3 ms·

I thought nuclear winters were found to be a myth? (A minor point of course)

wwweston 10y ago
How can they be a myth? Harsher winters from volcanic eruptions appear to be a historical fact. Nuclear explosions can kick up a huge storm of stuff into the atmosphere -- that's part of their point. Multiple explosions, multiple effects, likely similar enough to volcanic winters. Or worse, depending on the breadth of the exchange. And, of course, there's making massive amounts of the environment radioactive.
- justin66 10y ago
  > Nuclear explosions can kick up a huge storm of stuff into the atmosphere -- that's part of their point. I've never read that. It's easy enough to do, but the (planned) usage of these weapons (outside of hitting the enemy's heavily hardened targets on the ground) tends to rely on airbursts. I don't remember either side relying on nuclear winter strategically. The logic of MAD is terrible enough to serve as a deterrent even without maximizing dust in the atmosphere. I remember the disarmament advocates warning of nuclear winter, and the warmongery types minimizing its liklihood.
  - intransigent 10y ago
    Well, the idea of global doomsday for all, beyond mere tactical retaliation, is probably drawn from the media, with movies like Dr. Stangelove playing the part of the primary narrative. As to how much any world power has actually strategized and mobilized resources toward such an end (deliberate global suicide that destroys both sides by design) is likely to never be fully revealed, since it's a slightly alarming idea. Even so, some of the plans that have been revealed really are quite terrible. Bad enough, that the difference between deliberate and accidental nuclear winters could be considered an argument that splits hairs.
sehugg 10y ago
No, it's even worse than we thought back then. Recent research predicts even a regional nuclear exchange could create global famine conditions for years (not to mention the political and economic instability): http://www.ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html http://www.ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html

How can they be a myth? Harsher winters from volcanic eruptions appear to be a historical fact. Nuclear explosions can kick up a huge storm of stuff into the atmosphere -- that's part of their point. Multiple explosions, multiple effects, likely similar enough to volcanic winters. Or worse, depending on the breadth of the exchange. And, of course, there's making massive amounts of the environment radioactive.

justin66 10y ago
> Nuclear explosions can kick up a huge storm of stuff into the atmosphere -- that's part of their point. I've never read that. It's easy enough to do, but the (planned) usage of these weapons (outside of hitting the enemy's heavily hardened targets on the ground) tends to rely on airbursts. I don't remember either side relying on nuclear winter strategically. The logic of MAD is terrible enough to serve as a deterrent even without maximizing dust in the atmosphere. I remember the disarmament advocates warning of nuclear winter, and the warmongery types minimizing its liklihood.
- intransigent 10y ago
  Well, the idea of global doomsday for all, beyond mere tactical retaliation, is probably drawn from the media, with movies like Dr. Stangelove playing the part of the primary narrative. As to how much any world power has actually strategized and mobilized resources toward such an end (deliberate global suicide that destroys both sides by design) is likely to never be fully revealed, since it's a slightly alarming idea. Even so, some of the plans that have been revealed really are quite terrible. Bad enough, that the difference between deliberate and accidental nuclear winters could be considered an argument that splits hairs.

sehugg 10y ago

No, it's even worse than we thought back then. Recent research predicts even a regional nuclear exchange could create global famine conditions for years (not to mention the political and economic instability): http://www.ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html http://www.ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html