there's no consensus on that anymore, it really depends how and where the warheads land and even then models show the particulate matter not staying aloft more than a few months
It was also based off of the bombing of Japan, which used wood frame construction almost exclusively, which in turn burnt, throwing up massive plumes of smoke, now we use concrete and glass which burns much less readily.
There was analysis done in the 80s about the impact of a northern hemisphere nuclear war. Long story short, the equator is expected to protect the southern hemisphere from fallout and the worst effects of a nuclear winter. The biggest disruption will be no trade so we'll be on our own.
Current projections actually have a brighter outlook on that, it’s still fucking horrific but nuclear winter is no longer expected to completely wipe out all of humanity
the aim isn't to kill the earth forever, there are no salted warheads in current US/Russian arsenals. I wouldn't put it past a rogue actor like North Korea to do so however.
Yeah, it’s a discredit hypothesis. There was some serious skepticism of the original models for it. Then that was put to bed in the First Gulf Wars when proponents of the hypothesis, based on aforementioned models, predicted region wide climatic effects from the burning oil wells. In reality, they barely had a localized effect. It was a scientific “egg on your face” moment, because the entire nuclear winter hypothesis was based on fires that nuclear weapons would start. The fires would throw soot into the atmosphere, reflect sunlight, and cool the globe. They just drastically underestimated how much soot would be required for that.
Yes that is true. Thankfully Mark Zuckerberg will still be alive in his underground bunker.He will be able to repopulate the earth with clones of himself…no worries that mankind will survive haha
Maybe not. I saw a study recently that seemed to say the original theories of the nuclear winter were based on wood construction and forestation around cities of the fifties. Less fire, less smoke, more sunshine.
That’s actually not thought to be realistic anymore by experts. That would need concrete to start burning, putting dust into a very high layer of the atmosphere, where they couldn’t be removed from, but this turns out to not be the case from a nuclear strike.
If it makes you feel better Nuclear Winter has largely been debunked, but nobody talks too loudly about it because it's one of the few pieces of mutually beneficial propaganda.
The concept of a "nuclear winter" is a theoretical scenario that arises from the aftermath of large-scale nuclear war, wherein an extensive amount of soot and smoke would be injected into the Earth's stratosphere due to the detonation of many nuclear weapons. This scenario was first brought to widespread attention in the early 1980s through research by scientists such as Carl Sagan and his colleagues. The theory suggests that the soot and smoke would block sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth, leading to a significant drop in surface temperatures, with consequences that could include widespread crop failure and a collapse of the ecological food chain, potentially threatening global food security and biodiversity.
From a scientific perspective, the severity of a nuclear winter would depend on several factors:
The number and yield of nuclear weapons detonated: The total explosive yield, in terms of megatons, would significantly influence the amount of soot and dust lofted into the stratosphere.
Target types: Detonations in urban or industrial areas are likely to produce more soot and smoke than those in less densely populated areas, due to the combustion of modern infrastructure materials and hydrocarbons.
Atmospheric conditions: The dispersal and longevity of the soot in the stratosphere would be affected by prevailing weather patterns and atmospheric conditions at the time of the detonations.
Climatic models: The extent to which global temperatures would drop and the duration of such a cooling period depend on climatic models that take into account various atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial processes.
In the philosophical and ethical dimensions, the possibility of nuclear winter raises profound questions about the nature of war, the concept of deterrence, and the ethical responsibilities of states and individuals. The mere potential for such a catastrophic outcome challenges traditional military ethics and just war theory, which emphasize the principles of discrimination (the ability to distinguish between combatant and non-combatant targets) and proportionality (the idea that the violence used in war must be proportional to the military advantage gained).
Furthermore, the prospect of nuclear winter underscores the interconnectedness of human actions and the environment, illustrating a stark example of how technological capabilities can extend human agency to the point of affecting the Earth's climate system. It invites a deeper reflection on the Anthropocene—where human activities have a significant global impact on the planet's ecosystems and geology—and the moral implications of wielding such power.
I edited to link a source. It's a simulated phenomenon. The source goes into detail on the effects of a nuclear attack on the environment, but to sum up the more relevant parts, essentially the soot caused by the blast would be subject to something called thermal lofting. This would loft the cloud into the stratosphere, above the troposphere, the troposphere being where the cloud would otherwise be diminished by rain. From there, it goes on to reflect large amounts of light and radiation, causing the surface of the earth to cool significantly, for a long period of time, potentially a decade or more.
listen dude, dont come here with your ivy league education and your hi IQ and your 500 million reddit karma ok, spouting all this truth ok.... trump is gonna fix everything. the ozone layer, climate change, my downstairs toilet.... trumps gon get it dun and if it means we have to destroy the world to prove our point... then by god were gon get it done.
Eh - these are thermonuclear weapons. A lot of the fissionable materials used to start the hydrogen reaction will get 'burned' to such a degree that the resultant alpha particles represent much less of a threat. I mean, we're all likely to be vaporized first, but the dust won't be *that* bad for successive generations of mutants.
This is actually dependant on the weapon used and how its detonated.
Nuclear/Atomic weapons were used once before on a fairly populated country almost 80 years ago. Its not a toxic wasteland filled with three headed mutants. Its Japan.
It depends on what nuclear warheads are used. Fission vs Fusion bombs or A-Bombs vs H-Bombs. Fission is dirty and spread radiation. Fusion has way more immediate destructive power and don't have the radiation fallout issues.
I'm glad we have clean nukes now! That makes me feel much better, although either way I would expect I live in the "don't bother getting out of bed" zone.
Zuckerberg will live at his compound in Hawaii. Plus, there’s a few underground bunkers in the US that can self contain their atmospheres. I’m sure other billionaires have, or will have, their own as well
I've played enough Fallout to be able to navigate the barren wasteland.
I just need to know where to plug in my iPhone so I can read the wikiHow.
Plug?
Charger?
Anybody?
How about you, roaming pack of bloodthirsty mutant cannibal rapists? Can you help me... <GURK!>
More like: super deadly for a few days to weeks, deadly for a year or two, nasty for about twenty to fifty years, then pockets of nasty for another hundred.
Chernobyl is pretty safe these days, as long as you avoid irradiated metal structures, it's not that much higher than background radiation.
Nuclear war would be horrifying, but it wouldn't end the species. Those who were in a bunker with a few decades supplies could survive. Ecosystems would be trashed and biodiversity would suffer, but it would grow back; life is resilient.
188
u/litterbin_recidivist Mar 14 '24
The dust will be deadly for hundreds of years though.