Nuclear War in Asia Would Trigger Climate Catastrophe

[Skybird]

As always, I remain to stay a source of constant joy and optimism. This is for all the easy-tempered "Nuke 'em!"-bawlers:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...454571,00.html

What consequences would a nuclear war between Israel and Iran, or between Pakistan and India, have for the world's climate? Scientists have now created a computer model of what might happen. The results are alarming -- even for experts. (...) If 100 nuclear weapons with an explosive force of 15 kilotons each were used, Robock says, it could spur "climate changes exceeding changes experienced in recorded history." (...) The scientists themselves weren't expecting such results. Given the relatively small number of weapons and their low explosive yield, the global results are remarkably serious, the report concludes. (...) The approach used by Toon and Robock goes back to the theory of a "nuclear winter," developed by Carl Sagan with four of his colleagues in 1983 in order to assess the consequences of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The nuclear ice age would kill 90 percent of the world's population, Sagan chillingly predicted. Toon says that 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons wouldn't cause a nuclear winter. But the climate and the ozone layer would change in a devastating way: "Our work shows the entire world would be impacted, possibly severely." (...) it was never the intention of Toon and Robock to develop the most realistic regional nuclear war possible. They simply wanted to simulate the results of such a clash for the climate. "To do that, you need solid assumptions that you can base your calculations on," Geiger says. In this sense, he believes the US scientists have delivered "new, independent and first-rate work."

Complete scientific report here:

http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/6/11745/acpd-6-11745.pdf

Introduction at their homepage:

We assess the potential damage and smoke production associated with the detonation of small nuclear weapons in modern megacities. While the number of nuclear warheads in the world has fallen by about a factor of three since its peak in 1986, the number of nuclear weapons states is increasing and the potential exists for numerous regional nuclear arms races. Eight countries are known to have nuclear weapons, 2 are constructing them, and an additional 32 nations already have the fissile material needed to build substantial arsenals of low-yield (Hiroshima-sized) explosives. Population and economic activity worldwide are congregated to an increasing extent in megacities, which might be targeted in a nuclear conflict. Our analysis shows that, per kiloton of yield, low yield weapons can produce 100 times as many fatalities and 100 times as much smoke from fires as high-yield weapons, if they are targeted at city centers. A single "small'' nuclear detonation in an urban center could lead to more fatalities, in some cases by orders of magnitude, than have occurred in the major historical conflicts of many countries. We analyze the likely outcome of a regional nuclear exchange involving 100 15-kt explosions (less than 0.1% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal). We find that such an exchange could produce direct fatalities comparable to all of those worldwide in World War II, or to those once estimated for a "counterforce'' nuclear war between the superpowers. Megacities exposed to atmospheric fallout of long-lived radionuclides would likely be abandoned indefinitely, with severe national and international implications. Our analysis shows that smoke from urban firestorms in a regional war would rise into the upper troposphere due to pyro-convection. Robock et al. (2006) show that the smoke would subsequently rise deep into the stratosphere due to atmospheric heating, and then might induce significant climatic anomalies on global scales.We also anticipate substantial perturbations of global ozone. While there are many uncertainties in the predictions we make here, the principal unknowns are the type and scale of conflict that might occur. The scope and severity of the hazards identified pose a significant threat to the global community. They deserve careful analysis by governments worldwide advised by a broad section of the world scientific community, as well as widespread public debate.

http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/6/11745/acpd-6-11745.htm

Happy wars can't start early enough.

[Camaero]

I don't know what I would do if I didn't have Skybird to cheer me up every day!

If potentially two countries could screw it up for the entire earth, the entire earth must act somehow to prevent any sort of nuclear conflict....

[Cpt. Stewker]

Alright so what the reports are saying is that it would not be the nukes themselves that would ruin the world but the smoke caused by them due to the destruction of cities.

Cause I was about to say, if the hundreds and hundreds of nuclear explosions that have been set off, many that have been magnitudes bigger than 15 kilotons (the russians with their 50 megaton, "Look at me, I could blow away Europe in one bomb!", have not ruined the earth so far, I dont' think 100 more would. Smoke or no smoke.

[The Avon Lady]

After the nuclear strikes, all you need to do is drop one of those big bombs that sucks all the oxygen out of the air. That in turn douses the fires and diminishes the smoke.

Do I have to tell you guys everthing?!

[sonar732]

I'm not even focusing on the articles...I'm wondering how Sky came back so soon. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

jk...nice to see you back Skybird!

[CCIP]

And then everyone was jumping at me as soon as I suggested that the folks advocating nuclear disarmament in the Middle East, starting with Israel, had a point

Good one!

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by sonar732

I'm not even focusing on the articles...I'm wondering how Sky came back so soon. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

jk...nice to see you back Skybird!

Yeah. Skybird told us he was gone forever from here on October 28, 2006. Couldn't even make it 2 months. Maybe "Phil" brought him back. :p At any rate, Welcome back Skybird. The place is better with you here.

In response to the topic. The whole purpose of nuclear weapons is the deterrent factor. In that regard, they served their purpose during the Cold War and kept the peace. The two superpowers would never take the actions that would prompt the other to retaliate using them. The result of that would be Mutually Assured Destruction. I'm not too concerned about nations like America, Russia, or Britian having them. Not too comfortable about China. But we must stop little crackpot dictators from aquiring them. Especially crackpots from places that are talking Armageddon. Otherwise, climate concerns will be your last concerns.

[RedMenace]

Very simple solution to this problem! I have been using the last 5 hours to plan out the schematics of all this, but I think the best way to avoid this entire scenario is to not have a nuclear war. I know its a radical idea, but I think it just might work.:hmm:

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by RedMenace

Very simple solution to this problem! I have been using the last 5 hours to plan out the schematics of all this, but I think the best way to avoid this entire scenario is to not have a nuclear war. I know its a radical idea, but I think it just might work.:hmm:

A perpetual gametype of DEFCON 'diplomacy' eh? Sure, everyone starts out as buddies, sharing radar data and stuff but eventually somebody will be voted out of the 'alliance' and by that time you can be certain that somebody is going to catch a face full all too soon.
And what about the backstabbing when the victory timer starts to count down?
Watch the birds fly and the mushroom clouds bloom - you know it.

[STEED]

If one Nuclear bomb is dropped then I will eat a large chocolate bar.

PS: Welcome back Skybird.

[TteFAboB]

With 100 nuclear weapons you don't need to waste time and resources in any sort of study to know that catastrophe is guaranteed! Every scenario is a potential disaster:

1. Nuke every European capital and center of power: anarchy ensues and people start killing each other instead of starving to death.

2. Drop all nukes on the South Pole releasing massive icebergs on the ocean. Need computer simulations and some scientists to work on this model but it's probably getting people killed in the end.

3. Drop nukes inside the bigger Volcanos sparking massive eruptions which will release more smoke and dust than anything ever did before. People die.

4. Launch them in the sun boosting the next sun-storm to a new level frying every electronic hardware exposed to sun light. People die.

5. Blast them all on the Moon taking it off orbit. People die.

Before I get serious it is important to point out that Skybird is not entirely correct in his targetting of "all easily-tempered Nuke'Em brawlers". Quoting the introduction with technical difficulty due to the way the document was formatted (cutting short and ommiting some lines):

In the 1980s, quantitative studies of the consequences of a nuclear conflict between the superpowers provoked international scientific and political debate, and deep public concern. The resulting recognition that such conflicts could produce global scale damage at unacceptable levels contributed to an ongoing reduction of nuclear arsenals and improvements in relationships between the major nuclear powers.

Here we provide the first comprehensive quantitative study of the consequences of a nuclear conflict between the emerging
smaller nuclear states, including the use of a single nuclear weapon by a state or terrorist. Robock et al. (2006) explore the climate changes that might occur due to the smoke emissions from such a conflict.

The potential effects of nuclear explosions having yields similar to those of the 15 weapons used over Japan during the Second World War (WW-II) are, in relation to yield, unexpectedly large. At least eight countries are capable of transport and detonation of such nuclear devices. Moreover, North Korea appears to have a growing stockpile of warheads, and Iran is suspiciously pursuing uranium enrichment – a necessary precursor to weapons construction. Thirty-two other countries that do not now have nuclear weapons possess sufficient fissionable nuclear materials to construct weapons, some in a relatively short period of time.

An individual in possession of one of the thousands of existing lightweight nuclear weapons could kill or injure a million people in a terrorist attack.

Below we first discuss the arsenals of the existing, and potential, nuclear powers. We then describe the casualties due to blast and to fires set by thermal radiation from an attack on a single megacity with one low yield nuclear weapon. Next we discuss the casualties if current and projected arsenals of such weapons were ever used in a regional conflict. We then discuss the impact of radioactive contamination. Finally, we describe the amounts of smoke that may be generated in a regional scale conflict. At the end of each of these sections we outline the associated uncertainties.

In the present analysis, we adopt two potential scenarios: i) a single

small nuclear device detonated in a city center by terrorists; and ii) a regional nuclear exchange between two newly minted nuclear weapons states involving a total of 100 low yield (15-kt) detonations. We do not justify these scenarios any further except to 25 note that most citizens and politicians today are aware of the potential disaster of an Israeli-Iranian-Syrian nuclear confrontation, or a Indian-Pakistani territorial confrontation.

May the Israeli, Iranian, Syrian, Indian, Pakistani brawler please step forward. Syria and Iran do not yet possess nuclear weapons, thus this study is completely irrelevant to anybody advocating to "Nuke'Em". I've never seen anybody advocating to nuke Pakistan or India. As explained above, this study focuses on the effects of a terrorist attack on a major urban center and a regional conflict involving 100 warheads similar to those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In both cases the conclusions are drawed by updating the circumstantial data of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and while in the first case the casualty number in a highly populated area is immense only the 100 warhead exchange would actually cause a climate catastrophe. Nuking Iran and/or Syria would be climatically inconsequential as long as the total amount of warheads involved and used according to the conditions necessary to cause climatic damage do not come anywhere close to 100 and if the only counter-attack of these two nations is one terrorist attack on a major urban center. The reaction of which would provoke the end of the world anyway, whatever countries and scenarios we draw. If somebody didn't thought, predicted or knew any of this then indeed this study is "unexpected" and properly aimed at the brawlers.

Anyway, this is a good effort but as admitted the scope is too great and as mentioned many times, especially in chapters 7 and 8, fairly unprecise. Some of the oversights I've noticed: ignoring the Amazon as the greatest source of forest fire; choosing only two South American countries, one of which being on the bottom of the populational rank with comparatively smaller dense urban areas even though LandScan 2003, the source used, clearly shows how much people are being ignored; the estimation of fuel load based on population density; the high level of conjecture and generalization at multiple points due to the impractibility of detailing a global model with far too many variables and regional unpredictability; the use of [questionable] estimations based on data from 20 years ago being mixed with data from this year. Eliminating these issues would require more time, manpower and money, but even with these problems among others it appears to me that there was enough effort and honesty involved.

At the end of the study we are briefly informed that it has been funded by the National Science Foundation, besides from all facilities involved being American which we get to know early: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...nce_Foundation

As an addendum to my scrutiny, a Google search on O. B. Toon showed previous works for governamental agencies or funded by such. R. P. Turco seems to have more works than Toon but both worked on TTAPS (at least in 1983, don't know about '86 and '90), Carl Sagan's study that researched on the Nuclear Winter dust theory. A. Robock is a meteorologist with way too many papers on varied subjects, volcanos and weather for example, and also a defendant of the Nuclear Winter theory. He also knows his money and demonstrated that Universities should open meteorological faculties because meteorologists for some reason will attract more "external investment": http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/AtmSciFunding.pdf, which in real words means governamental funds. C. Bardeen does not yield any results, I have only found one work from him before the study at hand, he's from the same university as Toon. L. Oman does not seem to have annything at all previous to this study and is from the same university of Robock. G. L. Stenchikov is a Russian Ph.D who studied and graduated in Moscow before moving to the USA in 1992, he's from the same university of Robock and I was able to found a more detailed background of him. He worked in many meteorological positions since arriving and has a paper on Volcanos just like Robock. In common they are all meteorologists or climatologists to one extent or another and far from independent, rely heavily on federal funding, the study at hand being funded exclusively by it.

Der Spiegel mentions the eruption of the Tambora, that information was definitely raised by Robock who has a paper on the issue. As a final observation, Der Spiegel writes "The approach used by Toon and Robock goes back to the theory of a "nuclear winter," developed by Carl Sagan with four of his colleagues in 1983" but not that Toon and Robock are two of said colleagues of Sagan.

Now, as suggested by Avon Lady, there wouldn't be a climatic problem if vacuum bombs could be dropped to reduce or even prevent the spreading of fire. From chapter 6.1: "(...)the total area burned following a 15-kt explosion is 13km2, equivalent to that consumed at Hiroshima.". With equations found on wikipedia and a few burnt fuses I calculate that for each 15-kt warhead ~79 BLU-96s needs to be dropped or a little less. This will not only get rid of the fire but ignite the soot and soon after extinguish it reducing all smoke effects to a minimal. Also, whoever survived the initial detonation would probably die from the vacuum bombs which is actually better than a slow decaying death from radiation. All problems solved. Congrats Avon.

[dean_acheson]

Somehow the Nobel prize seemed a bit cheaper to me when they gave the thing to both Arafat and Carter.....

......and scientists telling me that we need to keep their work out of politics and politics out of their work is laughable, they are the same guys who first built these bloody weapons. When the great 'scientific community' says 'keep politics out of our work' the next phrase, at least here in the states is usually 'where are my tax subsidies to fund my stem cell research project?'

"keep politics out of our work" aka "nobody should be allowed to oversee whatever it is that I want to experiment on in my taxpayer supported university lab gig...."


where is the icon for throwing up on myself?
does this make me a luddite? :p

...oh, and the UCS can blow me.

http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...ew.cfm/oid/145

[Yahoshua]

The planet is warming up, now it's cooling down, oh wait, we were wrong, it's warming up again, and it could cool down if we start a nuke war!

These people can't make up their minds can they.

After all, the Ice Age ended all on it's own and there were no nukes or evil automobiles to cause it to happen. So what difference does this report really make in the grand scheme of things? Nature could shake us off like a cold and there's nothing we can do about it.

[geetrue]

This article or theory, if you may call it, is exactly why being first to launch a nuclear attack would never work for the United States ... We could expect a retalitory attack witihin minutes from Russia or China or North Korea.

If we strike a country like Iran first without the ability to strike back within minutes ... Then it just becomes a matter of days till they infiltrate our country with terroist nuclear weapons. Dirty bombs take the same amount of time to clean up as regular atomic bombs, around ninety years or so. They just don't leave big holes in the ground. You can deliver one with a Piper Cub ... You don't need a big airforce with terroist.

We are right back to the cold war saying, "We have a bomb bigger than your bomb and we will use it if you use yours."

The outcome would be worse than any study can imagine ... like someone said earlier we would all be at each others neck ... Rape, pillaging, disunity, the people that are already sick would die first. The old, the lame would all get fed last and die sooner or later anyway.

Only the strong would survive no matter which country gets nuc'ed first.

The real problem is between India and Pakistan ... They hate each other so much that we should disarm both of them, before they decide to end it all. Just a few atomic bombs would kill millions in India or Pakistan, before they woke up to "Oh my God (and they have a million of them in India) what have we done"

If you want to have fear about something fear this prophecy, "There are weapons of mass destruction in America that aren't ours"

[dean_acheson]

I guess I don't worry about this too much. Doubt that a couple of even well placed Nukes would kill nearly as many as Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot did, and most of the handwringing crowd don't seem to care much about those tens of millions of innocent victims.....