4 ms·

Minor point, not brought up by other posters. The armageddon scenario might be much easier to trigger than von Neumann believed. Even 'just a few' 'small' nuk

Minor point, not brought up by other posters. The armageddon scenario might be much easier to trigger than von Neumann believed. Even 'just a few' 'small' nukes could kick up enough dust to the stratosphere to severely disrupt sunlight and weather, where 'severely disrupt' means (probable) total global social collapse.

wobbegongz 5y ago
We have detonated 2000 bombs in testing. So "just a few small nukes" is not enough to start any atomic winter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing
- sgt101 5y ago
  But not over forests or cities - which burn.
  - wobbegongz 5y ago
    We have tested that also. During 1945 we burned down 69 cites and killed 800 000 in Japan. The two small nukes was only 5% of the smoke. The result was at most an cooling of the global temperature of 0.1-0.2 Celsius. But the "multiple uncertainties mean we cannot say for sure". https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-did-bombing-during-second-world-war-cool-global-temperature https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-did-bombing-during-se... So we need about 5-10 times larger bombings when ww2 to cool the global temperature with one degree. But we have increased the global temperature with one degree thanks to global warming. So you need at least 10-20 times larger bombings then ww2 to get a tiny atomic winter. And probably a lot larger to get any catastrophic cooling.
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    Well we’ve done 2 over cities closely spaced with each other and also following a firebombing campaign that burned a lot more cities. If a burning city or forest was all that was required for a nuclear winter we’d have had one long ago. Forests burn without the aid of nuclear weapons. To get to nuclear winter levels of ash and dust you probably need dozens to hundreds of detonations and burning cities.
petschge 5y ago
I suggest you take a look at "Climate Impact of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange: An Improved Assessment Based On Detailed Source Calculations" [1] or similar papers. Scientists have run nuclear bomb simulations (and these codes are rather good), used them as input to fire simulations (well validated through forest fires) and then done climate models and radiation (in the sense of "light") transport calculations of the atmosphere. The result is "fucks with the polar regions, but humanity is going to be fine". [1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JD027331 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017...

wobbegongz 5y ago

We have detonated 2000 bombs in testing. So "just a few small nukes" is not enough to start any atomic winter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing

sgt101 5y ago
But not over forests or cities - which burn.
- wobbegongz 5y ago
  We have tested that also. During 1945 we burned down 69 cites and killed 800 000 in Japan. The two small nukes was only 5% of the smoke. The result was at most an cooling of the global temperature of 0.1-0.2 Celsius. But the "multiple uncertainties mean we cannot say for sure". https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-did-bombing-during-second-world-war-cool-global-temperature https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-did-bombing-during-se... So we need about 5-10 times larger bombings when ww2 to cool the global temperature with one degree. But we have increased the global temperature with one degree thanks to global warming. So you need at least 10-20 times larger bombings then ww2 to get a tiny atomic winter. And probably a lot larger to get any catastrophic cooling.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  Well we’ve done 2 over cities closely spaced with each other and also following a firebombing campaign that burned a lot more cities. If a burning city or forest was all that was required for a nuclear winter we’d have had one long ago. Forests burn without the aid of nuclear weapons. To get to nuclear winter levels of ash and dust you probably need dozens to hundreds of detonations and burning cities.

petschge 5y ago

I suggest you take a look at "Climate Impact of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange: An Improved Assessment Based On Detailed Source Calculations" [1] or similar papers. Scientists have run nuclear bomb simulations (and these codes are rather good), used them as input to fire simulations (well validated through forest fires) and then done climate models and radiation (in the sense of "light") transport calculations of the atmosphere. The result is "fucks with the polar regions, but humanity is going to be fine". [1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JD027331 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017...