What is worse, Global Warming or nuclear war?

Answer 1

Nuclear war is much worse that global warming.
Nuclear war would not only scorch much of the planets surface but the radioactive fall out would cover most of the rest.
This would poison most of the water and kill off most plants and animals.
Global warming and global cooling has happened many times over the last several hundred million years.
We have been warming up from that was called the mini ice age for the last 100 years or so.
The mini ice age froze parts of the ocean that was once traveled by the vikings.
Before the mini ice age was a time period that was called the medieval warming period.
During this time Europe had bumper crops and the Vikings sailed the North Atlantic.
The Vikings settled Iceland and Greenland during this period.
Parts of Greenland was green during this period.
The settlers grew crops and raised livestock.
When the mini ice age started they were stranded and starved.

Answer 2

I guess it depends on the scale. A couple of small nuclear devices might kill a few hundred thousand people in which case it will be far less serious than global warming.

Already, according the the World Health Organisation, 200,000 people a year are dying because of global warming and the figure is set to double within 20 years.

On the other hand, an all out nuclear war between two nations that have large stockpiles of weapons could effectively be the end of the world. After that it could be as cold or as hot as it wants, with no-one around it wouldn't really matter.

Answer 3

I think nuclear war is far worse than global warming. Mainly because nuclear war is something that is a choice, it can be stopped. Global warming has come to far into it's process to be completly avoided, and there basically nothing we can do. It's something we have to live with because of our choices in the past. Nuclear war, unlike global warming, can be avoided. It's all up to man and his mind. That's my opinion.

Answer 4

Both are terrible terrible things.
Global Warming is somthing that snuck up on the world unexpected, and now its a really big deal. Some, dare I say, Most of America has hardly claimed it to be a problem. Necular War however has been a worry for a long time. If we had a necular war, America would be one of the causes. If we had Global Warming as our Apocalipse, America would be the MAIN cause.
I think if it was neucular war, it would be less painful, some would die instantly, but the others would be plaged with disease. Global Warming would cause nothing but disease.
At least we can all do our part in both I guess. We can all help out with global warming, and we can elect the right people into office to avoid a necular war.
I hope my answer has helped you and others out, feel free to send me an email to the address below.

Answer 5

Nuclear war is by far much worse. what about Germ war far? that just as bad as nuclear war or global warming.
Global warming is affecting the polar ice caps,nuclear weapons will eventually be in possession within every country globally. Nuclear war is far worse. another blight holocaust waiting to happen,but the good news is that the world will never end, so why worry.

Answer 6

Nuclear war won't cause global warming (in fact it will reverse it). But global warming could cause nuclear war.

Scenario: In spite of the fact that global warming starts really hurting; coastal flooding, damage to agriculture, etc. China still refuses to do anything, burning huge amounts of coal without controls. A desperate Europe tries to make them stop. That becomes a war. The war goes nuclear.

Answer 7

I would have to say nuclear war. Because I think it would destroy the planet for more species than global warming.

Global warming is a real threat, I believe. But though an environment suitable for humans may no longer exist, most likely many creatures more adapt at adjusting to rapid changes in the environment would persevere.

Humans, I fear, would not be able to adjust either physically or psychologically. I truly believe that if global warming changes our world as the vast majority of scientists have predicted, the consequential breakdown of society will be a precursor to our own destruction, before environmental conditions would cause our actual exstinction. That is to say, human will turn upon human, and we will wipe out our own species/race with war.

Which brings me back to nuclear war.....
At least that would be quicker. Call me a pessimist, if you like. But it is not death that scares me so much as the method of dying. I fear suffering, and I think if my demise is inevitable, I'd rather the bomb land squarely on my lap than to witness the ugly inner-fighting among my fellow humans.

Answer 8

Nuclear War.

That would cause far more devistation much faster than Global Warming. Besides Global warming could be slowed and even turned around....in theory. Nuclear War, I don't think so.

Answer 9

No question, nukes. In the late 70's, I worked outside in eastern Kansas and we had a couple of very cold winters. We had blizrards, several heavy snow storms and many days of temperatures below zero. According to the newspapers it was the coldest years in Kansas history. The national newspapers had headlines such as "No End In Sight For Global Cooling" and predictions of an impending "Ice Age". Now since the CO2 had been increasing from the industrial age for several decades, shouldn't it have been getting warmer? Oh, we also had used up all of our natural resources and we were in an "oil crisis" as well.
The media thrives on global crisis and scientists receive a lot of federal funding when people are afraid of natural events that they study and report on. Wait a few years, things will cool back down and we will have a new crisis.

Answer 10

nuclear war is the ultimate global warming