Scientific Models Show Dire Effects From Nuclear War (Even A 'Small' One)

Scientific Models Show Dire Effects From Nuclear War (Even A 'Small' One)

www.commondreams.org

With India and Pakistan both holding arsenals of nuclear weapons, and the two nations locked in seemingly endless hostility over disputed Kashmir, a team of U.S. experts warns that even a limited nuclear war between them could cause a near-global threat to the Earth’s atmosphere and the human life it protects.

An exchange of even small-scale atomic bomb attacks by the two nations, the experts say, would create a vast hole in the layer of ozone that fills the upper atmosphere and protects life below from damaging - even deadly - ultraviolet radiation.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a very interesting article. In fact, the most detailed I've read for a long time.

However, it does not predict the destruction of the world but human life would suffer deeply if a small nuclear war happens.

www.commondreams.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

I see it doesn't make mention of the 2000+ nuclear tests conducted in the last 63 years.

A nuclear war between the two countries involving about 50 relatively small nuclear warheads, each with the power of the Hiroshima bomb, would touch off violent chemical reactions in the stratosphere. Up to three-quarters of the ozone above the Earth’s far northern latitudes . . would be destroyed.

Also, 50x 15Kilotons (Hiroshima weapon) equals less than 1/65th of the power of a single nuclear test the Russians conducted in 1961. Does this mean we've basically killed the ozone layer dozens and dozens of times?

reply to post by infinite


Terrible stuff, infinite, Star!

I would have to say that anyone who even considers using nuclear
weapons has got to be psychotic, delusional, insane and stupid. STUPID!

If there has to be war, at all, ever, then i think it should be done like in
the days of honor. Their two best fighters square-off, man-to-man, hand-
to-hand, NO weapons! Not to the death, either, just till one "gives", and
the winner makes the ruling on the dispute.

reply to post by watch_the_rocks


Thank you for bringing up that point. I just wonder what the real motive is for this story making headlines?

reply to post by watch_the_rocks


That's what I was thinking.

It is almost like a nuclear paradox, if a nuclear war would destory the climate then why haven't we ruined it already through testing?

Originally posted by FRIGHTENER
reply to post by infinite

 

I would have to say that anyone who even considers using nuclear
weapons has got to be psychotic, delusional, insane and stupid. STUPID!

If there has to be war, at all, ever, then i think it should be done like in
the days of honor. Their two best fighters square-off, man-to-man, hand-
to-hand, NO weapons! Not to the death, either, just till one "gives", and
the winner makes the ruling on the dispute.

I've often thought the very same two things, Frightener. No one wants war except the PTBj who make money from it. War can be very lucrative for them.

And what of the space based tests in the 60`s?

en.wikipedia.org...

starfish prime was a test of a 1.4 megatone warhead at 400 miles - very much in the van allen blet , and it destroyed TELSTAR - and remember that alot of radiation lasts many many hundreds years (halflife) so in orbit is all that junk - in the name of a `test`

good point on the air tests

the US alone has conducted 313 air bursts between 1945 and the partial test ban treaty in 1963

en.wikipedia.org...

the larget test series was `Castle` followed by `Hardtack II` - between them - 95 megatonnes were tested on those 2 tests alone

so im sorry but interesting although that article is - its all balony; `nuclear winter` is a myth.

i would like to add an aside:

`nulcear bunker busters` are safe:

total rubbish , but its a common thought

i draw attention to the `Baneberry` nuclear underground test of 1970

www.shundahai.org...

buried at a depth of 900 feet , the 10 kilton test breached the surface and spilled millions of curies of radiation into the air


900 feet

a bunker buster would only bury to at maximum 100 feet - the job is to direct the shockwaves to collapse any underground tunnels , but you would still get

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

^^ actually Baneberry surface breach.

I find it amazing someone has a little test model to see what happens after a nucelar blast. IF one wants to see , guess what the USA lit 2 off in WWII & ended the war in Japan. Wew had also tested counteless bombs here in the USA. Why look at models when weve already done it.

reply to post by watch_the_rocks


Agreed. The atmospheric test you mention of the Tsar Bomb by the Soviets was almost 60 megatons...almost 4,000 times the yield of the one dropped on Hiroshima.

As I stated in the earlier thread on this subject, lighting off a hundred nuclear weapons in the typical sub-1MT range probably isn't the safest thing in the world to do, but its also not going to cause a global catastrophe.

Yeah the tests havn't effected us at all have they ? i mean the climate of the whole planet hasnt changed or anything like that now has it ... /endsarcasm.

Much easier for AL to blame it in GW and reap the rewards of a green tax.

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
Yeah the tests havn't effected us at all have they ? i mean the climate of the whole planet hasnt changed or anything like that now has it ... /endsarcasm.

You seem to be under the impression, Quantum Squirrel, that nuclear weapons tests have effected the atmosphere to a detectable degree.
A single category 5 hurricane (also called a cyclone or typhoon, to avoid confusion) releases approximately 5 - 20 x10^13 watts of power, or in simpler terms up to 200, 000, 000, 000, 000 watts of heat energy alone. That is about equivalent to exploding a 10 megaton weapon every 20 minutes, or, alternatively, detonating 2.7 Hiroshima-sized bombs every second.

If you think humanity - which is not even a Type I civilization - can come anywhere close to matching the concentrated raw power of even just a cyclone, then you might want to have a look at a bit more information.

reply to post by watch_the_rocks


Thank you for saying what I wanted to say. The media grabs on to these things because fear sells. Global Warming, SARS, Y2k, etc. In fact, I'm having a hard time recalling any impending cataclysm that we've been forewarned about coming to fruition.

It's just not real!

These simulations have clearly missed something. 100 nuclear weapons, especially of the type that India and Pakistan possess, is simply not as much as you would think.

I posted the following in the other thread (why are their two threads on this?), but I'll post it here also:

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

Thanks, forestlady, glad we agree, or i guess we'd have to 'duke it out'...
just kid'n!

The Bikini Islands Atoll makes me sad for the natives who were re-located
in the name of nuke testing. They were total savages. (Not the natives,
the devices!)

Operation Hardtack I 1958 Pacific Proving ground

Image

Operation Dominic 1962

Image

Holy Fireball!!!

[edit on 4/10/2008 by FRIGHTENER]

Is it me or it's propaganda against Iran? I mean all the talk about Iran being a nuclear power... Iran wanting war, so we must act against Iran before they get the bomb.. .or that kind of BS.

And nuclear winter is a theory, let's not forget that.

The article claims that the hole in the ozone layer would be from flames from the cities nuked burning... it's BS... The Tokyo fire-bombing made much more smoke than Nagasaki or Hiroshima....

Another reason to destroy all nuclear arms. It is an insane notion to think that such weapons would ever be effective in anything other than our own extinction.