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