The Forgotten Nightmare: Nuclear Winter, Global Cooling and Universal Radioactive Fallout. More fingers on more genocide-buttons
While global warming dominates the headlines a more urgent danger threatens life on earth. Global warming could make the planet uninhabitable by the end of the century. Global cooling – the “Nuclear Winter” that would follow nuclear war – could achieve the same result in days or weeks.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union a disturbing complacency has set in. It is as if the threat imposed on us all by the hair-trigger readiness of thousands of intercontinental nuclear-armed missiles no longer exists. Perhaps this is understandable with the political and media discussion of the issue focussed almost entirely on the potential danger posed by non-state terrorism and so-called “rogue” states.
The selective finger pointing, fear mongering and drum beating only serves to distract attention from the chilling reality: the US and Russia still possess 97% of the world’s nuclear weapons and neither has any genuine commitment to nuclear disarmament. It is they and the other 7 established nuclear weapon states that pose the greatest threat to humanity and all other species on the planet.
If even a tiny fraction of the world’s nuclear arsenal were unleashed catastrophic climate change would follow. For example, a “small” nuclear war employing 100 bombs of the size that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki would pour millions of tons of smoke into the stratosphere. The smoke would come from the raging firestorms consuming cities, industries, neighbourhoods and people. As the smoke spread around the globe it would reduce the sunlight and destroy much of the protective ozone layer. Temperatures would drop and food production would plunge due to shortened growing seasons. Hundreds of millions of people, possibly a billion, would starve to death. [1] Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 100 times Hiroshima. (3) And this can quite accurately be described as a “small” conflict because it would be equivalent to less than half of 1% of the explosive power of US and Russian high-alert nuclear weapons. [2] That figure bears repeating: less than half of 1%.
A large conflict involving all of the Russian and US high-alert nuclear weapons would pour 50 million tons of smoke into the stratosphere, blocking the sunlight and dropping global temperatures by 4°C. [1] Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 79,000 times Hiroshima. (4)
Now consider a war involving the entire world operational nuclear arsenal. Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 177,000 times Hiroshima. (5) 150 million tons of smoke would rise into the stratosphere enveloping the planet, absorbing the sunlight, reducing global temperatures by 8°C; creating another Ice Age.
Climate change from global cooling would occur not in decades or years but in weeks or days. Survivors would have no time to adapt. [1] Until they died off from the lethal radioactive fallout they would be left with razed cities, destroyed infrastructure, horrific injuries, birth deformations, cancers, disease epidemics and mass starvation. Perhaps the tens of millions or hundreds of millions instantly vapourised or incinerated would be the lucky ones.
The potential for a catastrophic mistake is enormous, particularly in the case of a suspected submarine launched attack. Russian and US “Launch on Warning” systems” would give their presidents only 2 to 3 minutes to decide whether or not to retaliate. [6] Typical warheads have 20 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Typical nuclear missiles carry 8 or more of these independently programmed to destroy multiple targets. Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 160 times Hiroshima – from one missile.
With this spectre hovering over humanity it is difficult to understand how anyone, least of all an environmental luminary like James Lovelock, could advocate nuclear power as a solution to global warming. [7] This solution sidesteps the health, environmental and security dangers associated with building and operating at least a thousand nuclear reactors; the increased environmental and security risks associated with mining, transportation, processing and storage of vastly increased quantities of uranium and deadly radioactive waste; and the fact that high grade, low cost uranium deposits consumed even at the present rate will be exhausted in fifty years. [8]
More importantly, it overlooks the enormous danger posed by more leaders of more nuclear weapons states (that would inevitably emerge) with their fingers on more doomsday buttons. While there are nuclear reactors, there will be nuclear weapons. While “peace-loving” countries like Australia mine and export uranium they are complicit in keeping the world on the brink of nuclear annihilation.
Here in Australia, advocates of uranium mining and export claim that this gives us a more credible voice in the world arena than we would otherwise have. They say our position as the largest source of uranium and the second largest exporter after Canada makes us more effective in preventing nuclear proliferation than we would otherwise be. In other words, by selling the stuff from which nuclear weapons are made, we are helping to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
This absurd reasoning extends to the so-called “safeguard” agreements – essentially book-keeping entries – that supposedly track every morsel of “Australian Obligated” uranium during its travels around the world, including its reprocessing and on-selling. We can rest assured that Australian uranium won’t be used to make nuclear weapons – or free up other uranium for that purpose – because we say it can’t and the buyer nations say it won’t.
History tells a different story. Of about 60 countries that have nuclear power or research reactors more than 20 have used their “peaceful” facilities for covert nuclear weapons research or production or both. India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and North Korea have all developed nuclear weapons under cover of “peaceful” nuclear programs. Other countries have made considerable progress before ending their programs. (South Africa is the only state to eliminate its nuclear weapons.) [8]
Egypt, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Romania, South Korea, Taiwan, and the former Yugoslavia, all signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), have violated their agreements by conducting forbidden weapons-related activities or not meeting their reporting requirements to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). [8]
North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty; India, Pakistan and Israel were never members. The “declared” nuclear weapons states – the US, Russia, the UK, France and China – have all violated their NTP obligations and shown by their actions that they have no intention of abandoning their nuclear superiority. [8]
The belligerence and blatant double standards demonstrated by the “big five,” who also hold the five permanent seats and veto power on the UN Security Council, provides motivation and “justification” for other states – some repeatedly threatened with attack, including nuclear attack (“all options are on the table”) – to develop a nuclear “deterrent” of their own. “Peaceful” nuclear programs are the obvious way for them to develop the necessary expertise and facilities and to acquire the technology and essential raw material: uranium.
Five years ago Australia’s uranium exports had already produced about 80 tonnes of plutonium – enough for 8,000 nuclear bombs. The Beverly Four Mile mine in South Australia recently approved by the current government has the capacity to produce enough plutonium for 4,500 more. [9]
It seems the straight-faced hypocrisy of successive Australian governments is boundless: joining in the vilification of the latest designated nuclear “rogue” states, worrying over nuclear terrorism and mouthing non-proliferation platitudes on the one hand while allowing exports of the raw material for nuclear proliferation on the other. If Australia were sincere it would leave its uranium in the ground.
In December, representatives from about 170 countries will meet in Copenhagen to negotiate an international agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. Hopefully, amidst the media circus and political theatre they will commit to the carbon emission reductions necessary to prevent catastrophic global warming.
Hopefully, too, the world will awake from its nuclear slumber in time to prevent the other climate change nightmare: global cooling.
[1] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/index2.php
[2] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/globalnucleararsenal/usrussianhighalert/
(3) Hiroshima yield 15,000 tons x 100 = 1.5 million tons
(4) [2] Yield 960 million tons/15,000 tons
(5) [2] yield 2,225 million tons/15,000 tons
[6] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/highalert/launchonwarning/
[7] http://www.jameslovelock.org/page11.html
[8] Climate Change: Nukes No Solution
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/nuclear-climate/
[9] Arena Magazine, August/September 2009
Robin Davis lives in Victoria, Australia. He is a freelance writer and graphic designer. He can be contacted at: robindavis@hotkey.net.au
Hiroshima Day – August 6th – We All Know About Nuclear Danger Yet The Clock Is At 5 Minutes To Midnight? What Are We Doing?
At 8:15 am on August 6 1945, 140,000 men, women and children were incinerated by a bomb dropped by the United States of America on the city of Hiroshima. The bomb, the first nuclear weapon to be detonated in an act of aggression – the second and only other being Nagasaki a few days later – was known as “Little Boy” detonated with the explosive force of 13 kilotons of TNT.
Many were vaporized instantly by the blast, others, less lucky – the “walking charred” – died painful deaths from leukaemia and other radiation illnesses.
Some died of poisoning from drinking the irradiated river water to quench their searing thirst.
Everytime this topic is brought up it is guaranteed to generate a war of words on whether or not the United States was justified in using these bombs on a civilian target.
But that empty argument fails to do justice to the stark reality that this event occurred and must never be allowed to happen again.
Whether one supports the peaceful use of nuclear fission or not, the use of weapons of mass destruction – of any nuclear device in war as a weapon – is inhumane. It is genocide.
Nuclear weapons brought the world to the brink of disaster between 1945 and the early 1990’s. The imminent threat and reality of nuclear war has hung over the heads of several generations of people worldwide.
But what have we learned? We’ve learned over the years of the Cold War that:
- Talk is cheap.
- There are two types of fear. Fear of these weapons being used and fear of not being able to use them.
- They provide no valid solution to conflict.
Albert Einstein famously said:
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Public awareness of nuclear issues is much higher today than in the 1940’s and even 1950’s. Most understand a nuclear conflict is unwinnable as, once begun, it must escalate into global thermonuclear war. Yet the Doomsday clock – run by the “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists” since 1947 – shows right now – 5 minutes to midnight.
The history of this clock is worth reproducing, the original historical “times” of their clock can be found on their website here – Click Here – along with their rationale for the settings listed below. It’s essential reading. As you’ll see from the timeline we are not currently at an all time “close to midnight” but we are, despite the assumption that the end of the Cold War meant the end of the threat – higher than at many other times and dangerously close regardless.
2007: The world stands at the brink of a second nuclear age. The United States and Russia remain ready to stage a nuclear attack within minutes, North Korea conducts a nuclear test, and many in the international community worry that Iran plans to acquire the Bomb. Climate change also presents a dire challenge to humanity. Damage to ecosystems is already taking place; flooding, destructive storms, increased drought, and polar ice melt are causing loss of life and property.
2002: Concerns regarding a nuclear terrorist attack underscore the enormous amount of unsecured–and sometimes unaccounted for–weapon-grade nuclear materials located throughout the world. Meanwhile, the United States expresses a desire to design new nuclear weapons, with an emphasis on those able to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets. It also rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces it will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
1998: India and Pakistan stage nuclear weapons tests only three weeks apart. “The tests are a symptom of the failure of the international community to fully commit itself to control the spread of nuclear weapons–and to work toward substantial reductions in the numbers of these weapons,” a dismayed Bulletin reports. Russia and the United States continue to serve as poor examples to the rest of the world. Together, they still maintain 7,000 warheads ready to fire at each other within 15 minutes.
1995: Hopes for a large post-Cold War peace dividend and a renouncing of nuclear weapons fade. Particularly in the United States, hard-liners seem reluctant to soften their rhetoric or actions, as they claim that a resurgent Russia could provide as much of a threat as the Soviet Union. Such talk slows the rollback in global nuclear forces; more than 40,000 nuclear weapons remain worldwide. There is also concern that terrorists could exploit poorly secured nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union.
1991: With the Cold War officially over, the United States and Russia begin making deep cuts to their nuclear arsenals. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty greatly reduces the number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by the two former adversaries. Better still, a series of unilateral initiatives remove most of the intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers in both countries from hair-trigger alert. “The illusion that tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are a guarantor of national security has been stripped away,” the Bulletin declares.
1990: As one Eastern European country after another (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania) frees itself from Soviet control, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev refuses to intervene, halting the ideological battle for Europe and significantly diminishing the risk of all-out nuclear war. In late 1989, the Berlin Wall falls, symbolically ending the Cold War. “Forty-four years after Winston Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech, the myth of monolithic communism has been shattered for all to see,” the Bulletin proclaims.
1988: The United States and Soviet Union sign the historic Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the first agreement to actually ban a whole category of nuclear weapons. The leadership shown by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev makes the treaty a reality, but public opposition to U.S. nuclear weapons in Western Europe inspires it. For years, such intermediate-range missiles had kept Western Europe in the crosshairs of the two superpowers.
1984: U.S.-Soviet relations reach their iciest point in decades. Dialogue between the two superpowers virtually stops. “Every channel of communications has been constricted or shut down; every form of contact has been attenuated or cut off. And arms control negotiations have been reduced to a species of propaganda,” a concerned Bulletin informs readers. The United States seems to flout the few arms control agreements in place by seeking an expansive, space-based anti-ballistic missile capability, raising worries that a new arms race will begin.
1981: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan hardens the U.S. nuclear posture. Before he leaves office, President Jimmy Carter pulls the United States from the Olympics Games in Moscow and considers ways in which the United States could win a nuclear war. The rhetoric only intensifies with the election of Ronald Reagan as president. Reagan scraps any talk of arms control and proposes that the best way to end the Cold War is for the United States to win it.
1972: The United States and Soviet Union attempt to curb the race for nuclear superiority by signing the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The two treaties force a nuclear parity of sorts. SALT limits the number of ballistic missile launchers either country can possess, and the ABM Treaty stops an arms race in defensive weaponry from developing.
1953: After much debate, the United States decides to pursue the hydrogen bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any atomic bomb. In October 1952, the United States tests its first thermonuclear device, obliterating a Pacific Ocean islet in the process; nine months later, the Soviets test an H-bomb of their own. “The hands of the Clock of Doom have moved again,” the Bulletin announces. “Only a few more swings of the pendulum, and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization.”Join the worldwide Hiroshima Day rallys on Saturday 8th of August. Click Here For Details
Scott Kane
Werribee rejected Uranium and the nuclear fuel cycle through political action. Reactors leak and genes mutate.
When the Liberals proposed a toxic dump for Werribee, the people were stirred into a massive reaction.
A national boycott was lead by the Democrat senators against CSR, the commercial operator of the proposed dump.
The protest movement culminated in a 15,000 strong meeting at Werribee Racetrack – average mums, dads and kids – joining to deny the government and the profit seeking CSR their plan, which was to be at the cost of the local residents. The civic resistance would have only got bigger if the Liberals hadn’t cut their losses and cancelled the planned toxic dump.
Uranium and radioactive waste from nuclear reactors are far more toxic than the contents of the once planned toxic dump in Werribee.
If 15,000 people protest against the cost to their health and livelihood from chemical waste, imagine how many would be out to stop a fatal government mistake mining Uranium and creating radioactive waste at every point of the fuel cycle. I recall Werribee was mooted as a potential site for a Nuclear Reactor, but the quiet giant of public opinion stirred. The proposal was quickly stilled.
Now, Labor has increased the scale of uranium mining in Australia, and continues to operate 2 nuclear reactors at Lucas Heights.
The more modern reactor was shutdown pending investigation of incidents during its operation.
The older has suffered a number of incidents, no doubt obliging the decision to replace it.
I am convinced that with the appropriate use of particle accelerators, nuclear reactors would no longer be required for nuclear medicines and medical research, the stated justification for keeping the reactors.
Australia is trading the genetic health of generations in return for quick bucks – Is it really worth it??
Australia was once proudly nuclear free, with uranium left safely in the ground. Now we have operating and planned Uranium mines and two sick nuclear reactors. This is NOT progress.
Subscription Options:
Darren Churchill ACT- Media Release: 26th February, 2010: Proposed police powers laws labelled “Draconian” by Democrats
- Media Release: 22nd January 2010: ACT Democrats join Great Australian Internet Blackout.
- Media Release: 20th January 2010: Canberrans must have a guarantee that South Australian Movie Laws won’t be copied by ACT Assembly, say Democrats.
- Media Release: 14th January 2010: Canberrans Need Action Not Words in Opposing Internet Censorship, say Democrats
- Media Release: 02 December: Canberrans Let Down as Humphries Toes Party Line, say Democrats
- Begin Rant – Kathryn Crosby