1 Like
WOW!
Is he off in his #'s or he's off his rocker when he says for every 1 million saved from the lockdowns in this pandemic panic - 50 are going to die. He even backed off his "scam" plandemic statement. Why?
There were so many more lives lost and I don't know how any one was saved from the so called lock downs.
Nuclear war will eliminate more than 5 billion people – oppose war
in World — by Farooque Chowdhury — 16/08/2022
Share:
Share on WhatsAppShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on TelegramShare on RedditShare on Email
More than 5 billion people could starve to death following a nuclear war between the US and Russia, finds a study published on recently in the journal Nature Food. Ash and soot from cities burning following the war would enter the atmosphere and block out sunlight, consequently leading to crop failure, etc., and death.
The study findings should alert all the people around the world. “The data tell us one thing: We must prevent nuclear war from ever happening”, climate science professor and study co-author Alan Robock said. Robock said: “The five-year-old UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been ratified by 66 nations, but none of the nine nuclear states. Our work makes clear that it is time for those nine states to listen to science and the rest of the world and sign this treaty.”
Till today, most of the assumptions about nuclear war focus on the deaths and destructions due to the bombing.
But the latest study finds that the real suffering of humanity would come in the years after the war, as there’ll be breakdown of supply chains and devastation of infrastructure, and problems from these will increase with the effect of a nuclear winter on food crops. So, there’s no other option, but oppose war. On the question of nuclear war, imperialism, and economies and politics of interests leading to nuclear armaments are to be opposed.
The study (Xia, L., Robock, A., Scherrer, K. et al, “Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection”, Nature Food, 2022, Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection | Nature Food, August 15, Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection | Nature Food) has been conducted by scientists at Rutgers University, US.
In a nuclear war, the cooling effect would be created when the ash from a nuclear devastation would enter the atmosphere, and it would reach a peak within a year or two. The study finds the reduction in temperature would last for over a decade and would also involve reduced precipitation.
The cooling effect of ash entering the Earth’s atmosphere was recorded following major volcanic eruptions including the 1783 Laki eruption in Iceland or the 1815 Tambora eruption in Indonesia. Both of these eruptions led to famines and political upheavals.
Referring to a number of studies, the study report said: “In a nuclear war, bombs targeted on cities and industrial areas would start firestorms, injecting large amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere, which would spread globally and rapidly cool the planet. Such soot loadings would cause decadal disruptions in Earth’s climate, which would impact food production systems on land and in the oceans.”
“[T]he ozone layer would be destroyed by the heating of the stratosphere, producing more ultraviolet radiation at the surface. We need to understand that impact on food supplies”, said Lili Xia, lead author of the study.
The scientists estimated crop yields by country, changes to livestock pasture and marine fisheries; and analyzed potential mitigation policies including utilizing livestock grains to feed humans and increasing fishing operations. But these factors had a negligible effect on world food supplies.
The study analyzed six nuclear war scenarios including five smaller nuclear conflict scenes while the sixth looked at a large-scale US-Russia conflict. The smaller scenes included Pakistan-India nuclear conflict.
The study report said:
More than 2 billion people could die from an India-Pakistan nuclear war.
More than 5 billion could die from a US-Russia nuclear war.
The study report said:
“For a nuclear war, the global cooling would depend on the yields of the weapons, the number of weapons and the targets, among other atmospheric and geographic factors.”
“A war between India and Pakistan, which recently are accumulating more nuclear weapons with higher yield, could produce a stratospheric loading of 5 – 47 Tg of soot. A war between the United States, its allies and Russia — who possess more than 90% of the global nuclear arsenal — could produce more than 150 Tg of soot and a nuclear winter. While amounts of soot injection into the stratosphere from the use of fewer nuclear weapons would have smaller global impacts, once a nuclear war starts, it may be very difficult to limit escalation.”
After a US-Russia nuclear conflict, the study models found, the quantity of global food production would go down by 90% within three to four years, and 75% of the global population would be starving within two years.
The study found: In the case of smallest scale nuclear war scene, the global food supplies would have disastrous effect – the average caloric production would be reduced by 7% globally within five years, which would be the highest change since the Food and Agricultural Organization started keeping records in 1961.
The study report said:
Recent catastrophic forest fires in Canada in 2017 and Australia in 2019 and 2020 produced 0.3–1 Tg of smoke (0.006–0.02 Tg soot), which was subsequently heated by sunlight and lofted high in the stratosphere. The smoke was transported around the world and lasted for many months. This adds confidence to our [the scientists’] simulations that predict the same process would occur after nuclear war.
The study report said: Local radioactive contamination and climate change from nuclear war would impact the insect community.
However, it said, the influence on pests, pollinators and other insects is unclear, and hence further studies are needed.
The study didn’t consider inland fish capture, as inland fish contribute only 7% of total fish production, and inland fisheries would not change the main conclusions of this study.
Direct climate change impacts on livestock and fish, and large-scale use of alternative foods, requiring little-to-no light to grow in a cold environment, reduced human populations due to direct or indirect mortality and possible reduced birth rate were not also considered in the study. However, alternative foods, requiring little-to-no light to grow in cold environment could be a lifesaving source of emergency food if such production systems were operational.
The scientists used a state-of-the-art global climate model to calculate the climatic and biogeochemical changes caused by a range of stratospheric soot injections, each associated with a nuclear war scenario; combined results with assumptions about how other crop, livestock and fish production and food trade could change; and calculated the amount of food that would be available for each country in the world after a nuclear war.
According to the study report, “for a regional nuclear war, large parts of the world may suffer famine. Using crops fed to livestock as human food could offset food losses locally but would make limited impacts on the total amount of food available globally, especially with large atmospheric soot injections when the growth of feed crops and pastures would be severely impaired by the resulting climate perturbation. Reducing household food waste could help in the small nuclear war cases but not in the larger nuclear wars due to the large climate-driven reduction in overall production.”
The scientists found “particularly severe crop declines in major exporting countries such as Russia and the US, which could easily trigger export restrictions and cause severe disruptions in import-dependent countries.” Their “no-trade response illustrates this risk — African and Middle Eastern countries would be severely affected.”
“New Zealand”, according to the study report, “would also experience smaller impacts than other countries”, and “Australia and New Zealand would probably see an influx of refugees from Asia and other countries experiencing food insecurity.”
The study report said:
“Cooling from nuclear wars causes temperature limitations for crops, leading to delayed physiological maturity and additional cold stress. Calorie reduction from agriculture and marine fisheries shows regional differences, with the strongest percentage reductions over high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Even for the India–Pakistan case, many regions become unsuitable for agriculture for multiple years. [….] The nuclear-armed nations in mid- to high latitude regions (China, Russia, United States, France, North Korea and United Kingdom) show calorie reductions from 30% to 86%, and in lower latitudes (India, Pakistan and Israel), the reduction is less than 10%. Impacts in warring nations are likely to be dominated by local problems, such as infrastructure destruction, radioactive contamination and supply chain disruptions, so the results here apply only to indirect effects from soot injection in remote locations.”
“The climatic impacts”, the study found, “would last for about a decade but would peak in the first few years”.
Since many years, scientists are warning about nuclear war/arms. With this latest warning from the scientists, sources creating/engaged with nuclear armaments business, creating conditions for nuclear arms manufacturing and competitions need to be identified; and the information should be disseminated among peoples, so that people raise voices, and oppose these sources of/interests leading to nuclear weapons and threats of nuclear war. This is not a task of only the working classes. It’s a task of all the classes that find its survival threatened with nuclear arms/war, that find no interest in nuclear armaments. It shouldn’t be missed that interests of only a very small coterie is involved with and benefits from nuclear armaments/nuclear war business.
Farooque Chowdhury writes from Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Note:
- All quotes other than the quotes of two scientists, direct/indirect, are from the study report cited in the article.
- The following figures are from the study report, which help further comprehend the issue the scientists searched.
Fig. 1: Climatic impacts by year after different nuclear war soot injections.
a–f, Changes in surface temperature (a), solar radiation (c) and precipitation (e) averaged over global crop regions of 2000 and sea surface temperature (b), solar radiation (d) and net primary productivity (f) over the oceans following the six stratospheric soot-loading scenarios studied here for 15 years following a nuclear war […]. These variables are the direct climate forcing for the crop and fishery models. The left y axes are the anomalies of monthly climate variables from simulated nuclear war minus the climatology of the control simulation, which is the average of 45 years of simulation. The right y axes are the percentage change relative to the control simulation. The wars take place on 15 May of Year 1, and the year labels are on 1 January of each year. For comparison, during the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, global average surface temperatures were about 5 °C cooler than present. Ocean temperatures decline less than for crops because of the ocean’s large heat capacity. Ocean solar radiation loss is less than for crops because most oceans are in the Southern Hemisphere, where slightly less smoke is present.
Fig. 2: Calorie production changes for crops and fish, and accumulated carbon change for grasses following different nuclear war soot injections.
a–c, Global average annual crop calorie production changes (%; maize, wheat, rice and soybeans, weighted by their observed production (2010) and calorie content; a), marine fish production changes (%; b) and combined crop and fish calorie production changes (%; c) after nuclear war for the different soot-injection scenarios. d, Grass leaf carbon is a combination of C3 and C4 grasses, and the change is calculated as annual accumulated carbon. For context, the grey line (and shaded area) in a are the average (and standard deviation) of six crop models from the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI […]) under the 5 Tg scenario. CLM5crop shows a conservative response to nuclear war compared with the multi-model GGCMI response.
Fig. 3: Global average human diet and protein composition and usage of crop-based products.
a, Global average human diet composition. Percentages are % of available calories. Veg. is vegetables. b, Global average human protein diet composition. Marine wild capture contributes 75% of marine fish. Percentages are % of dry matter production. c, Distribution of four major cereal crops and marine fish between human food and other uses. Percentages are % of dry matter production. d, Usage of crop-based products in 2010 (% of dry matter crop-based production). The color gradient legend in grey in c illustrates the usage of different crops and fish in colors. While humans consume most of the wheat and rice grown, most maize and soybeans are used for livestock feed.
Fig. 4: Food intake (kcal per capita per day) in Year 2 after different nuclear war soot injections.
The left map is the calorie intake status in 2010 with no international trade; the left column is the Livestock case; the middle column is the Partial Livestock case, with 50% of livestock feed used for human food and the other 50% still used to feed livestock; and the right column is the No Livestock case, with 50% of livestock feed used for human food. All maps assume no international trade and that the total calories are evenly distributed within each nation. Regions in green mean food consumption can support the current physical activity in that country; regions in yellow are calorie intake that would cause people to lose weight, and only sedentary physical activity would be supported; and regions in red indicate that daily calorie intake would be less than needed to maintain a basal metabolic rate (also called resting energy expenditure) and thus would lead to death after an individual exhausted their body energy reserves in stored fat and expendable muscle. 150 Tg + 50% waste is half of the household waste added to food consumption, and 150 Tg + 100% waste is all household waste added to food consumption.
Fig. 5: Overview of global calorie intake and sensitivity to livestock and food waste assumptions.
a, Global average change in calorie intake per person per day in Year 2 post-war under the Livestock case (yellow bars) and for the Partial Livestock case (red bars), assuming that all food and waste is evenly distributed. For the Partial Livestock case, additional calories potentially available by human consumption of animal feed, mainly maize and soybeans, are plotted for various portions of converted animal feed (pink tick marks), and the remaining livestock crop feed is used for raising livestock. Critical food intake levels are marked in the right margin. b, Without international trade, the global population (%) that could be supported, although underweight, by domestic food production at the end of Year 2 after a nuclear war if they receive the calories supporting their regular physical activity and the rest of the population would receive no food, under the Livestock and Partial Livestock cases. The blue line in b shows the percentage of population that can be supported by current food production when food production does not change but international trade is stopped. National data are calculated first and then aggregated to global data.
2 Likes
Kamikaze drone strike hits Russia's Navy HQ in Crimea and causes a huge explosion despite frantic attempts to shoot it down - after a string of Ukrainian missions deep in occupied peninsula
- Smoke seen billowing through the air following attack, which came despite Russian efforts to shoot it down
- It is the latest in a string of blasts, believed to be inflicted by Ukrainian forces, deep in the occupied peninsula
- Intelligence officials revealed last night how the strikes have crippled the invaders' military capabilities
A kamikaze drone strike hit Russia's Navy headquarters in Crimea and sparked a huge explosion today, in another suspected Ukrainian raid.
Smoke was seen billowing through the air this morning following the attack, which came despite frantic attempts from Putin's forces to shoot down the UAV, as seen in a video where repetitive gunfire is heard.
The naval HQ suffered a direct hit, said reports while terrified Russian tourists fled the popular summer peninsula.
Governor of Sevastopol Mikhail Razvozhaev confirmed the attack, writing on Telegram: 'Unfortunately, [the drone] was not shot down, although they worked on the bay with small arms. [It] went low. There were no victims.'
He warned: 'The tenacity of these Ukro-Reich morons is amazing. Everyone, if possible, needs to be home in the next hour.'
Russia also suffered incoming attacks on resort Yevpatoriya, north of Sevastopol, where one man was heard saying: 'This is not funny. Let's pack up and get out of here. These are no fireworks.'
The air defence system was activated in the Western Crimea, the head of Putin's regime in annexed Crimea, Sergei Aksyonov, said.
'The target is hit. There is no damage, nor any wounded. Our military clearly, professionally and effectively carry out their tasks. I ask everyone to remain calm and trust only official information.'
Initially as the wave of attacks came in, Razvozzhaev said: 'I am at my workplace in the government. As well as many of the townspeople, I heard the clapping in the [city] centre.
'Similar sounds were heard in the Strelka area a little earlier. The air defence was operating in the bay. Naval artillery [operated] in the centre. The same as yesterday. According to preliminary data [they were shooting down drones. Targets were hit. We remain calm. The military is doing their job perfectly. Let's support them.'
However, the fear of attacks on Crimea - a new development in the war this month - is palpable among tourists who are fleeing the peninsula.
It is the latest in a string of mystery blasts, widely believed to be inflicted by Ukrainian forces, deep in the occupied peninsula.
Intelligence officials revealed last night how the strikes have crippled the invaders' military capabilities, while also displaying Kyiv's ability to wreak havoc on Russian logistics.
It follows a huge blast at a Russian air base in Crimea last week. Western officials have now revealed the incident knocked out half of Russia's Black Sea naval aviation force.
A source said: 'They've lost their flagship Moskva, they lost Snake Island, they lost half of their naval aviation package and their military headquarters was struck. I think we can assume attacks by Ukrainians behind enemy lines.'
Video in link above:
Kamikaze drone strike hits Russia's Navy HQ in Crimea PLUS MORE
2 Likes
Shelling of Ukraine nuclear power plant exposes multiple risks
Shelling has recently intensified at the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, raising international safety concerns. Ukrainian staff continue to operate the massive plant under strict control and stressful conditions.
Russia and Ukraine are blaming one another for the continued attacks and damage. Disinformation and fake news have played a major role in this conflict, and so the exact nature of the situation is unclear.
It seems unlikely that either side would want to seriously damage Europe's biggest nuclear plant, in the near-frontline city of Enerhodar, and cause a release of radiation. Ukrainian plant workers claim that Russia is deliberately targeting non-critical equipment. A deliberate attack against a nuclear facility would break international norms and concerns over the potentially dangerous consequences are well justified.
You're welcome.
1 Like
United States Admits To Spreading Lies About Ukraine War
1 Like
Without Air Supremacy Ukraine Is Unable to Push Russia Out of the Country – Currently Russia Flies Unchallenged
Folks love combat air. Just look at the crowds flocking to see the latest Top Gun. There has been tension between ground forces and air forces since World War II over who packs the biggest punch. During World War II, the Commanders of the 8th Army Air Force (back then the U.S. Air Force was part of the U.S. Army and did not become a separate command until after the war) insisted they could win the war by bombing Germany into submission. Turned out they were wrong, but that belief persisted into many subsequent conflicts.
The reality is that wars against a first world power requires the coordinated use of infantry, tanks, artillery, missiles, combat air–fixed and rotary wing–intelligence, electronic warfare and strong logistics. Short of dropping a nuclear bomb or missile, war is a complex operation.
With that prelude, I want you to step back and look at what is happening in the Donbas. Russia has air supremacy. Here is the definition:
Aerial supremacy (also air superiority) is the degree of which a side in a conflict holds control of air power over opposing forces. There are levels of control of the air in aerial warfare. Control of the air is the aerial equivalent of command of the sea.
How do we know? Russia is flying unchallenged. There are no Ukrainian planes taking off to shoot down Russian aircraft. This is not a Putin talking point. It is a fact. Here is a video showing a series of Russian combat flights over the Donbas. Note they are flying close to the terrain. Why? Because Ukraine still has some surface to air missiles that could be effective against air craft flying 1000 feet or higher.
This is just one component of the Russian offensive. These pilots are being directed by intelligence collected real time from satellites, drones and ground observers. They are not operating in isolation. It is a combined arms operation.
What about Ukraine? The Ukrainian troops on the ground are hunkered down in trenches and bunkers. They cannot call for air support because it has been eliminated. How do I know? I cannot find a single video in the last four months of a squadron of Ukrainian pilots attacking Russian positions. You see, the Russians have a robust air defense system that deploys with mechanized and infantry units.
Ukraine has been trying to rebuild its meager air force but is running into some difficulty. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense’s Thursday briefing:
High-precision weapons of the Russian Aerospace Forces have hit 5 combat aircraft of Ukrainian Air Force at Mirgorod military airfield in Poltava Region. 1 Su-27 and 1 Su-24 have been destroyed. Another 2 Su-27s and 1 Su-24 suffered critical damage. The enemy’s casualties in manpower were up to 30 Nationalists.
Without a credible air capability, Ukraine is incapable of launching any kind of ground offensive to oust Russians from Kherson or any other piece of territory controlled by Russia. If Ukraine is able to cobble together a regiment or two, supported by a tank battalion, the Ukrainian force will run into a wall of fire from Russian artillery, drones, missiles, helicopters and jet fighters. That is a suicide mission and I cannot understand why many of the military pundits populating the U.S. airwaves are afraid to acknowledge this reality. It cannot be ignorance. There is too much information on the internet that contradicts the flood of propaganda from western media and government sources insisting that Russia is stalled or losing. It is not.
There is a representative and egregious piece of disinformation was published on August 24 in Vox by Zack Beauchamp. He writes:
More recently, however, the momentum has started to swing back to the Ukrainian side. Western military aid — most notably an American rocket artillery system called HIMARS — has helped level the artillery playing field and wreaked havoc on Russian supply lines. Today, experts aren’t asking whether Ukraine will launch a counteroffensive aimed at retaking Russian-held territory, but when it will start and where it will focus.
Whether this means Ukraine is now “winning,” however, is a somewhat more complicated question to answer. We don’t know that the upcoming counteroffensive is likely to succeed; it depends on factors about which we have limited evidence, like Ukraine’s ability to conduct so-called “combined arms” offensive operations (ones that employ multiple components of military power simultaneously to accomplish a particular goal). Some important quantitative metrics, like the size of their respective ammunition stockpiles, are hard to estimate based on publicly available information. At this point, even leading experts on the conflict find it difficult to assess with real confidence who’s winning on the battlefield.
These guys and gals have one job–persuade the American people that they should continue to support sending billions of dollars in military gear and financial aid to Ukraine. Once the American people wake up and realize this is now a fool’s errand, the bamboozle will be over. But not completely. The propaganda campaign has poisoned future prospects for normal relations with Russia. A return to diplomacy appears as likely as a Ukrainian offensive to retake Crimea. It is not in the cards.
2 Likes
Battle for high seas supremacy: Chinese Navy growing – U.S. Shrinking!
The Chinese Navy is rapidly growing and building high seas supremacy while the U.S. Navy shrinks its number of warships.
British Begin Moving War Planes to CIVILIAN Airports
Britain is preparing to station combat aircraft in civilian airports for the first time since World War II in response to the Ukraine conflict.
The dispersing of planes across the country will allegedly help the Royal Air Force’s rapid-response units survive attacks on their bases.
The Agile Combat Employment (ACE) scheme was initially intended for potential hotspots overseas, such as the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.
A trial next month will have Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 jet fighters based in Norfolk, Lincolnshire, and Scotland “scattered in small groups and based discreetly” in several regional airports with suitable runways.
Other jets and larger aircraft will be based in different areas in times of “imminent crisis.”
Japan defense chief says world has entered 'a new era of crisis'
The international community has entered “a new era of crisis,” Japan’s recently installed defense chief said Monday, pointing to a drastic need for Tokyo to rethink its security approach amid growing threats from China, Russia and North Korea.
“The international community as a whole has entered the most trying time since the end of the previous war, and the existing order is being seriously challenged,” Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada said Monday in an interview. “We believe that we are entering a new era of crisis.”
Pacifist Japan has found itself in a precarious security position, with China’s massive military buildup advancing, North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs continuing to grow, and Russia’s bloody war in Ukraine offering lessons in the fragility of the status quo.
But Hamada — who was tapped to take over the defense portfolio earlier this month in a Cabinet reshuffle — is expected to play a key role in shepherding through some of the biggest changes in Japanese defense policy in nearly a decade in response to these challenges.
The 66-year-old, who was defense chief between 2008 and 2009 in the administration of then-Prime Minister Taro Aso, will be spearheading discussions on revising the National Security Strategy and other key security documents by the year’s end.
U.S. Army Grounds Entire Fleet of Chinook Helicopters
Flights of the workhorse choppers are halted due to engine fires, U.S. officials say
The U.S. Army has grounded its entire fleet of CH-47 Chinook helicopters because of a risk of engine fires, U.S. officials said.
Army officials are aware of a small number of engine fires with the helicopters, and the incidents didn’t result in any injuries or deaths, the U.S. officials said. One of the officials said the fires occurred in recent days.
The U.S. Army Materiel Command grounded the fleet of hundreds of helicopters “out of an abundance of caution,” but officials were looking at more than 70 aircraft that contained a part that is suspected to be connected to the problem, officials said.
The grounding of the Chinook helicopters, a battlefield workhorse since the 1960s, could pose logistical challenges for American soldiers, depending on how long the order lasts.
The grounding was targeted at certain Boeing Co. -made models with engines manufactured by Honeywell International Inc., people familiar with the matter said. The grounding took effect within about the last 24 hours, these people said. The Army has about 400 helicopters in its fleet, one of the U.S. officials said.
Boeing declined to comment, referring questions to the Army.
A Honeywell spokesman said the engine maker worked with the Army to determine that certain components known as O-rings didn’t meet the company’s design specifications. He said the parts were installed during routine maintenance at an Army facility. While he declined to name the company that made the parts, the Honeywell spokesman said the company is working to supply the Army with replacements.
An Army spokeswoman said the service has identified the root cause of fuel leaks that caused “a small number of engine fires among an isolated number” of the helicopters. She said the Army is taking steps to resolve the issue.
“The safety of our soldiers is the Army’s top priority, and we will ensure our aircraft remain safe and airworthy,” the spokeswoman said.
The Chinook is a heavy-lift utility helicopter that is used by both regular and special Army forces, ferrying more than four dozen troops or cargo. It has been a staple of the Army’s helicopter fleet for six decades.