Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mr. Robock says a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia would produce so much smoke that temperatures would get below freezing even in the summertime, crops would die and there would be no food for the entire planet.
Look at the bright side - Justin Beiber would die, too. So it's not purely a lose-lose scenario, and in fact may be a worthwhile tradeoff when you add it all up.
That was a hoot of an article. Nuke winter was based upon 70,000 weapons, we now have less than 1/10th of that, maybe 7,000.
Krakatoa was the equivalent of 13,000 "little boy" bombs. The largest nuke detonated was roughly 1/4th the energy of Krakatoa. Considering that large nukes are expensive and serve little or no tactical purpose, one can only estimate the real explosive potential of such weapons in India, Pakistan, Israel, and most of the club to be far closer to little boy than Bomba.
I cannot imagine a scenario where every bomb on the planet would be detonated. Any country engaged in conflict would keep 1/3 or more of the stock in reserve for further deterrent power, and global conflict is all about control of viable economic resources, and not about blowing enemies up. Countries NOT engaged would have little reason to shoot their wads. The article scenario is similar to speculation of "what would happen if ALL the electricity on the planet were suddenly discharged into one watermelon?" Impressive and sobering on one hand, but bordering upon hilarious upon reflection.
An all out major conflict might release enough material and smoke into the atmosphere for a year of bad crops, but would have less effect than a volcano, which releases sulfur dioxide en masse, which is a primary coolant for the atmosphere for about five years.
What I found most amusing was the estimations that crop yields would be down on the order of 20%, inferring that people would starve. Buppie, if you are popping off that many nuclear bombs, it might be a thought that at least 20% of the population would be dead already, primarily in high population centers, and there would be plenty of food to go around.
Sorry, I keep forgetting that this is the science forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
