3 ms·

Bear in mind that the Nuclear Winter estimates weren't published until 10 years later... http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium15.htm http:

by neffy 11y ago

Bear in mind that the Nuclear Winter estimates weren't published until 10 years later... http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium15.htm http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium15.... and it was after that they started getting a bit more serious about arms reductions.

hga 11y ago
The TTAPS study is bullshit (more details on request); if you do thorough 3D atmospheric simulations, as was done later at LLNL, you get at worst a season or two of cooler temperatures, but hardly the end of the world. And I wouldn't really characterize the following period as "a bit more serious about arms reduction", compared to the glory days of détente in the '70s. All you really have for that period is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which returned Europe to the situation before the USSR started deploying SS-20s in major quantities (per Wikipedia, eventually 405, each with 3 MIRVed warheads). After that, it's START I, which was signed a few months before the USSR dissolved at the end of 1991.
- neffy 11y ago
  Extra details would indeed be interesting. There are known global climate impacts linked to single volcanic events e.g. Tambora in the 19th century, Krakatoa, etc. "All" you have is START 1, which resulted in an 80% reduction of nuclear weapons. In addition there was a fair amount of behind the scenes assistance from the US in helping clean up the somewhat precipitous situation the USSR left itself in with the nuclear weapons - granted they started removing them months before the collapse. The public debate changed subtly after that report. The folks arguing - as you appear to be - that a nuclear war wouldn't be that big a deal, got a lot quieter. "I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left." Mao Tse Tung, 1957
  - hga 11y ago
    In short, the study uses a 1 dimensional model of the atmosphere, a particle of soot can go up or down, but there are no winds, no oceans, etc. These models are said to be especially prone to failing hard when given extreme inputs, and the second part is the soot they claimed would be lofted into the air, sizes and quantities, which they did not justify, or justify well (can't remember, it's been decades since I read the paper). Their excuse for using such a model was a lack of computing resources, and they were indeed dear back then. But that made their running a massive propaganda campaign based on this inadequate at best "science" all the worse. Anyway, LLNL, which had serious supercomputer resources for designing nuclear warheads and such, ran 3D simulations with more plausible inputs, and indeed found effects were possible, but they weren't a big deal. Certainly not on the scale of some of the bigger volcanic events. (It's a bit arrogant to automatically humans are so capable of changing the earth that much, especially that quickly; compare, as you do, to events like Tambora.) The folks arguing - as you appear to be - that a nuclear war wouldn't be that big a deal, got a lot quieter. Not that I noticed. Especially since we never argued that, only that it wouldn't be "the end of the world". Maybe we just got more thoroughly ignored by the media, after all, the sainted Carl Sagan was wielding SCIENCE! and we were nobodies. Note Sagan and Turco of the TTAPS team should have been a little more modest when the prospect of Kuwait's oil wells getting set on fire in the first Gulf War came up, their theorizing did not match the reality to soon follow. Of course, to the extent this might be an issue (and even modest effects would be less than welcome in the aftermath of a major nuclear exchange), it made SDI/BMD all the more important, to prevent city busting in the first place....
    - neffy 11y ago
      Ah, the infamous Goodyear Balloon Simulation mistake: http://www.gkstill.com/CV/PhD/Chapter4.html http://www.gkstill.com/CV/PhD/Chapter4.html I go two ways on that one. As you point out, on the one hand it is hard to beat Mother Earth when it comes to massive climate impacts, up to and including two eras where the world was a complete snowball, and multiple wipe out of anything bigger than a rodent by asteroids. On the other, the Russians got up to 50Megatons before the test ban treaty kicked in - and while you may wish to argue that a few of those flying around wouldn't be the end of the world - I on the other hand would wonder what would happen if some evil bastard targeted the north pole/greenland with them, thereby changing the albedo of the entire planet. (Yes, I know you couldn't melt the entire glacier, but dump enough soot on it, and I wouldn't want to predict the short term consequences.) I agree the Gulf War thing was entertaining for anybody paying attention. It is more than a little irritating that in so many areas of science, there's no follow-up on prophecies like that. Some kind of this day last year, X predicted Y, which didn't happen would make a fun end of the news item.
- lostlogin 11y ago
  Slightly off topic: I'll have to dig it out - they started making the casing (I think, or whatever the outer shell is called) of SS-20s into tourist tat which you could pick up in the 80s and 90s. I have a badge and some other stuff made of it I picked up somewhere.

by neffy 11y ago

hga 11y ago

The TTAPS study is bullshit (more details on request); if you do thorough 3D atmospheric simulations, as was done later at LLNL, you get at worst a season or two of cooler temperatures, but hardly the end of the world. And I wouldn't really characterize the following period as "a bit more serious about arms reduction", compared to the glory days of détente in the '70s. All you really have for that period is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which returned Europe to the situation before the USSR started deploying SS-20s in major quantities (per Wikipedia, eventually 405, each with 3 MIRVed warheads). After that, it's START I, which was signed a few months before the USSR dissolved at the end of 1991.

neffy 11y ago
Extra details would indeed be interesting. There are known global climate impacts linked to single volcanic events e.g. Tambora in the 19th century, Krakatoa, etc. "All" you have is START 1, which resulted in an 80% reduction of nuclear weapons. In addition there was a fair amount of behind the scenes assistance from the US in helping clean up the somewhat precipitous situation the USSR left itself in with the nuclear weapons - granted they started removing them months before the collapse. The public debate changed subtly after that report. The folks arguing - as you appear to be - that a nuclear war wouldn't be that big a deal, got a lot quieter. "I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left." Mao Tse Tung, 1957
- hga 11y ago
  In short, the study uses a 1 dimensional model of the atmosphere, a particle of soot can go up or down, but there are no winds, no oceans, etc. These models are said to be especially prone to failing hard when given extreme inputs, and the second part is the soot they claimed would be lofted into the air, sizes and quantities, which they did not justify, or justify well (can't remember, it's been decades since I read the paper). Their excuse for using such a model was a lack of computing resources, and they were indeed dear back then. But that made their running a massive propaganda campaign based on this inadequate at best "science" all the worse. Anyway, LLNL, which had serious supercomputer resources for designing nuclear warheads and such, ran 3D simulations with more plausible inputs, and indeed found effects were possible, but they weren't a big deal. Certainly not on the scale of some of the bigger volcanic events. (It's a bit arrogant to automatically humans are so capable of changing the earth that much, especially that quickly; compare, as you do, to events like Tambora.) The folks arguing - as you appear to be - that a nuclear war wouldn't be that big a deal, got a lot quieter. Not that I noticed. Especially since we never argued that, only that it wouldn't be "the end of the world". Maybe we just got more thoroughly ignored by the media, after all, the sainted Carl Sagan was wielding SCIENCE! and we were nobodies. Note Sagan and Turco of the TTAPS team should have been a little more modest when the prospect of Kuwait's oil wells getting set on fire in the first Gulf War came up, their theorizing did not match the reality to soon follow. Of course, to the extent this might be an issue (and even modest effects would be less than welcome in the aftermath of a major nuclear exchange), it made SDI/BMD all the more important, to prevent city busting in the first place....
  - neffy 11y ago
    Ah, the infamous Goodyear Balloon Simulation mistake: http://www.gkstill.com/CV/PhD/Chapter4.html http://www.gkstill.com/CV/PhD/Chapter4.html I go two ways on that one. As you point out, on the one hand it is hard to beat Mother Earth when it comes to massive climate impacts, up to and including two eras where the world was a complete snowball, and multiple wipe out of anything bigger than a rodent by asteroids. On the other, the Russians got up to 50Megatons before the test ban treaty kicked in - and while you may wish to argue that a few of those flying around wouldn't be the end of the world - I on the other hand would wonder what would happen if some evil bastard targeted the north pole/greenland with them, thereby changing the albedo of the entire planet. (Yes, I know you couldn't melt the entire glacier, but dump enough soot on it, and I wouldn't want to predict the short term consequences.) I agree the Gulf War thing was entertaining for anybody paying attention. It is more than a little irritating that in so many areas of science, there's no follow-up on prophecies like that. Some kind of this day last year, X predicted Y, which didn't happen would make a fun end of the news item.
lostlogin 11y ago
Slightly off topic: I'll have to dig it out - they started making the casing (I think, or whatever the outer shell is called) of SS-20s into tourist tat which you could pick up in the 80s and 90s. I have a badge and some other stuff made of it I picked up somewhere.