It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Global and Atmospheric Consequences of Nuclear War

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:40 PM

Concern has been raised over the short- and long-term conse-
. quences of the dusk, smoke, radioactivity and toxic vapors generated
by a nuclear "war" (1-7). The discovery that dense clouds of soil
particles may have played a major role i n past MSS extinctions of
life on Earth (8-10) has encouraged our reconsideration of nuclear
war effects.

It has also been suggested that massive fires ignited
by nuclear explosions could generate immense quantities of sooty
smoke, which attenuates sunlight strongly (7).
experiments have led us to calculate, using new data and improved models,
the climatic effects of dust and smoke clouds (henceforth, nuclear
dust and nuclear smoke) generated in a nuclear war (11).
ful1 exchange, thousands of such cl ouds , produced by i ndi vi dual
explosions and merging w i t h one another, could blanket northern mid-
These recent devel op-

After alatitudes i n days, altering the atmospheric radiation balance and
eventually perturbing the circulation and climate on a global scale.
Possible rapid transfer of tropospheric and stratospheric dust and
smoke from the Northern to the Southern Hemisphere, ignored i n
previous investi gati ons , could i nvol ve the ent i re gl obe i n the
aftereffects. -

Below, we discuss the long-term impacts of nuclear warfare, but
deliberately neglect the short-term effects of blast, fire and radia-
'tion , which would surely represent, by themselves, an unprecedented
human catastrophe (12-14).

PDF File

Further Reading

Despite the age of the article it is still acknowledged as a standard in relation to the discussion of the consequences of nuclear war.

Any thoughts?

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:45 PM
I was under the impression that modern nuclear weapons were air burst, meaning they don't actually explode at ground level. Air burst nuclear explosions have far less fallout.

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by CincinnatiReds

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were detonated at 600 meters and 503 meters respectively. I would say that bomb ranging in the megatons are probably detonated at higher altitudes. But from what I know that is for the purpose of generating a maximum effect.

edit on 23-1-2013 by Kashai because: added content

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by CincinnatiReds

They can be detonated where ever they need to be.
Subsurface, surface, high or low altitude.
It all depends on the intended target and desired effects.

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:32 PM
you're worried about the environment after a global nuclear war.

it won't matter since there won't be anybody left alive.

it will be the environment that will kill you if the blast doesn't.

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:53 PM
Ya'll are a bunch of cry-babies , a little nuclear war never hurt anybody .

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:44 PM

Originally posted by thudpuddy
Ya'll are a bunch of cry-babies , a little nuclear war never hurt anybody .

Define what you mean by a "little nuclear war"?

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by Kashai

Okay , the devil made me do it . Here's the real reply I should have given .

Most nuclear weapons are smaller and more accurate than they used to be , the days of destroying major cities to get a couple of important factories hopefully are gone . Don't get me wrong , I KNOW a nuclear war would be a horrific thing despite my earlier smart-mouth reply .

But people forget how spectacularly bad world war 2 was , we wiped out many cities in 1945 before Hiroshima . Four days (I think) before the bombing of Hiroshima we pretty much erased the city of Toyama , there was just a single building still standing the next day .

I mention that because I seriously believe that world war 3 would have kicked off years ago had it not been for the fact that nuclear weapons suddenly made total war to costly to make it worth anyone's while .

My entire family worked on the bomb in Nevada during the 1950s , I gotta tell you that I know for a fact that we nuked the hell out of Nevada , my mother still has an old Atomic Energy Commission ID card from the Nevada Proving Grounds , she has actually witnessed them going off . (I'm pretty sure a few seconds after detonation since she can still see) Even though I never worked worked there I picked up a fair amount through osmosis and here's what I know .

The deadlier the radiation the shorter the half-life . After only a few hours it's died off enough to take short bursts of it if there's a better shelter nearby . After a two or three weeks it's died off enough to get out in it to maybe leave the area . People used to use snow scoops to clear the fallout from their walkways , some folks used to let their children play outdoors once the radiation levels dropped a little , people didn't know (or believe) that it could cause chromosomal damage .

In all fairness about half of my family did die of cancer , but not all and that didn't start till the 1970s . So I do not believe that a nuclear war would cause total destruction and I might even prefer it if cut a five year long all out conventional war down to about a month .

I don't know anything at all about nuclear winter except that we've survived some pretty big volcanic eruptions , it made things inconvenient , but we made it .
P.S. I'm not going to call ww2 a nuclear war since I don't believe both nukes combined caused even .001% of the total damage , plus it was not a small war . So I still think my first reply was true .

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:14 PM
reply to post by thudpuddy

Not to be insensitive, but 'most' of your family dying of Cancer in the 70's doesnt suggest it had nothing to do with the bomb. Id say the fact most died of cancer is telling.

But your right, immediately after the bomb the radiation in the surrounding area's is limited, its the flash that produces the worst of it. With Hiroshima, the radiation fell to earth in the form of Black Rain
! Most people, still burning and dry from the explosion drank the rain, not knowing its effect.

Todays nuclear weapons though are surperior in all aspects, i for one wouldnt want to surive a nuclear war.

In saying that they are also surgical in nature (some of them)

I'd like to think, that nations around the world still have enough humanity in war to limit their warfare to conventional means. Sort of like cage fighting, you want to win, but you wouldnt bite the other person. You'd just throw punches!

I hope the nuclear genie never comes out, I've been to hiroshima twice and spoken with survivors, its changed the generations in that area. Many of them worship the USA with flags in their windows, purely because they believe the US is so powerful after that bomb.

I think the next time we see nuclear weapons, will be tiny explosions in far away and remote places, probably underground bunker buster types.

edit on 23-1-2013 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

I thought I'd come back to say that you were not insensitive as regards my family , you just misunderstood me. I'm sure that long term radiation is what caused most if not all of their cancers . I meant to point out that exposure is not a certain death sentence and even if it does get you it will probably take a very long time .

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by thudpuddy

Radiation is a problem but as in the case of Chernobyl, today there are plants and animals living in the city.

The issues presented in the OP offers evidence that is consistent with taking, what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki into consideration. Then projecting that to also a full scale nuclear war.

Keep in mind that such an attack could be more akin to "Carpet Bombing," in which case very little if any land in the respective countries, would be exposed to lethal doses of radiation. Such a type of attack is imaginable given how nuclear weapons exist today. Estimates that the United States would wipe out the world 18 times and the Russian 30 times (approx), are actually fact. A point being that it is possible in reality to literally sterilize the planet using nuclear weapons given todays arsenal.

My respects as to your loss.

This is part one of six you tube entries, each is any where between 5 and 10 minutes. It is quite excellent and presents discourse form those whose job has been to prepare for nuclear war. Please understand I did not post the rest, because of the space it would take up but I do recommend you review all six parts.

Any thoughts?

edit on 24-1-2013 by Kashai because: added and modified content

new topics

top topics


log in