Global Nuclear War is Good

Pro is arguing that "Global Nuclear War is Good." I feel that we must define "Good". Since Pro has not done so explicitly, I will derive the definition from both his/her arguments/sources and my own: Good - characterized by positives outweighing negativesThis is all such that the argument can be restated "Widespread destruction caused by nuclear weapons will have effects wherein the positives outweigh the negatives." I will first use some arguments and sources of my own to counter this stance and then break down each of his/hers. I will begin by discussing the negative effects of nuclear fallout on remaining human life. Surely, even if Pro feels that population reduction isn't negative, or in fact is a positive, the well-being of those remaining should be considered. ("After a nuclear war mankind will simply "pick up the pieces" and start to all over again." as Pro says). Furthermore, I will later show that Pro's own source states that they do not advocate nuclear war nor feel it will have a positive effect.1) Effects on Human Health - Larger bombs can flatten cities. Many if not most people within the blast radius — which can be up to 10 miles — would die instantly. Those who survived would wish they hadn’t, since most would die later of severe burns or awful cancers. Radioactive fallout from these weapons’ debris clouds would reach the stratosphere, where it would travel worldwide, potentially contaminating crops and livestock as well as causing radiation sickness and cancer directly. Later, this fallout would cause genetic mutations in plants, animals and human beings, as it has in the vicinity of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Nuclear explosions would also cause immense fires. The smoke from burning buildings, oil and gas fields, refineries, chemical factories, and industrial facilities would be highly toxic. Forest fires would engulf large areas. These effects would destroy more property and kill more people. (Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies - https://goo.gl...).2) Effects on All Creatures - Nuclear bombs release what’s called ionizing radiation, says Steve Simon, a radiation health physicist at the National Cancer Institute. “So these gamma rays are a lot like X-rays but they're much more powerful, much more energetic,” he adds, explaining that gamma rays can knock electrons out of atoms in our bones, skin and any materials they pass through. “It's actually those electrons that do the damage to the cells of the body, it's not the gamma rays directly.” Nuclear fallout can also enter our bodies through the food we eat, he says. “So it's not the radiation that contaminates the plants, but it is the fallout material, it's the debris, it's this radioactive material. Once it enters the food chain, then it can travel. It can go through the food chain in steps, it can be diluted or can be concentrated, depending on the kind of food, and eventually can be consumed by man or animals.” (PRI - https://goo.gl...)3) Effects on Climate - An exchange involving just 50 nuclear weapons — the kind of thing we might see in an India-Pakistan war, for example — could loft 5 billion kilograms of smoke, soot and dust high into the stratosphere. That’s enough to cool the entire planet by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit — about where we were during the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. Growing seasons could be shortened enough to create really significant food shortages. (Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies - https://goo.gl...)4) Using the India-Pakistan Exchange as Example Five megatons of black carbon enter the atmosphere immediately. Black carbon comes from burned stuff and it absorbs heat from the sun before it can reach the Earth. Some black carbon does eventually falls back to Earth in rain. After one year, the average surface temperature of the Earth falls by 1.1 kelvin, or about two degrees Fahrenheit. After five years, the Earth is, on average, three degrees colder than it used to be. Twenty years on, our home planet warms again to about one degree cooler than the average before the nuclear war. Earth's falling temperatures reduces the amount of rain the planet receives. Year five after the war, Earth will have 9 percent less rain than usual. Year 26 after the war, Earth gets 4.5 percent less rain than before the war. In years 2-6 after the war, the frost-free growing season for crops is shortened by 10 to 40 days, depending on the region. Chemical reactions in the atmosphere eat away Earth's ozone layer, which protects Earth's inhabitants from ultraviolet radiation. In the five years after the war, the ozone is 20 to 25 percent thinner, on average. Ten years on, the ozone layer has recovered so that it's now 8 percent thinner. (Pop Sci - https://goo.gl...)5) Damage to Cities - In the absence of warning and any subsequent evacuation, about 125 million people would be caught within the 2-psi circles (geographic areas which sustain a blast overpressure of 2 pounds per square inch); nearly 58 million would be inside the 15-psi region (Haaland et al., 1976; p. 20). In preparing the scenario, defense planners anticipated the delivery of 843 1-Mt warheads. It is estimated that each ground burst would leave a crater 1,000 feet (about 305 m) in diameter and 200 feet (about 61 m) deep. All structures from the point of detonation to a distance of 0.6 miles (about 1 km) would be leveled. Within the band between 1.7 and 2.7 miles (about 2.7 and 4.3 km) (5 psi) only skeletal remains of commercial and residential multistory structures would be observed. The 2-psi circle, characterized by moderately damaged structures (cracked load-bearing walls, windowless, contents blown into the streets), would reach 4.7 miles (about 7.6 km) (Office of Technology Assessment, 1979; pp. 27-31). (NCBI, Hal Cochrane, PH.D., and Dennis Mileti, PH.D. - https://goo.gl...)6) Effects on Agriculture/Ozone Layer - A year after the bombs hit, some of the process put in motion by our contaminated atmosphere will start to tear a hole in the ozone layer. This will be devastating. Even with a small nuclear war that uses only 0.03 percent of the world’s arsenal, we can expect up to 50 percent of the ozone layer to be destroyed. The world will be devastated by UV rays. Plants will die around the world, and the living things that survive will struggle through crippling mutations of their DNA. Even the most resilient crops will become weaker, smaller, and far less likely to reproduce.[5]So when the sky clears and the world warms up once more, growing food will be an incredibly difficult chore. Whole fields will die when people try to grow food, and farmers who stay out in the Sun long enough to plant crops will die painful deaths from skin cancer. (Mark Oliver, Listverse - https://goo.gl...) Now for Pro's arguments: In conclusion, I feel I have shown not only that the negatives of nuclear war outweigh the positives, but that Pro's sources do not support his/her claims.