Small Nuclear War Could Lead to Cooldown

[kurth]

Small Nuclear War Could Lead to Cooldown

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Some of the scientists who first advanced the controversial ''nuclear winter'' theory more than two decades ago have come up with another bleak forecast: Even a regional nuclear war would devastate the environment. Using modern climate and population models, researchers estimated that a small-scale nuclear conflict between two warring nations would cause 3 million to 17 million immediate casualties and lead to a marked cooldown of the planet that could lead to crop failures and further misery.

As dire as the predictions seem, they fall short of nuclear winter. That theory says that smoke and dust from an atomic war between the superpowers would blot out the sun, plunge the Earth into the deep freeze and cause mass starvation, wiping out 90 percent of the Earth's population, or billions of people. The new scenario offers no estimate of the number of deaths from the environmental effects of a regional nuclear war. Still, scientists said the scenario points to the danger of small nuclear states obtaining atomic warheads...

The new studies looked at the consequences if two nations dropped 50 Hiroshima-size bombs on each other's big cities. By analyzing population data and distance from blast, scientists predicted a regional nuclear war would kill 3 million people in Israel and up to 17 million in China. The U.S. would see 4 million blast deaths. But the researchers say black soot from the fires would linger in the atmosphere, blocking the sun's rays and causing average global surface temperatures to drop about 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the first three years. Although the planet would see a gradual warming within a decade, it would still be colder than it was before the war, the scientists said...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Nuclear-Winter.html

[berni_mccoy]

1. Bush's Plan to Stop Global Warming: Global ThermoNuclear War.

[everythingsxen]

2. So all we need is a small nuclear war...

with a mini nuclear winter, counteract the effects of global warming.

Huzzah! Everyone wins!

"...no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops." - General 'Buck' Turgidson, Dr. Strangelove

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[silverweb]

3. That's just brilliant.

Avert widespread death and destruction around the planet by global warming -- by causing massive death, destruction, and long-term poisoning of the planet with a nuclear war.

Now watch moronic advocates of this "solution" come out of the woodwork.

Just fucking brilliant. x(

[Pab Sungenis]

4. I hate to say it, but

We might be looking at the future. We won't be tossing the nukes, nor receiving them, but it's likely to happen. India and Pakistan have been in a state of virtual war for years, and both are nuclear powers now. Unless they manage to reconcile their differences and step back from the brink, I think it's inevitable that they exchange at least a few nukes in the next century.

[wtmusic]

11. Before that

China will agree to a secret oil-for-nukes swap with Iran, and it will be smuggled into and detonated in an American city.

[nashville_brook]

5. interesting Israel and China are assumed to be major "players" in this

[sweetheart]

6. "nuclear winter" again, do these wankers ever think anew?

My dog is a more creative editor than the NY times, fearmongering about nuclear war is
just so incredibly cold war'esque, rumsfeldian, tiresome, and generally passe.

[Mojorabbit]

7. Was there any cooling

when Japan was nuked?

[geomon666]

8. The Japan nukes are like firecrackers compared to todays nukes. n/t

[WindRavenX]

9. yup

And that's terrifying...

[spoony]

10. No, and furthermore

there wasn't any when the big powers were testing megaton thermonuclear bombs in the south pacific. Not to say it was harmless, of course, but if nuclear winter was reality, we'd have seen evidence by now (especially, one would expect, in the aftermath of Russia's tsar bomba).

[NickB79]

14. We did see cooling from 1945 to the 1970's

Through the 50's into the 70's, there was a noticable global cool-down, cumulating in the infamous article in Newsweek asking if we were on the brink of a new Ice Age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

What's really interesting is that global warming denialists always point to the 1930's as a time when record high temperatures were recorded in the US, records that stood until the 1990's. This study could explain why that odd spike occurred but then receeded: our nuclear tests delayed the onset of full-blown global warming for several decades.

[spoony]

18. My problem with that

as per my understanding, there was a turn upwards in global temps but then another downturn, after the partial (atmospheric) test ban treaty in 1963. Here's a graph showing global temperature anomalies in the 20th century:

www. c-science.com/txt/images/2000/000202enx1.gif


This makes it look to me like there was a rise after the treaty, which would support thinking it was related to the tests, but then in the 70's it dropped again (particularly look at the annual means) before finally beginning its dreadful, decisive upwards slope.

Maybe I'm focusing too much on small variations, I don't know.

[spoony]

19. Dang, let me try another graph link

[maine_raptor]

20. Spoony, can't see the graph.

Just got the red x thingmie on my screen.

But I suspect you are right; you're focusing too much on small variations that could be caused by a number of things: Volcanoes, changes in the density of dust between the Earth and Sun, sunspot activity, etc.

Plus you have to remember the means for accurately measuring temps was crude back then when compared to today's methods. Thus the numbers could be off.


Just sayin' :shrug:

On Edit: I can see the graph now. I assume you're talking about the approx .045 (?) rise starting in 1950 (?) and then dropping in 1963 (?), right?

Look at the numbers in the 40's. Notice the rise there? Could that be WWII? A lot of "dust" thrown up there.

Where is that thing from? Links, please.

[spoony]

22. Try that second one

But you could very well be right. In any case, if 5,000 megatons are ever exchanged by anyone, the world as we know it ceases to exist one way or another. :-(

[maine_raptor]

23. Ok I see the link, but

but do you have one that goes to the article the graph is from.

on reflection of that graph:

Assuming the numbers are accurate and all that; the time period of which you're interested in (early 50's - mid 60's) was also a time of industrial growth both here and abroad combined with a lassie-faire (sp?) attitude toward the issue of pollution. I suspect that had more to do with the numbers than a few nukes going off every once in a while.

[dysfunctional press]

15. the tests in the south pacific are totally different animals.

they didn't put anywhere NEAR the type of dust and soot into the air that would be caused by using them over populated areas on land.

[spoony]

16. The ones done on land did

They disintegrated atolls, blew up livestock, incinerated battleships, etc. Also the US conducted extensive atmospheric tests on American soil, of about the size of modern 'tactical' nukes. Much like the military itself, the move has been towards smaller nuclear units more easily deployed.

[maine_raptor]

17. Nuclear winter

would not just be caused by the blast effects. What would contribute to the cool down would be all the soot, toxic gasses, and the like created by a nuclear explosion over a built up area. Think of all the plastic that is in your home. Ignite that and you release a great deal of atmospheric junk. Now multiply that by tens of thousands of home in just one city.

It is the combination of many blasts over many cities.

The original study called "TAPPS" (after the author's initials) appeared in Science Magazine in 1983. It's still available on line, but you have to pay for it. The study assumed a 5,000 megaton exchange between the USSR and the US.

A small nuclear exchange would have a smaller, but still noticeable effect.

Blowing up atolls, sinking battleships, and turning desert sand into glass once every few months is simply not the same as many nuclear weapons detonating over a short (30-60 minutes) period of time.

[dysfunctional press]

21. there's still no comparison to land-based atmospheric detonations

not to mention entire cities burning for days and days afterward...
plus- they're talking about 50 or so nukes being used at around the same time- the south pacific tests weren't that many, and not all at the same time.

[Jack_DeLeon]

12. Just like in Futurama

where the nuclear winter counteracted global warming.

[leftofthedial]

13. cool! a repuke fix for global warming!

look out North Korea!

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed.

But if those Muslims continue to outbreed us, we'll have a mine-shaft gap.