persistent enough to cause the buildup of global ice sheets. Agriculture responds to length of growing season, tem- perature during the growing season, light levels,
precipita- tion, and other factors. The 1980s saw systematic studies of the agricultural changes expected from a nuclear war, but no such studies have been conducted using
modern climate models. Figure 4 presents our calculations of the decrease in length of the growing season—the time between freezing temperatures—for the second summer
after the release of soot in a nuclear attack.

Warming causes extinction

Deibel 07 (Terry L. Professor of IR @ National War College, 2007. “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft”, Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)
there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands
Finally,

urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life
depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere
possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change
published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In
legitimate scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the
fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an
international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of
Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several
days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from
Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to
direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “
more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads ; “widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad
swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic
Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide
levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double
Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels,
pre-industrial levels.
only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how
serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent
storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying
countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could
disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan
up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation
that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated
the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening
scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the
atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures . Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in
average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can
conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with
the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going
to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there
were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to
describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the
post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically . Over the long run it
puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but
potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.
 Warming Extension

Nuclear war releases soot and dust into the atmosphere, trapping greenhouse gases and raising
global temperature – it also destroys the ozone layer which causes more sunlight to permeate the
Earth – that triggers warming – even a limited regional nuclear war causes the impact – that’s
Turco

Warming causes extinction - it causes sea level rises and species die off’s- outweighs everything
– that’s Deibel

1% outweighs

Strom 07
Prof. Emeritus Planetary Sciences @ U. Arizona and Former Dir. Space Imagery Center of NASA (Robert, , “Hot House: Global Climate Change and the Human Condition”,
Online: SpringerLink, p. 246)

Keep in mind that the current consequences of global warming discussed in previous chapters are the result of a global
average temperature increase of only 0.5 'C above the 1951-1980 average, and these consequences are beginning to accelerate. Think about
what is in store for us when the average global temperature is 1 °C higher than today. That is already in the pipeline, and there is nothing we
can do to prevent it. We can only plan strategies for dealing with the expected consequences, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by about 60% as soon as possible to
There is also the danger of eventually triggering an abrupt climate
ensure that we don't experience even higher temperatures.

change that would accelerate global warming to a catastrophic level in a short period of time. If that were
to happen we would not stand a chance. Even if that possibility had only a 1% chance of occurring, the
consequences are so dire that it would be insane not to act . Clearly we cannot afford to delay taking action by waiting for additional
research to more clearly define what awaits us. The time for action is now.

Nuke war causes warming

Ehrlich 08
Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford U (Paul R. “Key issues for attention from ecological economists”, Environment and Development Economics, Vol. 13, p. 9,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FEDE%2FEDE13_01%2FS1355770X07004019a.pdf&code=f361f809439498ab4c8f885f98070afa)

Nuclear war The most important single area deserving attention may be the environmental impacts of nuclear
war – what was once subsumed under the rubric ‘nuclear winter’ (e.g., Ehrlich et al., 1983). One of the obvious environmental effects
of increasing population size and per capita consumption is to increase the probability of even more resource wars in the future (Klare, 2001,

2004). Those wars carry with them the threat of use of nuclear bombs, whose environmental impacts would have massive economic consequences. Recent

studies suggest that even a relatively small exchange of nuclear weapons, as might well occur between India and Pakistan,
could have severe climatic impacts. One area that resource and environmental economists should be involved in is putting some broad numbers on the
economic costs of such wars, since politicians tend to see theworld through dollar-colored glasses and mostly acquire their outdated economic notions from sources like the
Wall Street Journal. This is nothing new. Remember what Keynes said: ‘Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually
the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back’ (Keynes,
1936: 383). In a globalized world, economic effects would travel far and fast, and doubtless interact with ecological impacts with all the usual problems of non-linearities,
thresholds, and discontinuities. It would, for instance, be interesting to calculate the cost to the US economy alone of the destruction of the Indian city of Bangalore, and the
secondary environmental effects (from, for instance, reallocation of resources) in North America. Indeed, both epidemics and nuclear warfare would likely have severe
consequences for the global economy through disruption of trade and travel, the direct reduction of human welfare (utility), and the loss of human capital.
 Agriculture Frontline

NUKE WAR KILLS AGRICULTURE- CAUSES FOOD CRISES AND KILLS BILLIONS
Helfand 12
[Ira Helfand, MD, has been writing and speaking about the medical consequences of nuclear war on behalf of IPPNW and its US
affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, since the 1980s , “ NUCLEAR FAMINE: A BILLION PEOPLE AT RISK”,May 21, 2012
http://www.psr.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-famine-report.pdf]

Over the last several years, a number of studies have shown that a limited, regional nuclear war between India and
Pakistan would cause significant climate disruption worldwide. Two studies published this year examine the impact on
agricultural output that would result from this climate disruption. In the US, corn production would decline by an average of
10% for an entire decade, with the most severe decline, about 20% in year 5. There would be a similar decline in
soybean production, with, again, the most severe loss, about 20%, in year 5. A second study found a significant decline in
Chinese middle season rice production. During the first 4 years, rice production would decline by an average of
21%; over the next 6 years the decline would average 10%. The decline in available food would be exacerbated by
increases in food prices which would make food inaccessible to hundreds of millions of the world’s
poorest. Even if agricultural markets continued to function normally, 215 million people would be added to the
rolls of the malnourished over the course of a decade. O However, markets would not function normally . Significant,
sustained agricultural shortfalls over an extended period would almost certainly lead to panic and hoarding on an
international scale as food exporting nations suspended exports in order to assure adequate food
supplies for their own populations. This turmoil in the agricultural markets would further reduce accessible food. The 925
million people in the world who are chronically malnourished have a baseline consumption of 1,750 calories or less per day. Even a
10% decline in their food consumption would put this entire group at risk. In addition, the anticipated suspension of exports from
grain growing countries would threaten the food supplies of several hundred million additional people who have adequate nutrition
today, but who live in countries that are highly dependent on food imports. The number of people threatened by nuclear-
war induced famine would be well over one billion
 Agriculture Extension
NUKE WAR KILLS AGRICULTURE- SOOT RISING WOULD KILL THE ABILITY FOR PRODUCTION
WHICH WOULD CAUSE PRICES TO SPIKE, THE MALNOURISHED TO DIE, AND ALL
INTERNATIONAL CRISES TO EXACERBATE, JUST FROM A REGIONAL WAR, THAT’S HELFAND

Nuke war collapse all agriculture causing extinction – new studies prove
Loretz 10
John, Program director of the International Physicians for prevention of nuclear weapons citing several studies completed by Alan Robock, B. Toon, Michael Mills and other
physicians who have been studying the nuclear effect for years (“Nuclear Winter” http://ippnweducation.wordpress.com/nuclear-winter/)

More than 20 years ago, climate scientists led by the renowned Carl Sagan coined the term “ nuclear winter” to describe the global ecological destruction that would
result from a massive nuclear exchange between the US and the former Soviet Union. Applying climate model simulations available to them at the
time, the scientists concluded that smoke and dust produced by a catastrophic nuclear war would cause rapid drops in temperature and precipitation, block sunlight, and
threaten agriculture worldwide for at least a year.

Using sophisticated, modern climate models that have been developed to study global warming, some of these same scientists and their colleagues have recently returned to
the question of nuclear winter and have reexamined the climate consequences of a range of nuclear wars. These new studies have reconfirmed that a
nuclear war involving the large arsenals of the US and Russia would result in a nuclear winter even more long lasting than
previously thought. The scientists looked at the effects over a 10-year period of two different scenarios that are possible today— a nuclear war injecting 150

teragrams [Tg] of smoke into the upper troposphere over a one-week period, and one producing 50 Tg of smoke. One important difference between now

and 20 years ago, which they looked at closely, has been the growth of cities and, consequently, larger smoke emissions from the same targets. They calculated

that roughly 150 Tg of smoke would be emitted by the use of the entire current global nuclear arsenal with a yield of 5,000

megatons. If one-third of the current arsenal were used, 50 Tg of smoke would be emitted. In the 150 Tg scenario, black carbon particles spread quickly

across the upper stratosphere and produce “a long-lasting climate forcing” that would last for more than a decade and
affect both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Among the effects would be a 45% global average reduction in precipitation

and a global average surface cooling of –7°C to -8°C, which would persist for years. By comparison, the scientists remind us, “the global average
cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 years ago was about 5°C,” which would be “a climate change
unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race.” At the extremes, people in North America and Eurasia would experience cooling of more
than -20°C and -30°C respectively. The reductions in temperature and precipitation in the 50 Tg scenario were about half those for 150 Tg, over
the same timescale. While not cold enough to be classified as “nuclear winter,” according to the scientists, such climate forcing would still be “severe and unprecedented.”
would be the collapse of agriculture. The earlier nuclear winter studies concluded that
Perhaps the most extreme and lethal impact

food production would cease entirely around the world for at least a year, leading to death by starvation
for most of the human population. The results of the new studies paint an even grimmer picture: “this period of no
food production needs to be extended by many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse
than previously thought.”

Nuclear winter destroys Agricultural production

Robock & Toon 09

Alan,Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, Luke Oman, Departmentof Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, Owen professor of Atmospheric and
Oceanic studies for the Atmospheric and Space Physics (“Local Nuclear War” http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf)

The climatic response to the smoke was surprising. Sunlight was immediately reduced, cooling the planet to
temperatures lower than any experienced for the past 1,000 years. The global average cooling, of about 1.25 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees
Fahrenheit), lasted for several years, and even after 10 years the temperature was still 0.5 degree C colder than normal. The models also showed a 10 percent

reduction in precipitation worldwide. Precipitation, river flow and soil moisture all decreased because
blocking sun light reduces evaporation and weakens the hydrologic cycle . Drought was largely concentrated in the lower
 precipitation. In
latitudes, however, because global cooling would retard the Hadley air circulation pattern in the tropics, which produces a large fraction of global

critical areas such as the Asian monsoon regions, rainfall dropped by as much as 40 percent. The cooling might
not seem like much, but even a small dip can cause severe consequences . Cooling and diminished sunlight would ,

for example, shorten growing seasons in the midlatitudes. More insight into the effects of cooling came from analyses

of the aftermaths of massive volcanic eruptions. Every once in a while such eruptions produce temporary cooling for a year or two. The largest of
the past 500 years, the 1815 Tambora eruption in Indonesia, blotted the sun and produced global cooling of about

0.5 degree C for a year; 1816 became known as “The Year without a Summer” or “Eighteen Hundred and
Froze to Death.” In New England, although the average summer temperature was lowered only a few
degrees, crop-killing frosts occurred in every month. After the first frost, farmers replanted crops, only to see them
killed by the next frost. The price of grain skyrocketed, the price of livestock plummeted as farmers sold
the animals they could not feed, and a mass migration began from New England to the Midwest, as people followed reports of fertile
land there. In Europe the weather was so cold and gloomy that the stock market collapsed, widespread

famines occurred and 18-year-old Mary Shelley was inspired to write Frankenstein. Certain strains of crops, such as winter wheat, can withstand lower
temperatures, but a lack of sunlight inhibits their ability to grow. In our scenario, daylight would filter through the high smoky haze, but on the ground

every day would seem to be fully overcast. Agronomists and farmers could not develop the necessary seeds or adjust

agricultural practices for the radically different conditions unless they knew ahead of time what to expect.
 Agriculture- A2: Must Be Global

Even a limited war kills global ag

Loretz 10
John, Program director of the International Physicians for prevention of nuclear weapons citing several studies completed by Alan Robock, B. Toon, Michael Mills and other
physicians who have been studying the nuclear effect for years (“Nuclear Famine” http://ippnweducation.wordpress.com/nuclearfamine/)

Climate scientists who worked with the late Carl Sagan in the 1980s to document the threat of nuclear winter have produced disturbing new research
about the climate effects of low-yield, regional nuclear war. Using South Asia as an example, these experts have
found that even a limited regional nuclear war on the order of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons would result in tens of
millions of immediate deaths and unprecedented global climate disruption. Smoke from urban firestorms caused by
multiple nuclear explosions would rise into the upper troposphere and, due to atmospheric heating, would subsequently be

boosted deep into the stratosphere. The resulting soot cloud would block 7–10% of warming sunlight from reaching the
Earth’s surface, leading to significant cooling and reductions in precipitation lasting for more than a decade. Within 10 days following the

explosions, there would be a drop in average surface temperature of 1.25° C. Over the following year , a 10% decline in average global rainfall and

a large reduction in the Asian summer monsoon would have a significant impact on agricultural
production. These effects would persist over many years. The growing season would be shortened by 10 to 20 days in
many of the most important grain producing areas in the world, which might completely eliminate crops that had

insufficient time to reach maturity. There are currently more than 800 million people in the world who are chronically
malnourished. Several hundred million more live in countries that depend on imported grain. Even a
modest, sudden decline in agricultural production could trigger significant increases in the prices for basic
foods, as well as hoarding on a global scale, making food inaccessible to poor people in much of the
world. While it is not possible to estimate the precise extent of the global famine that would follow a regional nuclear war, it seems reasonable to anticipate a total
global death toll in the range of one billion from starvation alone. Famine on this scale would also lead to major epidemics of
infectious diseases, and would create immense potential for mass population movement, civil conflict, and war.
 Agriculture- Food Impacts

Spikes in global food supply will cause a billion deaths

Power 96
[Paul Power Jr., “Grain shortage growing problem,” Jan 20, LN]

There are more people in this world than ever, but less grain to feed them. That's kindled fears of a world
food crisis, a problem Florida may help prevent. Poor weather, drought, political unrest and economic shifts have decreased planting, pushing world grain reserves to
record lows. Meanwhile, the world's population grew by 100 million, to 5.75 billion in 1995 - a record increase. Now, miners in West Central Florida are digging out phosphate
more quickly, so it can be used to make fertilizer. Analysts are warning about the increasing possibility of flood or drought in the world's food-producing regions. That can push
food prices much higher, both here and abroad, and even cause famine in the poorest countries. U.S. food prices may rise more than 4 percent this year, ahead of the rate of
inflation. "Conditions today indicate that there is at least some vulnerability in the food supply," said Sara Schwartz, an agricultural economist with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Corn and soybean production plunged last year in the United States, she said. Wet weather slowed grain planting in the United States and Canada. Elsewhere,
drought and civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa cut production to 20 percent below normal. The European Union has less than one quarter of the grain reserves it held in 1993.
The amount of corn expected to be available in the United States by summer - when corn is harvested - was trimmed by crop forecasters this week to 507 million bushels, the
lowest in 20 years. On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 1995, world production failed to
Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research
meet demand for the third consecutive year, said Per

Institute in Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996
season, he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of

safety in world food security. During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are merely blips, higher

international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food ," he said. "Rising
prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a
dollar a day or less."

Extinction

Lugar 04
– U.S. Senator – Indiana, (Richard, “Plant Power” Our Planet v. 14 n. 3, http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html

In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other
crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of the most
daunting of them is meeting the world’s need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only
preventing starvation and saving the environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that
states may go to war over access to resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism
and terrorism. Working to feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the
demand for affordable food will increase well beyond current international production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to improve their
standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will need
vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land
As good land disappears, people destroy timber resources and even
to expand cities to house their growing populations.

rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental
consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe. Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50
years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we have. That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields
on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes
per hectare. Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques
combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar
Given the urgency of expanding food production to
increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again.

meet world demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward
projects that promise to have significant national and global impact . For the United States, that will mean a major shift in the way we
conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed

the world. The United States can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at
increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and
the health of our planet.
 Volcanoes
Nuclear war causes supervolcanoes

Babst & Krieger 97

(Consequences of Using Nuclear Weapons, Dean Babst is a retired government scientist and Coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Accidental Nuclear War
Studies program. David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 1997, http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1997/00/00_babst_consequences.php)phol

Earthquake and Volcanic Activity - The continuous pounding of the earth's crust with a thousand nuclear explosions
might greatly increase earthquake and volcanic activities. In the early 1980s, the world had its greatest volcanic activity in 70 years, with
the eruption of volcanoes in the U.S., Mexico, and Indonesia. At this time, many nuclear tests were being carried out by the U.S.

and U.S.S.R. The explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was the first volcanic eruption in the continental
U.S. in 60 years.(13) In 1978 an earthquake killed 25,000 persons in Tabas, Iran. Thirty-six hours before the
earthquake, Russia had tested a large nuclear bomb at Semipalatinsk, about 1,500 miles away . The Iranian
quake was shallow like the Russian test. The Tabas quake differed from most natural earthquakes in that there were no apparent after-shocks.(14) In summary, it can be

seen that if a nuclear explosive force of 100 megatons was used it could destroy civilization. It could turn
our world into a dark, cold, radioactively polluted planet with few survivors

Supervolcanoes cause extinction

Britt 05

- Robert Roy Britt, Livescience Senior Writer, March 8, “Super volcanoes will chill the world someday ”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7129908/JK

The eruption of a super volcano "sooner or later" will chill the planet and threaten human civilization, British
scientists warned Tuesday. And now the bad news: There's not much anyone can do about it. Several volcanoes around the world are capable of

gigantic eruptions unlike anything witnessed in recorded history, based on geologic evidence of past events, the scientists said.
Such eruptions would dwarf those of Mount St. Helens, Krakatoa, Pinatubo and anything else going back
dozens of millennia. "Super eruptions are up to hundreds of times larger than these," said Stephen Self of Britain's Open
University. "An area the size of North America can be devastated, and pronounced deterioration of global

climate would be expected for a few years following the eruption ," Self said. "They could result in the
devastation of world agriculture, severe disruption of food supplies, and mass starvation. These effects
could be sufficiently severe to threaten the fabric of civilization
Answers to Common Stuff
 Robock and Toon Prodict
Toon and Robock used the best models- Limited War Causes Extinction

Helfand 12
[Ira Helfand, MD, has been writing and speaking about the medical consequences of nuclear war on behalf of IPPNW and its US
affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, since the 1980s , “ NUCLEAR FAMINE: A BILLION PEOPLE AT RISK”,May 21, 2012
http://www.psr.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-famine-report.pdf]

2007 study by Toon et al4 considered the consequences of a possible nuclear war between India and
Pakistan and showed that such a conflict would loft up to 6.6 Tg (6.6 teragrams or 6.6 million metric tons) of black
carbon aerosol particles into the upper troposphere. Robock et al then calculated the effect that this
injection of soot would have on global climate assuming a war in South Asia occurring in mid May. Their study
used a state of the art general circulation climate model, ModelE from the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, and employed a conservative figure of only 5 Tg of black carbon particles. They found that, “A global
average surface cooling of -1.25°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still -0.50°C . The
temperature changes are largest over land. A cooling of several degrees occurs over large areas of North America
and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. ” In addition the study found significant declines in
global precipitation with marked decreases in rainfall in the most important temperate grain growing
regions of North America and Eurasia, and a large reduction in the Asian summer monsoon. 5
 A2: Martin Cards
Martin uses shoddy over-generalizations – he ignores the implications of the mere risk of nuclear
extinction

Pittock 84
(A. Barrie, Leading Atmospheric Researcher and Winner of the Australian Public Service Medal for Climate Research, SANA Update, “Commenton Brian Martin's "Extinction
politics"”, Number 20, September, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/84sanap.pdf)

It is unfortunate that Brian Martin, in SANA Update (May 1984) and elsewhere, uses such emotive terms as "extinction politics" and
“doomsday beliefs", which display a lack of respect for, and a tendency to make categorical
generalizations about, many and varied statements and positions about the effects of nuclear war held by
sincere and thoughtful people. It is ironic that Brian notes disapprovingly that "By the 1950's, a large number of people had come to

believe that the killing of much or all of the world's population would result from global nuclear war ", when in
point of fact it was in the mid-50's that the combined arsenals of the superpowers probably did reach the level at which

they were for the first time capable of causing a global climatic disaster (Sagan, 1983). It is arrogant of scientists
to dismiss people's gut feelings when scientists themselves were then, and may well still be, largely
ignorant of the effects. In the face of scientific ignorance "common sense" is often a good guide. Brian quotes Nevil Shute's novel
On the Beach as if it had no shred of scientific basis , completely ignoring the explicit scenario which Shute drew

up in which large numbers of nuclear weapons coated with cobalt were exploded with the deliberate
intention of increasing nuclear fallout. Again, it is ironic that a recent study conducted at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Knox,1983)
shows that fallout estimates for a major nuclear war have been under-estimated by about a factor of five

hitherto, and that attacks on nuclear power stations and fuel cycle installations could increase long-term
fallout by another factor of ten or so. Next Brian attacks Jonathan Schell for discussing the implications of human
extinction in The Fate of the Earth. Brian never acknowledges that Schell quite explicitly said that human
extinction is not a certainty (see Schell p. 93), and ignores the powerful arguments which Schell advances for
regarding the mere possibility of human extinction as important. These are developed further inSchell's more recent articles in The
New Yorker (Jan. 2 & 9, 1984).

Martin is wrong about ozone depletion

Pittock 84
(A. Barrie, Leading Atmospheric Researcher and Winner of the Australian Public Service Medal for Climate Research, SANA Update, “Commenton Brian Martin's "Extinction
politics"”, Number 20, September, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/84sanap.pdf)

Brian then claims that the scientific basis of the ozone depletion problem has "almost entirely evaporated".
In fact, while we now know that the nuclear winter effect is almost certainly far more serious than ozone

depletion, the ozone depletion problem has not been dismissed except in so far as the trend to smaller
warheads may limit the quantity of oxides of nitrogen injected into thestratosphere by the nuclear
explosions themselves. Ozone depletion could in fact end up being more serious due to injections of combustion products, including smoke, into the
stratosphere.

Martin has no warrant for mitigating effects of nuclear war – winter theory has withstood strict
scrutiny

Pittock 84
(A. Barrie, Leading Atmospheric Researcher and Winner of the Australian Public Service Medal for Climate Research, SANA Update, “Commenton Brian Martin's "Extinction
politics"”, Number 20, September, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/84sanap.pdf)
 smoke clouds are
Brian claims that the impact on populations nearer the Equator, such as in India, "does not seem likely to be significant". Quite to the contrary,

likely to spread into the tropics within a matter of weeks and would probably lead to below freezing
temperatures for months on end. Populations and the ecology in such regions are the least able to withstand such
a climatic onslaught and must be very seriously affected. Then he says that major ecological destruction "remains speculative at present".
Is he suggesting that a sudden and prolonged plunge to below freezing temperatures, with insufficient
light for photosynthesis, might have little harmful effect, or is he denying the reality of "nuclear winter ”? There
have been a number of specific criticisms of the various published papers on nuclear winter, but after more than two years in print there has been no criticism

which has substantially altered the basic conclusions. The most prominent criticism has come from John Maddox, editor of Nature (307,
121: 1984), who completely failed to take account of the vital difference in optical properties of soot and volcanic dust

(La Marche and Hirschboeck, 1984).Principal uncertainties exist as to the war scenarios , the fraction of soot in the

smoke, the height of injection of the smoke, the amount which would be removed by washout in the initial
plumes, and the later rate of removal. In most cases the published papers made assumptions which tended to
under-estimate the effects, especially with regard to the height of injection of the smoke and its lifetime . Two
possible exceptions are the war scenarios, in which the so-called "baseline" case may be too large by a factor of 2, and perhaps the particle coagulation rates if the initial
plumes are not rapidly dispersed. My judgment now is that the initial effects would be much as described in the published papers, even with a 2,000 megaton war, except that
the lifetime of the effects could well turn out to be years rather than months. I will discuss the technical details elsewhere.
 A2: No Escalation/Miscalc
Escalation control fails in nuclear war—Differences of view and miscommunication sparks
inadvertent escalation

Krepon 04
author and President Emeritus of the Henry L. Stimson Center, 2004 (Michael, “Limited War, Escalation Control, and the Nuclear Option in South Asia,”
http://www.stimson.org/southasia/pdf/ESCCONTROLCHAPTER7.pdf)

This kind of strategic analysis did not provide political leaders much comfort as to how escalation might
be controlled up to and across the nuclear threshold . Will strategists and military planners in South Asia have more success in developing a
plausible theory of, and military plans for, escalation control? Escalation control presumed mutual agreement between nuclear

rivals to fight for limited stakes. As Brodie explained, “[T]he curtailing of our taste for unequivocal victory is one of
the prices we pay to keep the physical violence, and thus the costs and penalties, from going beyond the
level of the tolerable.”5 Robert Osgood defined limited war as “part of a general ‘strategy of conflict’ in which adversaries would bargain with each other through the
medium of graduated military responses, within the boundaries of contrived mutual restraints, in order to achieve a negotiated settlement short of mutual destruction.”6 This

assumed, of course, that both nuclear-armed adversaries were willing to play by the same general rules – a
condition, as Osgood subsequently acknowledged, that did not apply during the Cold War. “One trouble with all strategies of local war in Europe,” he wrote in 1979, “is that the
Soviet Union has shown virtually no inclination to be a partner to them.”7 While US strategists were constructing rungs along the escalation ladder, the Soviet General Staff was
Another reason why US strategic thinkers failed to devise a plausible theory of
planning for a blitzkrieg across Europe.

escalation control during the Cold War was the inherent difficulties in communicating with an adversary
whose differences of view and objectives were so great that they would result in conflict. If
miscommunication with, or misreading of , an adversary lead to conflict, this would suggest that
communication to keep that war limited might also fail – assuming that lines of communication remain
intact. But, as Barry Posen has noted, “Inadvertent escalation may also result from the great difficulty of gathering and
interpreting the most relevant information about a war in progress and using it to understand, control, and
orchestrate the war.”8
 A2: Recovery Possible
Nuclear war destroys the environment and food-crop productivity and the possibility for recovery
of civilizations

Harwell 85
(Mark A., Associate Director of the Ecosystems Research Center, Cornell University, BioScience, Vol. 35, No. 9, After Nuclear War. Oct. 1985, pg 550-1, Jstor)

<One important new aspect is the elimination of any substantive outside assistance after a nuclear war. In Hiroshima, such aid provided medical care, uncontaminated food and
Recovery after future
water, reconstruction of the urban infrastructure, economic assistance, and social order—which eventually led to the rebirth of a modern city.

nuclear attacks could not follow the same pathways, for the very bases of the civilizations of the
developed world would be globally undermined. Another critical new aspect of a modern war is the
initiation of atmospheric perturbations resulting in global climatic changes, the phenomenon of nuclear
winter. Much scientific research focuses on reducing the uncertainties associated with nuclear winter, but this much is clear: Only the most precisely
concocted and carefully controlled nuclear war could be counted upon not to induce global climatic
effects. These effects would include reductions in sunlight, air temperatures, and precipitation throughout at least the Northern Hemisphere, accompanied by extreme
weather and a plethora of other environmental insults —in short, war against the global environment itself. Among the most sensitive systems to such

stresses is agriculture; only a few degrees' reduction in average temperatures would devastate the major food crops. The growing scientific
consensus is that agricultural productivity in the first growing season after nuclear war could be
essentially eliminated, and subsequent years' crops could also be drastically reduced or nonexistent
because of longer-term climatic alterations — even ignoring the catastrophic effects of losing high-energy
subsidies to agriculture. Visions of direct human casualties from freezing in an intense nuclear winter are being replaced by more probable projections of
pervasive starvation, as the food supply — measured in months for most of the world's population— becomes exhausted long before agricultural productivity could possibly be
restored.
 A2: Author Indict
The concept of nuclear winter has been confirmed the scientific community and peer-reviewed

Sagan et. Al 86
(Carl, Professor at Cornell, Richard Turco, R&D Associates, O.B. Toon, Thomas Ackerman and James Pollack, NASA Ames ResearchCenter, Wall Street Journal, “Letters
to the Editor: Nuclear Winter Remains a Chilling Prospect”, December 12, Proquest)

major scientific reviews conclude that nuclear

<While many groups, including ourselves, have stressed that uncertainties remain in the theory,

winter is a "clear possibility"(U.S. National Academy of Sciences !; " a credible threat " (Royal Society of
Canada!, and may kill more people than the direct effects of nuclear war ( U .S Department of Defense). A
two-year study of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE! of the International
Council of Scientific Unions concludes "As representatives of the world scientific community drawn
together in this study, we conclude that many of the serious global environmental effects are sufficiently
probable to require widespread concern. Because of the possibility of a tragedy of anunprecedented dimension, any disposition to
minimize or ignore the widespread environmental effects of a nuclear war would be afundamental
disservice to the fulure of global civilization."The basic science of nuclear winter has been
comprehensively peer-reviewed and is widely available to anyone interested in obtaining it>
 A2: Sagan’s Study Indict
The USFG confirms Sagan’s study – the effects of nuclear war and winter are real and would be
devastating

Begley 86
(SHARON BEGLEY with JOHN BARRY, “A Milder Nuclear Winter,” March 31, lexis)

It was propaganda masquerading as science, critics said; the

The TTAPS scenario immediately came under attack.

calculations were riddled with uncertainties. Said George Rathjens of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at a recent conference: nuclear-
winter theory is "the worst example in my memory of results being misrepresented to the public." But the theory also prodded the U.S. government to look into the issue. And
while the original model has been adjusted, in general the result -- to be reported to Congress by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger this week -is like a good-news, bad-
Defense Nuclear Agency's director of nuclear-winter research puts it: "If I had to sum
news joke. As C. Milton Gillespie,

up, I'd say that the climatic effects look to be less than we thought, but that it probably takes less than we
thought to have an impact on the global environment ." More sophisticated models of "the day after" suggest that even an all-out nuclear war
would cause temperatures to fall only half as much as first calculated. The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., assumed an exchange totaling 5,000
megatons and generating 180 million tons of smoke. It calculated that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere would drop an
average of 22 degrees Fahrenheit, with prolonged freezes only in the far north. "This looks more like nuclear fall than nuclear winter," says Stephen
Schneider of NCAR. "We aren't getting the extinction-of-humanity scenario. “Quick freeze: But even NCAR's vision is a bleak one. Before the

smoke dissipated, it would circulate in patches that would cover whole states. Wherever these clouds
hovered, they would produce a localized freeze in summer. Worse yet, during the growing season crops are so
sensitive to temperature drops of only a few degrees that the exact extent of the chill is "essentially
irrelevant," says Mark Harwell of Cornell University, coleader of the biggest international study of the biological consequences of nuclear winter. A dip of 5
degrees over a growing season would wipe out Canadian wheat. With a drop of 13 degrees , which is at the low end
of current forecasts, "you've lost all agricultural production ,” says Harwell. The climate models show that some smoke

would also leak into the Southern Hemisphere -- assuming a northern war - threatening fragile tropical ecosystems. A
single night of sub-60-degreetemperatures would keep rice from maturing . The aftermath of nuclear war, says Harwell, "would
be less like Hiroshima than like Ethiopia." For nuclear strategy, the implications of even modified nuclear-winter theory are

profound. Behind the scenes in the Pentagon, it has touched off an intense debate. Under Secretary of Defense Fred Inkle and Assistant Secretary Richard Perle say that
the predictions underline the immediate need for missiles whose accuracy would allow lower-yield warheads. They also say the scenarios heighten the need to move from
offensive to defensive weapons, as in President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. But Richard Wagner, the Defense Department's assistant for atomic energy, argues that
more research is needed before any policy implications can safely be drawn. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether nuclear-winter theory rules out the concept of
"limited nuclear war," in which only military sites would be targeted. For 20 years, U.S. strategists have explored "limited “war scenarios, reasoning that both superpowers had
an incentive to confine nuclear conflict as a way of sparing major population centers. The initial nuclear-winter models left open the possibility that "limited" strikes would not
the latest findings suggest that even limited use of nuclear weapons might have drastic
trigger global disaster. But

climatic effects. I in the meantime, if nuclear winter does not persuade the superpowers to dismantle their
arsenals, its doomsday potential should make them more committed to stabilizing their relationships .?
 A2: Volcano Soot Disproves
Volcano smoke doesn’t block out sunlight as much as nukes

Schneider 84
(Stephen, Deputy Director of the Advanced Study Program at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “The Cold andthe Dark: The World After Nuclear War”, p. 102)

DR. SCHNEIDER: I would like to comment on that. The postnuclear-war situation would not, I suspect, be analogous to Mount
St.Helens.The properties of these nuclear smoke aerosols, as best we can understand, are such that infrared opacity
is an order of magnitude less than the visible opacity. For an optical depth of around 3 to 5 in the visible spectrum, the infrared optical depth
is less than 1. There-fore the sunlight is blocked out at high altitudes , and the surface still cools by radiation of infrared

energy through the smoke layer tospace. This results in a developing inversion, and is the reason for the
cooling of the surface.If in fact there were ten times as much smoke, then you might be able to prevent a sharp surface
cooling, because if the infraredopacity of the atmosphere is large enough, the atmosphere becomes almost isothermal, as in the case of the Mount St. Helens ashcloud. It
is ironic that, in the peculiar case of too much smoke, the surface cooling effect might disappear. (Later on, when some of thesmoke settles out, the

cooling would occur.) It is only when the visible opacity of smoke is in the range of 1 to 10 that the infrared opacity

is so low that it really is not a major factor. At least, that is what the one-dimensional, radiative-convective models show.
 A2: Fallout Shelters
Fallout shelters are tombs-they offer no hope of survival

Freeman 85
(Harold, Prof. Emeritus MIT, If You Give a Damn About Life, pg. 25-7)

In a nuclear war, occupants of family shelters will die in assorted ways: by crushing if the shelter is
vulnerable to bomb blast; by incineration if the shelter is reached by the firestorm (at five miles from burst,
shelter temperature could reach 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit); by asphyxiation if the firestorm absorbs all
available oxygen; by starvation or dehydration in the likely absence of radiation-free food or water; or by
initial radiation if the air within the shelter cannot be continuously filtered . MIT physicists estimate that appearance outside a
shelter for more than three minutes will produce fatal third-degree burns from intense ultraviolet light; this is the consequence of ozone layer

depletion. For those at a greater distance from burst, protection in a family shelter could provide a small improvement in chances for survival. But it
will be small indeed. Living mostly in darkness, unable to communicate with others
attempting to survive, with radiation gradually penetrating the shelter, occupants
might gain several extra weeks or even months of what could arguably be called
life. Lacking means, they will not be able to determine the level of radioactive contamination of stored food; one
choice will be between hunger and radiation sickness. Toilet refuse and vomit form those gradually being
afflicted with some degree of radiation sickness will add extra stench to the stale air of the shelter . Any
early exposure to radiation will have weakened or destroyed the immune system; even minor infections
will take hold and bring death. Any injuries or burns of those who were late reaching the shelter will be far beyond the range of any first-aid kit. With five
or more people in the space of a bathroom, emotion eruption, alternating with the demoralization and
apathy, is virtually guaranteed. At best, many occupants of family shelters will find themselves alive in
what will turn out, in short time, to be their coffins. The delay will be shorter for children.
 A2: Not in Every Country
1. DOESN’T MATTER- STILL CAUSES SOOT TO RISE, COLLAPSES OZONE, KILLS GLOBAL
AGRICULTURE- THAT’S OUR ___ EV
2. [INSERT SPECIFIC GOES GLOBAL CARD]
 A2: First/Limited Strikes or Nuke Primacy
Even if there is a successful first strike, still causes the impacts

STARR 10
[Steven Starr, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, “The climatic consequences of nuclear war”, 3/12/10, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-
edition/op-eds/the-climatic-consequences-of-nuclear-war]

This isn't a question to be avoided.

Recent scientific studies PDF have found that a war fought with the deployed
U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals would leave Earth virtually uninhabitable. In fact, NASA computer models
have shown that even a "successful" first strike by Washington or Moscow would
inflict catastrophic environmental damage that would make agriculture
impossible and cause mass starvation. Similarly, in the January Scientific American, Alan Robock and Brian
Toon, the foremost experts on the climatic impact of nuclear war, warn that the environmental consequences of a
"regional" nuclear war would cause a global famine that could kill one billion people.

No way to control effects- leads to the impacts

NRDC 01

[Natural Resources Defense Council. , Exposing the U.S. Nuclear War Plan, June 2001,
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nwarplan.asp]

With the arms-reduction process at a standstill and the Bush administration pursuing a potentially destabilizing missile defense
program, the insight NRDC's nuclear war plans project allows into the SIOP's grim blueprints is timely. The project's report, which
presents analyses performed using the nuclear-war simulation tool, details two simulations of nuclear attacks on Russia -- a major
"counterforce" attack against Russia's nuclear forces and a "countervalue" attack that uses a minimal arsenal to inflict severe
damage on Russian cities. The results are clear. A "precision" attack against Russia's nuclear forces -- with an arsenal of
about 1,300 warheads -- would kill 8 to 12 million people and injure millions more, while destroying most of Russia's
nuclear weapons. In a "countervalue" attack, the U.S. could kill or injure up to 50 million Russians with a
mere 3 percent of its current arsenal of more than 7,000 strategic warheads. There is no such thing as a
surgical nuclear strike; nuclear weapons are simply weapons of mass destruction, and their effects
are complex, unpredictable, and ultimately uncontrollable.
 A2: Not Enough Nukes
Less than 100 causes the impact- assumes current supply

Helfand 11
[Ira Helfand, MD, has been writing and speaking about the medical consequences of nuclear war on behalf of IPPNW and its US
affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, since the 1980s, “ Nuclear famine: Interview with Ira Helfand”, April 6, 2011,
http://peaceandhealthblog.com/2011/04/06/helfand-interview/]

The recent investigations into the climate effects of nuclear explosions provide two extremely important
lessons. First, we’ve always known at some level that a nuclear war between the US and Russia would be a
catastrophe. But Professors Robock and Toon and their colleagues but have shown that a war with those massive
arsenals would be a civilization-ending disaster. Their recent work has vindicated the “nuclear winter” studies of
the 1980s, and has shown that the effects would be even worse than predicted and would last longer . Rapid global
temperature drops averaging 8 degrees centigrade would last for 10 years. The cooling in the critical
agricultural areas in the interior regions of North America and Eurasia would be even more extreme — perhaps -25
degrees. Temperature drops of this scale would make the Earth as cold as it was during the last ice age.
There is no doubt that a climate disruption of this magnitude would not be compatible with human civilization.
Agriculture would stop and the vast majority human beings would starve to death. This has immense implications, since it
means that the US and Russia are threatening not just themselves but everyone currently living on Earth, and all of
their children and descendants. The second lesson, which is the relatively new and unexpected part, is that even a
more limited nuclear war — for example, one between India and Pakistan using just 100 warheads — would
create significant worldwide climate disruption. The effects would not be as intense, but there would still be
significant disruption: a sudden global cooling; a dangerous loss of protective atmospheric ozone; and
decreases in precipitation. While the net effect would not be the total collapse of agriculture, we would see an
unprecedented drop in crop production in the world’s most crucial farm belts.

SMALL ARSENALS WILL TRIGGER IT IF THEY HIT URBAN AREAS

STARR 10
[Steven Starr, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, “The climatic consequences of nuclear war”, 3/12/10, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-
edition/op-eds/the-climatic-consequences-of-nuclear-war]

Here it's
important to point out that the 100 Hiroshima-size weapons detonated in Robock and Toon's regional war
scenario contain less than 1 percent of the combined explosive power in the 7,000 or so operational and
deployed nuclear weapons the United States and Russia possess . If even one-half of these weapons were
detonated in urban areas, Robock and Toon have predicted that the resulting nuclear darkness would
cause daily minimum temperatures to fall below freezing in the largest agricultural area s of the Northern
Hemisphere for a period of between one to three years. Meanwhile, average global surface temperatures would
become colder than those experienced 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age.
 A2: Weather Clears The Effects
Weather wouldn’t clear it out, smoke goes too high

STARR 10
[Steven Starr, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, “The climatic consequences of nuclear war”, 3/12/10, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-
edition/op-eds/the-climatic-consequences-of-nuclear-war]

the detonation of 100 15-kiloton nuclear weapons in

Their article, "Local Nuclear War: Global Suffering," predicts that
Indian and Pakistani megacities would create urban firestorms that would loft 5 million tons of thick, black smoke above
cloud level. (This smoke would engulf the entire planet within 10 days.) Because the smoke couldn't be
rained out, it would remain in the stratosphere for at least a decade and have profoundly disruptive
effects. Specifically, the smoke layer would block sunlight, heat the upper atmosphere, and cause massive
destruction of protective stratospheric ozone. A 2008 study PDF calculated ozone losses (after the described conflict)
of 25-45 percent above mid-latitudes and 50-70 percent above northern high latitudes persisting for five
years, with substantial losses continuing for another five years. Such severe ozone depletion would allow intense
levels of harmful ultraviolet light to reach Earth's surface--even with the stratospheric smoke layer in place.
Beneath the smoke, the loss of warming sunlight would produce average surface temperatures colder than
any experienced in the last 1,000 years . There would be a corresponding shortening of growing seasons by up to 30 days
and significant reductions in average rainfall in many areas, with a 40-percent decrease of precipitation in the Asian monsoon
region. Basically, the Earth's surface would become cold, dark, and dry.
Spark Answers
A2: Inevitable
 Nuke War Not Inevitable
NUCLEAR WAR IS NOT INEVITABLE – HUMAN INGENUITY, TECHNOLOGY AND DEMOCRACY
Peiser 2007

(Benny, Ph.D. and Social Anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, “Existential Risks and Democratic Peace”,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081804.stm)

In recent years, leading scientists in the UK, such as Brandon Carter, Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, have
advanced the so-called Doomsday Argument, a cosmological theory in which global catastrophes due to low-probability
mega-disasters play a considerable role. This speculative theory maintains that scientific risk assessments have systematically
underestimated existential hazards. Hence the probability is growing that humankind will be wiped out in the near
future. Nevertheless, there are many good and compelling reasons why human extinction is not
predetermined or unavoidable. According to a more optimistic view of the future, all existential risks can be tackled,
eliminated or significantly reduced through the application of human ingenuity, hyper-technologies and
global democratisation. From this confident perspective of emergent risk reduction, the resilience of civilisation is no
longer restricted by the constraints of human biology. Instead, it is progressively shielded against natural and man-
made disasters by hyper-complex devices and information-crunching technologies that potentially comprise
boundless technological solutions to existential risks. Current advances in developing an effective planetary defence
system, for example, will eventually lead to a protective shield that can safeguard life on the Earth from disastrous NEO impacts.
The societal response to the cosmic impact hazard is a prime example of how technology can ultimately eliminate an
existential risk from the list of contemporary concerns. A technology-based response to climate change impacts is equally
feasible, and equally capable of solving the problem. Global democracy as a solution But while most natural extinction risks can be
entirely eliminated by technological fixes, no such clean-cut solutions are available for the inherent potential threats posed by super-
technologies. After all, the principal threat to our long-term survival is the destabilising and destructive violence committed by
extremist groups and authoritarian regimes. Here, the solution can only be political and cultural. Fortunately, there is compelling
evidence that the global ascent of democratic liberalism is directly correlated with a steep reduction of
armed conflicts. A recent UN report found that the total number of wars and civil conflicts has declined by 40%
since the end of the Cold War, while the average number of deaths per conflict has dropped dramatically ,
from 37,000 in 1950 to 600 in 2002. According to the field of democratic peace research, the growing number of democracies is the
foremost reason for the pacification of many international conflicts. Democracies have never gone to war against each other, as
democratic states adopt compromise solutions to both internal and external problems. As Rudolph J Rummel, one of the world's
most eminent peace researchers, has stated: "In democracy we have a cure for war and a way of minimising political violence,
genocide, and mass murder." On balance, therefore, I believe that the prophets of doom, including those predicting climate
doom, are wrong. Admittedly, there is no guarantee that we can avoid major mayhem and disruption during our risky transition to
societal evolution has now reached a level of complexity
become a hyper-technological, type 1 civilisation. Even so,
that renders the probability of human survival much higher than at any hitherto stage of history.

Turn – saying nuclear war is inevitable is what makes it inevitable – our impacts serve as a
counter-discourse about how to prevent it

Johnson 02

Reed Johnson, Staff Writer, June 18, 2002 (Los Angeles Times)

"In my view, the only relatively accurate kind of perception of nuclear weapons is to see them in
their apocalyptic dimension, in their world-destroying dimension," Lifton continues. "So one has to
be either apocalyptic or absurd. One has to draw upon the apocalyptic dimension of what they do,
and one also has to draw on the absurdity of us destroying our species by our own technology and
our own hand." To be sure, Lifton says, America isn't the only nation to have undergone a kind
of "psychic numbing" in response to the horrors of nuclear war. And since the twin towers fell, he
believes, "we have become more aware of nuclear danger." But while the White House is painting
a bleak picture of potential nuclear terrorism, much of the American public seems to be treating
these threats with a mixture of fatalism, disbelief and gallows humor. In other words, it's
business as usual for a country that has never really sorted out its conflicted feelings about being
the first nation to unleash nuclear weapons on the world. "In a sense you could say that America's
been in denial for pretty much five decades over this type of threat occurring," says Mick Broderick,
author of "Nuclear Movies" (McFarland & Co., 1991) and a professor of media analysis at Murdoch
University in Australia. If many aspects of our current anxiety look familiar, there's at least one
new wrinkle: The Bush administration's assertion that a future nuclear terrorist attack is not merely
possible but virtually guaranteed. In recent weeks, senior White House officials, including Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have grimly asserted that an attack on the U.S. with nukes or other
weapons of mass destruction is "inevitable," not a matter of if but of when. Last week's news that a
U.S. citizen and suspected Al Qaeda member, Abdullah al Mujahir (ne Jose Padilla), had been
apprehended while allegedly plotting a radioactive-bomb attack, underscored the sense of looming
danger. Meanwhile, pop culture is holding up a mirror to our apprehensions. The aptly named
movie "The Sum of All Fears," based on a Tom Clancy novel, fingers every conceivable plot twist
that could bring the world to the verge of nuclear annihilation: superpower misunderstandings, neo-
Nazi madmen, mercenary arms dealers. The movie features a frightening depiction of an atomic
weapon exploding in Baltimore, killing thousands. Fatalism Could Be a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Yet a number of nuclear, foreign policy and defense experts suggest there may be a danger in the
view that a terrorist attack on the United States using weapons of mass destruction is practically a
fait accompli. Yes, they say, the threats are real, some more than others. But to call them
"inevitable" could trigger a self-fulfilling prophecy. "I do not know the basis upon which anybody
could say with confidence that it's inevitable. Equally, I don't see how anybody could say with
confidence that it will never happen," says Albert Carnesale, former U.S. delegate to the Strategic
Arms Limitation Talks, or SALT I, with the Soviet Union in the 1970s and now chancellor of UCLA.
What's needed at this juncture, Carnesale says, is a more comprehensive, contextualized
understanding of how nuclear peril develops and spreads in the real world of international politics--
and how it can be prevented through negotiation and arms-control agreements. Carnesale says
he'd like to expand President Bush's declared "war on terrorism" into a "war on weapons of mass
destruction" in general.
Ethics
 Ethical To Avoid Nuke War
NUCLEAR WAR IS THE BIGGEST POSSIBLE IMPACT – EVEN A SMALL RISK OUTWEIGHS
Seely 1986

(Rob, H.O.N-V: 289-290)

Supporters of U.S. and Soviet nuclear policy have argued that projections of human extinction, extensive environmental damage,
and so on are not conclusively established. This is true, but it does not follow, as nuclear supporters suggest, that we are thereby
made morally free to choose our current suicidal policies. In moral reasoning prediction of consequence is nearly always
impossible. One balances the risks of an action against its benefits, one also considers what known damage the action would do.
Thus a surgeon in deciding whether to perform an operation weighs the known effects (the loss 0f some nerve function, for
example) and risks (death) against the benefits, and weighs also the risks and benefits of not performing surgery. Morally,
however, human extinction is unlike any other risk. No conceivable human good could be worth the
extinction of the race, for in order to be a human good it must be experienced by human beings. Thus
extinction is one result we dare not – may not – risk. Though not conclusively established, the risk of
extinction is real enough to make nuclear war utterly impermissible under any sane moral code.

PRIORITIZING THE IMPACT OF NUCLEAR WAR IS AN ESSENTIAL EXPRESSION OF ETHICS AND

RESPECT FOR LIFE
BIDWAI AND VANAIK 2000
(Praful and Achin, Journalists and Anti-Nuclear Activists, “New Nukes: India, Pakistan, and Global Nuclear Disarmament”, p. 3)

So why the relative failure? The two intertwined dimensions of nuclear weapons stimulate two different kinds of discourses. The
first is one of power, dominance and impact as the derivative properties of nuclear weapons, and with them, the alluring promise of
control. The glorification of such attributes (and the promise that they embody) can find a place in a range of activities, from strategic
studies speculating about pre-emptive use and deterrence efficacy to cigarette advertising, and from James Bond stories to
graphically sexist and masculinist representations in the construction of popular images.The second kind of discourse emerges
from the recognition of the overwhelming destructive power, and therefore, the uncontrollability and
irredeemable evil of nuclear weapons. This is a discourse not of acceptance or glorification, but of
opposition to the horrific properties and attributes of nuclear weapons. It therefore, defends human
dignity, decency, and the values of community, caring and sharing. This is a discourse not of power or
strategy, vicarious thrill, or consumer manipulation, but of ethics and respect for life, peace, harmony, and
hope-hope in a humane future for the whole world. Arundhati Roy's powerful essay introducing this book
is an expression of the endurance and importance of just this kind of discourse. The problem for pro-nuclearists
is the indissoluble tension between the two discourses: in fact, the second implicitly or explicitly, openly or in subterranean ways,
contests and rejects the first kind of discourse. This tension cannot be resolved because it is not possible to fully separate the awe-
inspiring dimensions of nuclear weapons from its destructive-repulsive aspect. But all efforts to sanctify and popularize the
properties of nuclear weapons aim precisely to carry out this separation and are always only partially successful.
Mindset Shift
 Mindset Shift Frontline
1. This argument is empirically denied –

A. Conflict escalation – No conflict in human history has been ended because of the appalling
destruction on both sides – World War I, World War II, Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan all prove that political will promotes escalation

B. Nuclear consciousness – Nuclear testing, the media and popular literature have shown the
world how horrific weapons capabilities have become – there has been no mindset change and
there never will

C. Hiroshima – Nuclear war happened once and the result was not a magical transition away from
the military-industrial complex but a global arms race

D. Iraq – Recent studies show Americans supported using nuclear weapons in Iraq despite
knowing how horrific they are

Johnson 02

Reed Johnson, Staff Writer, June 18, 2002 (Los Angeles Times)

Americans' feelings about nuclear warfare have always had an apocalyptic, deterministic
undercurrent that derives from the country's Judeo-Christian religious traditions, says professor
Broderick of Australia. Practically from the moment it was first used against Japan, the bomb was seen
by Americans as a kind of divine gift for ending fascist tyranny and setting the world right again. But
some Americans also recognized that, having let loose the nuclear genie, the United States opened up
the possibility of one day becoming a nuclear victim itself. Our post-Sept. 11 fears partly reflect these
unresolved doubts, Lifton and others suggest. Even the designation of the former World Trade Center
site as "ground zero" evokes a nuclear analogy, revealing the popular perception that the twin towers
were America's Hiroshima, as well as its Pearl Harbor redux. Now, the nation is pondering the
terrifying possibility of an encore--an American Nagasaki. Yet Americans don't necessarily oppose
the use of nukes against others: During the 1991 Gulf War, for example, opinion polls showed that a
near-majority of Americans backed the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq. "Our having dropped
those two bombs is not commensurate with our sense of being a decent people who refrain from
harming others whenever we can," says Lifton. "Our resistance to Hiroshima, our raw nerve in relation
to Hiroshima, impairs our capacity to take in what nuclear weapons really do to human beings."

2. This does not implicate escalation -

A. Nuclear war would collapse command and control and vengeful missile commanders
would carry out retaliatory strikes anyway

Sagan 84

Carl Sagan, B.A., B.S., and PhD University of Chicago, former professor of biology and genetics at
Stanford and professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Harvard, former Director of the Laboratory for
Planetary Studies at Cornell, two-time winner of the NASA medal for scientific achievement, Peabody
award recipient, and Pulitzer prize winning author, 1984 (Foreign Affairs, “Nuclear War and Climatic
Catastrophe” p. Lexis)

Nuclear war scenarios are possible that are much worse than the ones we have presented. For
example, if command and control capabilities are lost early in the war -- by, say, "decapitation" (an
early surprise attack on civilian and military headquarters and communications facilities) -- then the
war conceivably could be extended for weeks as local commanders make separate and uncoordinated
decisions. At least some of the delayed missile launches could be retaliatory strikes against any
remaining adversary cities. Generation of an additional smoke pall over a period of weeks or longer
following the initiation of the war would extend the magnitude, but especially the duration of the
climatic consequences. Or it is possible that more cities and forests would be ignited than we have
assumed, or that smoke emissions would be larger, or that a greater fraction of the world arsenals
would be committed. Less severe cases are of course possible as well.

B. Even if mindset change occurs the climatic impacts of a first strike are enough to annihilate
everyone

Sagan 84

Carl Sagan, B.A., B.S., and PhD University of Chicago, former professor of biology and genetics at
Stanford and professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Harvard, former Director of the Laboratory for
Planetary Studies at Cornell, two-time winner of the NASA medal for scientific achievement, Peabody
award recipient, and Pulitzer prize winning author, 1984 (Foreign Affairs, “Nuclear War and Climatic
Catastrophe” p. Lexis)

A counterforce first strike is unlikely to be completely effective. Perhaps 10 to 40 percent of the

adversary's silos and most of its airborne bombers and submarines at sea will survive, and its
response may not be against silos, but against cities. Ten percent of a 5,000-warhead strategic
arsenal is 500 warheads: distributed over cities, this seems by itself enough to trigger a major climatic
catastrophe. Such a first strike scenario, in which the danger to the aggressor nation depends upon
the unpredictable response of the attacked nation , seems risky enough. (The hope for the aggressor
nation is that its retained second-strike force, including strategic submarines and unlaunched land-
based missiles, will intimidate the adversary into surrender rather than provoke it into retaliation.) But
the decision to launch a first strike that is tantamount to national suicide for the aggressor -- even if the
attacked nation does not lift a finger to retaliate -- is a different circumstance altogether. If a first strike
gains no more than a pyrrhic victory of ten days' duration before the prevailing winds carry the nuclear
winter to the aggressor nation, the "attractiveness" of the first strike would seem to be diminished
significantly.

3. Nuclear war would destabilize the international system and the effects would be so
psychologically debilitating that consciousness change is impossible

Katz 82

Arthur M. Katz, consultant to the Joint Congressional Committee on Defense Production, and Sima R.
Osdoby, graduate student in the Department of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, April 21,
1982 [Cato Policy Analysis No. 9, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa009.html]

From a psychological point of view, limited nuclear war probably is the worst of all worlds. The imagery
of nuclear war, the pervasiveness of casualties, the possibility of massive media coverage and the
intense fear of radioactivity that has been manifested in the United States, would spread widely the
nuclear war survivor syndrome -- the powerful sense of personal vulnerability, helplessness, guilt,
isolation and fear -- seen to varying degrees in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. If there is any
doubt about the effects of the fear of radioactivity, the psychological effects and "loss of trust"
described by the President's Commission, and subsequent studies of the accident at Three Mile
Island, should provide ample evidence.[8] This would be true of the fallout from an ICBM attack even
without the additional impacts of a geographically dispersed SAC-based attack, since fallout would
create throughout the nation the image of nuclear threat and vulnerability. The disorienting and
debilitating nature of this type of psychological syndrome would threaten an individual's social and
economic functioning. International Consequences Not only is the domestic economy highly
integrated and interdependent, so is the international system. Consequences of a limited nuclear war
would be felt beyond the U.S. Reductions in industrial and food production would trigger a severely
imbalanced import/export trade. This would in turn under- cut the dollar's stability and the international
monetary system. The United States plays a key role as a world food producer, exporting food to
many nations, such as Japan. The U.S. produces 50% of the wheat and 70% of the corn used for
grain, and 80% of the soybeans traded in the world. As a result of a severely damaged food
production and distribution system, exports would be severely limited, if they are permitted at all. Thus,
a significant number of countries may find themselves inadvertent victims of this attack, with their own
stability threatened.

4. One use would make it more likely- breaks the Taboo against using weapons that exist now
 Empirically Denied Extension
NO REASON THIS MAKES SENSE-
FIRST- PREVIOUS WARS DIDN’T STOP AFTER DESTRUCTION GOT REALLY BAD- IT WILL STILL
ESCALATE
SECOND- EVERYONE KNOWS NUCLEAR WAR IS BAD- MEDIA HAS DONE A GOOD JOB ABOUT
IT, YET A WAR STILL MIGHT COME

THIRD- HIROSHIMA HAPPENED, SHOULD’VE SOLVE THE IMPACT

FOURTH- DESPITE ALL THE REASONS NUKE WAR IS BAD, WE STILL WANTED TO USE NUKES IN
IRAQ- THAT’S JOHNSON
EVEN IF THEY WIN THERE’S A SHIFT, IT WON’T LAST – RESOURCE PROBLEMS AND
PREEXISTING CONFLICTS
Katz 82

Arthur M. Katz and Sima R. Osdoby THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR April
21,1982 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/paO09.html

Significant interpersonal, intergroup, and inter-regional conflicts would probably arise. Ethnic, racial, regional. and economic conflicts
present in the pre-attack society, while minimized in the period immediately after an attack, would be
heightened after only a limited time by the extent of the deprivation and the resulting tensions. New
antagonisms would develop between hosts and evacuees or refugees over the possession and use of surviving
resources. These phenomena were observed both in Britain and in Japan during World War II. The Allnutt study
predicted these conflicts would be so serious that they “would necessitate the imposition of martial law or other authoritarian system in many localities, and the widespread use of troops to maintain order.” r231
 Still Escalates Extension
NUCLEAR WAR STILL ESCALATES

FIRST- COMMAND AND CONTROL IS LOST EARLY IN THE WAR WHICH MEANS THAT EVEN IF
THERE IS A MIND SET SHIFT IT WOULDN’T BE COMMUNICATED EFFECTIVE AND GENERALS
WOULD CAUSE GREATER WARS- THAT’S SAGAN

SECOND- A COUNTERFORCE STRIKE IS SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE EXTINCTION- MINDSET SHIFT

WOULDN’T BE QUICK ENOUGH- THAT’S SAGAN

THE COMBINATION OF C3I COLLAPSE AND PAIN OF LOST LOVED ONES PREVENTS
CONSCIOUSNESS-SHIFTING AND ENSURES ESCALATION
Sagan 83
Carl Sagan, B.A., B.S., and PhD University of Chicago, former professor of biology and genetics at
Stanford and professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Harvard, former Director of the Laboratory for
Planetary Studies at Cornell, two-time winner of the NASA medal for scientific achievement, Peabody
award recipient, and Pulitzer prize winning author 1983
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html

Except for fools and madmen, everyone knows that nuclear war would be an unprecedented human catastrophe . A
more or less typical strategic warhead has a yield of 2 megatons, the explosive equivalent of 2 million tons of TNT. But 2 million tons of
TNT is about the same as all the bombs exploded in World War II -- a single bomb with the explosive power of the entire Second World
War but compressed into a few seconds of time and an area 30 or 40 miles across … In a 2-megaton explosion over a fairly
large city, buildings would be vaporized, people reduced to atoms and shadows, outlying structures blown
down like matchsticks and raging fires ignited . And if the bomb were exploded on the ground, an enormous crater, like those
that can be seen through a telescope on the surface of the Moon, would be all that remained where midtown once had been. There are
now more than 50,000 nuclear weapons, more than 13,000 megatons of yield, deployed in the arsenals of the
United States and the Soviet Union -- enough to obliterate a million Hiroshimas . But there are fewer than 3000 cities
on the Earth with populations of 100,000 or more. You cannot find anything like a million Hiroshimas to obliterate. Prime military and
industrial targets that are far from cities are comparatively rare. Thus, there are vastly more nuclear weapons than are needed for any
plausible deterrence of a potential adversary. Nobody knows, of course, how many megatons would be exploded in a real nuclear war.
There are some who think that a nuclear war can be "contained," bottled up before it runs away to involve much of the
But a number of detailed analyses, war games run by the U.S. Department of Defens e, and official
world's arsenals.
Soviet pronouncements all indicate that this containment may be too much to hope for: Once the bombs begin
exploding, communications failures, disorganization, fear, the necessity of making in minutes decisions
affecting the fates of millions, and the immense psychological burden o f knowing that your own loved ones
may already have been destroyed are likely to result in a nuclear paroxysm . Many investigations, including a
number of studies for the U.S. government , envision the explosion of 5,000 to 10,000 megatons -- the detonation of
tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that now sit quietly, inconspicuously, in missile silos, submarines and long-range bombers, faithful
servants awaiting orders. The World Health Organization, in a recent detailed study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel
laureate in physiology and medicine), concludes that 1.1 billion people would be killed outright in such a nuclear war, mainly in
An additional 1.1 billion people would suffer serious injuries
the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, China and Japan.
and radiation sickness, for which medical help would be unavailable. It thus seems possible that more than 2 billion people- almost
half
of all the humans on Earth-would be destroyed in the immediate aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. This would
represent by far the greatest disaster in the history of the human species and, with no other adverse effects, would probably be enough to
reduce at least the Northern Hemisphere to a state of prolonged agony and barbarism. Unfortunately , the real situation would be
much worse.
 NO MINDSET SHIFT EXTENSION
NO Mindset shift-

A nuclear war would be so scarring to the human race because of the sheer destruction that
occurs there would never be able to be a change in consciousness that’s Katz

PANIC FROM RELOCATION WOULD CAUSE SOCIETAL TENSION AND CONFLICT POST A
NUCLEAR WAR
Katz 82

Arthur M. Katz, consultant to the Joint Congressional Committee on Defense Production, and Sima R.
Osdoby, graduate student in the Department of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, April 21,
1982 [Cato Policy Analysis No. 9, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa009.html]

Fallout would be so intense that massive evacuation of the affected areas in the Midwest, South, and Farm Belt would
be required; relocation would last for weeks, months, and in some cases, even years. At least 30 to 40 million people would be forced to
leave. However, in a stalemated situation -- as "limited" nuclear war is likely to be initially -- well over 100 million people, mostly from
major urban areas, would either leave spontaneously or be required to leave by government directive. The implications, particularly for the
economy, are dramatic. As Fred Ikle, current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, concluded 25 years ago, "not only nonessential persons
but most of the workers will remain evacuated as long after the first nuclear attack as further attacks appear likely."[6] Certainly this
would be the case in a limited nuclear war . If evacuation were to result in a prolonged relocation, divisive social conflicts,
as well as economic and social dislocation, would be likely . Under much more favorable conditions in Great Britain during
World War II, relationships between evacuees and their hosts degenerated quickly under the influence of prolonged stress, uncertainty,
substantial class and urban-rural differences, and inadequate social service resources. This experience was not unique. Japan and Germany
in World War II, and even the Netherlands in peacetime, experienced these type of conflicts . Under a limited war
scenario in the United States, to absorb the evacuated population the number of people living in a single house or apartment in the host
areas would have to increase six times (from three people to eighteen). It is not hard to imagine the conflict and stress that type
for crowding would create.[7] Thus these problems are likely to be much more intractable under the "limited" war scenarios
In threatened but unaffected metropolitan
because of insufficient social services and the massive numbers of people involved.
areas, decisions about who will be evacuated and when could become politically explosive -- fraught with fears of
one group or another becoming the expendable victims. This is not to mention the problem of deciding when and how to evacuate special
populations -- prisoners, patients in acute and chronic care facilities, etc.

POST-ATTACK SOCIAL DYNAMICS GUARANTEE INSTABILITY

Katz 82

Arthur M. Katz, consultant to the Joint Congressional Committee on Defense Production, and Sima R.
Osdoby, graduate student in the Department of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, April 21,
1982 [Cato Policy Analysis No. 9, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa009.html]

Summary -- Life After a Limited Nuclear Attack would be severely disrupted . The medical care system would be
Life
Support
overburdened providing intensive treatment to fallout victims, resulting in degraded regular, acute, chronic or preventive care.
systems such as insurance and medical records would likely be in chaos, or at best in serious disarray, with some drugs in short
supply. Food production and distribution systems, as well as the banking system, would be severely disrupted. Judging from previous
experience, survivors are likely to feel threatened and disoriented. Massive urban evacuation and prolonged
relocation could provoke social tension, severely taxing limited social services. Choices to be made regarding
evacuation and future aid to rebuild the post-attack economy could become politically explosiv e. Effects would
extend beyond the U.S. Industrial and food exports would decrease, or cease, tilting the balance of payments, destabilizing the dollar, and
ultimately affecting other currencies. Countries dependent on the United States for food would probably experience shortages and face
domestic political problems as a result. The international situation would likely be unstable .
 Nuke Taboo Extension
One Use Breaks the Taboo-

A use of a nuclear weapon would break the taboo against nukes that exists now- makes war more
likely

Use of Nuclear Weapons makes war more likely

Quester 05

[Dr. George H., Professor of government and politics at University of Maryland, Doctorate Pol Sci at
Harvard, “If the Nuclear Taboo Gets Broken,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, Spring 2005, 80-
1//uwyo-ajl]

But in time there will be hardly anyone alive who was a victim ofthe 1945 attacks , hardly anyone who remembers
seeing the first photographs of their victims or who recalls the nuclear testing programs of the 1950s and 1960s. Further, an unwelcome result of the bans on nuclear testing, intended to shield the

some of the perceived horror of such Weapons may be

environment and discourage horizontal and vertical nuclear proliferation, is that

fading, so that ordinary human beings will be a little less primed to reject automatically the idea of
such weapons being used again. The only fair test of the long-term viability of the nuclear taboo
would, of course, be for the world to manage to keep that taboo observed and intact . The net trend, the
net result, of a prolongation of non-use is most probably that such non-use will be strengthened
and renewed thereby, just as it seems to have been over the decades of the Cold War and its
aftermath.
Future Weapons
 Future Weapons Frontline
1. REJECT THEIR EVIDENCE – IT’S BASED ON ANTI-HUMANIST PARANOIA
More 01

Max More, head of the Extropy Institute, 2-26-2001

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0106.html?m%3D2
When a scientist publishes a paper, her peers expect to see evidence that she has read prior work relevant to her topic. They expect
the scientist to have studied the field thoroughly before contributing a paper, especially in a controversial field. Bill Joy, as Chief
Scientist at Sun Microsystems, should understand this. In reading his essay "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" I am struck by
his public show of ignorance of thinking about future technologies, his unrealistic thoughts about "relinquishment", and his
slighting of those who have considered these issues deeply as lacking in common sense. At the same time, I appreciate his courage
in publicly laying out his fears. As a philosopher, I find his comments about losing our humanity to be frustratingly offhand. I will
address this issue in a separate response. Here I wish to focus on Joy's call for relinquishment of the technologies of genetic
engineering, molecular nanotechnology, and robotics (and all associated fields). As someone who has thought about these issues for
many years, I wish to challenge Joy's relinquishment policy on two grounds: First, it's unworkable. Second, it's ethically appalling.
(A third reason--that in practice it would result in authoritarian control while still failing to achieve its purpose--I will leave for a
separate response.) According to Joy's extensive essay, his apocalyptic thinking was set off by hearing a conversation
between Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec. Apart from attending a Foresight Institute conference back in 1989, Joy shows no
sign of having read any of the writings or listening to any of the talks of those who have devoted themselves to the issues he raises.
Despite the brilliant clarity of Kurzweil's writing, Joy still isn't clear whether we are supposed to "become robots or fuse with robots
or something like that." He gives no credit to the years of work by the Foresight Institute not only in promoting the idea of
nanotechnology but in planning for its potential dangers by considering both technical and knowledge and policy-based approaches.
Certainly we here at Extropy Institute--a multi-disciplinary think tank and educational organization devoted to the human future--
never heard from Joy before he released his missive to the masses. Someone in Joy's influential position has a responsibility to delve
into prior thinking on these issues before scaring a public already unreasonably afraid of some advanced technologies, including
genetic engineering. I find it incredible that Joy cites Carl Sagan, one of my intellectual inspirations in the course of criticizing we
leading advocates of 21st century technologies as lacking in common sense. Those who advocate obviously unrealistic policies
such as global relinquishment should not make accusations about common sense. This would be less galling if Joy
had actually bothered to find out what we advocates for the future had to say over the last twelve years. (In 1988, a year before the
Foresight conference that Joy attended, we founded Extropy magazine which evolved into Extropy Institute--a transhumanist
organization devoted to "Incubating Better Futures".) Joy also accuses us of lacking humility while in an interview he draws a
(misleading) parallel between himself and Einstein's 1939 letter to President Roosevelt. While acknowledging the
tremendously beneficial possibilities of emerging technologies, Bill Joy judges them too dangerous for us
to handle. The only acceptable course in his view is relinquishment. He wants everyone in the world "to limit development
of the technologies that are too dangerous , by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge". Joy joins the
centuries-old procession of theocrats, autocrats, and technocrats in attacking our pursuit of unlimited
knowledge. He mentions the myth of Pandora's box. He might have thrown in the anti-humanistic and anti-
transhumanistic myths of the Garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, and the demise of Icarus. Moving from
myth to reality, he should have been explicit in describing the necessary means deployed throughout
history: burning books, proscribing the reading of dangerous ideas, state control of science.

2. OUR IMPACTS OUTWEIGH – DON’T VOTE TO CAUSE SUFFERING JUST TO PREVENT LOW-
PROBABILITY DESTRUCTION FROM FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
More 01

Max More, head of the Extropy Institute, 2-26-2001

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0106.html?m%3D2

Joy assigns a high probability to the extinction of humanity if we do not relinquish certain emerging
technologies. Joy's implicit calculus reminds me of Pascal's Wager. Finding no rational basis for accepting or rejecting
belief in a God, Pascal claimed that belief was the best bet. Choosing not to believe had minimal benefits and the
possibility of an infinitely high cost (eternal damnation). Choosing to believe carried small costs and offered potentially
infinite rewards (eternity in Heaven). Now, the extinction of the human race is not as bad as eternity in Hell, but most of
us would agree that it's an utterly rotten result. If relinquishment can drastically reduce the odds of such a large loss,
while costing us little, then relinquishment is the rational and moral choice. A clear, simple, easy answer. Alas, Joy, like
 Pascal, loads the dice to produce his desired result. I view the chances of success for global relinquishment as
practically zero. Worse, I believe that partial relinquishment will frighteningly increase the chances of disaster by
disarming the responsible while leaving powerful abilities in the hands of those full of hatred, resentment, and
authoritarian ambition. We may find a place for the fine-grained voluntary relinquishment of inherently dangerous means
where safer technological paths are available. But unilateral relinquishment means unilateral disarmament. I can only
hope that Bill Joy never becomes a successful Neville Chamberlain of 21st century technologies. In place of
relinquishment, we would do better to accelerate our development of these technologies, while focusing on developing
protections against and responses to their destructive uses. My assessment of the costs of relinquishment differ
from Joy's for another reason. Billions of people continue to suffer illness, damage, starvation, and all the
plethora of woes humanity has had to endure through the ages. The emerging technologies of genetic engineering,
molecular nanotechnology, and biological-technological interfaces offer solutions to these problems. Joy would stop
progress in robotics, artificial intelligence, and related fields. Too bad for those now regaining hearing and sight thanks
to implants. Too bad for the billions who will continue to die of numerous diseases that could be dispatched through
genetic and nanotechnological solutions . I cannot reconcile the deliberate indulgence of continued suffering
with any plausible ethical perspective . Like Joy, I too worry about the extinction of human beings. I see it
happening everyday, one by one. We call this serial extinction of humanity "aging and death". Because aging and death
have always been with us and have seemed inevitable, we often rationalize this serial extinction as natural and even
desirable. We cry out against the sudden death of large numbers of humans. But, unless it touches someone close, we
rarely concern ourselves with the drip, drip, drip of individual lives decaying and disintegrating into nothingness. Some
day, not too far in the future, people will look back on our complacency and rationalizations with horror and disgust.
They will wonder why people gathered in crowds to protest genetic modification of crops yet never demonstrated in
favor of accelerating anti-aging research. Holding back from developing the technologies targeted by Joy will not only
will mean an unforgivable lassitude and complicity in the face of
shift power into the hands of the destroyers, it
entropyand death. Joy's concerns about technological dangers may seem responsible. But his unbalanced fear-
mongering and lack on emphasis of the enormous benefits can only put a drag on progress. We are already
seeing fear, ignorance, and various hidden agendas spurring resistance to genetic research and biotechnology. Of
course we must take care in how we develop these technologies. But we must also recognize how they can tackle
cancer, heart disease, birth defects, crippling accidents, Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, depression, chronic pain,
aging and death. On the basis of Joy's recent writing and speaking, I have to assume that we disagree not only about
the facts but also in our basic values. Joy seems to value safety, stability, and caution above all. I value relief of
humanity's historical ills, challenge, and the drive to transcend our existing limitations, whether biological, intellectual,
emotional, or spiritual.

3. WEAPONS EVOLUTION IS GEARED TOWARD LESS COLLATERAL DAMAGE

Krepinevich 98

Andrew Krepinevich, Nat’l Defense Council, and Steven Kosiak, Cent for Strategic Assessments, 1998

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/A.19981100.The_Military_Revol/A.19981100.The_Militar
y_Revol.htm#fn8#fn8
The traditional way of thinking about nuclear forces becomes even more problematic when the emerging military
revolution is taken into account.8 Military revolutions have occurred periodically for centuries. They are often
stimulated by major surges in technology that facilitate a discontinuous leap in military effectiveness over a
relatively short period of time, as occurred, for example, between the world wars, when mechanized armored forces
came of age on land, aircraft carriers supplanted the battleship at sea, and strategic aerial bombardment was
established as a new way of war . In mid-century the world witnessed the introduction of nuclear weapons, once again
leading strategists to rethink, in the most fundamental ways, the calculus of war. These transformations of war
typically displaced, or rendered obsolete, some of the formerly dominant weapons and forces that were central to
the previous military regime. Thus the tank consigned the horse cavalry to the pages of history, while the world's major
navies ceased producing battleships following the carriers’ rise to primacy. In terms of strategic aerial bombardment of
an enemy state, nuclear weapons rapidly displaced conventional weaponry. Just as dramatic technological
advances in mechanization, aviation, radio and radar stimulated a transformation in the character of conflict between
the two world wars, today the military confronts the challenge of interpreting the impact of a revolution in
information technologies. These technologies offer advanced military organizations the potential to
locate, identify, and track a far greater number of targets, over a far greater area and for far longer periods
of time, and to engage those targets with far greater lethality, precision and discrimination than has ever
before been possible. The implications for strategic strike operations — and for how militaries view nuclear
weapons — are potentially profound. The emerging military revolution strongly suggests that the conventional
“tortoise” has, after some fifty years, finally begun to catch up to the nuclear “hare ,” due in large measure to
radical advances in the effectiveness of precision-guided munitions, and of stealth and electronic means of cloaking
aircraft and missiles from enemy detection. For example, during 1943 the U.S. Eighth Air Force was able to strike roughly fifty strategic targets in
the war against Germany. In 1991, during the Persian Gulf War, coalition air forces (the overwhelming majority of which belonged to the United States) struck at
over three times as many targets on the first day of the war. This represents a two-order-of-magnitude increase in conventional strategic strike capability. But
that is only part of the story. Precision munitions comprised barely seven percent of the conventional munitions employed in bombing attacks during the Gulf
War. According to the Gulf War Air Power Survey conducted following the war, those aircraft employing precision munitions were demonstrably thirteen times
more effective than aircraft employing “dumb” conventional bombs.9 And the shift toward such capabilities is just beginning. Former Air Force Chief of Staff
General Ronald Fogleman has stated that once the transition is complete, U.S. forces “may be able to engage 1,500 targets in the first hour, if not the first
minutes, of a conflict . . . .”10 If, as General Fogleman seems to imply, it is possible to deploy a conventional precision strategic strike capability that can be
employed with the speed and effectiveness approaching that of a nuclear strike, it may constitute an irresistible option for those military organizations that can
afford to develop such forces and organizations. At present, the only military that fits these criteria belongs to the United States. In fact, the U.S. military plans
to field an integrated group of networked systems (or architectures) that could rapidly execute conventional precision strategic strikes against an adversary. 11
This will involve linking airborne and space information (and perhaps weapon) platforms, and unattended ground sensors to provide near-real-time targeting
This type
information to long-range precision-guided munitions (PGMs), or platforms carrying PGMs. These platforms could be land-, space- or sea-based.

of strategic strike capability may also include what some have termed “electronic strike” forces. Well-
placed electronic strikes, be they in the form of computer viruses, logic bombs, high-power microwave generators, or
conventional electromagnetic pulse munitions , may become increasingly feasible as a means of disabling both
strategic military targets and critical elements of newly emerging information-based economies. As this change in military
weaponry occurs, it will be increasingly appropriate for the United States military to consider transitioning to a new type of strategic triad. Such a triad would not
be based on the traditional three types of delivery systems for nuclear weapons — bombers, land-based ballistic missiles and ballistic missile submarines.
Rather, the new triad would comprise long-range conventional precision strike, electronic strike and residual nuclear strike forces. Advantages of Greater
Reliance on Non-Nuclear Strategic Strikes An increased reliance on non-nuclear strategic strike capabilities could offer several major advantages over the
current exclusive reliance on nuclear weapons. First, by helping to facilitate deep reductions in the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, it could strengthen the NPT,
which obligates the nuclear powers to reduce their nuclear forces, with the ultimate goal of eliminating them. Second, it could encourage Russia to effect similar
Third, such a transformation would likely enhance deterrence. Potential adversaries
reductions in its nuclear forces.

would see a United States strategic deterrent posture as more credible if it included forces capable of
conducting effective nonnuclear strategic strike operations . Thus the new triad would offer U.S. political leaders a more credible
option than nuclear strikes alone for responding to the threat of nuclear employment by a small nuclear power, or even employment itself. As such, U.S.
possession of a substantial nonnuclear strategic strike capability could help reduce the perceived need by some U.S. friends and allies to acquire a nuclear
Fourth, since a nonnuclear strategic strike would be far more discriminating, it would not
deterrent of their own.

cause anything like the horrific level of casualties that would almost certainly result from even a “limited”
nuclear war. As such, it might also reduce significantly the prospects for triggering a nuclear response from a nuclear-armed adversary. Finally, cuts in
nuclear forces could yield substantial budgetary savings. According to the Defense Department, reducing the current U.S. strategic nuclear forces from START I
to START II levels would save some $6 billion over the next seven years.12 Likewise, the authors estimate that reducing the size of the strategic arsenal to
2,000 warheads could save an average of some $2 billion a year through 2010 if the United States were to implement the reduction by, for example, cutting an
additional four Trident ballistic missile submarines and 300 Minuteman ICBMs. 13 This would leave the United States with a strategic nuclear force structure
consisting of 10 Trident submarines and 200 Minuteman ICBMs, plus the 71 B-52 and 21 B-2 (dual-capable) bombers projected under current plans.
 Bias Extension
THEIR CARDS ARE SYMPTOMATIC OF A COMMON SCIENCE FICTION MISNOMER THAT FUTURE
WEAPONS WILL BE MORE DESTRUCTIVE
Wong 01

Michael Wong, Honors BA in Engineering from Waterloo, 11-24-2001

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myth_Science.html#WeaponTech
Star Trek's irresponsible writing staff has successfully infiltrated pop culture with a number of bizarre science myths.
Most knowledgeable observers simply ignore these nonsensical ideas, but laypeople are often incapable of
distinguishing between genuine science and Trekkie pseudoscience , as the popularity of the following myths
demonstrates: [CONTINUES…] 2. Weapon "technology level" is more important than weapon energy yield As bizarre
as the previous myth is, this one is even more inexplicable . A lot of sci-fi fans think that weapon firepower is
irrelevant in the face of weapon technology level. The argument typically goes as follows: "Weapon A is
more advanced than weapon B because of <technobabble>. Therefore, it is more powerful ." This is a
specious argument of the highest order . A higher-tech weapon is not necessarily more destructive than a lower-
tech weapon- destruction is based entirely on the amount of energy delivered to the target. Many advancements in
weapons technology have been designed to enhance the energy yield of the weapon, so the concepts of "technology
level" and "energy yield" have been confused by many observers. Chemical-explosive shells are more destructive
than less-advanced solid metal cannonballs, but that is because they release more energy. Nuclear weapons are more
destructive than less-advanced chemical explosives, but that is because they release more energy. However, if an
advanced weapon carries much less energy than a primitive weapon, then it will be less destructive regardless of its
technology level. As an example, the 120mm smoothbore cannon of an M1A2 Abrams tank is one of the most
technologically sophisticated projectile weapons in the world. And yet, it is far less destructive, and has
much shorter range than the monstrous howitzers and battleship cannons built five decades ago , because it
delivers less energy to the target.
 Short term Outweighs Extension
SHORT TERM EXTINCTION THREATS OUTWEIGH
Leslie 97

John Leslie, Professor Emeritus at the University of Guelph and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada,
1997 The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction p.69

there are several grounds for concentrating instead on the near future . One of them, mentioned in the
Still,
Introduction, will in due course be examined in detail. It is that if humankind's future is significantly
indeterminate, then Carter's argument cannot lead to any enormous revision of the estimated risk of Doom
Soon, not even if Doom Delayed would mean enormously many trillion humans scattered through the
galaxy. Another is this. It could well seem that only short-term dangers could be much threat to the very
survival of the human race or its descendant races. What can it matter that, for example, the sun will become a red
giant and boil the Earth's oceans some five billion years down the road? If they had survived until then, humans or their
descendants could be expected to have spread to Pluto, or to space colonies positioned at a comfortable distance, or to
the neighborhoods of other stars. Humankind's eggs would no longer be all in the one basket. Not unless, that's to say ,
a vacuum metastability disaster—see Chapter 2—swept through the galaxy at virtually the speed of light. But the
chances of such a disaster can seem tiny, while those of its happening in the distant future could be negligible: the
necessary high-energy experiment would have been performed much earlier, or would have been banned. Accelerated
first by ground-based lasers and then by sunlight, and using the light of " the target stars for deceleration, light-sails
could today do the job at higher speed and smaller cost; and there have been various further suggestions, some of"
them now quite old, for space travel using fairly low technology.9 It could well seem, then, that the human race is
sure to have become secure against imminent extinction, more or less regardless of whatever disasters
thereafter hit the Earth, within five centuries from now, if only it manages to survive for that long . What is
surprising is that so little has been done to develop Earth-based artificial biospheres to get us through
whatever disasters those centuries may hold. People were all too quick to criticize the poor science behind
'Biosphere V (sec Chapter 1: oxygen levels dropped disastrously). What they tended to forget was that it
had been left to a single individual, E.Bass, to provide the necessary $150 million in funding. If one-
hundredth as much had been spent on developing artificial biospheres as on making nuclear weapons, a
lengthy tutu re for humankind might by now be virtually assured. Always remember that for doomsday-
argument purposes we aren't interested just in whether such things as a pollution crisis would mean
misery and death for billions. Misery and death for billions would be immensely tragic, but might be
followed by slow recovery and then a glittering future for a human race which had learned its lesson .
What is crucial to the doomsday argument —and, Yd say, the issue most important from an ethical viewpoint— is
whether anything could put an end to all humans.

AT WORST WE’LL WIN A 70% RISK THAT EXTINCTION IS NOT INEVITABLE

Leslie 97

John Leslie, Professor Emeritus at the University of Guelph and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada,
1997 The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction p.77

Even after taking the doomsday argument into account, there remain many grounds for hope and none
for absolute despair. For a start, there's the tact that the doomsday argument could be much weakened if the world
were indeterministic, which is what many people think it to be. This will be discussed in just a moment. Next, it seems
that super nova explosions, solar flares, mergers of black holes or of neutron stars, large-scale volcanism
or impacts by asteroids or comets are very unlikely to kill all of us in the near future. Now, as was said earlier,
it is probably only the near future that we need consider, because humans can be expected to spread
throughout the solar system fairly soon. They could thereafter survive in great numbers regardless of
whether all Earth's inhabitants were destroyed. All the same, the above-discussed dangers can be
impressive enough to destroy complacency. And I think the chief risks have yet to be mentioned. Genetic
engineering seems to me one of them, particularly because of its possible uses in biological warfare or in
the hands of criminals. Another is that intelligent machines will come to replace humans—although, at
least if the machines exploited quantum effects in achieving unity of consciousness (sec Chapter 2), it
perhaps isn't clear that this would be a disaster. Finally, we may well run a severe risk from some thing-
we-know-not-what: something of which we can say only that it would come as a nasty surprise like the
Antarctic ozone hole and that, again like the ozone hole, it would be a consequence of technological
advances. I nevertheless feel inclined to say that the probability of the human race avoiding extinction for the
next five centuries is encouragingly high, perhaps as high as 70 per cent . Also that if it did so, then it would
be likely either to continue onwards for many thousand centuries or else to be replaced by something better.
 Less Destructive Extension
THERE’S ONLY A RISK OF THE TURN – THE DESTRUCTIVE CAPABILITIES OF NEW WEAPONS
ARE CHECKED BY WORLDWIDE SELF-REGULATION
Dyson 03

Freeman J. Dyson, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, 2-13-
2003

New York Review of Books 50:3 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16053

Next comes my response to Bill Joy. I agreed that the dangers he described are real, but I disagreed with some details
of his argument, and I disagreed strongly with his remedies. I began by speaking about the history of biological
weapons and gene-splicing experiments, and the successes and failures of efforts to regulate them. Bill Joy ignores
the long history of effective action by the international biological community to regulate and prohibit
dangerous technologies. Gene-splicing experiments began in many countries when the technique of sticking pieces
of DNA together was discovered in 1975. Two leading biologists, Maxine Singer and Paul Berg, issued a call for a
moratorium on all such experiments until the dangers could be carefully assessed. There were obvious dangers
to public health, for example if genes for deadly toxins could be inserted into bacteria that are normally endemic in
human populations. Biologists all over the world quickly agreed to the moratorium, and experiments were
halted everywhere for ten months. During the ten months, two international conferences were held to work out the
guidelines for permissible and forbidden experiments. The guidelines established rules of physical and biological
containment for permitted experiments involving various degrees of risk. The most dangerous experiments were
forbidden outright. These guidelines were adopted voluntarily by the biologists and have been observed ever
As a result, no serious health hazards
since, with changes made from time to time in response to new discoveries.
have arisen from the experiments in twenty-five years . This is a shining example of responsible
citizenship, showing that it is possible for scientists to protect the public from injury while preserving the
freedom of science.

THERE’S A LOW PROBABILITY OF THEIR FANTASTIC IMPACT SCENARIOS

Bostrom 02

Nick Bostrom, PhD and Professor at Oxford University, March, 2002

[Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol 9] http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

Some foreseen hazards (hence not members of the current category) which have been excluded from the list of bangs
on grounds that they seem too unlikely to cause a global terminal disaster are: solar flares, supernovae, black
hole explosions or mergers, gamma-ray bursts, galactic center outbursts, supervolcanos , loss of biodiversity,
buildup of air pollution, gradual loss of human fertility, and various religious doomsday scenarios . The
hypothesis that we will one day become “illuminated” and commit collective suicide or stop reproducing, as
supporters of VHEMT (The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement) hope [43], appears unlikely. If it really were better
not to exist (as Silenus told king Midas in the Greek myth, and as Arthur Schopenhauer argued [44] although for
reasons specific to his philosophical system he didn’t advocate suicide), then we should not count this scenario as an
existential disaster. The assumption that it is not worse to be alive should be regarded as an implicit assumption in the
definition of Bangs. Erroneous collective suicide is an existential risk albeit one whose probability seems extremely
slight. (For more on the ethics of human extinction, see chapter 4 of [9].
Aliens
 Aliens Frontline
No alien contact now.

Kazan 2/23/10
(Casey, The Telegraph, “ Invisible Extraterrestrials? World-Leading Physicist Says "They Could Exist in Forms We Can't Conceive",
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/invisible-extraterrestrials-one-of-worlds-leading-physicist-says-they-could-exist-in-forms-we-cant-c.html // Veevz)

Rees, a leading cosmologist and astrophysicist who is the president of Britain’s Royal Society
The intriguing remark was made by Lord Martin

believes
and astronomer to the Queen of England. Rees, who last month hosted the National Science Academy’s first conference on the possibility of alien life, said he

the existence of extra terrestrial life may be beyond human understa nding. “They could be staring us in the face and we
just don’t recognize them. The problem is that we’re looking for something very much like us, assuming that they at least have something like the same
mathematics and technology." “I suspect there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t conceive. Just as

a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there as aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains.” During the
conference entitled ‘The Detection of Extra-terrestrial Life and the Consequences for Science and Society’, Rees asked whether the discovery of aliens would cause terror or
delight on earth, the Telegraph reported. However, Frank Drake, the founder of SETI and Drake's Equation, told the conference that satellite TV and the “digital revolution” was
making humanity invisible to aliens by cutting the transmission of TV and radio signals into space. The earth is currently surrounded by a 50 light year-wide “shell” of radiation
from analogue TV, radio and radar transmissions. According to Drake, digital TV signals would look like white noise to a race of observing aliens. Although the signals have
spread far enough to reach many nearby star systems, they are rapidly vanishing in the wake of digital technology, said Drake. In the 1960s, Drake spearheaded the conversion
of the Arecibo Observatory to a radio astronomy center. As a researcher, Drake was involved in the early work on pulsars. Drake also designed the Pioneer plaque with Carl
Sagan in 1972, the first physical message sent into space. The plaque was designed to be understandable by extraterrestrials should they encounter it. Milan Cirkovic of the
Astronomical Observatory in Belgrade, points out thatthe median age of terrestrial planets in the Milky Way is about 1.8 gigayears (one
which means that the median age of technological civilizations
billion years) greater than the age of the Earth and the Solar System,

should be greater than the age of human civilization by the same amount. The vastness of this interval indicates that one or
more processes must suppress observability of extraterrestrial communities. Since at this point, there is no direct and/or widely apparent

evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, it likely means one of the following: We are (A) the first intelligent
beings ever to become capable of making our presence known , and leaving our planet. At this point, there are no other life forms out
there as advanced as us. Or perhaps extraterrestrial life does exists, but for some reason extraterrestrial life is so very rare and so very far away we’ll never make contact
Or is it (B) that many advanced civilizations have existed
anyway—making extraterrestrial life nonexistent in a practical sense at least.

before us, but without exception, they have for some unknown reason, existed and/or expanded in such a way that they are
completely undetectable by our instruments. Or is it (C) There have been others, but they have all run into
some sort of “cosmic roadblock” that eventually destroys them, or at least prevents their expansion beyond a small area. Since Earth’s
placement in space and time appears to be unremarkably random, proposition “A” seems fairly unlikely. Assuming humans evolved like other forms

of life into our present state due to natural selection , then there's really nothing all that mystical, special or
remarkable about our development as a species either. Due to the shear numbers, there are almost certainly other planets capable of
supporting at least some form of life. If that is so, then for Earthlings to be the very first species ever to make a noticeable mark on the universe, from a statistical perspective, is
If potentially thousands, or even millions of advanced
incredibly unlikely. For proposition “B” to be correct would defy all logic.

extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the known universe, then why would all of them, without exception,
choose to expand or exist in such a way that they are completely undetectable? It’s conceivable that some might, or
perhaps even the majority, but for all of them to be completely undetectable civilizations does not seem likely either. Proposition C in some ways, appears to be more likely than
A or B. If “survival of the fittest” follows similar pathways on other worlds, then our own “civilized” nature could be somewhat typical of extraterrestrial civilizations that have, or
do, exist. Somehow, we all get to the point where we end up killing ourselves in a natural course of technological development and thereby self-inflict our own “cosmic
roadblock”.

Drake’s equation is awful – we’ll take out uniqueness for their aff with this card alone

Dvorsky 07 (George, Chairman of the Board at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and is the program director for the Rights of Non-Human
Persons program, May 31, ‘The Drake Equation is Obsolete’, http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2007/05/drake-equation-is-obsolete.html)

I'm surprised how often the Drake Equation is still mentioned when people discuss such things as the
search for extra terrestrial intelligence (SETI), astrobiology and problems like the Fermi Paradox. Fairly recent insights in such fields as
cosmology, astrobiology and various future studies have changed our perception of the cosmos and the ways in which advanced life might develop. Frank Drake's

equation, which he developed back in 1961, leaves much to be desired in terms of what it's supposed to tell us about
both the nature and predominance of extraterrestrial life in our Galaxy . The Drake Equation The Drake equation states that:
where: N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate and: R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy fp is the
fraction of those stars that have planets ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fl is the fraction of the above that actually
go on to develop life at some point fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that
The integers
releases detectable signs of their existence into space L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. Arbitrary at best

that are plugged into this equation are often subject to wide interpretation and can differ significantly from
scientist to scientist. Even the slightest change can result in vastly different answers . Part of the problem
is that our understanding of cosmology and astrobiology is rapidly changing and there is often very little
consensus among specialists as to what the variables might be. Consequently, the Drake formula relies on
'stabs in the dark.' This makes it highly imprecise and unscientific. The margin of error is far beyond what
should be considered acceptable or meaningful. No accounting for cosmological development or time
Another major problem of the Drake Equation is that it does not account for two rather important
variables: cosmological developmental phases and time (see Cirkovic, "The Temporal Aspect of the Drake Equation and SETI"). More
specifically, it does not take into consideration such factors as the age of the Galaxy, the time at which

intelligence first emerged, or the presence of physiochemical variables necessary for the presence of life
(such as metallicity required to form planets). The equation assumes a sort of cosmological uniformity rather than a dynamic

and ever changing universe. For example, the equation asks us to guess the number of Earth-like planets, but it
does not ask us when there were Earth-like planets. And intelligence itself may have been present as long
as 2 to 4.5 billion years ago. The Galaxy's extreme age and the potential for intelligence to have emerged
at disparate points in time leaves an absurdly narrow window for detecting radio signals. The distances and time-
scales in question are mind-boggingly vast. SETI, under its current model, is conducting an incredibly futile search. Detecting ETI's Which leads to the next
problem, that of quantifying the number of radio emitting civilizations. I'm sure that back in the 1960's it made a lot of sense to think of radio capability as a fairly advanced and
time has proven
ubiquitous means of communication, and by consequence, an excellent way to detect the presence and frequency of extraterrestrial civilizations. But

this assumption wrong. Our radio window is quickly closing and it will only be a matter of time before Earth stops transmitting these types of signals -- at least
unintentionally (active SETI is a proactive attempt to contact ETI's with radio signals). Due to this revelation, the entire equation as a means

to both classify and quantify certain types of civilizations becomes quite meaningless and arbitrary. At
best, it's a way of searching for a very narrow class of civilizations under very specific and constrained
conditions.

No Chance of intelligent life – it was a 0.01% chance on earth

Science Daily 08 *** CITING PROFESSOR ANDREW WATSON

(Watson – scientist from U of East Angila, “ What Are The Odds Of Finding Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life?”, 4/16/08,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416110124.htm // Veevz)

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia. A mathematical model produced by Prof
Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth
and it has already been suggested that this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps. Prof Watson, from the School of

Environmental Sciences, takes this idea further by looking at the probability of each of these critical steps occurring

in relation to the life span of Earth, giving an improved mathematical model for the evolution of intelligent life. According to Prof Watson a
limit to evolution is the habitability of Earth, and any other Earth-like planets, which will end as the sun brightens. Solar models predict
that the brightness of the sun is increasing, while temperature models suggest that because of this the future life span of Earth will be ‘only’ about another billion years, a short
The Earth’s biosphere is now in its old age and this has
time compared to the four billion years since life first appeared on the planet. “

implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given
planet,” said Prof Watson. “At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life . If we learned the planet would be
habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life
we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our
was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that

evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.” Prof Watson suggests
the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells,
Complex life is separated from the simplest life
specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language. “

forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less commo n. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much
less common still,” said Prof Watson. His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so
 less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years
the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – . Each step is independent of the other and can
only take place after the previous steps in the sequence have occurred. They tend to be evenly spaced through Earth’s history and this is consistent with some of the major
transitions identified in the evolution of life on Earth.
 Contact Impossible Extension
Alien contact is impossible –

A. Aliens are too comlex – we are like chimpanzee’s trying to understand quantum theory – there
is intelligent life force that we just can’t comprehend because they are invisible and invincible –
they are 6 billion years old and the median age of those civilizations is just greater than the
humans so we could believe they are advanced

B. is the paradox –

Either – They exist and can make themselves known. OR they have existed before us, but
encountered cosmic roadblocks or some major catastrophe that makes them no longer exist OR
they have expanded to hide themselves and make them undetectable by our systems

C. They evolve differently – we cannot know how they will behave or how they will interact with us
– That’s Kazan

We haven’t already made contact

Brin 02 (David Brin Ph.D. in applied physics @ UC San Diego, NASA consultant, "A Contrarian Perspective on Altruism: The Dangers of First Contact,”
http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/brin.pdf September 2002)

A long-held truism maintains that the Earth has been extremely noisy in the radio spectrum, especially since the
end of World War II, with the advent of television broadcasting and continental missile-detection radars. So noisy that any thought of reticence or

patient listening is already moot. If the Galaxy really is a dangerous ‘jungle’, predators have already picked
up “I Love Lucy” – so we might as well shout as loudly as possible , in hope of also meeting the best people out there. This
supposition – which always reeked of rationalization -- has lately been questioned by experts such as Seth Shostak, who calculate that it
would take a very large and carefully-aimed antenna receiver to pick out signs of technology in our solar
system’s emanation-spectrum, from more than a dozen or two light years away . The modulated portions probably stand out
from the background far less than we thought. The sole exception would be deliberately-beamed messages, which pack a lot of signal energy into a narrow beam area.
 Drakes Equation Sucks Extension
Frank’s drake equation sucks

A. The integers substituted are subject to change – drake assumes the rest of the universe is the
same as the milky way – we have discovered that there is no life in the galaxy or in the nearest
galaxy – woops.

B. Doesn’t take into account the age of the galaxy, the time intelligence emerged, or the presence
of life.

Heres ev where drake admits aliens don’t exist –

Cookson 00

(Clive and Victoria, Science Editor and Griffith, US science correspondent at Financial Times, “Our Odyssey ends here: Man’s quest for self-discovery is at a dead-end with
the acceptance that we are alone in space”, Financial Times, December 30, L/N) *** We don’t endorse the ablest language

Yet, since the film was first shown in 1968,scientific opinion has gradually shifted away from the belief in smart aliens. Where
science moves, the public usually follows. This may seem an odd statement, considering the number of recent media reports about extraterrestrial life. Signs of
water on Mars and Europa, a moon of Jupiter, have encouraged speculation about alien creatures. Yet the type
of life astronomers talk about these days is "dumb", not intelligent. The great hope of Nasa's Mars missions is to find evidence of
microbes, living or dead. Martian bacteria would certainly be an important find, but they are a big step down from the little green men of earthlings' imagination. Even

veterans of SETI, as the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence is known, are beginning to sound more sceptical . Frank Drake, chairman of
the SETI Institute in California, has dreamt of discovering life on other planets for 40 years. Every day, he and his colleagues attempt to pick up radio signals from other
"There may be no complex organisms out there," says Drake. "The chances of
planets. Every day, they go home empty-handed.

tool-bearing organisms who could send out a signal are even more remote . There is intelligent life in the oceans, for example, but
the whales and dolphins wouldn't be able to communicate with another planet." Astronomers' growing scepticism about intelligent life on other planets is fuelled partly by
changes in thinking about Darwin's theory of evolution. Kubrick dedicates the first quarter of 2001 to a segment called "The Dawn of Man". The movie explores the
notion that alien intervention 4m years ago transformed apes from vegetarian victims into tool-bearing carnivores, kick-starting their evolution into human beings. While
the film's notion of evolutionary "progress" is vague, Kubrick's Dawn of Man sequence reflects the famous Darwinian idea that apes gradually became more upright and
more intelligent until they turned into modern homo sapiens. This view allows humans to see themselves at the pinnacle of the evolutionary tree - so far. Who knows
what kind of superior beings may lie on the evolutionary path ahead? Just a few years after the movie's debut, however, a new twist on Darwinism radically altered this
view. In 1972 palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge developed the theory of "punctuated equilibria", according to which the most
. Research in geology and palaeontology since then has
important evolutionary changes are not a gradual progression but radical and swift

emphasised the random nature of such biological shifts. Species are formed not by the movement to greatness
but by a series of "accidents". If the evolutionary tape were to be rewound a thousand times, nothing like
human beings would appear again . Had the dinosaurs not been wiped out by a cataclysmic event, mammals would have been a mere footnote in the
evolutionary bible. And if human beings are merely an "accident " - a small twig on the evolutionary tree, as Gould likes to say - then the

likelihood that creatures like ourselves would exist on other planets seems very remote indeed. At the same time,
some astronomers say the conditions in which intelligent life evolved on Earth are extra-ordinary enough to
make it likely that we are alone in our galaxy, if not in the universe . In their influential book Rare Earth (Springer, Pounds 17), Peter
Ward and Donald Brownlee of the University of Washington list the factors that make Earth so special: Its distance from the sun has ensured the existence of liquid
water for 3.5bn years. It has the right mass to retain atmosphere and oceans. Plate tectonics built land masses. Jupiter, its giant neighbour, has protected Earth from too
many life-extinguishing collisions with asteroids and comets, while allowing a few to punctuate the evolutionary equili-brium. Its orbit around the sun is stable. There is
enough carbon to support life but not to allow runaway greenhouse heating. Radiation levels promote genetic change without causing lethal damage.
 Science Consensus Extension
Scientific consensus is on our side – no intelligent life beyond earth
Financial Times 00
(Clive Cookson and Victoria Griffith, “Our Odyssey ends here: Man’s quest for self-discovery is at a dead-end with the acceptance that we are alone in space”, December 30,
Lexis)

Yet, since the film was first shown in 1968,scientific opinion has gradually shifted away from the belief in smart aliens . Where
science moves, the public usually follows. This may seem an odd statement, considering the number of recent media reports about extraterrestrial life. Signs of water on
Mars and Europa, a moon of Jupiter, have encouraged speculation about alien creatures. Yet the type of life astronomers talk about these days
is "dumb", not intelligent. The great hope of Nasa's Mars missions is to find evidence of microbes, living or dead. Martian bacteria would certainly be an
important find, but they are a big step down from the little green men of earthlings' imagination. Even veterans of SETI, as the Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence is known, are beginning to sound more sceptical . Frank Drake, chairman of the SETI Institute in California, has dreamt of discovering
life on other planets for 40 years. Every day, he and his colleagues attempt to pick up radio signals from other planets. Every day, they go home empty-handed.
"There may be no complex organisms out there ," says Drake. "The chances of tool-bearing organisms who could send out a signal are even more
remote. There is intelligent life in the oceans, for example, but the whales and dolphins wouldn't be able to communicate with another planet." Astronomers'
growing scepticism about intelligent life on other planets is fuelled partly by changes in thinking about Darwin's theory of
evolution. Kubrick dedicates the first quarter of 2001 to a segment called "The Dawn of Man". The movie explores the notion that alien intervention 4m years ago
transformed apes from vegetarian victims into tool-bearing carnivores, kick-starting their evolution into human beings. While the film's notion of evolutionary
"progress" is vague, Kubrick's Dawn of Man sequence reflects the famous Darwinian idea that apes gradually became more upright and more intelligent until they
turned into modern homo sapiens. This view allows humans to see themselves at the pinnacle of the evolutionary tree - so far. Who knows what kind of superior beings
may lie on the evolutionary path ahead? Just a few years after the movie's debut, however, a new twist on Darwinism radically altered this view. In 1972 palaeontologist
Stephen Jay Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge developed the theory of "punctuated equilibria", according to which
the most important evolutionary changes are not a gradual progression but radical and swift. Research in geology and
palaeontology since then has emphasised the random nature of such biological shifts. Species are formed not by the movement to greatness
but by a series of "accidents". If the evolutionary tape were to be rewound a thousand times, nothing like
human beings would appear again. Had the dinosaurs not been wiped out by a cataclysmic event, mammals would have been a mere footnote in the
evolutionary bible. And if human beings are merely an "accident" - a small twig on the evolutionary tree, as Gould likes to say - then the likelihood that creatures like
At the same time, some astronomers say the conditions in which
ourselves would exist on other planets seems very remote indeed.
intelligent life evolved on Earth are extra-ordinary enough to make it likely that we are alone in our galaxy, if
not in the universe. In their influential book Rare Earth (Springer, Pounds 17), Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee of the University of
Washington list the factors that make Earth so special: Its distance from the sun has ensured the existence of
liquid water for 3.5bn years. It has the right mass to retain atmosphere and oceans. Plate tectonics built land
masses. Jupiter, its giant neighbour, has protected Earth from too many life-extinguishing collisions with asteroids
and comets, while allowing a few to punctuate the evolutionary equili-brium. Its orbit around the sun is stable.
There is enough carbon to support life but not to allow runaway greenhouse heating. Radiation levels promote
genetic change without causing lethal damage.
 No Real Evidence
No actual evidence that aliens are real exist

Oak NO DATE
(Manali, software engineer, Is There Any Proof That Aliens are Real?,http://www.buzzle.com/articles/is-there-any-proof-that-aliens-are-real.html)

Aliens have often been in the news. They have always been surrounded by mystery and interest of people all around the world. People have claimed to have been abducted by
aliens. Some have claimed to have actually seen them. You might find it interesting to browse through some alien abduction stories. But there has
been no conclusive evidence for the idea that aliens exist. Is there a proof that aliens are real? Aliens sightings have mostly involved
sights of ape-like creatures or humanoid figures seen in the dark. At times, people have found blood or hair at the locations where aliens were sighted. But there is a high

probability that these sightings were of bears or apes. Possibly, people mistook bears or apes as aliens. Alien sightings could
have probably been a result of human imagination accompanied by fear. Media has always portrayed aliens as having humanoid
figures traveling in disk-shaped vehicles. Aliens have since long been depicted in films. The media image of aliens has perhaps stressed in the minds of the common masses. It
has media been able to produce a
makes them believe in the reality of aliens. Aliens portrayed in literature have always influenced young minds. But

proof of alien existence? Probably, not! Aliens’ sightings have mostly been accompanied by sightings of light in the night sky. People who claim to have seen
aliens have claimed to have seen mysterious lights in the sky. Some of them have also believed that the lights came from the spaceships used by the aliens. Disk-like objects
traveling across the sky have often been taken as aliens' vehicles. People have seen certain unidentified objects floating in the sky and called them aliens. Researchers say that
Unless, the aliens come to Earth and interact with us,
some of these sightings might have been a result of certain astronomical phenomena.

we may not be able to say for sure that aliens are real. Don't you think so?
Nuke Malthus Answers
 Frontline
NUCLEAR WAR IS NOT ENOUGH – WE NEED S SINGLE UNIFIED WORLD GOVERNMENT POST
THE CONFLICT TO AVOID ANOTHER GLOBAL MELTDOWN.

CALDWELL 00. [Joseph George, The author of this book has a career that includes both military defense analysis and economic development. He worked for about fifteen years in defense
applications and about fifteen years in social and economic applications. His work in military applications includes ballistic missile warfare, nuclear weapons effects, satellite ocean surveillance, naval general-
purpose forces, tactical air warfare, air/land battle tactics, strategy, civil defense, military communications-electronics, and electronic warfare. His work in social and ecnomic development applications includes tax
policy analysis, agricultural policy analysis, trade policy analysis, health, human resource development, demography, development of systems for planning, monitoring and evaluation of social and economic
programs, and educational management information systems. He has lived and worked in countries around the world. He holds a PhD degree in mathematical statistics and is an expert in mathematical game
theory, statistics, operations research, and systems and software engineering. The analysis presented in this book is derived from years of experience related to, and years of analysis of, the population problem
– this is taken from the text.] Can America Survive? Vista Research Corporation. P. http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm. RS

As discussed earlier, it is now an easy matter for any motivated group to assemble an atomic bomb. It is
just a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used, either in a formally declared war or in a “terrorist”
attack.

What would be accomplished by a nuclear war? If the planet continues to be governed by scores or
hundreds of countries after the war, nothing will have changed. Mankind will simply rebuild its destroyed
cities, and human population and industrial activity will continue as before. The ultimate size of the
population will be no more affected than it was by the “black plague,” that killed a third of Europe’s
population in the middle ages – the population quickly rebounded, and soared even higher as though
nothing had happened.

A nuclear war – small or large – will by itself accomplish nothing. It will not solve the population problem
at all. If, however, the result of a nuclear war were the replacement of 229 world governments by a single
world government, there could be some hope of solving the problem. In this case, it would be feasible to
achieve the minimal-regret population discussed in the preceding chapter.
THE PROBLEM ISN’T THE POSSIBILITY THAT NUKE WAR WILL HAPPEN, IT IS WHAT TO DO
WHEN IT HITS. WHEN IT HITS, WE WILL START OVERPOPULATING AGAIN. ONLY THE MINIMAL-
REGRETS STRATEGY CAN SAVE THE PLANETS ECOLOGY ENSURING PLANETARY SURVIVAL

CALDWELL 00. [Joseph George, The author of this book has a career that includes both military defense analysis and economic development. He worked for about fifteen years in defense
applications and about fifteen years in social and economic applications. His work in military applications includes ballistic missile warfare, nuclear weapons effects, satellite ocean surveillance, naval general-
purpose forces, tactical air warfare, air/land battle tactics, strategy, civil defense, military communications-electronics, and electronic warfare. His work in social and ecnomic development applications includes tax
policy analysis, agricultural policy analysis, trade policy analysis, health, human resource development, demography, development of systems for planning, monitoring and evaluation of social and economic
programs, and educational management information systems. He has lived and worked in countries around the world. He holds a PhD degree in mathematical statistics and is an expert in mathematical game
theory, statistics, operations research, and systems and software engineering. The analysis presented in this book is derived from years of experience related to, and years of analysis of, the population problem
– this is taken from the text.] Can America Survive? Vista Research Corporation. P. http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm. RS

At the risk of belaboring a point, I wish to explicitly state that I am not advocating or promoting a nuclear
war to solve the “population problem.” Rather, I believe that nuclear war is inevitable, and that in the
context of the new (post-Cold War) world order, it is likely to happen soon. The key issue to address is
what to do when it happens. When it does happen, the human population may return to “business as
usual,” proceed to overpopulate the world again, end up in the same situation as it finds itself today, and
have another global war. (Note that it will not at all be “business as usual” after the war, because
mankind has now used up most of the fossil fuels and easy-to-extract minerals. The next cycle, taking
place in an energy-poor, resource-poor environment, will be hard times on planet Earth.) The minimal-
regret population policy represents one strategy for breaking out of this cycle. If it is implemented, the
planet’s ecology will be saved and the human population, at a modest size that exists in harmony with the
rest of the biosphere, will have the time to figure out what its purpose is and develop a long-range survival
plan. Note that, by having identified the minimal-regret attack strategy (in this book), it is indeed possible
that the chance that a “rogue nation” or other group may adopt it as the attack strategy when it initiates a
nuclear war. I have no problem with this. In my view, if nuclear war is inevitable, the issue of which
nuclear war strategy is “best” (or at least preferable) must be addressed, and the issue of what to do in
the postattack context must be addressed. When nuclear war happens, I would prefer that the attacker
choose the minimal-regret strategy over an alternative strategy that does not have a low likelihood of
planetary destruction.
NUCLEAR WAR IS A HIGHLY IMPROBABLE SOLUTION FOR THE POPULATION CRISIS

CALDWELL, 2003. [Joseph George, The author of this book has a career that includes both military defense analysis and economic development. He worked for about fifteen years in
defense applications and about fifteen years in social and economic applications. His work in military applications includes ballistic missile warfare, nuclear weapons effects, satellite ocean surveillance, naval
general-purpose forces, tactical air warfare, air/land battle tactics, strategy, civil defense, military communications-electronics, and electronic warfare. His work in social and economic development applications
includes tax policy analysis, agricultural policy analysis, trade policy analysis, health, human resource development, demography, development of systems for planning, monitoring and evaluation of social and
economic programs, and educational management information systems. He has lived and worked in countries around the world. He holds a PhD degree in mathematical statistics and is an expert in
mathematical game theory, statistics, operations research, and systems and software engineering. The analysis presented in this book is derived from years of experience related to, and years of analysis of, the
population problem – this is taken from the text Can America Survive?] © 2004 Joseph George Caldwell. All rights reserved. Posted at Internet web sites http://www.foundation.bw and
http://www.foundationwebsite.org. May be copied or reposted for non-commercial use, with attribution. (6 June 2003). Handbook of Planetary Management. RS

Some see a solution by means of war. Because of all of the problems being caused by mass
industrialization, the likelihood of occurrence of global war and the magnitude of its consequences are
increasing. The main problem with war as an approach to solving the world’s current ecological problem
is that the very people who would win are the ones in favor of global industrialization! As long as most
people believe that industrial activity is the solution to the world’s problems, and that more is better, the
survivors of a collapsed industrial world would simply rebuild industrial society, and the ecological
destruction of the planet would resume. It does not seem likely that violence is a solution to the world’s
ecological problem. Too many people are committed to large human population and global
industrialization. If a small number of people tried to bring an end to this current world paradigm by force,
they would almost certainly fail. Furthermore, a small group of people cannot control a large population
against its will for very long. Global war will likely occur as part of the demise of the global industrial age,
but it is largely irrelevant as a means of establishing or maintaining a long-term-sustainable system of
planetary management.