Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Acceptable collateral damage.

I'm not sure what's more depressing when researching the ramifications of nuclear conflict: passages like the following from Robert Batcher's "The Consequences of an Indo-Pakistani Nuclear War" in a 2004 issue of International Studies Review:
Casualties from 50 KT weapon attacks on individual Indian and Pakistani cities range from hundreds of thousands to well over two million. The combined attack on all cities results in 18 million casualties (37 percent of which are fatalities) against Indian cities and 13 million casualties (42 percent of which are fatalities) against Pakistani cities. Casualties for 1 MTweapons are significantly higher, reaching 12.6 million in Kolkatta (Calcutta). The combined attack on all cities with 1 MTweapons results in 64 million casualties (57 percent of which are fatalities) against Indian cities and 34 million casualties (67 percent of which are fatalities) against Pakistani cities.
or the knowledge that these numbers aren't good enough for what I need. No matter how horrific a limited nuclear conflict would be, it doesn't have a magnitude of global extinction, so it doesn't matter. Racist malthusian asshats will still say that the loss of millions of lives on the Indian subcontinent are acceptable so as to maintain their comfortable lifestyle.

I need to read about string theory and goto sleep. This is putting me in a bad mood.

1 comment:

farnsworth said...

Maybe you have it, but: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/

It's interesting that almost none of the literature really details what happens in a blast. Lots of tables showing kill percentages and casualty probablities, but nobody wants to say just what a "casualty" is.