Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re:Expertise:Nuclear War Casualties
Message-ID: <372@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 12:21:06 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.372
Posted: Wed Nov 28 12:21:06 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Nov-84 04:10:21 EST
References: <328@whuxl.UUCP> <5000116@uokvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 22

> kurt writes:
> Um, I think that Jeff was referring to surviving the initial prompt radiation
> (and, I guess, fallout--if any).  That's a lot different than blast.  Blast
> protection probably requires some sort of special protective construction.
> 
> But I don't understand how our planet will necessarily be destroyed.  For
> some reason, you seem to lump terms like "nuclear war" with "total annihil-
> ation of the earth."  Why?  Detonations of several endo-atmospheric weapons
> didn't halt life on earth...I think... :-)
> 

There would be quite a difference between two atomic bombs and 50,000
bombs don't you think, Kurt?  Also the bombs dropped on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki were miniscule in comparison to those we have now. Both sides
possess 1 1/2 million times the destructive power of those bombs.
I think the consequences of that are quite threatening to all life on earth.
As I pointed out in an earlier article, just the radioactive fallout from
controlled atomic tests has spread radioisotopes all over the planet--
including Antartica.  We all have strontium-90 in our bones from those
atmospheric tests.  What would be the ecological effects of 50,000 bombs
 
tim sevener whuxl!orb