Not a Boff,
So, you're a Douglas Adams fan? The UN can only do what all its 193(?) members decide to support. It can hardly be called indepentent and it would be hard to find an outside agency to rule on issues. We have to leave to them to come up with solutions and hope that they can get enough agreement on important issues when required.
Wasn't it once stated that it was, in fact, the World's biggest forum for international disagreement?
Anyway, good points, well made.
Lonewolf,
Your post was an object lesson to me in reading an entire post before jumping to conclusions. My initial reaction was to start writing in disagreement, but I pressed on and quickly saw your point.
There may be a few assumptions in the SciAm article that makes me think that their scientific basis is not fully justified (or, maybe, not stated), but I understand it's a magazine for the educated masses AND that they have an agendum.
However, I don't think anyone can argue that the effects of a 'local', limited, nuclear exchange are not local. The +49 day map of smoke particles, if not exact, isn't likely to be too far wrong. What it doesn't cover, for some reason, is the spread of nuclear contamination. That number of small yield weapons would put a lot (I'm not even going to start working it out) of radionucleides into the atmosphere. Some of those have short half lives, but create a severe and (near) immediate hazard to life. Some have very long half lives and could present a long-lasting and global threat to life.
Some very good analysis going on in this thread. Widger, especially your view from (not on) the fence. Thank you all.
Courtney