'Regional' Nuclear War Would Cause World Wide Destruction

'Regional' Nuclear War Would Cause World Wide Destruction

blog.wired.com

Think you might escape the aftereffects of a limited nuclear war that happens on the other side of the globe from you? Think again.

Imagine that the long-simmering conflict between India and Pakistan broke out into a war in which each side deployed 50 nuclear weapons against the other country's megacities. Karachi, Bombay, and dozens of other South Asian cities catch fire like Hiroshima and Nagasaki did at the end of World War II.

(visit the link for the full news article)

In these ever-increasing volatile times we are living in, this is something to consider, and perhaps be worried over...There are a lot of potential large-scale skirmishes on the brink of happening, and all it will take is for one of these countries to spark off something like this...This study indicates that even if it occurs on the other side of the planet, the repercussions of such an event will spare NO ONE ON EARTH. We need to be concerned for the direction our world is headed people---In the worst way.

Beyond the local human tragedy of such a situation, a new study looking at the atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war finds that the hot smoke from burning cities would tear holes in the ozone layer of the Earth. The increased UV radiation resulting from the ozone loss could more than double DNA damage, and increase cancer rates across North America and Eurasia.

"Our research supports that there would be worldwide destruction," said Michael Mills, co-author of the study and a research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It demonstrates that a small-scale regional conflict is capable of triggering larger ozone losses globally than the ones that were previously predicted for a full-scale nuclear war."

blog.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

+



=

I'm all set.

I disagree.

I believe that a regional nuclear conflict on the order of about 1,500 megatons might actually prove to be benficial to combating global warming.

I've begun to address the benefits of nuclear terraforming here in this thread. 1,500 megatons of positive energy counteracts 1.5 degrees F of negative temperture change.

Global nuclear winter can counteract global warming
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

reply to post by In nothing we trust


no offense intending, but thats ridiculous.

Letting of nuclear weapons with the perceived advantage of combating global warming?

there's no advantage what so ever to nuclear weapons.
the radiation fall out would far outdo the benefits of any ' perceived ' benefit.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
the radiation fall out would far outdo the benefits of any ' perceived ' benefit.

I'm not so sure.

Most of the radiation should be localized to areas directly downwind of the blast zones. Really it is just minute amounts of radiation that would be dispersed into the atmosphere. BY the time the radiation cloud hit the statosphere it would be so diluted by the shear volume of the atmoshere the resulting fallout really wouldn't be all that bad.

When combating global warming, the goal would be to throw enough dust into the atmosphere to reduce global tempertures. The benefits outweigh the consequenses of allowing global warming to go unchecked.

When I think of a "Regional Nuclear War", I think of Israel or the US droping a nuke on Iran or Syria. I don't think of Pakistan and India exchanging 100 nukes. Of course 100 nukes going off would be devastating. 1 or 2 nukes on the other side of the planet, not so much. At least not on a world wide devastation scale.

I'm sorry but the bombs today explode ten times bigger than the ones dropped on Japan probably. So if one goes out, a nation or two would be devastated...It's sad to live in a world where the elites have "stuff" and a lot of different sources of "stuff" and they can probably do whatever they want...sad

Regional Nuclear war?
Is there such a thing?
What about fallout?
The jet stream has no regional boundrys.
Sorry i just don't get it.

I'm not entirely convinced that the worldwide effects of a *regional* nuclear war would be 'devastating'. Lets not forget that the US and Soviet Union were conducting dozens of atmospheric tests every year in the 50s and 60s and that was during the time when some of the test weapons had enormous yields, topped by the 50+ megaton Tsar Bomb the Russians detonated in 1961 (it was almost completely useless as a weapon, BTW, being virtually impossible to transport). Typical modern ICBM warheads are usually in the range of 300kt-1MT, far less than that thing had.

I'm sure that all of those tests weren't the healthiest thing we could do, but the overwhelming majority of us are still here. The point here is that while its not something to take lightly by any stretch, its something that, in a sense, we've actually seen before.



[edit on 7-4-2008 by vor78]

Originally posted by vor78
I'm not entirely convinced that the worldwide effects of a *regional* nuclear war would be 'devastating'.

Thier argument really isn't all that convincing is it?

There have been over 2,000 successful nuclear weapons tests yielding about 520 megatons of explosive power on the earth since 1945. Those explosions haven't been devastating to the earth. Not only is a limited nuclear exchange between 2rd world countries not devastaing to the rest of the world, but the resulting radioactive dust cloud would act as a protective barrier in the atmosphere which would serve to reduce global tempertures.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

I certainly don't think that a nuclear war is a good way to fight global warming, which I am beginning to think is just another scare tactic anyway. Science seems to prove that the current temperatures we see today are cyclical.

On the other hand, I don't think a limited exchange would wipe out life on Earth. We may have more problems as a result, depending on many factors of the various detonations. Even the tests we have had since 1945 are blamed by many for the high rates of cancer and the deterioration of our atmosphere. But I still don't see a limited exchange being an Extinction Level Event.

But then again, one must consider how limited such an exchange would actually be. If India and Pakistan went at it, or say even if the US nuked Iran, I think we would see a global thermonuclear exchange. Once someone launches, it becomes "use it or lose it" time.

Three things occurred to me when I was reading this.

The first was already stated on here: If such a small number of nuclear weapons were used, it would pale in comparison to what this planet has already seen and survived. Now take into consideration that most of the nuclear weapons in those countries are atomic bombs and not hydrogen bombs. Sure, their nukes are still insanely powerful but this is still a really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY big planet.

Second, 50 nuclear weapons from each side sounds like quite a bit. I know that India is believed to have more than that, and that 50 is about in the middle of the estimates for Pakistan. My question is, can these countries really deliver that many nuclear weapons all at once? I was under the impression that their ballistic missiles were relatively recent developments, which leads me to question if they each actually have 50 missiles to launch.

If not, that would mean many of their nuclear weapons would have to be delivered by plane, which makes it questionable that they'd even reach their targets. Either way, this method requires a protracted nuclear war - which isn't likely. After the initial missile strikes hit, odds are both sides would be calling for a truce if there was anything left of either military.

Third, mankind has displayed a glorious ineptitude at predicting what the climate will do as a result of any particular event. Meteorologists have watched cold fronts and warm fronts collide for decades and the weatherman still can't tell me what the weather will do tomorrow. A nuclear war on the other hand has never been observed before, so why should we trust these estimates at all?

Oh, furthermore, I think you're looking at that article and blowing it way out of proportion. It said the destruction would be worldwide, not that the world would be destroyed.

If something happens in China and it kills some bird in my yard, you could argue that the destruction was felt "world wide."

It suggests cancer rates might increase in North America. Well guess what, cancer rates are always increasing. Haven't you heard the saying, "New studies show that research causes cancer in lab rats?" Wear sunscreen, stop eating sugar supplements, eat organic, and stop smoking. Cancer threat negated.

"it would SPARE NO ONE ON EARTH..." ...please!!

reply to post by mattifikation


If what they propose (100 nukes being detonated) actually happened, then I stand by my statement. People wouldn't all die immediately, but it would effect everyone eventually IMO.

reply to post by In nothing we trust



Im interested to read into it eh, but intial thoughts are it cant work.
Hiroshima, black rain, fall out, over - all effects on the local area.. todays weapons are drastically bigger and boom-ier
They banned atmospheric testing for reasons of ill-results on the atmosphere I thought,

Global warming is based, in my lamens terms.. because we are filling up our 'balloon like' atmosphere with gasses and chemicals, thus making it effectivley a greenhouse.

what happens if we put radiation into the mix? maybe some heavily charged protons, ions, neutrons... general fallout?

the other means to stop global warming is to end our consumeristic ways.. and work to better mankind.

its peaceful too!

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


We must consider other variables as well though. The tests were done in controlled and remote environments.

Detonations in cities would likely prove to me more pollutant. Surface bursts are the most dangerous as far as fallout goes. I don't know if the more crude weapons systems of later nuclear-club members are primarily air-burst or surface-burst designated.

Then we must also consider longer term effects on the gene pool, as fallout victims interbreed with those who were not directly affected.

So is this good news or bad news? Hard to tell by poster's reactions.

I think it's good for Bill O'Rielly who wants to prove he's so tough he'll nuke anyone.
.

Then why aren't we all dead yet?

Their simulation proposed 5 million metric tons of ash would be the cause of the climate alteration. Supposedly this would be enough to destroy nearly half the ozone and double cancer rates worldwide. Well....

Over the course of the day, prevailing winds blew 520 million tons of ash eastward across the United States and caused complete darkness in Spokane, Washington, 250 miles from the volcano. Mount St. Helens Eruption

Sure, it sucked but it didn't kill everyone on earth.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by mattifikation]

Originally posted by mattifikation

Over the course of the day, prevailing winds blew 520 million tons of ash eastward across the United States and caused complete darkness in Spokane, Washington, 250 miles from the volcano. Mount St. Helens Eruption

Sure, it sucked but it didn't kill everyone on earth.

That's right.

Any kind of sediment thrown up into the atmosphere in a limited nuclear exchange would quickly blanket the atmosphere. It would Serve as a protective layer for years to come.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by In nothing we trust]