Emlyn, betrayed, wrote:
>What about all that destroying the world 30 times over stuff? Nuclear
>winter? Do you mean to say that television has been lying to me?
>Please be gentle in replies, I'm feeling kind of vulnerable right now.
One hears, from time to time, the annoying sentiments that if there were a nuclear war, the speaker would prefer to be at ground zero. That the living would envy the dead.
(The latter statement is especially inane, since the living always have the option of joining the dead.)
As far as I can tell, from my days researching such things, life after massive US/Russian attacks would not be fun. It would be relatively short and hard. And in many ways no different than how a large percentage of humanity lives now. And how all our ancestors lived until very recently.
Last I heard, the evidence was against nuclear winter. The original studies which were trumpeted by both activists and the press used too simple a model. When LLNL's atmospheric studies group used a more sophisticated model, they found a fraction of the consequences that Sagan et al had reported.
Don't anyone tell Emlyn about the Easter Bunny.
firstname.lastname@example.org || Unreasonable Software, Inc. || www.unreasonable.com a trademark of USI:
> > > > > B e u n r e a s o n a b l e .