SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A fire destroys a wheat field in southeastern Ukraine on July 17, 2022 amid Russia's invasion. (Photo: Dmytro Smolyenko/Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images)
Full-Scale Nuclear War Between US and Russia Could Cause 5 Billion to Starve to Death
"The data tell us one thing: We must prevent a nuclear war from ever happening," said the co-author of an alarming new study.
Aug 15, 2022
A study published Monday in the journal Nature Food projects that a full-scale nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia would spark a catastrophic global famine, with potentially as many as five billion people dying of starvation in the years immediately after the war's conclusion.
Led by climate scientists at Rutgers University, the study examines six nuclear war scenarios: a conflagration involving the U.S., its allies, and Russia and five smaller-scale nuclear conflicts between India and Pakistan.
"The reduced light, global cooling, and likely trade restrictions after nuclear wars would be a global catastrophe for food security."
While a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia--the owners of roughly 90% of the global supply of atomic warheads--would have the most devastating consequences from a hunger standpoint, a localized India-Pakistan war would also reverberate worldwide, resulting in a 7% decline in global average caloric production and possibly two billion deaths from lack of food.
A direct U.S.-Russia conflict, the risk of which is believed to be higher today than at any point since the Cold War, would slash global average caloric production by 90% around four years after the nuclear exchange, the new study estimates.
"The data tell us one thing: We must prevent a nuclear war from ever happening," said Alan Robock, distinguished professor of climate science in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers and a co-author of the new study.
To reach their conclusions, the researchers attempted to calculate the amount of sun-blocking atmospheric soot that a nuclear war could cause, potentially resulting in crop failures on a horrifying scale.
"A large percent of the people will be starving," Lili Xia, the study's lead author, told Nature. "It's really bad."
"In a nuclear war, bombs targeted on cities and industrial areas would start firestorms, injecting large amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere, which would spread globally and rapidly cool the planet," the study notes. "Such soot loadings would cause decadal disruptions in Earth's climate, which would impact food production systems on land and in the oceans."
"Nuclear war would primarily contaminate soil and water close to where nuclear weapons were used," the researchers continue. "Soot disperses globally once it reaches the upper atmosphere; thus, our results are globally relevant regardless of the warring nations."
"In conclusion," they add, "the reduced light, global cooling, and likely trade restrictions after nuclear wars would be a global catastrophe for food security."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A study published Monday in the journal Nature Food projects that a full-scale nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia would spark a catastrophic global famine, with potentially as many as five billion people dying of starvation in the years immediately after the war's conclusion.
Led by climate scientists at Rutgers University, the study examines six nuclear war scenarios: a conflagration involving the U.S., its allies, and Russia and five smaller-scale nuclear conflicts between India and Pakistan.
"The reduced light, global cooling, and likely trade restrictions after nuclear wars would be a global catastrophe for food security."
While a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia--the owners of roughly 90% of the global supply of atomic warheads--would have the most devastating consequences from a hunger standpoint, a localized India-Pakistan war would also reverberate worldwide, resulting in a 7% decline in global average caloric production and possibly two billion deaths from lack of food.
A direct U.S.-Russia conflict, the risk of which is believed to be higher today than at any point since the Cold War, would slash global average caloric production by 90% around four years after the nuclear exchange, the new study estimates.
"The data tell us one thing: We must prevent a nuclear war from ever happening," said Alan Robock, distinguished professor of climate science in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers and a co-author of the new study.
To reach their conclusions, the researchers attempted to calculate the amount of sun-blocking atmospheric soot that a nuclear war could cause, potentially resulting in crop failures on a horrifying scale.
"A large percent of the people will be starving," Lili Xia, the study's lead author, told Nature. "It's really bad."
"In a nuclear war, bombs targeted on cities and industrial areas would start firestorms, injecting large amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere, which would spread globally and rapidly cool the planet," the study notes. "Such soot loadings would cause decadal disruptions in Earth's climate, which would impact food production systems on land and in the oceans."
"Nuclear war would primarily contaminate soil and water close to where nuclear weapons were used," the researchers continue. "Soot disperses globally once it reaches the upper atmosphere; thus, our results are globally relevant regardless of the warring nations."
"In conclusion," they add, "the reduced light, global cooling, and likely trade restrictions after nuclear wars would be a global catastrophe for food security."
A study published Monday in the journal Nature Food projects that a full-scale nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia would spark a catastrophic global famine, with potentially as many as five billion people dying of starvation in the years immediately after the war's conclusion.
Led by climate scientists at Rutgers University, the study examines six nuclear war scenarios: a conflagration involving the U.S., its allies, and Russia and five smaller-scale nuclear conflicts between India and Pakistan.
"The reduced light, global cooling, and likely trade restrictions after nuclear wars would be a global catastrophe for food security."
While a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia--the owners of roughly 90% of the global supply of atomic warheads--would have the most devastating consequences from a hunger standpoint, a localized India-Pakistan war would also reverberate worldwide, resulting in a 7% decline in global average caloric production and possibly two billion deaths from lack of food.
A direct U.S.-Russia conflict, the risk of which is believed to be higher today than at any point since the Cold War, would slash global average caloric production by 90% around four years after the nuclear exchange, the new study estimates.
"The data tell us one thing: We must prevent a nuclear war from ever happening," said Alan Robock, distinguished professor of climate science in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers and a co-author of the new study.
To reach their conclusions, the researchers attempted to calculate the amount of sun-blocking atmospheric soot that a nuclear war could cause, potentially resulting in crop failures on a horrifying scale.
"A large percent of the people will be starving," Lili Xia, the study's lead author, told Nature. "It's really bad."
"In a nuclear war, bombs targeted on cities and industrial areas would start firestorms, injecting large amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere, which would spread globally and rapidly cool the planet," the study notes. "Such soot loadings would cause decadal disruptions in Earth's climate, which would impact food production systems on land and in the oceans."
"Nuclear war would primarily contaminate soil and water close to where nuclear weapons were used," the researchers continue. "Soot disperses globally once it reaches the upper atmosphere; thus, our results are globally relevant regardless of the warring nations."
"In conclusion," they add, "the reduced light, global cooling, and likely trade restrictions after nuclear wars would be a global catastrophe for food security."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.