Giant Meteor Strike or a Clinton War on Russia - What's More Catastrophic? What's Most Likely?

A grass roots movement seems to favor the Giant Meteor.

Wed, Nov 2, 2016
|
786Comments
MORE:

In a June poll the Public Policy Polling organization asked respondents this question:

"If the choices for President were Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Donald Trump, and a Giant Meteor hitting the Earth which would you choose?"

Thirteen percent picked the Giant Meteor. That's a more popular choice than the other polls have shown for the Libertarian or Green Party candidates.

I've seen no update on the 13 percent statistic. But considering the increasing public annoyance with our presidential election discourse, I'd be surprised if the Giant Meteor option were not picking up speed.

One telling indicator is that lawn signs have been popping up promoting the Giant Meteor option. This seems to be a truly grass roots movement. The signs say "just end it already." I know of no Giant Meteor Party that is out working for the vote. This is true democracy at a fundamental level, without the perversion of self-serving political parties.

For quite some time Clinton antagonists have been asserting that a vote for Hillary is a vote for nuclear war. That's certainly consistent with the aggressive rhetoric Mrs. Clinton has been uttering regarding Putin and Russia. It's not hard to imagine that with US-Russia relations being pushed so hard toward the brink that something might snap.

Lately Clinton has turned the argument around on Trump. Despite Trump's claims that he would try to get along with Russia, Hillary has recently begun intimating that it is electing Trump president that would tempt a nuclear war.

That means in the minds of some Americans voting for either candidate could be a vote for nuclear catastrophe. In that context it's easy to see why the attractiveness of a Giant Meteor strike could be gaining.

What would be the consequences of either alternative, the nuclear war or the Giant Meteor?

A NASA working group discussed the historic Arizona Meteor Crater and the Tungaska event in Russia. It concluded:

"An impact by one of these larger meteors in the wrong place would be a catastrophe, but it would not threaten civilization."

Other scientists claim a nuclear war could lead to something called a Nuclear Winter.

According to Rutgers University professor Alan Robock, "large climatic effects would occur in regions far removed from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict."

"The potential devastation would be catastrophic and long term," says UCLA professor Richard Turco.

The thought of a nuclear doomsday has long been a part of the American culture, dating back to the original Cold War era.

NASA claims that a collision with Earth large enough to place the entire population of the Earth at risk is estimated to take place only several times per million years. But the Giant Meteor folks seem to be calling for something more immediate.

The presidential election takes place next week.

So where do you place your hopes?

--Is it a Giant Meteor in 2016?

--Or would you take your chances with Trump?

--Or is it Clinton for you?


 

advertisement

Click here for our commenting guidelines