Calorie availability and extent of food shortages for each nation are estimated following regional or global nuclear war, including impacts on major crops, livestock and fishery production.
Except we don’t know better. We just have psychopaths such as yourself trying to convince people that a nuclear holocaust wouldn’t be all that bad actually. Scum like you are driving us ever closer to nuclear annihilation.
This sort of obviously emotionaly driven vitriol makes it look like you want people to belive this regardless of if it truth as you feel it serves an important goal. The other person on the debate has shown an understanding of the issue and history of this topic while remaining civil, I don’t see you counter any of his points or raise any evidence in your favor outside gishgallop links which you provide without explanation or demonstrated understanding.
I don’t know or really care who’s right because it’s meaningless but you certainly don’t look like the person with a valid position here.
Anybody who thinks a nuclear war between major powers would be an acceptable scenario is an utter imbecile and a piece of human garbage. Period. People why try to downplay the horrors of a nuclear holocaust are a danger to the human race.
Who said it was an acceptable scenario? That’s not been suggested.
You’re saying we should belive any story that makes nuclear war sound even worse than it obviously is regardless of its scientific accuracy. Science should be objective truth not whatever serves the agenda you’re trying to push, even if it’s objectives are good.
No, I’m saying that we should seriously consider peer reviewed research on the likely effects of a nuclear war. Meanwhile, a bunch of idiots here are claiming that western peer reviewed research is Russian propaganda. The fact that you’re claiming that I’m the one pushing an agenda is fascinating.
By the way, my agenda is pretty simple. I don’t want to die in a nuclear holocaust. The more idiots try to downplay the horror of a nuclear war the closer we all get to one.
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.
Except we don’t know better. We just have psychopaths such as yourself trying to convince people that a nuclear holocaust wouldn’t be all that bad actually. Scum like you are driving us ever closer to nuclear annihilation.
This sort of obviously emotionaly driven vitriol makes it look like you want people to belive this regardless of if it truth as you feel it serves an important goal. The other person on the debate has shown an understanding of the issue and history of this topic while remaining civil, I don’t see you counter any of his points or raise any evidence in your favor outside gishgallop links which you provide without explanation or demonstrated understanding.
I don’t know or really care who’s right because it’s meaningless but you certainly don’t look like the person with a valid position here.
Anybody who thinks a nuclear war between major powers would be an acceptable scenario is an utter imbecile and a piece of human garbage. Period. People why try to downplay the horrors of a nuclear holocaust are a danger to the human race.
Who said it was an acceptable scenario? That’s not been suggested.
You’re saying we should belive any story that makes nuclear war sound even worse than it obviously is regardless of its scientific accuracy. Science should be objective truth not whatever serves the agenda you’re trying to push, even if it’s objectives are good.
No, I’m saying that we should seriously consider peer reviewed research on the likely effects of a nuclear war. Meanwhile, a bunch of idiots here are claiming that western peer reviewed research is Russian propaganda. The fact that you’re claiming that I’m the one pushing an agenda is fascinating.
By the way, my agenda is pretty simple. I don’t want to die in a nuclear holocaust. The more idiots try to downplay the horror of a nuclear war the closer we all get to one.
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.