You probably saw earlier this week that the The United Nations chief warned that “humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation.” Notice he didn’t say explosions, he didn’t say destruction, he said annihilation. He went on to mention the obvious tinderboxes, the continuing nuclear activity in the Mideast and Asia, and of course the threats of Mr. Russian Strongman, who according to The Associated Press said soon after his troops attacked the Ukraine, “Whoever tries to impede us, let alone create threats for our country and its people, must know that the Russian response will be immediate and lead to the consequences you have never seen in history.” Putin polished his unmistakable meaning by adding that Russia is one of the most potent nuclear powers.

I mention this newsworthy item because I rarely see articles about the threats of nuclear warfare in newspapers. Nor has it been a hot topic in the TV news I watch. On the other hand, who can miss the heavy winds blowing constantly about global warming? When it comes to temperature, the sky is definitely falling.  Angst that our temperatures may rise a degree or two by the end of the century is palpable and widespread. If temperatures do warm as feared by many, will humanity be annihilated? I certainly hope not. I imagine that folks alive at the future date will adapt, and that they will not greet each day with horror. I’ve compared the challenges of global warming versus nuclear winter in an earlier post (Read it here).

Having lived long enough that I’m now less than a decade from becoming a centenarian myself, I have no hope of being around when 2100 dawns, but I sincerely hope billions of people will still be breathing fresh air then, my descendants included, and that our planet won’t have been scorched by rising temperatures. To achieve that pleasant goal, it seems quite clear, we need to avoid nuclear annihilation. Do you think it would it be wise for us citizens, and especially for our representatives, to be more concerned about avoiding nuclear annihilation?  Perhaps it would help if our leaders took a good look at Nevil Shute’s On The Beach (See here) the realistic, post-apocalyptic novel which takes place about a year after nuclear World War III, a time when radioactive clouds are slowly circling the earth and killing all remaining humans and animals in its wake. (If given the choice between the two, I’d opt for a slightly warmer earth.)

NOTE:

As you may have noticed, I’ve been missing in action for about a month. I apologize for my absence. I’ve been plugging away on other matters that kept me occupied and left little time to post anything here. Now I have another short interval scheduled, one that has me more focused on cool weather, and rain, both likely in my immediate future. I’ll be heading for Iceland this weekend, thanks to my fine daughter who is taking us there to inspect the island for a week or so. Iceland’s temperatures in August usually range between the mid-50s to the mid-40s, and rain falls often, so we’ve prepared ourselves for that.  We’ll be flying to Reykjavik and exploring the southwest coast by car. I’ll let you know how things go.