Sentences with phrase «nuclear exchange»

It is an uber - issue for which we have no precedent other than the threat of a global nuclear exchange during the height of the cold war — not a particularly comforting comparison.

It is clear that in the future, the biggest risk of starting a devastating nuclear exchange, is by mistake.

There is also the possibility of an accidental nuclear exchange.

A 1985 National Research Council Report predicted a global nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons of explosions, rather than the 1.5 megatons assumed in the PNAS study, would deplete only 17 percent of the Northern Hemisphere's stratospheric ozone, which would recover by half in three years.

The video report (on YouTube here) includes insights from two early analysts of nuclear winter, Michael MacCracken, who was at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the early 1980s, and Alan Robock of Rutgers, who continues to study the concept and has published on how even a small nuclear exchange between, say, Pakistan and India, could have big impacts on agricultural yields.

That makes a single blast or even a limited nuclear exchange survivable for most people.

The vulgar «realism» of the Beltway argues that deterrence proved effective in avoiding nuclear exchanges during the Cold War.

US nuclear weapons, which are mainly designed to destroy other nuclear weapons in a mutual nuclear exchange, detonate in the air to create the maximum amount of pressure to targets on the ground.

Legge also pointed out that spending substantial amounts of money on one weapon might not be justified, because if the Soviet tanks got as far as Calais «without a strategic nuclear exchange having occurred, then I think the Channel Tunnel will be an irrelevance.»

He stressed the need for strengthened lines of communication between Moscow and Nato to avert the «real risk of an inadvertent nuclear exchange».

Even if you don't trigger an immediate nuclear exchange, Russia and China will certainly now have to build up their nuclear arsenals to the point where they can effectively retaliate.

But because any hostile action against those satellites could easily escalate to a full nuclear exchange on Earth, both superpowers backed down.

• If global civilization can not continue to adjust to these climate changes in an evolutionary manner, then revolutionary means (economic depression, famine, mass migration, unilateral seizure of resources, unilateral efforts at geo - engineering) leave us and our descendants vulnerable to perpetual warfare, with ever - increasing chances of unrestrained nuclear exchanges.

«But ozone loss from a limited nuclear exchange would be more than an order of magnitude larger than ozone loss from the release of gases like CFCs.»

A global nuclear exchange could annihilate hundreds of millions of lives and sour Earth's atmosphere, water, and ground for generations.

They can do a lot of damage to the US, but there won't be any North Korea left in the event of a nuclear exchange.

Expect the US to push for sanctions, diplomatic talks, investments in missile defenses — the types of measures taken against other nuclear powers — but don't expect a nuclear exchange.

She would surely launch a nuclear exchange that would bring civilzation to it's knees, and we would all rejoice in it, because it means good times are a comin!

After the Cuban missile crisis, the point at which the world came close to a nuclear exchange, the doctrine was that the horror of nuclear war was the best guarantee that there would be no nuclear war.

In his essay «A Letter to Pablo Antonio Cuadra Concerning Giants,» he almost seems to think a nuclear exchange that would destroy the United States and Europe would be a fitting recompense for the European conquest.

«Such a possibility of a nuclear exchange with Russia, starting by accident, no matter how remote it might be at present, would have such a catastrophic result that we should be working hard now to ensure that it can never happen.

In a statement summarizing the new policy, Obama said that «the greatest threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between nations, but nuclear terrorism by violent extremists and nuclear proliferation to an increasing number of states.»

Clearly a nuclear exchange in North Korea or anywhere else is to be deplored, but I doubt that «millions of tonnes of smoke would gush into the stratosphere, resulting in a nuclear winter».

Clearly a nuclear exchange in North Korea or anywhere else is to be deplored, but I doubt that «millions of...

3) Al Qaeda (or some other jihadist group) obtains a significant nuclear capability, and the aftermath of the nuclear exchange of 2019 reduces the population to about 5 % of the present number.

A nuclear exchange involving 100 15 - kiloton, Hiroshima - type weapons is only 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the world's nuclear arsenal, he said.

«Most organisms can do little to avoid UV exposure, so one of the big unanswered questions is how the biota would respond to these big UV increases triggered by a nuclear exchange.»

It was not known until after the collapse of the Soviet Union that there were also tactical nuclear missiles deployed to Cuba and, for the only time, under direct authority of field commanders who could fire without further authority from Moscow, so if the US had decided to attack Cuba, as many urged JFK to do, there is a reasonable chance that local commanders would have begun a nuclear exchange.