'Regional' Nuclear War Would Cause Worldwide Destruction

[bananas]

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/regional-nuclea.html

'Regional' Nuclear War Would Cause Worldwide Destruction
By Alexis Madrigal April 07, 2008 | 4:07:27 PM


Think you might escape the aftereffects of a limited nuclear war that happens on the other side of the globe from you? Think again.

<snip>

"Our research supports that there would be worldwide destruction," said Michael Mills, co-author of the study and a research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It demonstrates that a small-scale regional conflict is capable of triggering larger ozone losses globally than the ones that were previously predicted for a full-scale nuclear war."

Combined with the climatic impact of a regional nuclear war -- which could reduce crop yields and starve hundreds of millions -- Mills' modeling shows that the entire globe would feel the repercussions of a hundred nuclear detonations, a small fraction of just the U.S. stockpile. After decades of Cold War research into the impacts that a full-blown war between the Soviet Union and the United States would have had on the globe, recent work has focused on regional nuclear wars, which are seen as more likely than all-out nuclear Armageddon. Incorporating the latest atmospheric modeling, the scientists are finding that even a small nuclear conflict would wreak havoc on the global environment (.pdf) -- cooling it twice as much as it's heated over the last century -- and on the structure of the atmosphere itself.

Mills' work, which appears online today in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, used a model from National Center for Atmospheric Research to look at the impact of throwing 5 million metric tons of black carbon, or soot, into the atmosphere. He found that when a cluster of cities are burning together, they end up creating their own weather, pumping soot 20,000 feet into the atmosphere. Once there, sunlight would heat the smoke, and drive it up 260,000 feet above the earth's surface.

<snip>

[On the Road]

1. Always Look on the Bright Side --

It would solve global warming and overpopulation all at once.

[Journeyman]

2. Those who've read Emmanuel Goldstein's "Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" . . .

know what can flow and envelope the world in the wake of even limited nuclear war, for "(its) ravages. . . (are) never. . . fully repaired."

[kristopher]

3. Original source

Abstract

We use a chemistry-climate model and new estimates of smoke produced by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the impact on stratospheric ozone of a regional nuclear war between developing nuclear states involving 100 Hiroshima-size bombs exploded in cities in the northern subtropics. We find column ozone losses in excess of 20% globally, 25–45% at midlatitudes, and 50–70% at northern high latitudes persisting for 5 years, with substantial losses continuing for 5 additional years. Column ozone amounts remain near or <220 Dobson units at all latitudes even after three years, constituting an extratropical "ozone hole." The resulting increases in UV radiation could impact the biota significantly, including serious consequences for human health. The primary cause for the dramatic and persistent ozone depletion is heating of the stratosphere by smoke, which strongly absorbs solar radiation. The smoke-laden air rises to the upper stratosphere, where removal mechanisms are slow, so that much of the stratosphere is ultimately heated by the localized smoke injections. Higher stratospheric temperatures accelerate catalytic reaction cycles, particularly those of odd-nitrogen, which destroy ozone. In addition, the strong convection created by rising smoke plumes alters the stratospheric circulation, redistributing ozone and the sources of ozone-depleting gases, including N2O and chlorofluorocarbons. The ozone losses predicted here are significantly greater than previous "nuclear winter/UV spring" calculations, which did not adequately represent stratospheric plume rise. Our results point to previously unrecognized mechanisms for stratospheric ozone depletion.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0710058105v1

[madokie]

4. After Mount St Helens blew her top the following labor day we had a big assed frost here in N.E. Ok

on that monday morning. We don't normally have our first frost for more that a month from that date normally. Mt St. Helens was small compared to what bushco has in mind for Iran, methinks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Administration’s Nuclear Saber Rattling on Iran Threatens Global Security

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/commentary/administrations-nuclear.html

April 11, 2006

Administration’s Nuclear Saber Rattling on Iran Threatens Global Security

Statement by Dr. Kurt Gottfried, Chairman, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Emeritus Professor of Physics, Cornell University

"Recent reports suggest that the Bush administration is considering using nuclear weapons against Iran. The very fact that nuclear weapon use is being discussed as an option—against a state that does not have nuclear weapons and does not represent a direct or imminent threat to the United States—illustrates the extent to which the Bush administration has changed U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

"The Bush administration has explicitly rejected the basic precept that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons should be to deter the use of nuclear weapons. It has assigned a new, and provocative, mission to U.S. nuclear weapons: to dissuade or prevent other countries from undertaking military programs that could threaten U.S. interests in the future. A 'preventive' nuclear attack on Iran would fall into this category. It has also blurred the line between nuclear and conventional weapons by declaring that nuclear weapons can be used as part of military operations.

"This nuclear policy increases the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used, and ultimately decreases U.S. as well as international security. Instead, the United States should commit itself to strengthen the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons that has developed over the past 60 years.

"Plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran also fail to recognize the immediate dangers inherent in the use of nuclear weapons. The administration is reportedly considering using the B61-11 nuclear 'bunker buster' against an underground facility near Natanz, Iran. The use of such a weapon would create massive clouds of radioactive fallout that could spread far from the site of the attack, including to other nations. Even if used in remote, lightly populated areas, the number of casualties could range up to more than a hundred thousand, depending on the weapon yield and weather conditions.

...

[madokie]

6. As long as they are not in chains and behind bars bushco is a threat to all humanity

its a good thing life doesn't have a check out feature cause if it did gw and the dick would be getting lonely because most of us would be checking out until they were gone. I honestly can say I never knew hate until these folks came along

[TheWraith]

7. Mt. St. Helens wasn't small compared to anything.

Bypassing for the moment the tin-foil hattery of a nuclear attack on Iran, the Mount St. Helens eruption released the equivalent of 24 megatons worth of explosive force, or about 1,850 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

[madokie]

8. Thanks for clearing that up cause I had no idea it was that much

I knew it was enough to change our weather patterns the fall following it

[TheWraith]

10. Mother nature likes doing things big.

Volcanoes have a habit of altering weather patterns due to their ability to push massive amounts of dust into the air, which blocks sunlight, and therefore heat. The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, along with some other volcanic activity, resulted in what's called the "Year without a summer," with massive climate irregularities all over, including snowstorms in the north-east US in June. Tambora's explosive force was a whopper: around 1,000 megatons, or ten percent of the power of all human nuclear weapons put together.

Another cool factoid: while we like to tout our ability to destroy the planet if we wanted to, the fact is that the asteroid impact 65 million years ago, which created the KT boundry and killed the dinosaurs, was over 100,000 times larger than the entire planetary stock of nuclear weaponry.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. On the other hand...

The Chicxulub impact:

• Was in a single location, although its effects were felt world wide (we would likely spread our warheads more evenly to make more efficient use of their destructive capacity)
• Didn’t distribute nuclear fallout (as our warheads would do.)

So, maybe our nuclear arsenal is small in comparison, but, "'tis enough, 'twill serve."

No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door;
but 'tis enough,'twill serve:
ask for me to-morrow, and you shall find me a grave man.
…

[TheWraith]

9. Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of value to this study.

No insult intended to the researchers, but there are far too many variables involved to make an accurate prediction. Okay, you talk about 100 nukes: what size? If they're of, say, the size fielded by India and Pakistan, I wouldn't worry in the least. 100 large strategic warheads would be a whole different matter--but since the only countries which own these are the five member-states of the NPT, their use is ridiculously unlikely.

[kristopher]

12. They specified size. nt

[NickB79]

13. Hiroshima-sized nukes, ~15 kilotons

Actually quite small by modern standards.

[NNadir]

14. Um...you're asking the anti-nuke community for numbers?

Let me know how it comes out.

The anti-nuke community which couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel wars taking place now - I recall how they ramped up hysteria in 2003 to help justify a dangerous fossil fuel wars - is very long on fantasy and very short on numbers.

The number of nuclear wars that have taken place since 1945 is zero.

The number of dangerous fossil fuel wars that have taken place since 1945 is not zero.

The anti-nuke squad couldn't care less about war, just as they couldn't care less about energy related waste or energy related terrorism.

[bananas]

16. The numbers are in the pdf, which is linked in the wired article.

Pro-nukes are apparently too ignorant to comprehend these things.
Ignorance kills.

[NNadir]

17. Actually, I'm a grown up, and I no more read anti-nuke cult writings than I read the Old Testament.

Ignorance does, in fact, kill.

I'm not going to read the adolescent speculations in the vast circle jerk of self referential websites of the anti-nuke cult.

If you can identify one person who has been killed by a nuclear war in the last 50 years, that might be interesting.

I note, with my usual contempt, however that you do not now and have never posted a single paranoid post about a dangerous fossil fuel war.

You have not once called for banning oil because oil technology is diverted to make napalm.

Why?

Because you couldn't give a rat's ass how many people got smoked by napalm in the last 3 decades.

You also have failed to call for banning dangerous fossil fuels because of the fire bombings of Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden and large stretches of South Vietnam.

Why?

Because you have an arbitrary criteria that only wars that take place in the fetid imaginations of the anti-nuke cult count.

Real wars mean not a fucking whit to the anti-nuke cult.

Ever hear of Iraq?

No?

Why am I in no fucking way surprised?

Let me tell you about the war you know nothing about, because it's a CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF HOW IGNORANCE KILLS.

Dick Cheney said "uranium!" and a dumb fucking culture fed for decades dopey scientifically illiterate anti-nuke propaganda went off to kill vast numbers of people.

As it happens, there were very few people who actually understood the science of uranium who took one of Cheney's claims seriously for even 15 seconds.

Like the rest of the anti-nuke propaganda, it was a fraud.

Ignorance kills.

Got it?

No?

Why am I in no fucking way surprised?

By the way, there was lots of speculation during the great fossil fuel war of 1991 - about which you couldn't care less - that there was going to be a so called nuclear winter when the um, well, gee willikers, dangerous fossil fuel fields of Kuwait were set afire.


Never mind that there were zero nuclear events associated with this war, the media still called it a nuclear winter.

For months, the skies of the Persian gulf were drenched with oil laden darkness.

I note, with contempt, that you have zero interest in this event, probably because, well, it actually happened.

We wouldn't want to talk about things that are real, not when we can talk about things that are made up.

In a short while, because of the attempt to actually make the biofuels fantasy actually produce on something remotely connected to scale, we may have food wars.

I suspect I'll wait a long time to hear from dumb fundie anti-nukes about the need to ban food.

[Javaman]

18. However, many have been killed by the various nuclear tests over the years...

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

http://gc.nautilus.org/Nautilus/east-asian-science-security-network/archives/2007/sep/nuke_work_killed_thousands.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1993-nuclear-test-fallout-killed-thousands-in-us.html

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/nucleartestingandthedownwinders.html

[NNadir]

19. Wow. More lazy links from the fundie anti-nuke circle jerk.

I note, with contempt, while offering lazy links that have intellectually vapid remarks like this gem:

The water storage space at the Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. Some was taken into the St. Paul water system.

-From idiotic link #1 in your lazy post.

I guess in dumb lazy fundie land this is identical to saying that "everyone in Saint Paul Minnesota will die."

While conceding that this statement is true, everyone in Saint Paul Minnesota will die, I think it might just be maybe, possibly, conceivably, in a manner of speaking, could, might die from air pollution.

Diya think?

Never mind, I already know the answer to that question.

I've had the experience of seeing brazillions of fundie anti-nukes who couldn't care less about the risks or accidents of dangerous fossil fuels, even though they, dangerous fossil fuel accidents, leaks, terrorism, war, etc, etc, etc actually kill people.

Comparing nuclear tests to nuclear power is rather like comparing the firebombing of Tokyo to a Shell station. Mind you, I oppose Shell stations.

There are zero fundie anti-nukes, for instance who give a rat's ass if people are killed testing dangerous fossil fuel weapons, like say, napalm dropping bombers.

I note that dumb fundie anti-nukes were in a furor of joy when there was an earthquake in Japan that struck a nuclear power plant. "Radioactive water! Radioactive Water!" they screamed.

The dumb asses had no sense whatsover that units of radioactivity are associated with something called scientific units.

The release turned out to be on millicurie scale.

The release of dangerous fossil fuels indiscriminately released while the nuclear power plant is being repaired approaches millions of tons.

You. Couldn't. Care. Less.

The number of dumb fundie anti-nukes who give a rat's ass from the people who are dying from the use of dangerous fossil fuels in Japan while the reactor is repaired is zero.

In fact, there are zero fundie anti-nukes with either the brains or education to consider the toxicity of their cute little yuppie toys.

Nuclear power doesn't have to be perfect to be better than everything else.

It merely needs to be better than everything else, which it is.

www.externe.info

Ignorance kills.

[Javaman]

21. Ahhh good old know it all nnadir,I was wondering where you have been?

Off to your usual boorish retort I see, huh?

I just love the smack down you got in this post. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=141583&mesg_id=141583

you didn't seem to have all the answers then. LOL

whaa???? thought someone forgot? LOL

The more you crow, the less people listen. It doesn't matter anymore if you are right or wrong. Your blabbing just sort of runs together after a while.

You know the old saying about honey and vinegar. You may want to read up on it sometime, perhaps then maybe someone will listen to your hot air instead of tuning you out. :)

have a great day!!!

good old glowing nnadir the montgomery burns of DU. Off to tell us we are alllllll wrong about nuclear energy. Do you work for Yankee Electric or something? LOL

I'm looking forward to your reply. :) because it will be filled with more proclamations about how much you are just so much cooler than anyone in this forum.

Why do you waste your genius on us fundie anti-nuke circle jerks anyway? I would think you would be using your brilliance to clean up the ground water at rocky flats! LOL

[kristopher]

20. My good friend Sam Nagara

Died in 1997 from leukemia attributable to the effects of the Nagasaki blast.

[bananas]

15. It's the amount of soot injected into the upper atmosphere

The nukes are just the matches which ignite the cities,
the smoke plumes go into the upper atmosphere.
You can read the pdf here: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf