Scientific Models Show Dire Effects From Nuclear War (Even A 'Small' One), page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 9-4-2008 @ 06:07 AM by infinite

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)

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 06:07 AM by infinite

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)

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 06:39 AM by watch_the_rocks

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 posted on 9-4-2008 @ 06:41 AM by FRIGHTENER

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 posted on 9-4-2008 @ 06:54 AM by Karlhungis

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 posted on 9-4-2008 @ 06:57 AM by infinite

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?

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 07:01 AM by forestlady

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.

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 07:48 AM by Harlequin

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.

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 08:06 AM by Harlequin

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.

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 08:06 AM by barmshadow84

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 posted on 9-4-2008 @ 08:42 AM by vor78

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.

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 01:14 PM 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.

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

reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 12:46 AM by watch_the_rocks

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 posted on 10-4-2008 @ 01:07 AM by _Del_

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.

reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 02:17 AM by mattifikation

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