Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Nuclear Winter Rebuttal
Message-ID: <720@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Feb-84 15:14:08 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.720
Posted: Sat Feb 18 15:14:08 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 18:23:33 EST
References: <572@orca.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 18

Obviously, no-one can prove the nuclear winter hypothesis to be correct
(until it is too late to care), but the analysis seems to be much more
careful than is suggested by the article from orca!danc.  In addition,
there was an independent Soviet study that reached the same conclusions,
and I read in the paper last week that a joint US-Soviet study has
reinforced and extended the results.

Someone suggested that the burning of cities was what created the soot
that caused the winter, and that a strike against missile silos would
not cause the nuclear winter.  The TTAPS study took several different
cases into account.  Their cases 11 and 16 include no urban explosions
(pure counterforce anti-silo missiles).  In these cases, the early deep
drop in temperature is less than when there are urban bursts, but the
recovery is long and slow.  The scenario is no prettier.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt