Global Nuclear war is good

BIOSPHERE COLLAPSE IS INEVITABLE - OUR SPECIES CONTINUES TO PILLAGE THE PLANET AND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WE ARE GOING TO DESTROY IT " I WAS VERY SPECIFIC TO THIS. THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN ATTEMPT TO GET RID OF OUR CURRENT MINDSET IN RELATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND WAR IS TO HAVE A MINIMAL REGRET STRATEGY - TO HAVE A NUCLEAR WAR. THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE A CHANCE OF SURVIVING IS TO START AN ALL OUT NUCLEAR WAR! AN ALL OUT NUCLEAR WAR BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN EVER SHIFT OUR CONSCIOUSNESS. THIS SHIFT IN CONSCIOUSNESS WILL "CREATE A WORLD BEYOND THE DICHOTOMY OF WAR" MEANING THAT THIS WILL INDEED BE THE WAR TO END ALL WARS. THIS WILL CRATE NOT ONLY WORLD WHERE WE RESPECT OUR SELVES AND OTHERS LIKE US BUT ALSO THE ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER SPECIES THAT WE LIVE WITH. WE ONLY NEED TO WIN FOUR THINGS. 1. IN THE WORLD OF THE AFF WE ARE ALL DEAD FROM THE IMPENDING BIOSPHERE COLLAPSE. 2. THE NUCLEAR WAR STOPS THE BIOSPHERE FROM COLLAPSING. 3. SOME FORM OF LIFE WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST ON EARTH. 4. THAT LIFE WILL HAVE A PEACEFUL MINDSET WHICH STOPS ERROR REPLICATION. The Con agrees and says biosphere collapse is inevitable, but can be slowed but Meadows is really good on this issue of time frame for the collapse he writes we must act with quickness past 2015 we are playing with fire and past 2020 we are dead . http://energyskeptic.com... They say renewable energy but Mukerjee,writes in Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? Scientific American. . http://energyskeptic.com... collapse is now all but inevitable,. "It will come through a self-reinforcing complex of issues""including climate change, resource constraints and socioeconomic inequality. "when the rich can"t get more by producing real wealth they start to use their power to take from lower segments and inequality increases, You can"t expect markets to solve the problem the short-term focus of capitalism and of extant democratic systems makes it impossible not only for markets but also for most governments to deal effectively with long-term problems such as climate change. " Ill grant the con that population is falling but that doesn"t matter as long as I am winning one of the three for the collapse I am good but as it happens im winning two. This means that you should be voting pro on the chance that nuclear war doesn't cause extinction. It doesn"t and I will answer my opponents arguments on survivability in a moment but for now lets go to the solvency of nuclear war. The Con only makes one argument here and that is we don"t need the biosphere. Extinction is assured without the Biosphere this is common knowledge and Caldwell writes in his book titled will america survive The candidate minimal-regret population puts an immediate halt to large-scale Industrial activity. It restores the planet"s biosphere as close as possible to the way it was prior to the massive changes brought about by agriculture and industrialization. Caldwell is really good on this (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina) I could go more but im winning the solvency Next on survivability the con only makes one argument and that is we will all die from nuclear winter. I never said humanity would live I said some form of life would continue post war, but I will defend humanity would survive for now. They say nuclear winter but 1. Next the Con says we wont survive because of a nuclear winter induced ice age but i have 1 response NUCLEAR WAR WON'T CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING. OCEANS WOULD GUARANTEE WEATHER PATTERNS, WHICH WASHES AWAY SMOKE CLOUDS ZUTEL writes . http://www.peace.ca..., To enumerate some other problems with the nuclear winter mechanism: 1. The cooling mechanism as Sagan and associates describe it, could only operate over land masses. Ocean surface water is continually supplied with heat from below. Even if sunlight were blocked for many months, the temperature at the ocean surface would remain virtually unchanged. Consequently, weather patterns would continue, with warm moisture laden air from the oceans sweeping over the land masses and as it cools, rain clouds would form and even more of the sun blocking smoke and dust particles would be washed out of the atmosphere. Zutel is also really good on this [Eugene G. , Arizona Dept. of Emergency 2. Only .000001% chance of extinction from 150 teragrams of black carbon nuclear winter Shulman, writes . http://www.overcomingbias.com... The probability I would estimate for the global human population of zero resulting from the 150 Tg of black carbon scenario in our 2007 paper would be in the range of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000. (.00001% chance of extinction) Biggest population impacts would likely be Northern Hemisphere interior continental regions with relatively smaller impacts possible over Southern Hemisphere island nations like New Zealand. Hes really good on this Carl, Writer for Overcoming Bias. com "Nuclear Winter and Human Extinction: Q&A with Luke Oman (Luke Oman was a scientist who studied climate change in the world of a nuclear war in 2007) Last go to the mindset. They don"t do a good enough job here so grant me a 100% risk of a mindset shift post war.