I put a Question Mark at the end of this, because…Isn’t Nuclear Winter a separate issue from Radioactivity and Fallout? Everyone wants a Clean Fusion Bomb with no dirty precursor reaction, because they can then kill an army and occupy an area afterword without worry from radioactive fallout. But, as I understand it…Nuclear Winter is created from all the smoke and dust of firestorms of cities and forest when nukes go off, especially if you have thousands of 1 mg+ nukes going at a time. Therefore, the bulk of that material going up into the stratosphere is non-nuclear, non-radioactive but just ordinary smoke from just the heat produced. Right? And all that smoke blocks out the sun, preventing agriculture and leading to mass famine. Right? At least according to Carl Sagan and more recent studies on the climactic effects of Nuclear Winter.
Now, suppose one country gets a clean thermonuke, no atomic precursor, but done with Thorium. If Country A gets it, then Country B has to also have it, for parity to be restored. And if country A gets two, then country B has to also get two and then two more, leading to four. And now we’re off to the races. And pretty soon we have THOUSANDS of these clean nukes, ready to go off on a hairpin trigger like in the Cold War and like now. And now we’re back to the spectre of Fear as a weapon, as the populations of the world are held in perpetual terror, and the use of that fear as a political weapon to hold over everybody’s heads, even down to influencing elections. (I.e., “Don’t vote for this person, because this person’s more likely to start a nuclear war.”) What is that? Terror as a political tool. i.e., Terrorism. And govts only want to label NON-GOVERNMENTAL people as Terrorists! But I digress
Getting back to the issue of Nuclear Winter. Consider a supervolcano scenario. Like Yellowstone. These are supposedly non-radioactive, or not as dirty and scary as Nukes, which the very word itself has “radioactive” connotations that are “radioactive” politically.
When Mother Nature throws something at us, like volcanic explosions, it also blocks out the sun creating agriculture collapse and creating famine.
Therefore, since a clean, non-atomic-precursor hydrogen bomb is just as destructive as a volcano, and produces the same effect of a volcano with the smoke and ash, and ought to be placed into the same class as a volcano, isn’t having a clean, fission-free, fusion bomb a moot point? Isn’t it still useless strategically and still produce a war that no one wins? Isn’t it still M.A.D.?
And could that be the reason why no one wanted to look at Thorium reactors and avoided them because they didn’t want people looking at the Isomer? Because they were afraid that some country would get the idea that they could start an Arms Race in clean nukes and think you could fight a war with them? Just saying…
Or…Should we rescind and reevaluate our views on Nuclear Winter? And question if it is as bad as we were told?
Or…Could the Mr Globaloney really WANTS to start a nuclear war PRECISELY because it WANTS to create a nuclear winter to reverse “global warming” which they are obsessed with? Could it be that we already HAVE clean nukes and now this is the reason why Mr Globaloney is so cavalier about escalating nuclear war with Russia?
Just saying…
… and I’ll say it again Thermobaric Bombs by all appearances seem to be more than adequate. I guess the saying is true, A 22 will kill you dead, but a Nuke will kill you deader.