Will nuclear war exterminate humanity?

[Lotus49]

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.

We've had the abillity to destroy the world nine times over since... probably the mid-to-late-50's (U.S. anyway - U.S.S.R. was lagging behind for a while in those days). Today, you can accurately say that, "we (humanity) can destroy the world many thousands of times over".

As for the extermination of humanity, you can probably say that these nuclear arsenals are humanity's greatest looming threat with regard to total annihilation, at any given moment.

Oh, well. As Riddick said, "It had to end sometime".

 

[CenturionV]

No, even simultaneous detonation of every nuclear weapon currently in service for every nation would not render even unprotected humans incapable of life everywhere on earth, most statistics stating that nuclear weapons can destroy the earth are based on faulty observation of facts and unrealistic ideas about the rather limited danger from fallout, and just plain misrepresentation of the situation (like taking the yield of the atomic bombs used on Japan and casualties and then calculating the yield of all nuclear weapons and the "casualties" they would produce in the same way, like as if everyone lived in a city just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and there has already been over 2000 nuclear tests in just the last 62 years, yet you can travel basically anywhere on earth and never even know that a single bomb had been detonated without being told, there is no permanent fallout, no dangerous "dead zones" no wasteland and no mutant freaks, liberals need to stop reading comic books, they obviously have a hard time differentiating between reality and fantasy.

The total operational nuclear arsenal for the US is around 5,700 and that includes everything from the smallest tactical weapons to the biggest city-busting strategic ICBM's.

Fallout while dangerous would kill few by comparison to blast heat, shockwaves, burns, and post-exchange chaos.

A total nuclear war while a huge catastrophe, would not even come close to exterminating humanity. Heck a full nuclear exchange between Russia/US would not even kill everyone in either of those two nations, let alone the whole world.

Yes we have the capability to kill all humanity. If we gathered everyone together and had them stand out in the open in big circles while we dropped bombs on them. Then we could destroy humanity. And that's about it.

 

[Stylesrj]

The steam engine could start with a propeller and then work it's way to piston once the basics are done and people find the propeller much better than using hands and shovels.

The tanks might run for a few weeks/days/hours and then go break down, but we'll still have tanks and housing (if the tank is useless as a vehicle, use it for cover!).

As long as the nukes are not lobbed at every part of the globe, people would probably still be able to grow crops. Just chop down a few trees in South America and plant farms. Survival is there, time for steam engines is there, and no threat of nuclear war, unless it was already nuked, which it won't mostly likely be, because South America or Africa isn't as strategic as the Europe/Asia/North American fronts.

Anyone else agreeing with that? Nuking to extinction is like Real Estate - Location! Location! Location!

 

[Lotus49]

No, even simultaneous detonation of every nuclear weapon currently in service for every nation would not render even unprotected humans incapable of life everywhere on earth, most statistics stating that nuclear weapons can destroy the earth are based on faulty observation of facts and unrealistic ideas about the rather limited danger from fallout, and just plain misrepresentation of the situation (like taking the yield of the atomic bombs used on Japan and casualties and then calculating the yield of all nuclear weapons and the "casualties" they would produce in the same way, like as if everyone lived in a city just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and there has already been over 2000 nuclear tests in just the last 62 years, yet you can travel basically anywhere on earth and never even know that a single bomb had been detonated without being told, there is no permanent fallout, no dangerous "dead zones" no wasteland and no mutant freaks, liberals need to stop reading comic books, they obviously have a hard time differentiating between reality and fantasy.

The total operational nuclear arsenal for the US is around 5,700 and that includes everything from the smallest tactical weapons to the biggest city-busting strategic ICBM's.

Fallout while dangerous would kill few by comparison to blast heat, shockwaves, burns, and post-exchange chaos.

A total nuclear war while a huge catastrophe, would not even come close to exterminating humanity. Heck a full nuclear exchange between Russia/US would not even kill everyone in either of those two nations, let alone the whole world.

Yes we have the capability to kill all humanity. If we gathered everyone together and had them stand out in the open in big circles while we dropped bombs on them. Then we could destroy humanity. And that's about it.

For one thing, most testing of 'the big ones' has occurred under the surface of the planet. Second, the concern is not that the fallout would kill everyone, but the ensuing 'nuclear winter'.

Archeological evidence indicates that single, massive supervolcanic eruption nearly wiped out the human race in the very distant past (Toba caldera, Indonesia, ~74,000 B.C), due to the massive amount of ash spewed into the Earth's atmosphere, circling the entire globe, severely darkening and cooling/freezing the planet for long enough to nearly cause the extinction of the human race. It's estimated that only a few hundred human females survived (perhaps even just a few DOZEN!), thus the distinct bottleneck in human geneology, associated with that date / era.

So, imagine that only many, many times more powerful, and blasts covering much more of the Earth's surface area, as opposed to one, single location. It's the nuclear winter, you seem to forget. Thick, radioactive dustclouds covering the entire planet, causing the next great mass extinction.

-That's why they say it would 'end the world'. Not because everyone is going to receive a direct hit by a warhead. Rather, life on Earth would soon become unsustainable.

But on top of that, I also think you underestimate the sheer gigatons of explosive power we're talking about, and what that kind of power could be capable of doing, were it focused on a single point, in the Earth. But regardless of that, be assured that we do indeed 'have the power to destroy all life on the Earth, many thousands of times over'. Simply because we know how much power it would take, to cause another mass extinction. Take the combined nuclear arsenals, divide their power by this, and there indeed you have the factual statement.

 

[mdwh]

Although we'd recover in time, one possible problem is the lack of oil reserves. One big problem for our continued technological growth is whether we can manage on other forms of energy when oil sources decline, and even as it is, that's a worry. But if civilization is destroyed worldwide, we have to go through over a century of oil-using industrialisation again, and it becomes a bigger risk that we'll run out before we can develop anything else.

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.

Yes but that's not the same thing as saying that no one will survive. No one is disputing that all out nuclear war would be a major pain in the arse, the question is, would it kill everyone, and claiming "Yes" when the answer's "No" is not a mere exaggeration...

Why does everyone say we'll be bombed back to the stone age?

Guys! The Stone Age was when people fought with basic tools and with clubs and rocks. We'd be bombed back a few ages, but not to the Stone Age. We'd still have people who can make steam engines, or teach some to do so and we can still rebuild the infrastructure. Heck, the Stone Age didn't even have swords or pikes back then!

If we were all nuked, we'd probably go back to Pre-industrial times (Perhaps the Renaissance in the worst-case scenario, but with tanks and stuff) but we wouldn't go back to fighting with clubs and rocks. Sorry, I just hate that kind of exaggeration with "Going back to the Stone Age" we're too far in tech for that!

I agree that the stone age is extreme, but I think you're underestimating the problem that we know longer have the knowledge or infrastructure for the technology we had in a pre-industrial time. Yes, we can relearn it and rebuild the infrastructure, but that takes time, so until that happens, we'd have gone back to an earlier stage.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The steam engine could start with a propeller and then work it's way to piston once the basics are done and people find the propeller much better than using hands and shovels.

You have no idea how to build a steam engine, do you.

This is basically how you do it.

You have a fuel. Let's say wood, just for the hell of it. The fire is encased in a furnace sort of thing, with a large tube leading out of it. This tube runs into the bottom half of a piston, whose other side is exposed to the air. This piston usually sits in cold water, but it doesn't have to. The piston starts in the down position. When the steam enters, it forces the piston up. The top of the piston is connected to a wheel by a connecting rod. When the steam forces the piston up, it pushes the wheel, much like when you push down on a pedal on a bicycle. The steam cools, and condenses. The reduced air pressure, combined with the centripital force of the rotating flywheel, pushes the piston back down, and pushes the condensed steam out the other side of the piston. Wash, rinse and repeat. The wheel can be connected to whatever you wish to harness the power for.

There's other versions of a steam engine; one operates in a vaccuum, one has a double piston (that one's cool) but they all work on that same basic principle.

By the way, as simple as that seems, it took humans until the 1800s to build more than one of them.

The tanks might run for a few weeks/days/hours and then go break down, but we'll still have tanks and housing (if the tank is useless as a vehicle, use it for cover!).

Counterforce strategy ensures that there will be no tanks left. To add to the fun, vehicles, once irradiated, stay uninhabitable for thousands of years. So even if a tank was not actually destroyed, you wouldn't be able to get into it, or you would be instantly fried.

 

[mdwh]

Archeological evidence indicates that single, massive supervolcanic eruption nearly wiped out the human race in the very distant past (Toba caldera, Indonesia, ~74,000 B.C), due to the massive amount of ash spewed into the Earth's atmosphere, circling the entire globe, severely darkening and cooling/freezing the planet for long enough to nearly cause the extinction of the human race. It's estimated that only a few hundred human females survived (perhaps even just a few DOZEN!), thus the distinct bottleneck in human geneology, associated with that date / era.

So, imagine that only many, many times more powerful, and blasts covering much more of the Earth's surface area, as opposed to one, single location. It's the nuclear winter, you seem to forget. Thick, radioactive dustclouds covering the entire planet, causing the next great mass extinction.

It's not clear that energy released is the sole factor, as opposed to over factors like how much dust/ash/material is thrown into the atmosphere.

How powerful was Toba, anyway? The Tambora eruption in 1815 released 1 GT (according to http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=971132&lastnode_id=0 and http://www.armageddononline.org/nuclear_warfare.php ). The total nuclear arsenal at its peak was about 13 GT - so we're talking many times more powerful than the 1815 eruption. Although this is the largest eruption in recorded history, and it had global effects, this clearly posed nowhere near any threat to humanity's survival.

 

[Stylesrj]

Yes I understand that tanks will be uninhabitable because they'll be hit, but you can't destroy the entire military by destroying every major city and small city. You might have some village with no strategic value whatsoever with a few derelict tanks or tanks just standing guard there (tanks include APCs and light assault vehicles)

Anyway, anyone else arguing with the thing that nukes will not wipe us all out unless every corner of the globe was hit? Do you think I'm right when it comes down to location? I like it how you argue against my tank arguments, but what about my other arguments?

 

[Winner]

The question should really be, "Can all-out nuclear war cause humans to go extinct?"

The obvious answer is yes.

Is that really obvious, or is it... um, unwishful thinking?

Humans have survived much greater catasthropies while they were stucked in Stone Age, without any advanced technology. Ice Age or Toba explosion had a potential to wipe out the entire species.

If some people survived the initial blast and fallout there would be little or no food or water that isn't contaminated with high levels of radiation. It would be very difficult for anyone to survive for long without divine intervention.

Nuclear war would be disasterous, but it wouldn't destroy all cities or contaminate whole countries. Also, fallout would eventually stop being dangerous. Radioactive contamination would be life-threatening for only few weeks (months in the worst hit areas) after the war.

If the question is, "Will nuclear war exterminate humanity?" Only God knows. There certainly are enough nuclear weapons to do the job but it would take mass insanity to actually go through with wiping out our entire race.

No, we don't have enough weapons to do that, we're not even close. We would have to have large warheads with yield measured in gigatons which would be specially designed to cause long term contamination.

 

[Winner]

For one thing, most testing of 'the big ones' has occurred under the surface of the planet. Second, the concern is not that the fallout would kill everyone, but the ensuing 'nuclear winter'.

Actually, the big ones were tested in atmoshere: see Castle Bravo and Tsar explosions.

Archeological evidence indicates that single, massive supervolcanic eruption nearly wiped out the human race in the very distant past (Toba caldera, Indonesia, ~74,000 B.C), due to the massive amount of ash spewed into the Earth's atmosphere, circling the entire globe, severely darkening and cooling/freezing the planet for long enough to nearly cause the extinction of the human race. It's estimated that only a few hundred human females survived (perhaps even just a few DOZEN!), thus the distinct bottleneck in human geneology, associated with that date / era.

So, imagine that only many, many times more powerful, and blasts covering much more of the Earth's surface area, as opposed to one, single location. It's the nuclear winter, you seem to forget. Thick, radioactive dustclouds covering the entire planet, causing the next great mass extinction.

Actually Toba superexplosion released much more energy than we have "stored" in all of our warheads.

Nuclear Winter is a myth. It is possible, but with current size of the world's arsenals, it is higly unlikely it would ensue. We'd probably see only a mild version of it, scientists call that "Nuclear Fall".

As I said previously - the asteroid impact 65 million years ago caused about 3 years long "asteroid winter". It is extremely unlikely that our few weak warheads would cause anything even close to that.

-That's why they say it would 'end the world'. Not because everyone is going to receive a direct hit by a warhead. Rather, life on Earth would soon become unsustainable.

But on top of that, I also think you underestimate the sheer gigatons of explosive power we're talking about, and what that kind of power could be capable of doing, were it focused on a single point, in the Earth. But regardless of that, be assured that we do indeed 'have the power to destroy all life on the Earth, many thousands of times over'.

No, we don't, jeez. You know, saying that over and over again won't make it true.

The explosive energy of the 'dinosaur killer' was tens of thousands of times bigger than the energy that could be realeased by detonating all nuclear warheads at the same time.

I know some people need to flatter their ego by believing that humans are all-mighty demigods, but this has nothing to do with science. All facts lead to only one conclusion: global nuclear war would not seriously affect the biosphere. We'd destroy many species, but that has happened so many times on this planet in its past it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[nc-1701]

While I basicaly agree with you Winner I would like to add a small thing that you missed. While the nuclear arms can't directly cause a nuclear winter, recent research has shown that the firestorms kicked up by nuclear weapons targeted at citys could. The reason is that citys have a huge amount of combustible material, and a nuclear weapon causes a heat flash so strong that even things like pavement will ignite on fire.

I agree that a nuclear war where military bases were targeted would cause little or no nuclear winter, but if numerous citys were targeted it would doubtlessly happen. Humanity would still survive largely intact though, because we are extremely resilient.

 

[Murky]

Is that really obvious, or is it... um, unwishful thinking?

I was referring to every country on earth unleashing its full nuclear arsenal on everyone else. We really can't fully estimate the end result because we have no similar benchmark. The closest we have is the devastation caused during WWII with only two cities in Japan. Those bombs were tiny compared to the ICBMs we have now. There thousands of these powerfull ICBMs in the world today.

Humans have survived much greater catasthropies while they were stucked in Stone Age, without any advanced technology. Ice Age or Toba explosion had a potential to wipe out the entire species.

There have been much greater mass extinctions in the past from less devastating causes. We are already worried about what our pollution from does to the climate. Imagine what nuclear war could do. The earth could become uninhabitable for thousands of years from all-out nuclear war.

Nuclear war would be disasterous, but it wouldn't destroy all cities or contaminate whole countries. Also, fallout would eventually stop being dangerous. Radioactive contamination would be life-threatening for only few weeks (months in the worst hit areas) after the war.

There are enough weapons to destroy every major city on the planet. The radiation would drift over other areas contanimating the food and water. Maybe some people could survive for a while in undeground bunkers living off of dry foods and recycling their water. They would someday run out of food and eventually be forced to go back into the wasteland above. It would be difficult for them to survive for long without a good source of food.

No, we don't have enough weapons to do that, we're not even close. We would have to have large warheads with yield measured in gigatons which would be specially designed to cause long term contamination.

How do you know for sure? How many megaton warheads does it really take?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes I understand that tanks will be uninhabitable because they'll be hit, but you can't destroy the entire military by destroying every major city and small city. You might have some village with no strategic value whatsoever with a few derelict tanks or tanks just standing guard there (tanks include APCs and light assault vehicles)

Counterforce strategy, pal, not countervalue. Nuclear missiles aren't targeted at cities, like you are led to believe. They are targeted at military installations.

Okay, time for a brief lesson in Cold War doctrine.

First, let's talk about MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction.

If two nations were to engage in a "nuclear exchange," their objectives would be to destroy the other side's ability to retaliate militarily. This ability is called first strike capability. If you can take out your opponent's ability to launch a nuclear missile, then you've won. That's why Winner's maps above show fallout patterns for the silos and B-52 bases in North Dakota, not fallout patterns for San Francisco, and that's why there are no silos or nuclear bases anywhere near anyplace inhabitable. Anywhere.

Okay, but let's say that you fail to take out the opponent's ability to retaliate. So, he retaliates. His ability to respond to your first strike is called second strike capability. It is for this reason that Boomer submarines have been made: it's nearly impossible to take out all of your opponent's submarines in the first strike, so Destruction is Mutually Assured. Get it?

Oh, and for future reference, an IFV or an APC is not called a "tank," it is a "light armored vehicle:" LAV. But I fail to see how, as you say, a few tanks in the middle of nowhere are going to matter.

Anyway, anyone else arguing with the thing that nukes will not wipe us all out unless every corner of the globe was hit? Do you think I'm right when it comes down to location? I like it how you argue against my tank arguments, but what about my other arguments?

It's not an argument, it's a claim.

 

[Leonel]

Nuclear war would be disasterous, but it wouldn't destroy all cities or contaminate whole countries. Also, fallout would eventually stop being dangerous. Radioactive contamination would be life-threatening for only few weeks (months in the worst hit areas) after the war.

So after a few months would it then be okay to farm and hunt again? I'm asking because that'd be useful knowledge incase the unthinkable happens.

I figure you'd have to wash the veggies and meat very thoroughly to get rid of any fallout that is chemically poisonous.

 

[Lotus49]

Actually, the big ones were tested in atmoshere: see Castle Bravo and Tsar explosions.



Actually Toba superexplosion released much more energy than we have "stored" in all of our warheads.

Nuclear Winter is a myth. It is possible, but with current size of the world's arsenals, it is higly unlikely it would ensue. We'd probably see only a mild version of it, scientists call that "Nuclear Fall".

As I said previously - the asteroid impact 65 million years ago caused about 3 years long "asteroid winter". It is extremely unlikely that our few weak warheads would cause anything even close to that.



No, we don't, jeez. You know, saying that over and over again won't make it true.

The explosive energy of the 'dinosaur killer' was tens of thousands of times bigger than the energy that could be realeased by detonating all nuclear warheads at the same time.

I know some people need to flatter their ego by believing that humans are all-mighty demigods, but this has nothing to do with science. All facts lead to only one conclusion: global nuclear war would not seriously affect the biosphere. We'd destroy many species, but that has happened so many times on this planet in its past it wouldn't make any difference.

Tsar Bomba -the largest ever- was tested in the atmospere, I know. I was referring to the fact that during the heyday of testing, it went underground. That bomb est. 50-60 Mtons, was in 1961. Still the 'golden era' of nuclear testing. Once things started getting really serious - the heyday of testing & production, which led to the massive arsenals of the 70s and 80s, it was mostly underground testing. That's what I meant.

As for nuclear winter being a "myth"... hmmm, let's hope so. If that helps you sleep better at night. Quit thinking of Hiroshima... that weak-yielding bomb, a little mushroom cloud, and a few days later, people are milling about the city once again (at their own peril, mind you). Todays strategic warheads would be capable of disrputing/impacting the Earth's surface with an exponentially more powerful blast. Not much of a comparison really. Then, multiply that times several thousand impact points, and you've got one H3ll of a mess.

The planet would be ruined. I think you are underestimating how fragile life really is. Current pollution levels have killed... (what, Green Peace guys...) like over 90% of the Earth's marine life, in the past couple of hundred years. -Might want to check that, but I'm pretty sure it's close to accurate. Anyway, throw in nuclear Armageddon, and I think you'd be unpleasantly surprised at how severe it would adversely affect life on Earth.

But, you know what... my dad worked in a nuclear missile silo for several years, got right up close and personal with the warhead (which was shielded by thick lead of course), and hey... I turned out fine, everyone would agree. *cough* So, you're probably right. It's all over-rated, and mostly harmless.