Well, Ace, ya' just solved Global Warming...wanna' take a shot at Sealion?Another thing I should NOTE: @GDIS Pathe. Remember those times when you said America could survive a nuclear exchange at this point in time? Well, this link: http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/#summaryofconsequences150 paints a grim picture with a modern nuclear exchange with 2,600 total nuclear explosives. The conflict in this one had a total of 6,900 strategic and 600 tactical nuclear detonations by comparison. So, basically 150 million tonnes of soot and ash sent into the atmosphere alright......but multiply this by 5 (aka: 750,000,000), and most of the soot and ash comes from firestorms that could last for decades on end.
So, even if America survives the initial exchange (which it does, along with the Soviets), there is no guarantee that it would survive the way it used to be in the long-term. Same for the Soviets.
Well, Ace, ya' just solved Global Warming...wanna' take a shot at Sealion?
Another thing I should NOTE: @GDIS Pathe. Remember those times when you said America could survive a nuclear exchange at this point in time? Well, this link: http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/#summaryofconsequences150 paints a grim picture with a modern nuclear exchange with 2,600 total nuclear explosives. The conflict in this one had a total of 6,900 strategic and 600 tactical nuclear detonations by comparison. So, basically 150 million tonnes of soot and ash sent into the atmosphere alright......but multiply this by 5 (aka: 750,000,000), and most of the soot and ash comes from firestorms that could last for decades on end.
So, even if America survives the initial exchange (which it does, along with the Soviets), there is no guarantee that it would survive the way it used to be in the long-term. Same for the Soviets.
Except for the fact that city construction, according to the DHS, pretty much prevents such from occurring. It's also important to note that Nagasaki did not firestorm and the effects at Hiroshima were less than what happened at Tokyo previously, giving us some good field testing to disprove such a notion. With that said, do I think there will be some cooling and effects from that? Most definitely, but nowhere near the apocalyptic levels being claimed here or by those models, especially in 1962 with less advanced weapons and tonnages.
That is circular reasoning, as you answered yourself; the threshold is much higher than anything available in 1962. As for those models, they make some broad assumptions on certain issues to reach their conclusions that real world testing has disproved, most famously in the case of the Oil Wells in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War.
At the end of the second paragraph in the section I noted, it specifically says the following:
This is consistent with what we saw at Nagasaki, where no firestorm was produced. It also bares notice that Japanese cities of the 1940s were far more shoddy than their American counterparts at the time (And even more so than those of America in 1962), which is why the USAAF opted for their campaign of fire bombings.
The document goes on further to say the following:
Again, this is consistent with what we saw at Hiroshima. A firestorm was produced there, but as soon as it hit lightly or non-affected blast areas it was stopped.
But, for the sake of the argument, let's say ASBs intervene and massive firestorms hit every city that takes a hit. This is what Dr. Richard D. Small had to say when interviewed by the New York Times in the early 1990s:
So, some important caveats here. For one, the Soviets have a far smaller arsenal in 1962 than they would in 1990. Expanding on this point, Smalls states it would take the entire Soviet arsenal of 1990 to cause that maximum figure and all warheads would have to be successfully hit their target, which is not even possible now with 2017 technology. Next, the US had a far smaller population and thus infrastructure in 1962 than in 1990, meaning the amount of combustible material would be lower. Simply put, to achieve such a result is ASB.
But, as I said earlier, let's keep going for the sake of the debate. 1475 Tg is equal to 1,475,000,000 tonnes according to a conversion calculator. Now that sure sounds like a lot, to be sure, but it's really not. Why? The Tambora Eruption in 1815 produced around 10 Billion tonnes of ejecta. So even a full scale, ASB influenced strategic nuclear exchange in ~1990 would only have about 10-15% the power of the Tambora eruption*, under which global temperatures decreased about 0.4–0.7 °C and only one documented case of a person freezing to death occurred (According to Dangerous Planet: Natural Disasters That Changed History, by Bryn Barnard).
* Said eruption may have been helped, further reducing the Nuclear Winter argument.
I don't know about Iran going to war to support Israel; IIRC they were one of the OPEC nations that slapped us with an oil embargo for supporting Israel in 1973.
No, only arab producers did that. Still, the shah was on good terms with most arab states except Iraq.
@GDIS Pathe? You do realise that this is NOT Hiroshima OR Nagasaki, correct? The warheads depicted here are 10x more powerful than that and so the firestorms will likely end up making that argument over "no firestorms sans Nagasaki" a problem.
I am not saying this is inaccurate, but this is just not the same.
Besides, we are talking about 6,500 strategic nuclear weapons and 600 tactical being detonated across the Northern Hemisphere. How much TNT does that mean detonated and how much in terms of soot and ash could that stuff release?
the soot and ash comes from firestorms that could last for decades on end.
Oh, great......so, what does this mean for the Middle Eastern Front?
And Japanese cities were utterly perfect for firestorms American cities, on the other hand, have the advantage being in near fall and winter which ensure snow and rain to keep firestorms contained are not sure you will have some fires some won't
Also really? Yeah no those firestorms would be put out by the end of the year either by weather were in October or by lack of things to burn
Whether you agree with me or not I do not believe in the nuclear winter theory nuclear autumn sure but not nuclear winter
*sighs* Understood.
No harm intended it's your story after all just stating my opinion