As for nuclear winter, that was pretty much debunked back in 1986, so in a way Testament was correct:
"Two researchers, Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider, debunked the nuclear winter hypothesis in the summer 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs. Thompson and Schneider stated: "the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of probability."
Like it or not, the premise of the film was that some places would be unaffected by direct blast effect, but everyone would die anyway.
Maybe it was realistic -- maybe some portions of humanity will not go out with a bang, but with a whimper.
"A learning experience is something that says, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that."
reply
share
mark_lucas
13 years ago
I'm no expert on mutually assured destruction but I'm fairly confident with the worlds arsenal, a nuclear winter seems like a realistic possibility. Thank you for the info, I'll check it out
reply
share
Chien_Noir
13 years ago
From this info here (http://www.wnd.com/1999/05/6341/) I'm thinking nuclear winter would be a distinct possibility in an island nation like the UK. United States, not so much. It would depend on the number of weapons, the time of year the blasts occurred, and whether they were air or ground bursts. Seems to me if you wanted to wreck a country, it would make sense to forego the city-busting altogether, use EMP weapons and destroy everyone's electronic capabilities for a while. You could destroy billions of dollars worth of electronics with weapons worth at most a few million.
_____________
A learning experience is something that says, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that."
reply
share