Will nuclear war exterminate humanity?

[Stylesjl]

I used to be of the opionion that if all out nuclear war begun and every nuke was lobbed off, that humans would be completely dead from the fallout.

However after reading some interesting papers and an internesting link from Winner (you were right Winner!) showed that even a worst case scenario would only cause widespread devestation and a possibly a maximum of a billion deaths (from blasts, cancer, starvation from contaminated agriculture and failed mechanical infrastructure and local effects) but not extinction.

What are your thoughts on full all out nuclear war? No doubt it would be an immensely destructive event that would take centuries to recover from, but not the end of humanity

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

No. Only if you had built a bunker underground that is completely self sufficient in air, food, water, and electricity could you survive unharmed. We might survive as a species, but only tiny numbers of us. Radiation would be spread into the winds carrying it to all corners of the Earth, and a nuclear winter would drop temperatures by more than twenty or thirty degrees celsius inland. Near the coastal areas, 'only' five or ten degrees, but the tremendous temperature differences would create massive hurricane like storms that would thrash coastlines and make them uninhabitable.

We'd be completely screwed and would go extinct barring some twist of luck.

 

[Tee Kay]

A full-scale nuclear war will likely to cause extensive devastation, killing most of us directly or through radiation poisioning that will seriously contaminate about 50-70% of earth's land for the next 100,000 years, but humans as a species will survive. Civilisation could be rebuilt but that will take time, depending on how much survives the war. My guess is that it will take 100 - 2000 years for humans to rebuild to match prewar level.

Edit: Stylesjl you've started a lot of nuclear threads lately. What are you up to?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

If we're talking about all nuclear warheads on the planet being used, as styles said, there is no way a single one of us would survive. They don't say "there are enough nukes to destroy the planet nine times over" for no reason.

 

[Stylesjl]

No. Only if you had built a bunker underground that is completely self sufficient in air, food, water, and electricity could you survive unharmed. We might survive as a species, but only tiny numbers of us. Radiation would be spread into the winds carrying it to all corners of the Earth, and a nuclear winter would drop temperatures by more than twenty or thirty degrees celsius inland. Near the coastal areas, 'only' five or ten degrees, but the tremendous temperature differences would create massive hurricane like storms that would thrash coastlines and make them uninhabitable.

We'd be completely screwed and would go extinct barring some twist of luck.

Such predictions are exaggerated and based on false science. In fact this interesting link shows what could have happened in the worst possible case

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

1988- Soviet Union and United States have the highest number of nuclear warheads deployed in history. A worst case scenario

Even then it is expected that about half a billion people die, the tempreature drops a few degrees, NATO and Soviet Russia are thrown into anarchy, starvation and diesease run rampant for a few years and then the Chinese, Australians, Argentenians and Brazil become the most powerful countries in the world sixty years later. Ozone layer in the Northern hemisphere is 40% depleted, 5% in the Southern Hemisphere.

Not the end for all of us

 

[Theige]

If we're talking about all nuclear warheads on the planet being used, as styles said, there is no way a single one of us would survive. They don't say "there are enough nukes to destroy the planet nine times over" for no reason.

It seems you are very wrong, Pasi.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19722

 

[Stylesjl]

Edit: Stylesjl you've started a lot of nuclear threads lately. What are you up to?

If I told you my nationality is Iranian what would you say?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Such predictions are exaggerated and based on false science. In fact this interesting link shows what could have happened in the worst possible case

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

1988- Soviet Union and United States have the highest number of nuclear warheads deployed in history. A worst case scenario

Even then it is expected that about half a billion people die, the tempreature drops a few degrees, NATO and Soviet Russia are thrown into anarchy, starvation and diesease run rampant for a few years and then the Chinese, Australians, Argentenians and Brazil become the most powerful countries in the world sixty years later. Ozone layer in the Northern hemisphere is 40% depleted, 5% in the Southern Hemisphere.

Not the end for all of us

In other news: Tom Clancy dies, Robert Johnston signed to book deal.

Your link doesn't even deal with post-holocaust effects other than a few lines. It states that the Earth would be experiencing nuclear winter for three years; explain to me how a worldwide famine would not kill the vast majority of people left alive? If there is no food being grown, how do we survive?

Your link even states: Now that third world countries are recovering agriculturally and beginning to reduce famine, they are being stricken by epidemics. Bubonic plague has spread to Latin America and is appearing in Europe. Africa, which has been particularly ravaged by war and famine, is now seeing the spread of various diseases going unchecked by modern medicine.

And: Some people exposed to fallout after the war are now dying of cancer; however, cancer as a cause of death among the survivors is minimal compared to other causes: disease, starvation, and exposure.

Without dealing with how any of that would affect people. Read: it would kill us all.

And then in the very next paragraph, after it's done going on about how we're all dying from disease, it starts talking about settlers going to and fro across Asia.

That link is complete bunk. Try digging up something that isn't a Tom Clancy sex fantasy.

"We have yet to fully grasp the monstrous effects of these weapons, that the consequences of their use defy reason, transcending time and space, poisoning the earth and deforming its inhabitants."(1)

-- General Lee Butler, former head of U.S. Strategic Command, December 4, 1996

"The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet."(2)

--International Court of Justice, July 8, 1996

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

It seems you are very wrong, Pasi.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19722

".R. Nyquist, a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations..."

Not a scientist, has no expertise whatsoever on the subject matter and since he's writing for WND, he's obviously just poisoning his article with political slant.

It's also an eight year old article.

Come on, people, I know you can do better than that.

 

[Theige]

".R. Nyquist, a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations..."

Not a scientist, has no expertise whatsoever on the subject matter and since he's writing for WND, he's obviously just poisoning his article with political slant.

It's also an eight year old article.

Come on, people, I know you can do better than that.

No way, he's a writer?

He cites several studies, and scientists

8 years old, so what?

I suggest reading the article

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

No way, he's a writer?

He cites several studies, and scientists

8 years old, so what?

I suggest reading the article

I did. Regarding the actual science, he cites no sources, and goes on and on about how the big bad Russians strategy is to kill us all with nuclear weapons and that they don't care about the consequences.

 

[Tee Kay]

Actually Pasi isn't exaggerating too much. There's roughly 26000 nukes in the possession of 9 countries. That's enough to destroy all the world's cities over 100,000 inhabitants with some to spare.

Of course even if the effects of nuclear war are exaggerated, that doesn't mean using nukes is acceptable.

 

[Stylesjl]

In other news: Tom Clancy dies, Robert Johnston signed to book deal.

Your link doesn't even deal with post-holocaust effects other than a few lines. It states that the Earth would be experiencing nuclear winter for three years; explain to me how a worldwide famine would not kill the vast majority of people left alive? If there is no food being grown, how do we survive?

Your link even states: Now that third world countries are recovering agriculturally and beginning to reduce famine, they are being stricken by epidemics. Bubonic plague has spread to Latin America and is appearing in Europe. Africa, which has been particularly ravaged by war and famine, is now seeing the spread of various diseases going unchecked by modern medicine.

And: Some people exposed to fallout after the war are now dying of cancer; however, cancer as a cause of death among the survivors is minimal compared to other causes: disease, starvation, and exposure.

Without dealing with how any of that would affect people. Read: it would kill us all.

And then in the very next paragraph, after it's done going on about how we're all dying from disease, it starts talking about settlers going to and fro across Asia.

That link is complete bunk. Try digging up something that isn't a Tom Clancy sex fantasy.

"We have yet to fully grasp the monstrous effects of these weapons, that the consequences of their use defy reason, transcending time and space, poisoning the earth and deforming its inhabitants."(1)

-- General Lee Butler, former head of U.S. Strategic Command, December 4, 1996

"The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet."(2)

--International Court of Justice, July 8, 1996

So? So what if disaese kills lots people? Entire civillizations don't get wiped out by famine and disease. Some survive the disease, some people are able to grow enough to eat, and then things move on.

Tom Clancy sex fantasy? What the hell is wrong with you? Should I dismiss everything you say because you are "A no good dirty commie"? Quit attacking political affiliations and actually read the science behind these things. I used to think nuclear war would kill us all and I used to think man made global warming was mostly an exagerration. I have changed my opinions to fit the facts, you can do it too. I beleive in you!

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

So? So what if disaese kills lots people? Entire civillizations don't get wiped out by famine and disease. Some survive the disease, some people are able to grow enough to eat, and then things move on.

Tom Clancy sex fantasy? What the hell is wrong with you? Should I dismiss everything you say because you are "A no good dirty commie"? Quit attacking political affiliations and actually read the science behind these things. I used to think nuclear war would kill us all and I used to think man made global warming was mostly an exagerration. I have changed my opinions to fit the facts, you can do it too. I beleive in you!

Maybe you can answer something that I've been pondering. How can you feed a thousand people with one carrot? That's what famine amounts to. Famine and disease can and have wiped out entire civilizations in the past. Your link doesn't even deal with the effects of a massive planetwide EMP that would throw us all back into the stone age. How would we survive that? Answer: we wouldn't.

Famines and diseases haven't wiped out humanity before because they were never global in scale. If no food is being grown over a three year period, how do we survive, particularly with no electronics? I don't know about you, but I can't survive three years without food. You might be some kind of superman, but most of us aren't.

These facts are not too difficult to comprehend.

Besides which, these nukes are all landing in separate spots. If you've hit a city with a nuke, you don't go and nuke it again. There's enough warheads in the world to destroy all inhabited areas.

 

[Tee Kay]

So? So what if disaese kills lots people? Entire civillizations don't get wiped out by famine and disease. Some survive the disease, some people are able to grow enough to eat, and then things move on.

What about the Arawaks in the West Indies? Enslavement, war and disease wiped them out within a few hundred years of Christopher Columbus' "discovery".

 

[Theige]

I did. Regarding the actual science, he cites no sources, and goes on and on about how the big bad Russians strategy is to kill us all with nuclear weapons and that they don't care about the consequences.

He cites several scientists by name, and studies those scientists conducted. Thats what writers do, when writing a story such as this.

He then cites multiple Russian sources, showing how the Russians believe an all out nuclear war is survivable, and have prepared as such.

 

[CCA]

I heard somewhere that 6 nukes would be enough to kick up so much crap into the atmosphere to cause Nuclear Winter.

Is that true?

 

[Theige]

Maybe you can answer something that I've been pondering. How can you feed a thousand people with one carrot? That's what famine amounts to. Famine and disease can and have wiped out entire civilizations in the past. Your link doesn't even deal with the effects of a massive planetwide EMP that would throw us all back into the stone age. How would we survive that? Answer: we wouldn't.

Famines and diseases haven't wiped out humanity before because they were never global in scale. If no food is being grown over a three year period, how do we survive, particularly with no electronics? I don't know about you, but I can't survive three years without food. You might be some kind of superman, but most of us aren't.

These facts are not too difficult to comprehend.

Besides which, these nukes are all landing in separate spots. If you've hit a city with a nuke, you don't go and nuke it again. There's enough warheads in the world to destroy all inhabited areas.

Food would still be grown. Many would die of starvation, but food would still be grown, especially in countries not targeted by the war.

Most countries would not be touched at all in an all out nuclear war.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

He cites several scientists by name, and studies those scientists conducted. Thats what writers do, when writing a story such as this.

He then cites multiple Russian sources, showing how the Russians believe an all out nuclear war is survivable, and have prepared as such.

No, he doesn't. He quotes them and doesn't investigate. He quotes them like "Consider the views of Professor George Rathjens of MIT, a known antinuclear activist, who said, "Nuclear winter is the worst example of misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory."" and then does not go into the actual science of the thing.

The Russian sources he cites are "military theorists" without elaboration, and does not give the where or when of these quotes, something a real writer (not one working for WND) would do. The Russians did build nuclear shelters, but only enough for a tiny percentage of their population. Considering the content of the quotes ("bourgeousie ideologues") they were from a long time ago and he wasn't getting the straight goods.

Then he goes on to cite a study done in 1960.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Food would still be grown. Many would die of starvation, but food would still be grown, especially in countries not targeted by the war.

Most countries would not be touched at all in an all out nuclear war.

Radiation would be spread by trade winds to all corners of the Earth. A nuclear winter would blot out the sun for at least one year and destroy all crops everywhere. I don't know if you know this, but we kind of need the sun to survive, and would not survive even a single year without it.