Scientific Models Show Dire Effects From Nuclear War (Even A ‘Small’ One)
With India and Pakistan both holding arsenals of nuclear weapons, and the two nations locked in seemingly endless hostility over disputed Kashmir, a team of U.S. experts warns that even a limited nuclear war between them could cause a near-global threat to the Earth’s atmosphere and the human life it protects.
An exchange of even small-scale atomic bomb attacks by the two nations, the experts say, would create a vast hole in the layer of ozone that fills the upper atmosphere and protects life below from damaging - even deadly - ultraviolet radiation.
The scientists, reporting Monday in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calculate that a nuclear war between the two countries involving about 50 relatively small nuclear warheads, each with the power of the Hiroshima bomb, would touch off violent chemical reactions in the stratosphere. Up to three-quarters of the ozone above the Earth’s far northern latitudes and up to 40 percent above nations in the mid-latitudes, where most of the world’s population lives, would be destroyed.
“We would see a dramatic drop in ozone levels that would persist for many years and it could have huge effects on human health and on our terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments,” said Michael Mills of the Laboratory for Atmosphere and Space Physics at the University of Colorado in Boulder who led the research team.
Mills and four other leading atmospheric scientists base their calculations of ozone layer destruction on five widely used computer models that scientists use to study all aspects of the world’s atmosphere.
Their basic conclusions: The explosions would cause major urban fires and send as much as 5.5 million tons of soot rising above the stratosphere 50 miles high, after a million tons of it fell back to Earth as black rain. The soot, heated by smoke from the fires below, would speed up 20 or more chemical reactions, involving oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine and bromine, and create immense amounts of nitrogen oxides that would swiftly destroy ozone.
The most widespread loss of ozone would persist for up to five years, the scientists calculated, and substantial losses would continue for at least five years beyond that.
While ozone can be a toxic gas for humans in the lower atmosphere, in normal times it lies in layers between 10 and 30 miles up and protects against solar radiation, preventing the potentially lethal destruction of DNA in plants and animals and skin cancers in humans.
More than 30 years ago, scientists discovered that widely used industrial chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons were destroying ozone in the stratosphere over Antarctica. As the ozone hole widened and spread north, an international treaty banned the use of those and many other chemicals, and in recent decades the ozone layer has returned to normal.
Then in 1983, when the Cold War was at its most intense and the concept of “mutual assured destruction” animated both U.S. and Soviet military nuclear doctrine, a group of prominent senior scientists, led by the late Carl Sagan, produced a famous report warning that all-out nuclear war between the two enemies involving anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 megatons of bombs and missiles would mean calamity for the world.
That kind of nuclear spasm would kill more than a billion people and injure a billion more from radiation, blast and fire, the scientists warned; it would annihilate major cities on both sides, and plunge the Earth’s surface into crop-destroying darkness for months if not years. They called it a nuclear winter.
Two of that 1983 report’s authors, Owen Toon of the University of Colorado and Richard Turco of UCLA, are among the new report’s leading authors. The others are Douglas Kinnison and Rolando Garcia of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a Boulder, Colo., facility supported by the government’s National Science Foundation.
In an interview, Toon noted that his current team has had the advantage of two extremely sophisticated national computer models and three regional ones - all far faster and more accurate than the ones his team used for their 1983 report, he said.
“All the new models came up with the same results,” Toon said, “and they gave us two surprises: One was the huge quantity of smoke that would be produced from even the limited nuclear war in our scenario, and the other was the conclusion that the smoke would remain dense above the stratosphere for as long as five years.”
© 2008 The San Francisco Chronicle
Religious wackos should not confuse nuclear winter with end of days.
I like what Reagan said because he told the truth of this:
He argued in his 1984 State of the Union Address, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”
Ronald Reagan regarded nuclear weapons, according to Nancy, as “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.”
I found a book called “By the Bomb’s Early Light” (http://www.powells.com/s?kw=By+the+Bomb%E2%80%99s+Early+Light&x=66&y=17) at a used book sale.
It is a collection of essays written in the late 1940’s by some very thoughtful people.
One major theme was that, after the initial few nuclear years had passed (if they passed)
then the most dangerous time facing humans would be about fifty years down the road,
when several generations had become habituated to the nuclear threat and those who
could remember life before the mushroom cloud were dead, old and ineffectual, or old
and insanely powerful. That time would be now.
I am part of the subset of kids who were psychologically terrorized during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Young people today have no understanding of what that meant to us, I have seen articles equating our fear of nuclear war to their fear of global warming. Not comparable !
We are the ones who need to psychologically “unduck” and “uncover” and speak out.
Makes you wonder what’ll happen if we use the option that’s still on the table for Iran.
(Speaking of options: Anyone know if they canceled “Divine Strake” in Nevada?)
Don’t let the War Mogers who Quote RR every day see that one!!!!!!
Alaskamaid
Here’s a little perspective: I’m a guy in his early sixties, born at the crest of the boom. It was as I watched that Civil Defense was developed and buildings began to have that nuclear emblem on them that announced they were supposedly shelters. We had drills in elementary school where, on cue, we fell to the floor under our desks and covered our heads. Each Saturday at noon the sirens wailed so we knew they worked and we rememebered what they were for. The threat of nuclear attack was kept very, very fresh. There was a whole generation of us
I remember nights huddled in a ball under the blankets at the foot of my bed, waiting for the flash that slightly preceeded the searing, immolating heat.
I was in high school when Kennedy went on TV and told us about the missles in Cuba and what we were going to do about them.
My family and our closest friends moved out of a major southern city away from the air force base into houses we built with underground concrete bunker shelters in the suburbs because he was a bomber pilot and, while he couldn’t tell us the details, he said it was time to “get out of the crater”
Yeah, nuclear war has been keenly present for lots of us for many, many years.
It is not news that there is no such thing as a “local” nuclear war. It just doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as “winning” any nuclear exchange. The instant the first device detonates, “life” is over.
The rest is only “What’s next?”
Anyone who considers using nuclear weapons of any kind for anything anywhere MUST, from the instant it is uttered, be considered insane and that insanity must be grounds for instant dismissal, firing, impeachment.
Keep talking. Let’em know. Nuclear weapons are to global warming what dynamite is to a candle.
Amen Jack, I remember that too. We also were repeatedly dosed with radiation from the above ground tests, and when Chernobyl melted down, the death rates in America went up in our age bracket because of that exposure. That incident resulted in an estimated 30,000 extra deaths during the following months, I don’t remember the source or time frame. A nuclear war could result in anywhere from thousands of extra deaths to complete annihilation.
Lets remove our madmen from office and hope the rest of the world does too.
Seven comments, about what is the most pressing issue in world affairs. I agree with Jack Nelson and glenn goodman, this should be our main priority. It’s the biggest immediate threat to human lives and we need to rid ourselves of the idiots with the hands on the buttons. Therein lies our dilemma.
Isn’t it odd how Reagan’s displeasure with nuclear weapons caused him to build more warheads, more delivery systems and even to propose a program to shoot down the other side’s missiles?
The biggest anti-nuclear protest marches in American history were held during his administration. In Britain they were staging sit-ins against deployment of U.S. cruise missles on English soil.
Before Gorbachev came to power, people were nearly as tense as during the Cuba crisis.
I recall one day in the mid 80’s when I saw a big flash out of the corner of my eye while driving. It was a large transformer shorting out… but the first thing that crossed my mind was “Nuke!”
What really galls me is how GWB told Americans that they could no longer feeling “safe & secure” behind the barriers our two oceans after 9/11… as if we ever did!
Wot an idiot!
Alaskamaid and Jack Nelson, yes, I am 56 and absolutely know what you mean. We were all terrorized, each time we had to duck and cover. During the Cuban missle crisis I was in fourth grade and we had to spend the day in the cafeteria which was a basement level room. The only recurring nightmare I’ve ever had was a nuclear war scenario. Bright blue sky, at school, bombers flying over, bomb coming down, can’t get home, wake up in a sweat.
My 21 year old daughter asked me recently “Is it every generation that thinks its the last?” Why are humans hardwired to self-destruct through violence and stupidity and greed?
One fact I do remember is that if just ONE 25 megaton bomb hit a city of 2 million people the people outside the blast area that did live would be very badly burned. There wouldn’t be enough burn unit beds in ALL OF NORTH AMERICA ( CANADA TO MEXICO ) for the number of people that would need that level of care. That is only the burned people then the cut and injured on top of that. Naturally all the people inside the blast area are dead.
Went through the same drills when I was a kid in Canada. the old duck and cover.
I feel they need to educate the kids today and show those old WHAT HAPPENS TO A CITY WHEN A NUKE BOMB FALLS ON IT, movies and documentaries. I remember those and I tell you it stuck with you knowing that anyone use a nuke weapon is nuts. One good thing about the cold war was the USA stayed in line.
A few other facts from even a ONE megaton bomb are this
distance with a 15 MPH wind ground blast radioactive fall out for 7 days after blast
30 miles away 100% dead 10 to 15 years before safe levels to move back to the area
90 miles lethal dose death in 2 to 14 days
120 miles away internal damage hair loss death in some cases
250 miles away none lethal dose but white blood cells affect 2 to 3 years before it would be safe to move back to area.
All these facts are bassed on a ONE MEGATON bomb. That would be a very small bomb but you see the affects are over 250 miles away and blast area can’t be lived in for 10 to 15 years. No can you imagine a city in Iran or some other country that you couldn’t live in for up to 15 years? I wonder how long for a bomb 25 times bigger than the one I used for this example.
Fear is the mind killer. Nuclear war will kill us. Many countries have nuclear weapons. Terrorists want to kill us and might get nuclear weapons.
be afraid, very afraid.
Pakistan and India would never use a nuclear weapon against each other, and neither would have them if not for us. They would be deterred from doing so due to the consequences. Having a nuclear weapon means conventional war is too dangerous because it might escalate. They dont have suicide wish. Like with the Soviets, what thye have is just a Cold War. The only country who could use a nuclear weapon without creating suicide is us. If Pakistan ever did launch a nuclear weapon, we would be behind it
This bears repeating. The only way a nuclear war starts is if we start it. Most countries who have them are small and would be destroyed in such a war. They have them for defensive purposes, like those who have them don’t get invaded by the US. If a nuclear device goes off, you know where to look. It would be blamed on somebody else of course, but would be used as justification to launch our own. Those who lead us might not mind a nuclear winter that killed a billion people, but they have much better ways, so any use would not include a scale that would involve a nuclear winter.
The purpose of the study, in an era where a nuclear war of 50 weapons being exchanged in unlikely, can only mean they are studying how many weapons they can use before crossing the line, drawn wherever they may have drawn it.
Forget about India and Pakistan the most immediate and likely scenario is Israel and the US versus a non-nuclear Iran.
MiMiCcS: Absolutely correct! You get a personal gold star from me. I have a question though. Why do you think Bush keeps poking at Putin’s eyes? Why is he messing with the Bear?
So, if nuclear bombs mess up the ozone layer, is it the nuclear bomb tests that France and others ran in the South Pacific for so many years that messed up the ozone layer above Austrailia and Antarctica? And is it the fallout from the same that has made the incidences of skin cancer skyrocket in the same areas? Have we got the idea yet that this is wrong? And how many times and ways must one explode a nuke before we are satisfied that a: they make a very loud and huge explosion, and b: this is a very very bad idea? Almost makes you believe in those proverbial aliens who run the government, trying to make our beautiful planet over into their hellish delight.
The movie, “On The Beach” was a swell movie. Sad ending however.
“…in recent decades the ozone layer (in Antarctica) has returned to normal”
Pure BS; it has not returned to normal and you only have to look at the UV levels in New Zealand to see that. According to this CD News article from 2001 it will take till at least 2065 for Antarctica to return to normal.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0921-02.htm
The hack ronald regan said that and you think it great!!!!! The man who supported how many dictators? Support for the Botha administration [oh just some support for Apartheid.] Slow to deal with AIDS. Invasions of countries. One thing to think about he also said government was not the solution to our problem, government was the problem, look how well that turn out. One thing about reagan is that he is in a good spot, dead.
I agree, that the biggest threat is probably not from a Pakistan - India confrontation, but from US/Israel - Iran, and because of many of the reasons mentioned here. The US do not seem to be at all bothered about waging war and causing chaos thousands of miles away - they will be safe from the consequences. If tactical nuclear weapons were used against the military facilities in Iran, then the resulting fallout would affect most of the Middle East and some of the breakaway republics such as Kazakhstan. The whole of the Middle East would become a wilderness, with no hope for life. Gradually over decades the effects would be felt in the rest of the World, but by then, all of the evil bastards who had started the war would be dead.
The people who you now have in the administration, are among the most evil and callous ever. It is up to US citizens to stop them before it is too late.
To be safe against attack you have to own nukes, but if you even hint at thinking about getting nukes you get attacked. I don’t want to pay twice as much for gas as I do today just because of the insane foreign policy of the USA.
Fat Lady
Thanks for the facts about the nukes. What about if a nuke was used on the huge growing areas of a country and the soil unusable for 15 or more years. NO FOOD and mass starvation. I looked up more info about them and we don’t want to go there so the USA/Israel shouldn’t invite a retaliation if they do.
Look what happened to the USA and as I said before 2 office buildings fell over. How about inviting a retaliation from a country and whole cities removed for 50+ years from several strikes. Cancer rates in the 50% range for the next 50+ years. But we won , yea won what?
He argued in his 1984 State of the Union Address, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”
–from the president who brought us star wars, may he RIP.
the thing that worries me is the people running the show are so much on a mission at any costs ( look at the US economy) for world domination they feel they could get away with using them.
Nice to see that troops are to stay in Iraq forever. Glad all those war protests worked.
How about don’t vote for anyone who is pro war and not 100% America first and only America no matter what party they are from.
We all know that the MAJOR danger of nuclear war is the same as the major danger for all wars in the world right now. That is the evil sob in the white house and the owners who pull his strings to make him dance their tune. It brings to mind a line from that Beckett movie when the king [O’Toole], speaking of Beckett, cries “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
These people have but a few months left to do their filthy work, unless McCain [whom I used to respect] wins the election. This makes them exceedingly dangerous right now. I fear for Obama’s life as I fear for what this once great nation is doing to the world. We MUST do more than just talk on these websites.
If you are a vet, join Veterans for Peace, Vietnam Veterans Against War. Iraq Veterans Against War. All have websites, and chapters close to you. All are taking action, today, now, against these people.
If you are not a vet, join your local chapter of Peace and Justice, or American Friends Service Committee. There are other organizations, like Code Pink and Raging Grannies. Get off your duff and ACT. We, and our grandbabies, are in danger - if not of nuclear war, then certainly of a tightening net of fascism. Do it.
Cromerovich wrote:
“Pure BS; it has not returned to normal and you only have to look at the UV levels in New Zealand to see that. According to this CD News article from 2001 it will take till at least 2065 for Antarctica to return to normal.”
Well, maybe not *pure* BS, but it certainly has an odor. The problem is, no one really knows what ‘normal’ is. Polar O3 levels are complex and highly dynamic. It is fair to say that ozone levels have stabilized in recent years, but they are probably still lower than they were in the pre-CFC era.
Scientists have also sued to stop the Swiss/French particle collider from causing a purported mini-black hole that will consume us.