Posted: 1/12/2012 11:20:15 PM EDT
|
THIS TOPIC got into some "nuclear winter" discussion. I'd like to discuss it some more.
For example: a couple of years ago Iceland's Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupted, spewing thousands of tons of ash, dust, etc into the atomsphere. How closely does that ash cloud replicate the cloud that would result from an all-out "horrible spasm" exchange of nuclear bombs? The reason I ask is that the following winter, we experienced record-breaking cold weather throughout the United States and much of the rest of the world. It's plain to me that this was the result of the ash spewing from that volcano. Comments? |
|
This is a link that has an in-depth timeline of Global Thermonuclear Warfare and its effects. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html |
|
Quoted:
That volcano was about one bomb worth of ash, multiple bombs would cause a winter you wouldn't believe with no summer. No summer means no crops, and we only have a year worth of staples. Then why didn't we have a nuclear winter from any of the hundreds of bombs that we detonated, and the hundreds that the Soviets detonated? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That volcano was about one bomb worth of ash, multiple bombs would cause a winter you wouldn't believe with no summer. No summer means no crops, and we only have a year worth of staples. Then why didn't we have a nuclear winter from any of the hundreds of bombs that we detonated, and the hundreds that the Soviets detonated? 1000+ you mean? and thats just the US. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That volcano was about one bomb worth of ash, multiple bombs would cause a winter you wouldn't believe with no summer. No summer means no crops, and we only have a year worth of staples. Then why didn't we have a nuclear winter from any of the hundreds of bombs that we detonated, and the hundreds that the Soviets detonated? 1000+ you mean? and thats just the US. Cuz it's made up bro. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That volcano was about one bomb worth of ash, multiple bombs would cause a winter you wouldn't believe with no summer. No summer means no crops, and we only have a year worth of staples. Then why didn't we have a nuclear winter from any of the hundreds of bombs that we detonated, and the hundreds that the Soviets detonated? It depends where you set them off, over the ocean or an air burst no problem but the ones designed to take out underground targets do throw a lot of dust into the atmosphere. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That volcano was about one bomb worth of ash, multiple bombs would cause a winter you wouldn't believe with no summer. No summer means no crops, and we only have a year worth of staples. Then why didn't we have a nuclear winter from any of the hundreds of bombs that we detonated, and the hundreds that the Soviets detonated? I'm guessing it would depend on where the detonations accured. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That volcano was about one bomb worth of ash, multiple bombs would cause a winter you wouldn't believe with no summer. No summer means no crops, and we only have a year worth of staples. Then why didn't we have a nuclear winter from any of the hundreds of bombs that we detonated, and the hundreds that the Soviets detonated? 1000+ you mean? and thats just the US. I was referring to atmospheric testing, since underground tests don't put dust into the atmosphere. |
|
We don't have any warheads capable of removing a mountain of solid rock. The ash generated from Mt. St. Helens came from a 27 megaton release. Our biggest ever nuke was 25 megatons, and we phased them out in 1976.
Volcanos can put a whole lot more particulate in the air than either a ground or airburst nuke of equivalent force, because of the mechanism of eruption. Krakatoa was 200 megatons. Nature > nukes. |
|
Quoted:
This is a link that has an in-depth timeline of Global Thermonuclear Warfare and its effects. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html That scenario had something interesting in it... The Russian population is moved into shelters into an orderly fashion. Russia gets hit by nice, clean, small, cute little airbursting American bombs, which leave the country with a relatively light dose of radiation. Casualties are relatively light, when compared to US casualties... The US population has little or no warning before being hit, and due to the preemptive nature of the Russian strike, they're slaughtered wholesale. Thanks to the design of Russian bombs, which are big, dirty fuckers set up to blow up on the ground and just launch that radioactive shit up in the air, the country practically glows in the dark. Casualties in the US are extremely heavy when compared to the Russian casualties, and the survivors of the initial attacks are left in a radioactive soup that just keeps killing them. So it sounds like, assuming the radiation figures are correct, in a full-scale exchange of nukes, the Soviets would perhaps not "win" but certainly cause more destruction. If they were to launch the first strike, the kill ratio tips even more in their favor. So this means that if we want to "win" a nuclear conflict, we need to move our population into prepared shelters* first, and make the first strike hoping to catch them with their pants down. ** Then we would also need to make sure that not only were our warheads capable of blowing stuff up, but they also need to be made to be intentionally dirty, and be detonated in a manner that launches as much fallout into the air over/around their targets as possible, so that the survivors don't have the advantage of popping their heads up real quick and strolling out into the countryside while our survivors choke on nuclear muck. We need them to be just as crippled as we are in the aftermath... Yes, I realize where such logic would lead... 
Theres no winners in a nuclear exchange. But in order to convince the other guy not to attack, you have to convince him that you'll mess up his junk worse than he can mess up your junk. And therefore, he has to regain superiority by doing something to convince you not to attack because HE can mess up your junk worse than you can mess up HIS junk...And so on until you just blow up the whole god damned planet... 
ETA: Scary thing being, what if the "other guy" looks at that study (or a similar one) and decides that inflicting heavier casualties and having a more survivable post-exchange environment constitutes a "win"? During WWII the Russians would fight a battle, wind up with casualties more than three or four times as bad as the Germans, and chalk it up as a "win". If thats a "win" to a communist/socialist, then surely a scenario where your enemy takes worse casualties is a "win"...They might actually be crazy enough to try it! * Yhea, I know, we don't HAVE any shelters. Barring historic displays or movies, I've seen a "Fallout Shelter" sign ONCE in my life. ONCE. It was on a college campus, above the entrance to one of the buildings. I pointed it out to our tour guide, who looked up, saw the sign, thought for a moment, and then explained that there wasn't a shelter in the building, and there hadn't been for some time. The sign, she explained, had probably just been left up there to rust since it was in an awkward place to get to, above the doors and all. I think I may have also seen an air raid siren once, I'm not sure, I was a little guy and my grandfather said that while it looked like such a siren it must have been for something else. In any case, it was a loudspeaker up on top of a telephone/electrical pole, and must have been up there as it was easier to leave it than take it down. |
|
I think I may have also seen an air raid siren once, I'm not sure, I was a little guy and my grandfather said that while it looked like such a siren it must have been for something else.
Depends on where you live. I grew up in Southern California. We had some relatives from Kansas/Missouri area come out once. Every Friday the .gov would test our air raid sirens. The relatives said that our sirens sounded just like the tornado warnings they had back in the Midwest. I wonder if it was a tornado warning you saw? |