Which is the greater threat, global warming or nuclear Armageddon?

[kristopher]

Have you ever been confronted with someone trying to decide (or trying to make you decide) that question? I see it frequently on the internet and I'm always struck by the mindset that sees a distinction between 1 and 2 as being a point of significance. Does anything justify trying to minimize the real importance of the other?

"Nuclear Disorder: Surveying Atomic Threats"

Journal Article, Foreign Affairs, volume 89, issue 1, pages 74-85
January/February 2010

Author: Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government; Faculty Chair, Dubai Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School

Summary:
- Could the current global nuclear order be as fragile today as the financial order was two years ago when conventional wisdom declared it sound, stable, and resilient?
...
- In President Obama's words, "The next twelve months could be pivotal in determining whether the nonproliferation regime will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve."(1st & 3rd of 4 bullet points in summary - K)

<snip>

In 2004, the secretary-general of the UN created a panel to review future threats to international peace and security. It identified nuclear Armageddon as the prime threat, warning, "We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the nonproliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation. " Developments since 2004 have only magnified the risks of an irreversible cascade.

<snip>

Henry Kissinger has noted that the defining challenge for statesmen is to recognize "a change in the international environment so likely to undermine a nation's security that it must be resisted no matter what form the threat takes or how ostensibly legitimate it appears. " The collapse of the existing nuclear order would constitute just such a change -- and the consequences would make nuclear terrorism and nuclear war so imminent that prudent statesmen must do everything feasible to prevent it....

How can it matter to any issue which of two acknowledged Armegeddons is "a greater threat"? If AGW is a "greater threat" does it mean we should worry less about nuclear weapons? If nuclear war is a "greater threat" does it mean we do not try as hard to reduce GHG emissions? In both cases the answer is "of course not".
http://live.belfercenter.org/publication/19819/nuclear_disorder.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F144%2Fhenry_lee





Direct to PDF of full article behind graph here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

[Keith Bee]

1. Neither! It's the UNIONS!

:sarcasm:

[cliffordu]

2. Well....

A nuclear Armageddon IS global warming, in a hurry, right??

[Drale]

3. I think a nuclear armageddon would bring on nuclear winter

In fact there was a report a few months ago that said a small nuclear war could reverse climate change.

[cliffordu]

4. Well, shit, we need one of those RIGHT NOW!!!

[kristopher]

5. Only in the short term.

Incinerating cities produces carbon emissions.

[Drale]

6. This is going to sound really horrible but

wouldn't getting rid of some cities reduce carbon emissions?

[kristopher]

7. Given past trends related to war and population growth the answer is probably

...no.

War is not thought to deter population growth.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. if a tree falls in the woods.... err.... if the climate changed and there was no living

being left on the planet .......

[Keith Bee]

12. Cutting out the middleman, cliffordu

;-)

[BillyJack]

9. Vote Fraud. eom

Election fraud vs. voter fraud.....I'm sooo confused as to what's the difference.
But I at least understand that it is important to understand.

[underpants]

10. The Pentagon has issued at least 3 reports saying that global warming is a greater threat

than terrorism

2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/pentagon-ranks-global-warming-destabilising-force

2004
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism


2009
Pentagon, CIA Eye New Threat: Climate Change
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495

[kristopher]

13. Terrorism is only one aspect of the nuclear weapons threat.

The piece from the Belfer Center does a good job of weaving the terrorism threat into the much larger picture of the consequences to global culture that failure to control proliferation represents.

The idea of one being worse than the other is like trying to decide if death by drowning is worse than being hung.

[Initech]

11. Xtian fundamentalists controlling all 3 branches of government.

They could potentially unleash both to the extremes. :scared: