It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A Small Nuclear War Would Stall Global Warming
NASA computer models reveal what a small, regional nuclear war in one part of the world would do to the global climate and environment. The results are grim.
If 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, each as powerful as 15,000 tons of TNT, were exchanged in a war between two developing-world nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan, models show the resulting fires would send five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper troposphere - the lowest-altitude layer of the atmosphere.
There, the soot would absorb solar heat and rise like a hot-air balloon, reaching heights from which it would not easily settle back to the ground.
In the shade of this carbon shield, Earth would cool. "The effects would [lead] to unprecedented climate change," said NASA physical scientist Luke Oman at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science last week. Oman's and his colleagues' models show that for two to three years after a regional nuclear war, average global temperatures would drop by at least 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C), and as much as 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C) in the tropics, Europe, Asia and Alaska.
Originally posted by CordDragonzord
Instead of just saying dropping 100 nukes would cause black carbon to go up into the Troposphere, they had to make it a nuclear war scenario between developing countries?
If this is some sort of social engineering they aren't doing a very good job at it...or are they?
Anyways, why would this speculation even fall under, let alone mean anything, yo NASA? Have they become so bored with themselves that they feel that they need to come up with radical solutions for things that happen all of the time in nature?
Originally posted by darius2025
Originally posted by CordDragonzord
Instead of just saying dropping 100 nukes would cause black carbon to go up into the Troposphere, they had to make it a nuclear war scenario between developing countries?
If this is some sort of social engineering they aren't doing a very good job at it...or are they?
Anyways, why would this speculation even fall under, let alone mean anything, yo NASA? Have they become so bored with themselves that they feel that they need to come up with radical solutions for things that happen all of the time in nature?
No Kidding! There are many people who would love for that many people to die... because they 'claim' we have an overpopulation problem. Two; it would be so easy to drop 100 A-bombs that small on purpose in the first place.
We've done it many times:
Hiroshima bomb was tiny:
edit on 2-3-2011 by darius2025 because: trouble with videoedit on 2-3-2011 by darius2025 because: embeding issuesedit on 2-3-2011 by darius2025 because: don't got it yet
Nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive waste material in Antarctica are prohibited, subject to certain future international agreements on these subjects.
the Plowshare team designed a series of weapons that contained very little fissionable material, which is what makes radioactivity dangerous to humans.
"For excavation, we put a lot of time and effort and money into developing nuclear explosives which had minimal fissionable material so that you could carry out a 100-kiloton cratering explosion and release the radioactivity equivalent to a 20-ton explosive of fissionable material," Nordyke said.