Newsweek wasted column space by treating the claim that nuclear war could “solve” climate change as serious enough for a fact-check and ended up legitimizing it to a certain extent. Yes, really.
In an insane article headlined “Fact Check”: Would Nuclear War “Solve” Climate Change? The article stated that although it was false to claim that a nuclear war would “solve the climate crisis”, “it is true that even small nuclear wars could have a global cooling impact.”
The fact-check continued: “There are ample evidence to suggest a temporary global cooling effect from a nuclear attack (at least on the ground), but this is not the same thing as solving global warming or the climate crises more broadly.”
This is similar to trying to verify whether Thanos’s plan to wipe out half of the universe’s population will actually heal it, or whether the Death Star nuking Alderaan will reduce intergalactic congestion. These fact-checks are unnecessary. The Newsweek one was also unnecessary.
Newsweek acknowledged that a nuclear winter would be a climate crisis by stating that it would cause global food shortages and potentially millions of deaths.
HuffPost, a liberal outlet tried to propagate this same nonsense 11 year ago in a story headlined “Could a Small Nuclear War Reverse global Warming?” The piece’s first two sentences read like satire from The Onion. “Nuclear War is a bad idea.” Right?” Then it continued: “The pros seem to outweigh any potential global cooling caused even by a small nuclear attack.” This logic was shared by HuffPost and Newsweek. Newsweek thought it was a good idea to repeat this same nuttiness.
Newsweek stated that a nuclear war, when viewed in the larger context of climate change, would actually make matters worse by causing a new climate crisis.
Captain Obvious, thank you for the information!
Conservatives are being attacked. Contact Newsweek to demand that it stop spreading climate propaganda.
