Global Nuclear War is good

http://www. Scoop. Co. Nz/stories/WO1507/S00150/biosphere-collapse-the-biggest-economic-bubble-ever. Htm The global ecological system is collapsing The biosphere" is having its constituent ecosystems liquidated for resources. Inequitable overconsumption has achieved such momentum that key ecological planetary boundaries have been surpassed, " as human numbers went from one to seven billion in a century " can fairly be characterized as willful ecocide. . B. Nuke War solves Dr. Joseph Caldwell writes in 2010 that poverty, Resource scarcity and overpopulation are mounting pressures that will soon cause a global nuclear war the faster that happens the greater hope to avoid biosphere extinction Posted at Internet web site . http://www. Foundationwebsite. Org It would appear that global nuclear war will happen very soon, For two main reasons, . First, Human poverty and misery are increasing at an incredible rate. . The pressure for war mounts as the population explodes. Second, War is motivated by resource scarcity. With each passing year, Crowding and misery increase, Raising the motivation for war to higher levels. A third factor motivating global war, Involves timing. If anyone is motivated to wage global nuclear war and has the means to do so, Sooner is very likely better than later. If delayed too long, There may be nothing left to gain. With each passing year, The planet's biodiversity decreases, Another two percent of the planet's remaining petroleum reserves are consumed, And the risk of biospheric extinction) increases. Once gone, These resources are gone forever. Extinct species will never return, And the planet's fossil fuel reserves, Once exhausted, Are gone forever. Human industrial activity will consume all of the remaining petroleum reserves and destroy millions of species more, Including the larger animal species. For those tempted to wage war, The time to strike is now -- in fifty years there will be nothing left to win. C. Newshub, Writes in 20018 that life would survive this war . https://www. Newshub. Co. Nz/home/new-zealand/2018/06/what-happens-to-nz-if-global-nuclear-war-breaks-out. Html Where does New Zealand fit into all this we would likely be spared the worst consequences of all this. Experts say that we'd have little to fear from radiation drifting our way. The most harmful isotopes would decay before reaching our shores, And even fallout drifting over from a potential attack on Australia would likely be blown eastward, Where it would be rained out. It's a similar story when it comes to surface temperature. According to the study, The scenario it's based on would produce a drop of around somewhere between 1 and 1. 5 degrees - nothing to sneeze at, But substantially less than the 5-7 degrees below normal predicted in the centres of North America and in New Zealand, You can still be growing crops D. Dr. Joseph Caldwell writes in 2018 that when we survive, We will pick up the pieces, Start anew with a new mindset Posted at Internet web site . http://www. Foundationwebsite. Org As much as the US government and many environmentalist movements would lead you to believe, Nuclear war will not be the end of the world, It well be the salvation of the world. After a nuclear war mankind will simply "pick up the pieces" and start to all over again. Unlike previous history, It is likely that economics wouldn"t continue to be the "driver" of man"s progress. A minimal-regret strategy offers a way to do things differently To address their argument about the unknown socioeconomic effects of a nuclear war the last piece of Caldwell evidence does an amazing job here. It specifically talks about how when the survivors see what is left of the world after the nuclear war that they will change how they do things, So when the Con says things like how it could be the end of economics Caldwell and I both would conclude that that is indeed a good thing. Next the Con makes an argument about how MAD theory is a thing. That"s fine it doesn"t really matter. MAD theory doesn"t talk about a nuclear war being good or bad it rather discusses why a nuclear war won"t happen. The debate is about if a nuclear war were to happen that it would in fact be good. Not whether or not a nuclear will happen. Im more than happy to have that debate and I will take the stance that nuclear war is inevitable. However even if the Con wins that MAD theory is a thing it is not a reason why the Con wins Next the Con says that EMP"s would cause damage to electronics and that the nukes themselves would damage cities"". . GOOD the more that are gone the better All of the Con"s evidence that states how a nuclear war would be destructive goes to the Pro and further proves how a nuclear war would stop the Biosphere from collapsing Also hold the Con accountable they never claimed extinction in the first round so hold them too that