4 ms·

I don't think that an India-Pakistan nuclear conflict has the potential to lead to a global cooling effect. All the nuclear doomsday scenario estimates are bas

I don't think that an India-Pakistan nuclear conflict has the potential to lead to a global cooling effect. All the nuclear doomsday scenario estimates are based on the cold war NATO-Warsaw Pact nuke arsenals, where something like 30000 warheads might have been fired. That's a huge number of nukes, the world does not have nearly as much nukes now, and even less so for the smaller powers (90% of all nukes are held by USA and Russia). India and Pakistan together have ~300 warheads; if India and Pakistan blow all their nukes, that's comparable to something like two years worth of nuclear weapons testing back in the 1960s, and the 1960s tests were nowhere close to triggering a worldwide famine.

robohoe 6y ago
Do note that the testing wasn't done on the cities. If anything I could see cities in those regions getting bombed.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Yes, that's a good point - the global cooling effect IIRC was largely based on the emissions from burning cities, not the direct effects of nuclear explosions. Still, in an India-Pakistan war there would be much less burning cities than in the hypothetical cold war turning hot, which would burn the urban areas of the whole northern hemisphere. It's a bit weird to guesstimate about so horrible hypothetical events, but perhaps the consequences of such a war might be comparable to all the many cities burned in firebombing and otherwise during WW2 - which, again, did not trigger a global cooling that might threaten global agriculture.
tzs 6y ago
It's the firestorms afterwards that cause climate problems. Most above ground tests were not in places that led to big firestorms. See the paper "A regional nuclear conflict would compromise global food security", PNAS March 31, 2020 117 (13) 7071-7081 [1]. Here's an article about it [2]. They are looking at a war with 100 Hiroshima-sized detonations in the most populated urban areas of India and Pakistan. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7071 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7071 [2] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-would-bring-global-famine/ https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-...
- mckirk 6y ago
  Damn, citing game on point.

robohoe 6y ago

Do note that the testing wasn't done on the cities. If anything I could see cities in those regions getting bombed.

PeterisP 6y ago
Yes, that's a good point - the global cooling effect IIRC was largely based on the emissions from burning cities, not the direct effects of nuclear explosions. Still, in an India-Pakistan war there would be much less burning cities than in the hypothetical cold war turning hot, which would burn the urban areas of the whole northern hemisphere. It's a bit weird to guesstimate about so horrible hypothetical events, but perhaps the consequences of such a war might be comparable to all the many cities burned in firebombing and otherwise during WW2 - which, again, did not trigger a global cooling that might threaten global agriculture.

tzs 6y ago

It's the firestorms afterwards that cause climate problems. Most above ground tests were not in places that led to big firestorms. See the paper "A regional nuclear conflict would compromise global food security", PNAS March 31, 2020 117 (13) 7071-7081 [1]. Here's an article about it [2]. They are looking at a war with 100 Hiroshima-sized detonations in the most populated urban areas of India and Pakistan. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7071 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7071 [2] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-would-bring-global-famine/ https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-...

mckirk 6y ago
Damn, citing game on point.