4 ms·

One not very often discussed fact is that the effects of even an all-out nuclear war (detonation of all existing nuclear weapons) are exaggerated, for various f

by cft 11y ago

One not very often discussed fact is that the effects of even an all-out nuclear war (detonation of all existing nuclear weapons) are exaggerated, for various fairly obvious reasons. The total number of people killed will be "only" 10-15%, and it will be definitely not a threat to humanity as the species. http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82jpr.html http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82jpr.html I read somewhere that if all existing weapons in the world were detonated uniformly over Texas, there would be still some survivors even in Texas itself.

InclinedPlane 11y ago
Well, stockpiles are significantly down relative to the Cold War peak, due to strategic arms reduction treaties. Detonation of Cold War peak stockpiles would have been "really bad" for the human race. Likely not an existential threat for humanity as a species, though very possibly one for the current state of human civilization.
scarmig 11y ago
Eh, I think that's underplaying it a bit. Of course you can't literally turn a state the size of Texas into a plate of glass with nukes, but a couple thousand dropped in the most economically productive parts of the world? In terms of the nuclear blast and radiation itself, it's true that probably only a half a billion people or so would die. But you'd be essentially ripping out the entire economic and political nervous system of the world, resulting in massive economic dislocation and political chaos. I find it plenty plausible that that by itself could easily get the body count up to the billions. There are also possible environmental effects: the dreaded nuclear winter. It's not clear to me if the debate was resolved one way or another about how bad it'd actually be, but it seems like a real possibility that it'd hurt the climate much worse than even the most dire warnings of global warming. And it'd happen more or less instantly, as black soot would immediately be sent up to the stratosphere. An article from 2007 in the Journal of Geophysical Research, courtesy of Wikipedia, states: A global average surface cooling of –7 °C to –8 °C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4 °C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5 °C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20 °C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30 °C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions. That's bad news, and would compound the political strife, wars, and economic dislocations. And while now refugees from war have to possibility of fleeing to a neighboring stable country, with this scenario pretty much everyone is in a terrible place, so you don't even have that possible pressure valve.
- mikeash 11y ago
  EMP would probably feature in a nuclear war as well, so there goes most of your power grid, cars, computers, and everything that comes from them like modern finance and modern agriculture. Humanity would be fine, but civilization would be in for some real trouble. I imagine that deaths from starvation and disease would rival or exceed immediate deaths in the nuclear exchange. The novel War Day is an intense and fascinating look at the aftermath of a limited nuclear strike. From my limited knowledge it's pretty accurate about what would happen.
  - nightcracker 11y ago
    > I imagine that deaths from starvation and disease would rival or exceed immediate death ... This is the case for nearly every war ever fought.
sandworm101 11y ago
I agree that they are overplayed for effect, but there is some math. I saw Kissinger explain it when asked about nukes killed the whole world ten times over. The math started with WWII Germany. They kept reasonably reliable records of where and when people died during allied air raids. So someone drew up a formula linking the tonnage of bombs dropped with the number of dead on the ground. This was then extended to nukes and their power measured in thousands (kilo) and millions (mega) of tons of TNT. So bombs with explosive power greater than all of WWII (a common description) could "kill" as many people as an entire war. Kissinger was correct in saying that all the bombs in the world would not, could not, destroy everyone ten or twenty times over. This false analogy was also part of debates during Vietnam. Many, on both sided of every argument, used the math to estimate the number killed by US bombing raids, ignoring the fact that German cities and Vietnam jungle are in no way analogous.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  Quite; particularly considering that the strategies of the bombings were reversed. In WWII, Germany was bombed so that strategic bombers (B-17) attacked strategic targets (civilians and factories in cities), and tactical bombers (P-47) attacked tactical targets (tanks or trains near combat). In Vietnam war, Vietnam was bombed so that strategic bombers (B-52) attacked tactical targets (jungle with suspected Viet Cong activity in combat area), and tactical bombers (F-4) attacked tactical targets within strategic targets (a bridge in Hanoi). And WWII was the last "good" war for Americans.

by cft 11y ago

InclinedPlane 11y ago

Well, stockpiles are significantly down relative to the Cold War peak, due to strategic arms reduction treaties. Detonation of Cold War peak stockpiles would have been "really bad" for the human race. Likely not an existential threat for humanity as a species, though very possibly one for the current state of human civilization.

scarmig 11y ago

Eh, I think that's underplaying it a bit. Of course you can't literally turn a state the size of Texas into a plate of glass with nukes, but a couple thousand dropped in the most economically productive parts of the world? In terms of the nuclear blast and radiation itself, it's true that probably only a half a billion people or so would die. But you'd be essentially ripping out the entire economic and political nervous system of the world, resulting in massive economic dislocation and political chaos. I find it plenty plausible that that by itself could easily get the body count up to the billions. There are also possible environmental effects: the dreaded nuclear winter. It's not clear to me if the debate was resolved one way or another about how bad it'd actually be, but it seems like a real possibility that it'd hurt the climate much worse than even the most dire warnings of global warming. And it'd happen more or less instantly, as black soot would immediately be sent up to the stratosphere. An article from 2007 in the Journal of Geophysical Research, courtesy of Wikipedia, states: A global average surface cooling of –7 °C to –8 °C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4 °C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5 °C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20 °C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30 °C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions. That's bad news, and would compound the political strife, wars, and economic dislocations. And while now refugees from war have to possibility of fleeing to a neighboring stable country, with this scenario pretty much everyone is in a terrible place, so you don't even have that possible pressure valve.

mikeash 11y ago
EMP would probably feature in a nuclear war as well, so there goes most of your power grid, cars, computers, and everything that comes from them like modern finance and modern agriculture. Humanity would be fine, but civilization would be in for some real trouble. I imagine that deaths from starvation and disease would rival or exceed immediate deaths in the nuclear exchange. The novel War Day is an intense and fascinating look at the aftermath of a limited nuclear strike. From my limited knowledge it's pretty accurate about what would happen.
- nightcracker 11y ago
  > I imagine that deaths from starvation and disease would rival or exceed immediate death ... This is the case for nearly every war ever fought.

sandworm101 11y ago

I agree that they are overplayed for effect, but there is some math. I saw Kissinger explain it when asked about nukes killed the whole world ten times over. The math started with WWII Germany. They kept reasonably reliable records of where and when people died during allied air raids. So someone drew up a formula linking the tonnage of bombs dropped with the number of dead on the ground. This was then extended to nukes and their power measured in thousands (kilo) and millions (mega) of tons of TNT. So bombs with explosive power greater than all of WWII (a common description) could "kill" as many people as an entire war. Kissinger was correct in saying that all the bombs in the world would not, could not, destroy everyone ten or twenty times over. This false analogy was also part of debates during Vietnam. Many, on both sided of every argument, used the math to estimate the number killed by US bombing raids, ignoring the fact that German cities and Vietnam jungle are in no way analogous.

ptaipale 11y ago
Quite; particularly considering that the strategies of the bombings were reversed. In WWII, Germany was bombed so that strategic bombers (B-17) attacked strategic targets (civilians and factories in cities), and tactical bombers (P-47) attacked tactical targets (tanks or trains near combat). In Vietnam war, Vietnam was bombed so that strategic bombers (B-52) attacked tactical targets (jungle with suspected Viet Cong activity in combat area), and tactical bombers (F-4) attacked tactical targets within strategic targets (a bridge in Hanoi). And WWII was the last "good" war for Americans.