Largest possible limited nuclear war?

fscott

FleetMac said:
It's worth noting that the "nuclear winter" model never accounted for the presence of the oceans, which act as giant thermostats in planetary terms. The fact that this was omitted (along with assuming that the same fires that struck Hiroshima & Nagasaki would happen everywhere a nuke hit, despite the fact that those two cities were uniquely vulnerable to incendiary effects compared to most modern cities) when Sagan did his study on nuclear war tells me one of two things; either he forgot to include it, which is something I'd think would be hard to miss, or deliberately left it out. The latter's implication is that Sagan is an intellectually dishonest politicker that had an agenda to pursue. I've yet to see any solid proof of the theory's credibility.

EDIT: That being said, it is possible for SOME climactic repercussions to result from a nuclear exchange IF the fallout coalesced along the equator line. Even then, though, we're talking more of a "nuclear autumn", which would certainly be damaging to crops and result in famines but hardly any kind of extinction-level event.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. If it turns out that we are wrong at least Global Warming won't be an issue anymore.:cool:
 

Dayton Kitchens

Banned
Another thing rarely accounted for in the various nuclear winter models IIRC was the differences in effects of air bursts vs. ground bursts.

Ground (or surface detonations) will kick up lots more dust and debris than air bursts. Which of course means lots more fall out as well. But the thermal damage from a ground burst is less than an airburst because the surface of the Earth absorbs so much of the energy released.

On the other hand, cities are likely to be attacked by air bursts (to maximize blast damage). While air bursts might well tend to promote fires, they are also far less likely to blast dust and debris into the atmosphere.

I remember reading Sagan's statements about nuclear winter where he basically admitted that he didn't have enough data to support it but he considered the cause of preventing a nuclear war so important that waiting for the necessary data was not an option to him.
 

ObssesedNuker

A all-out total nuclear exchange would only produce a "nuclear autumn" scenario which would disrupt global agriculture for a year or two, with disrupt meaning "a bunch of crops that might otherwise live die from undue temperature drops" which is far from civilization shattering. The disruption of transport infrastructure would likely be responsible for more famine deaths...

Any regional exchange probably won't have noticeable global climatological impact.

Anyway, Pakistani-Indian exchange is your best bet. Or something goes wrong for Israel gets in one of its wars and it goes ape on the Arab states.
 

tenthring

Banned
In the early part of the Cold War the Soviets had a pretty strong conventional advantage in continental Europe. In order to keep military expenditures down the US war planners were relying on the use of limited tactical nuclear weapons in Germany to stop any Soviet invasion of western Europe. Had there been some escalation that caused a conventional conflict in Germany the US might avail themselves of that option, and then somehow we get some retaliation but it remains limited and then everyone scared shitless stops fighting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top