Effects of a full scale nuclear war on the planet

[Draugen]

I've searched through the forums but didn't find any thread that specifically treated this subject. My question is: in a hypothetical nuclear holocaust scenario, if that were to happen today or in the near future, what could we realistically expect in terms of short and long term consequences to global environment, plant and animal life, as well as human living conditions? What would all those hundreds(or more) of nuclear megatons exploding in the atmosphere produce?

Would there be a nuclear winter, a nuclear summer, or some wild combination of the two? How would life, on earth and in the seas be affected? Could all the fallout make the earth forever impossible to inhabit in places like Europe, China and the US? Would climatic effects be different in other parts of the world(almost all bombs would hit in the Northern Hemisphere)?

Here's some stuff I found(I'll post more as I find them):

The author Jon Roland claims(this was in the 80's, mind you) that a nuclear summer could follow a nuclear winter, with severe effects:

"The author has confirmed the main thrust of the nuclear winter scenario with a fairly simple one-dimensional radiative-convective model (RCM) on a 32-bit UNIX supermicro using the Q'Nial and C languages. (...)

The author has also developed a statistical biological impact model (BIM) [See Box - Biological Impact Model]. The TTAPS and other models have tried to predict average temperatures. However, more important for predicting biological effects are the extreme temperatures that might last longer than various life forms subjected to them. Of course, temperature averages would be important for their impact on things like fuel consumption. The BIM applies a statistical approach to try to predict the probability that temperatures might exceed the tolerances for various higher lifeforms. Although crude, it indicates that for a spring event, most parts of continents from about 60ºN to 20ºN, even coastal areas, would be likely to experience at least one cold spell severe enough to kill most unsheltered life and wipe out agricultural activity, and for the tropics and Southern Hemisphere, cold enough to kill rain forests and have a devastating effect on agriculture. Most people could endure the cold. The main problem would be the loss of all of the first and most of a second year of food production, One uncertainty is whether crops in the Southern Hemisphere could be harvested after a spring event in the Northern Hemisphere. It is possible that excessive precipitation could wipe them out. (...)

Looking at the period following the nuclear winter, the author's RCM and BIM indicate that temperatures might increase above normal levels, to four-day highs as much as 12ºC above normal extremes. This would be the result of many small contributions to the greenhouse effect, from CO2, H2O, O3, CH3 and various aerosols injected into the troposphere and stratosphere, from CO2 from the decay of dead plant and animal life, and from reduced surface albedo from rapid desertification." http://www.the-spa.com/jon.roland/vri/nwaos.htm

Fish don't seem to be much affected by radiation, apparently:

"It was also once believed that radiation would drastically effect aquatic animals such as fish. There have been a number of experiments done on this. All have shown little effect of radiation on fish. Only in extreme cases where fish were exposed to 11 rems a day was there any evidence of mutations and life shortening." http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmoilane/nuclear/Fallout.html

Here's something about radiation induced mutations:

"Radiation may alter the DNA within any cell. Cell damage and death that result from mutations in somatic cells occur only in the organism in which the mutation occurred and are therefore termed somatic or nonheritable effects. Cancer is the most notable long-term somatic effect. In contrast, mutations that occur in germ cells (sperm and ova) can be transmitted to future generations and are therefore called genetic or heritable effects. Genetic effects may not appear until many generations later. The genetic effects of radiation were first demonstrated in fruit flies in the 1920s. Genetic mutation due to radiation does not produce the visible monstrosities of science fiction; it simply produces a greater frequency of the same mutations that occur continuously and spontaneously in nature." http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_9_5.html

 

[SuAside]

i think nuclear winter was 'disproved' by modern science, although i'm not sure how conclusive that was.

as for the rest, i have no clue.

 

[victor]

It would take the entire nuclear arsenal of Earth's nations combined to cause a significant nuclear winter, because only then would enough dust particles be propulsed into the atmosphere to block out the sun. That just wouldn't happen for strategic reasons. Yes, nuclear winter was disproved in the 80s, google it, I remember an interesting article about it.

and concerning radiation-induced mutations, 99.999999% of them are fatal, as in, no superpowers. The only thing nuclear war would do here is severely reduce human population on Earth by causing an increase in infant death.

 

[xdarkyrex]

mutations = more people with down synfdrome and hair lips.

maybe similar to alot of the mutations in total recall, where thye were just horribly disfigured, or cancerous.

thats all, really.


hell, skin cancer is caused by radiation exposure from the sun.
skin doesnt magically take on any new properties, it just gets destroyed and malignant.

 

[MrBumble]

Here's a pretty interesting website about the possible consequences of a nuclear war.

http://perso.orange.fr/kadnax/atomik.htm

Unfortunately I don't feel like translating it. Someone more talented than me at English maybe ? This excerpt in particular is pretty interesting since it rapidly explains what the consequences would be for nuclear wars of different degrees of intensity

L'APOCALYPSE A LA CARTE

Allons,allons, pas de pessimisme superflux: ce n'est pas parceque l'on appuie sur un bouton que l'on va se retrouver à coup sûr dans le cirage et comme au temps de Rahan ... euh, enfin...si, peut être...

Pour preuve, voici la liste des 6 types d'hiver nucléaire classés par ordre d'importance croissante:

Guerre nucléaire de classe 1:

-Très peu d'explosions nucléaires, les villes sont épargnées.

-Les éffets secondaires (froid,obscurité,radioactivité,pyrotoxines ... ) sont très inférieurs aux effets directs des bombes dans les pays en guerre, et insignifiants ailleurs, pas d'hiver nucléaire.

Guerre nucléaire de classe 2:

-Assez peu d'explosions nucléaires

-Quantité de fummée limitée à un lessivage efficace par la pluie

-Abaissement de la température dans l'emisphère nord (il serait le plus touché car 3/4 de la population mondiale y vit).

-Precipitation perturbées, entrainant des problèmes graves pour l'agriculture et des famines.

-Ciel un peu assombri, et les pays non belligérants ressentirait aussi les effets decrits ici

-Pertes dues à l'hiver nucléaire < pertes dues aux effets directs.

Guerre nucléaire de classe 3:

-Explosion de 3000 à 6000 têtes strategiques; refroidissement et obscurcissement sensible. Sécheresse et dégagement important de pyrotoxines; retombées radioactives et perturbations atmosphériques: baisse moyenne de la température:10°c.

-L'intensité lumineuse à midi serait réduite au 2/3. Aprés plusieurs mois, elle remonterait pour dépasser son niveau antérieure cause des rayons U.V.

-Effondrement de l'agriculture: trés importante famine y compris dans les pays non bellgérants

-Pertes dues à l'hiver nucléaire=Pertes directes dans les pays en guerre.

Guerre nucléaire de classe 4

Gelées massives au coeur des continents bombardés: Graves perturbations climatiques. Importante toxicité chimique et radioactive. Couche d'ozone très endomagée dans l'emisphère nord. La lumière atteignant le sol suffit tout juste au procésus de photosynthèse. Durant le 1 er mois, joumées couvertes; nuit sans étoiles. La survie de plusieurs especes serait menacée, dont celle de l'homme. Les retombées auraient de graves consequences, mais secondaires par rapport aux dégats climatiques. Le flux accru des rayons U.V. après dissipation de la fummée aftèrerad l'équilibre alimentaire pendant des années.

Guerre nucléaire de classe 5:

-Moins de 1% de la lumière solaire nous parviendrait; Durant des mois: crépuscule en plein midi. Arrêt du procesus de photosynthèse et sévères conséquences climatiques à long termes. L'agriculture (utilisant des stocks de semences épargnées)retomberait au mieux à des rendements moyenâgeux. Les ravages durables infligés à la nature dépasseraient de beaucoup les éffets de la guerre eux mêmes et une renaissance rapide de la civilisation serait improbable: trop de radioactivité d'U.V. presque plus d'ozone. L'existance des très rares survivants ne serait peut etre meme plus assurée...

Guerre nucléaire de classe 6:

L'apocalypse total: toutes les armes nucléaires ou presque sont envoyées sur les villes, les dépots de pétrole ... sur tout le globe. Durant des mois (des années ?), il ferait aussi sombre le jour qu'avant la guerre les nuits de pleine lune. Des continents entier gèleraient. Un tel hiver nucléaire serait la pire chose qui puisse arriver à tous les niveaux: la vie à la surface de la planète serait, sauf miracle, totalement anéantie.

Et il se peut que, plusieurs siècles après l’atomisation générale, un visiteur venu de l’espace (attiré par exemple par les ondes radios que nous émétions avant la guerre), trouve, en creusant le sol, une fine couche de suie radioactive, presente sur tout le globe. Au dessous, il y aurait les vestiges de notre civilisation anéantie, et au dessus, Rien...

Some scary shit : in case of an almost global nuclear war, less than 1% of the sunlight would pass through the clouds, entire continents would froze, there would be almost no ozone left, too much UV rays. Hell on Earth...

 

[victor]

That's bullshit anti-war propaganda.

 

[Arachnivore]

From what I've read, nuclear winter isn't caused by the explosions ejecting material into the atmosphere but by the firestorms that would burn all the forests, suburbs, etc. surrounding targeted areas. If nuclear winter has been 'disproved' could someone provide some links?

 

[monsharen]

fish unaffected you say? there goes simpsons.

 

[Draugen]

The author Russel Seitz attempts to refute the Nuclear Winter claim, as provided in the famous TTAPS paper. His arguments are convincing, even though you might find hard to trust someone who starts an article in this manner :

The end of the world isn't what it used to be. "Nuclear Winter," the
theory launched three years ago this week that predicted a nuclear exchange
as small as 100 megatons ("a pure tactical war, in Europe, say" in Carl
Sagan's phrase), in addition to its lethal primary effects, would fill the
sky with smoke and dust, ushering in life-extinguishing sub-zero darkness,
has been laid to rest in the semantic potter's field alongside the "Energy
Crisis" and the "Population Bomb." Cause of death: notorious lack of
scientific integrity.

Energy Crisis, you say? The things those reds come up with.

Here's an interesting chapter of Cresson H. Kearny's book "Nuclear War Survival Skills", entitled "The Dangers From Nuclear Weapons: Myths and Facts", in which he denounces some of the doomsday scenarios present in popular consciousness, including those involving fallout and "nuclear winter. Link: http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

For those who might be interested, here's a very interesting booklet called "Fallout Protection. What to know and do about nuclear attack", issued by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1961. Yes, it has pictures! Link: http://www.sew-lexicon.com/Fallout Protection Book/TOC_for_H-6.htm

EDIT:

From what I've read, nuclear winter isn't caused by the explosions ejecting material into the atmosphere but by the firestorms that would burn all the forests, suburbs, etc. surrounding targeted areas. If nuclear winter has been 'disproved' could someone provide some links?

Well, that is possible if enough smoke and dust got caught in the troposphere and stratosphere, the sunlight would be partly blocked out and we would see a drop in temperatures. This happened, for example after the Mount Tambora explosion, which caused the "year without summer". From some quick googling I found that the explosion was in the 24,000-45,000 Mgt range, which is not improbable in a future nuclear war. That's not to say that the emission of dusty particles into the atmosphere is the same for an eruption as it is for a nuclear explosion. Probably not; i don't know. In any case, I don't think we would see catastrophic climatic changes that would lead to a major die-off of life on earth. Fallout would probably be a bigger factor, but it would be mostly limited to specific areas. I should look into Chernobyl; I don't even know if people still live there, or not.

A massive deforestation would also cause the world to warm due to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. We're actually facing that danger in the Amazon forest, where the continuing trend in droughts could create a negative feedback and turn it into a desert.