Nuclear war

[CavLancer]

This isn't about how one might start but about what humanity might expect from one. Lets make it an all out nuclear war between the Russians and US, for reasons covered in other threads.

I've heard that many expect a nuclear war to wipe out humanity 7 times or some such, but would it?

If you live in Moscow or New York or any city within the nations of the protagonists can we agree that it would be your last day? I believe the reports of DUMBs, or Deep Underground Military Bunkers being built in the US Southwest are true. Always figured this was against the Yellowstone Caldera blowing up, it being overdue. Still, I'd guess that if there was enough nuclear war warning that the bunkers could be filled with citizens, maybe a few thousand. I know the Soviets built a lot of bunkers and I'd bet Putin hasn't given up the practice. Lets assume there would be Russians who live through the war as well. Now for the rest of the world there might be countries which were unhit, such as where I live, the Philippines. Places in Asia and South America and Africa, no missiles impact many countries who are not involved.

Would a nuclear winter actually occur? How bad would it be? To those who believe in man made global warming, would the cooling of a post nuclear world be enough to counteract it and for how long? I assume a nuclear war would result in huge increases of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Radiation of course, most would die from it. People near the blast areas not killed by the nuclear blasts would likely die of exposure. Like people at the Fukushima reactors, the engineers, they died. The folks who were evacuated I'm sure most are alive. Same with Chernobyl. I've read there are many birth defects, but assume that many babies are normal. They might get cancer early in life, but before or after they carry on the species?

Of course an all out nuclear war would introduce thousands of times, maybe hundreds of thousands of time or millions of times the radiation into the environment. Enough to kill everybody though, even in countries not hit? I just don't know. Many have seen the movie 'On the Beach' where survivors in Australia await the cloud as one of their submarines look for survivors, but this is Hollywood, its all drama, all the time. What would the reality be like?

Anyone? Because I think many would survive. In maybe 50,000 years things would be pretty normal. Certainly by the end of the next ice age. Humanity would reemerge into the temperate zones and find a clean world.

Right?

 

[Gigaz]

I think we can all agree that Nuclear war would be really, really bad.
About the nuclear winter:

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

A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years, and according to the research could be "catastrophic"

 

[Kaitzilla]

How bad would total nuclear war be?


One of the big ones dropped on New York City would probably kill a million people.
And there are 1000's of them.
http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report

I doubt 10-20 of them would cause a nuclear winter, but with many 100's of them going off it certainly seems possible.
A megaton bomb creates a 10 mile wide firestorm under it that burns for days chewing through everything that the blast wave doesn't knock down.
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearexplosionsimulator/


All the dozens of nuclear power plants without support during a nuclear attack that are loaded with spent fuel in them will burn or have a chance to meltdown during the chaos causing a dozen Fukushimas.
We like to store all that nuclear waste in swimming pools above ground for some reason at these power plants instead of a mile under the Nevada desert.
The contamination from this alone will probably render large parts of the U.S. uninhabitable for about 300 years and destroy the farm belt that allows us to feed ourselves and so many others.
Not sure how dirty the Russian bombs themselves are or if they are salted or not to make the fallout worse.



Civilization starts to break down when over 60% of the population dies, and during total nuclear war that is likely to happen in the USA.

 

[CavLancer]

Nuclear winter would be bad, okay Gigaz . How about the southern hemisphere?

Sure Kaitzilla, the US and Russia would imo be almost totally depopulated. Civilization finished, but much or most of the world would survive it. I wonder what would become of them?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Mmm, looks like starvation is a real problem if the nuclear winter was bad enough.
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/

Not sure how well the southern hemisphere would fare honestly.

 

[CavLancer]

35% reduction in light. Some stuff would still grow I'd imagine. Wasn't there a reduction of the human race to a small group at some point in its history? Remember watching a show on genetics where the group was quite small and genetic diversity limited.

From your link...sounds like hell.

Summary of consequences: U.S.-Russian war producing 150 million tons of smoke

2600 U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons on high-alert are launched (in 2 to 3 minutes) at targets in the U.S., Europe and Russia (and perhaps at other targets which are considered to have strategic value).
Some fraction of the remaining 7600 deployed and operational U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads/weapons are also launched and detonated in retaliation for the initial attacks.
Hundreds of large cities in the U.S., Europe and Russia are engulfed in massive firestorms which burn urban areas of tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles/kilometers.
150 million tons of smoke from nuclear fires rises above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it quickly spreads around the world and forms a dense stratospheric cloud layer. The smoke will remain there for many years to block and absorb sunlight.
The smoke blocks up to 70% of the sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere, and up to 35% of the sunlight is also blocked in the Southern Hemisphere.
In the absence of warming sunlight, surface temperatures on Earth become as cold or colder than they were 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age
There would be rapid cooling of more than 20°C over large areas of North America and of more than 30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions
150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere would cause minimum daily temperatures in the largest agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere to drop below freezing for 1 to 3 years. Nightly killing frosts would occur and prevent food from being grown.
Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45% due to the prolonged cold.
Growing seasons would be virtually eliminated for many years.
Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also occur, allowing intense levels of dangerous UV light to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth.
Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated and spread both locally and globally. The targeting of nuclear reactors would significantly increase fallout of long-lived isotopes.
Gigantic ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would be released from the fires; enormous quantities of industrial chemicals would also enter the environment.
It would be impossible for many living things to survive the extreme rapidity and degree of changes in temperature and precipitation, combined with drastic increases in UV light, massive radioactive fallout, and massive releases of toxins and industrial chemicals.
Already stressed land and marine ecosystems would collapse.
Unable to grow food, most humans would starve to death.
A mass extinction event would occur, similar to what happened 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out following a large asteroid impact with Earth (70% of species became extinct, including all animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight).
Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Well it doesnt disturb me that much since i live 12 kms southward Rota naval station, one of the biggest naval bases in western Europe which is used by US air force and US Navy as a major logistical hub for operations in Europe and the Mediterranean. So, very likely i wouldnt survive long enough to see any starvations or nuclear winter effects.

BTW: here is a funny tool to simulate a nuclear detonation anywhere:
http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

 

[CavLancer]

Yes, the question of whether survival or a quick death is better has occurred to me as well. It really depends on the quality of life, doesn't it? Say you and your family make it to the underground shelter along with Putin or Obama, the best shelter. In time the air grows foul and the food stale as the air. Years, decades, whatever. The planet freezes. You grow old knowing that this is the planet you pass on to your beloved children, and then you die.

Is death preferable to the best case?

 

[Farm Boy]

Is death preferable to the best case?

There are people who want to live on Mars. We rose from the stone age. It seems to me that many people would prefer to live, and that many would not despite unreservedly fighting to do so. We've come through civil wars, through genocides, through famines, floods, slavery. We continue to want to live through civil wars, genocides, famines, floods, and slavery. I think that once you are past the individual level the question really is more capability rather than desire.

 

[kramerfan86]

What I always wondered is what will happen in non-aligned countries which clearly wouldnt be targeted. Like South American countries, their infrastructure would likely be untouched, would the altered weather patterns pretty much end their society or could they march in a somewhat crippled way?

 

[CavLancer]

There are people who want to live on Mars. We rose from the stone age. It seems to me that many people would prefer to live, and that many would not despite unreservedly fighting to do so. We've come through civil wars, through genocides, through famines, floods, slavery. We continue to want to live through civil wars, genocides, famines, floods, and slavery. I think that once you are past the individual level the question really is more capability rather than desire.

Could not have said it better myself. Okay, maybe a little bit better...

 

[Borachio]

What I always wondered is what will happen in non-aligned countries which clearly wouldnt be targeted. Like South American countries, their infrastructure would likely be untouched, would the altered weather patterns pretty much end their society or could they march in a somewhat crippled way?

I'd go with catastrophic.

Based on new work published in 2007 and 2008 by some of the authors of the original studies, several new hypotheses have been put forth.[18][19]

A minor nuclear war with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, which are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years.

Compared to climate change for the past millennium, even the smallest exchange modeled would plunge the planet into temperatures colder than the Little Ice Age (the period of history between approximately A.D. 1600 and A.D. 1850). This would take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened. Larger amounts of smoke would produce larger climate changes, and for the 150 teragrams (Tg) case produce a true nuclear winter (1 Tg is 1012 grams), making agriculture impossible for years. In both cases, new climate model simulations show that the effects would last for more than a decade.

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


Even a limited nuclear exchange could have devastating effects.

 

[Perfection]

I would gain mutant superpowers and use them to save humanity.

 

[CavLancer]

So, no big changes for you Perfection?

 

[Perfection]

Well I'd make the heel-face turn.

 

[BirraImperial]

What I always wondered is what will happen in non-aligned countries which clearly wouldnt be targeted. Like South American countries, their infrastructure would likely be untouched, would the altered weather patterns pretty much end their society or could they march in a somewhat crippled way?

It depends a lot on the effects of nuclear winter. If the weather is severely altered, crops will not grow, people will starve, riots and civil wars may start. Mass immigration from the affected countries might also cause a problem with resources. Nuclear fallout might also reach the southern hemisphere, causing a spike in cancer and birth defects, I guess. Wars with neighbouring countries trying to control what little resources are left, etc. Also, the global economy would be destroyed, and the crisis will worsen things even if these nations weren't directly hit by nukes.