Nuclear winter

[Matrix]

We now know that nukes cause global warming. One might know that's is incorrect in reality, because it will cause a nuclear winter: when so much dust is blown into the air, the sun can't get through that well and so the earth will cool off.

Global warming and nuclear winter are not each others counter-effect, but both are of course bad for the environment. You don't want them both at the same time.

What do you think that should happen when nukes are thrown at one another?

 

[MRM]

Nuklear winter of course - let the icecaps grow ...

But dessert tiles in the equator region should be added to in order to simulate more radioactivity and less plantgrowth

 

[Lord Shadow]

In order to have a nuclear winter, many nukes would've to be used at use or consecutively between short intervals. In that case, it'd never happen unless the nuclear war were quick and intensive. I think the global warming option is more viable, since every time a nuke's used, its gasses damage the ozone layer.

 

[Matrix]

That's interesting, Lord Shadow! So actually every nuke causes a bit global warming, but only a lot consecutive nukes can cause a nuclear winter? Makes me have doubts about my own vote.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

well you should get Both desert tiles AND tundra tiles and put it all under 'Climate change' (changing weather patterns just messing stuff up you can have cold deserts...maybe increased marshes/decreased Jungles+Forests as well)

 

[flobi]

I think there was another thread about this. I'm inclined to agree with something I read there in that nukes spread over time would not cause a nuclear winter. But perhaps many in a short period would.

From what I've read, it appears that gasses and contaminants in the atmosphere trap heat from the sun and geothermal sources causing the gradual increase in planetary temperature we call global warming.

The idea of a nuclear winter is that the dust and clouds would be so dense and widespread to block out the sun over most of the planet causing severe loss of life on a global scale due to the inability for plants to photosynthesize (the idea which spawns the metaphoric title "winter"). You would have to have quite a few nukes in order to get that much crap in the air globally.

However, it would still create the same effects of warming by trapping heat in the dense clouds. Of course, this is all relative since any shift in the global thermometer would cause terrain changes across the board. It's just a matter of making sure your definition of desert includes a substantially diminished ability for the land to sustain life.

Of course, any ideas would be mere speculation since as of yet, we've not had a nuclear winter. And there's only been like 3 nuclear weapons detonated as far as I'm aware, the 2 in Japan (or China, wherever) and the 1 in Russia or was that a power plant...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think there was another thread about this. I'm inclined to agree with something I read there in that nukes spread over time would not cause a nuclear winter. But perhaps many in a short period would.

From what I've read, it appears that gasses and contaminants in the atmosphere trap heat from the sun and geothermal sources causing the gradual increase in planetary temperature we call global warming.

No global warming is based on SOME gases in the atmosphere, CO2 and water being the big ones, but a number of others as well, trapping the heat.

This is counteracted by clouds and dust which reflect sunlight back into space cooling the Earth (on reason why global warming may be less than what it could be is because of all the SO2 from coal plants which forms small particles that reflect light back into the atmosphere)

Nuclear winter would be an example of the latter (also hapens with volcanoes /major meteor strikes that put lots of dust in the atmosphere) it would cause cooling. Significantly limiting photosynthesis would only happen in Really severe cases.

However, any type of a major climate change could involve rearranging weather patterns making some areas drier, allowing them to be deserts (even if the world is getting colder, deserts could expand.)

 

[flobi]

Well, either way, expanding tundras and deserts still sounds like it's a plausable result.

 

[Mewtarthio]

Of course, any ideas would be mere speculation since as of yet, we've not had a nuclear winter. And there's only been like 3 nuclear weapons detonated as far as I'm aware, the 2 in Japan (or China, wherever) and the 1 in Russia or was that a power plant...

There have only been two nuclear weapons detonated as an act of war: Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII. However, there have been plenty more nuclear weapons detonated to test their strength during the MAD arms race.

 

[flobi]

mad, that's a good adjective

 

[jkp1187]

Of course, any ideas would be mere speculation since as of yet, we've not had a nuclear winter. And there's only been like 3 nuclear weapons detonated as far as I'm aware, the 2 in Japan (or China, wherever) and the 1 in Russia or was that a power plant...

There were more than that. There were (somewhat) regular US tests above ground in the Nevada desert, and the famous themonuclear detonation at Bikini Atoll in 1952 before the US began underground testing. The Soviets performed similar tests. The French did their tests in the South Pacific (above and below ground), while the British did their tests in Australia and the U.S. There were also a lot of tests in the upper atmosphere, at least until banned in 1963 (the French kept doing it until 1972; China until 1980).

I wonder if EMP effects have been included in the game?

 

[Wlauzon]

Of course, any ideas would be mere speculation since as of yet, we've not had a nuclear winter. And there's only been like 3 nuclear weapons detonated as far as I'm aware, the 2 in Japan (or China, wherever) and the 1 in Russia or was that a power plant...

Actually there have been over 300, of which about 120 were above ground, in tests by the US and ex-Soviet Union in the pre-60's era's.

And both nuclear winter and global warming from nukes is a total myth anyway. When Mount Panatubo blew in the Philippines a few years back, it put the equivalent dust and ash of over 50,000 nuclear weapons out in just a matter of hours. And it caused a 1 to 2 degree drop in world temperatures for a couple of years.

And we are still here.

 

[lost_civantares]

And both nuclear winter and global warming from nukes is a total myth anyway. When Mount Panatubo blew in the Philippines a few years back, it put the equivalent dust and ash of over 50,000 nuclear weapons out in just a matter of hours. And it caused a 1 to 2 degree drop in world temperatures for a couple of years.

And we are still here.

It's still just ash no matter what you do though. I will freely admit that nuclear protests are far over blown, but nukes are still very dangerous, it isn't just the nuclear winter that is dangerous it's the land damage, think about it, if Russia got all mad and nuked New York (or Amsterdam or Berilin etc.) there would be a ton dead, and you would have residual radiation, killing the land for crops and people and causing mutations for many years (rember chernobyl anyone for a minor example?). In other words, it isn't just the visable that is bad, it's the invisable that can be bad, especially in large numbers, and that, in my opinion, is were civ does not do a good job of representing nukes.

 

[Suki]

And both nuclear winter and global warming from nukes is a total myth anyway. When Mount Panatubo blew in the Philippines a few years back, it put the equivalent dust and ash of over 50,000 nuclear weapons out in just a matter of hours.

yup.
In the environmental simulations they used to come to the conclusion that a nuclear winter was possible, they had earth almost as smooth and featureless as a cue ball leading to the prety impressive, but wrong, idea that me might black out the sum before dying from radiation...

 

[Wlauzon]

It's still just ash no matter what you do though. I will freely admit that nuclear protests are far over blown, but nukes are still very dangerous....

There is little doubt that they are dangerous, but that is mostly because of the radiation, which would have no effect at all on climate.

 

[Junuxx]

I think Global Warming producing desert squares is a good thing. Not every desert is like the Sahara. The Gobi is not that hot at all. Just very dry and barren. And besides, I think deserts represent any inproductive wasteland nicely (alright, I do want tundras in the far north, not deserts).

 

[elderotter]

Actually there have been over 300, of which about 120 were above ground, in tests by the US and ex-Soviet Union in the pre-60's era's.

You are forgetting the French and their nuclear tests and India and theirs - I believe for awhile India was going to use them as a mining tool.
And we all know about the secret tests the Canadians have held for decades(sorry J/K still in the Canada theme in the general discussions)

 

[Atreides]

I think global warming from too many factrys. sure workers can clean up localised polution, but there must be some sort of global warming if the entire world is covered with huge cities with factories and rail roads everyware.

 

[Panzer Ace]

If the Cold War ever went hot and NATO and the Soviet Union+Warsaw Pact went to war with eachother there's no dought that NATO would have promtly launched its nukes. NATO was outnumbered by at the very least 20 to 1 and its nukes were its only hope to win. As anyone with common sense would know, the Soviets would have launched theirs in response. With that many(in the thousands) nukes being launched to points all over the world, the results would be a nuclear Armageddon.
The detonation of that many nuclear weapons, pretty much at the same time, would leave turn the world into a living Hell. If, God forbid, something like this ever happens, you'd be lucky to die in the blast from the nuclear explosion. Massive radiation clouds would cover the world. Human deaths would be in the BILLIONS . But nukes don't speu enough ass and dust in the air to cause a global winter. Volcanoes do, however, do this, and 1 eruption from a good sized volcano can block out the sun for a good while and decrease global temps for years. This would happen even if a few hundred would be detonated at around the same time, but that's the main part of it, they have to be detonated at once.
There's no telling how many nuclear tests have been conducted over past 60 years probually around 300-400 at least, but most have been done underground.
But anyway I'd like to see some EMP weapons in the game, in some ways they're even more destructive than nukes. Just think of every computer, TV, modern car(and weapon), and anything else that has an electronic component being disabled for good.......

 

[mossmonster]

Global warming and nuclear winter are not each others counter-effect, but both are of course bad for the environment. You don't want them both at the same time.

Why exactly would they not counter each other's effect? Simplified, nuclear winter is caused by a reduced amount of energy getting to the planet due to the blocking effects of dust in the atmosphere, while global warming is that the heat already here can't escape as easily. If less made it in, but then less got out wouldn't they indeed cancel each other?

Don't tell W he can nuke Iran, N. Korea, etc. and reduce global warming at the same time.