Study: ‘Small’ Nuclear War Would Destroy The World

[Purveyor]

DENVER (CBS4) – With an estimated 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world, we have the power to exterminate humanity many times over.

But it wouldn’t take a full-scale nuclear war to make Earth uninhabitable, reports Live Science.

Even a relatively small regional nuclear war, like a conflict between India and Pakistan, could spark a global environmental catastrophe, says a new study.

“Most people would be surprised to know that even a very small regional nuclear war on the other side of the planet could disrupt global climate for at least a decade and wipe out the ozone layer for a decade,” said lead author Michael Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

Researchers developed a computer model of the Earth’s atmosphere and ran simulations to find out what would happen if there was a nuclear war with just a fraction of the world’s arsenal.

more...

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/03/26/study-small-nuclear-war-would-destroy-the-world/

[jwirr]

1. May be wrong about the date but the early famine in Europe (about 1817) was caused by an

eruption of a volcano which interrupted the global climate for at least several years.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

2. Might you be thinking about Tambora?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora

The eruption caused global climate anomalies that included the phenomenon known as "volcanic winter": 1816 became known as the "Year Without a Summer" because of the effect on North American and European weather. Crops failed and livestock died in much of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in the worst famine of the 19th century.[6]

[jwirr]

4. That was it. I also did not know about NA effect. So it was bigger than I thought. Thank you.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

8. You're very welcome. Please check your inbox =) nt

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. So whoever doesn't get toasted gets to freeze and starve to death.

I think I'd rather be toasted fast.

[AverageJoe90]

5. Not quite too sure about *that*, TBH.

Yes, even a *limited* exchange would no doubt have many negative effects on the environment, globally in the short-term and locally in the long term. But the stratospheric fallout wouldn't last a whole year in this scenario; 3-4 months, maybe, if we're talking an India-Pakistan type deal.

So, to be fair & honest, no doubt there would be many problems. But if we're talking India-Pakistan here, then it wouldn't be quite enough to *destroy* the whole planet.

[MicaelS]

6. So all we need to stop Global Warming..

Is a small nuclear war that will cause Global Cooling.

[seveneyes]

7. It depends

A small scale nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India would need at least a few thousand bombs exploded.

http://zidbits.com/2010/12/what-were-the-worlds-largest-explosions/
By far, the largest and largest natural explosion in recorded history was the 1815 Mount Tambora Volcanic eruption. It’s blast was equivalent to 800 megatons of TNT. 4 times more energy than Krakatoa.

That didn't destroy the world, I doubt India and Pakistan would either.

[Octafish]

9. As long as we win, what's the big deal?

"Restraint! Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards! At the end of the war, if there are two Americans and one Russian, we win!"

-- Lt. Gen. Thomas Power, commander in chief of the Strategic Air Command from 1957 to 1964, speaking to William Kaufmann of the RAND Corporation in 1960, cited by Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon

http://curtis-lemay.tripod.com/

[Ron Obvious]

10. I remember Carl Sagan pissing off the Reagan White House with that one...

... by mentioning the effects of Nuclear Winter after even a small nuclear exchange. He was widely derided for it by the conservatives of his day who maintained the daft position that a nuclear war was "winnable".