…
As long as were just proposing an undercard bout rather than the next installment of Ward Vs. Gatti, National Geographic doesn’t seem to sweat the whole unintended consequences category. Being the Ops. Research type that I am; I decided to nerd around a bit in the negative externalities. They seemed to suggest India versus Pakistan as a possible conflict that generates the right volume of smoke and ash. So I decided to look up what sort of targets the two opponents would seek to flash-fry.
Mombai has 13.8 Million People, Delhi has 12.6 Million and Bangalore and Kolkata top out a shade over 5 million each. Assuming the Pakistani attack generates 50% KIAs in each of these for cities, we get around 18M worth of instantaneous carbon sequestrations.
If India inflicts similar damage on the top four Pakistani cities, we would experience about 12M units of human CO2 emitter reductions. And not to bug these scientific wonder-kids in the middle of dinner, but what I’ve just described involves an hypothesized 30 million deaths. It required the Good ‘Ol US of A about 25 years of Roe V. Wade abortions to generate the same despicable level of casually sadistic genocide. So much for American Exceptionalism.
…
continued here… War, What Is It Good For? – Ask National Geographic. | RedState.