This is an excerpt of an early term paper I have been writing as a student of political science:
"3. Consequences of a nuclear war
The short- and long-term consequences of nuclear warfare are linked closely to each other, as the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed. This is even more obvious in a full scale nuclear war. It would take years or even decades to rebuild the buildings and resources that were destroyed within a few seconds during a nuclear war. The people that would be lost during the attack or following weeks because of the fallout couldn’t be demographically replaced for many generations. The political, social and economic changes which would definitely happen couldn’t be easily undone, too.
Other effects, that will occur months or years after the initial attack, build a category of their own. This includes somatic and genetic long-term damage as a result of the fallout and radioactive pollution. Furthermore changes of the physical environmental (that might change the whole ecological system) fall into this category. The ozone layer might be damaged by nuclear weapons, though it is not known how likely this event might be. On the other hand this might seriously impair the health of humans and animals and change the climate of the earth.
3.1. Casualties and aftermath of a full scale nuclear war
Theoretically a full scale nuclear war would lack any logic, because the mutual annihilation of the participating parties wouldn’t be acceptable for any of them. But the idea of a – limited nuclear war – was seriously considered with the rise of new strategies like “flexible response” . It is not possible to create a solid theoretically scenario of the world after a nuclear war up to today. Even if you want to get numbers of dead and wounded people you have to consider plenty variables like the extent of the war, terrain, population density, civil defence and so on. This might give the impression that it would be possible to calculate the exact numbers with the help of a mathematical equation. What works in theory doesn’t have to do so in reality as the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed earlier. Despite marginal technical differences the two bombs were quite similar but the human casualties they caused differed a lot. Fallout is a variable that’s even harder to estimate. Although the effects of the nuclear weapons used in Japan have been examined to great extent, a huge amount of uncertainty remained. How much more of uncertainty will be there in a hypothetical war?
A full scale nuclear war is considered to be a war where the entire nuclear arsenal brought into action. Although the nuclear arsenals of the USA and Russia have decreased since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the trend remained to improve the accuracy and to use smaller warheads with less detonation power. Obviously the possibility of a war between these two states is marginal today; current studies and underpinned estimates have been neglected. For that reason a scenario published by the American Office of Technology Assessment in the 1980s is going to be used to illustrate the effects of a nuclear war.
This fictitious war started with a massive Soviet nuclear attack of 6.500 megatons against the USA and a smaller retaliatory strike of 1.300 megatons by the US. By any means this wasn’t the whole nuclear arsenal of both states. The conditions of this scenario were considered realistic. Although the attacks were not explicitly aimed against cities, the majority of the centres of population with their inhabitants was killed. The number of the victims initially killed by the blast of explosion, heat, radiation and early fallout were calculated 165 million in the United States and up to 100 million in the USSR. In this scenario fallout occurred massively within and outside of the war waging countries, which led to a final death toll of 500 million people.
However one should always consider the fact that these numbers only cover the deaths caused by physical destruction of the nuclear weapons. It didn’t include unforeseeable after-effects like revolutionary turmoil, epidemics, malnutrition and armed clashes between rival groups. But even if this chaos would finally give way to some sort of settled life the damage done to the economy couldn’t be restored. Or as the OTA proclaimed: “… even the mere extend of such an attack would raise the question, if the USA would ever be able to reach its status as an organized, industrial and powerful country again.”
The likeliness of an attack on nuclear power plants as crucial centres for economic power in terms of energy production wasn’t considered either. Since weakening the economic strength of an opponent is one of the main objectives in war, and these plants power industrial facilities as well an attack seems to be quite possible. The great risk embedded in such an attack is especially dangerous for humans and the environment. Even if the power plant is hit by a small nuclear warhead the radioactivity contained in the plant would escape into the atmosphere by the mushroom cloud. This radioactivity is particularly harmful since its decay is longer than the decay of a warhead. Therefore huge areas would be contaminated long after the fallout of nuclear devices has sunk to a tolerable level. The fact that a military strike against a small amount of nuclear reactors in Europe would make large parts of the continent uninhabitable is even more disturbing.
Of course these numbers only calculate the victims in the USA and the former USSR. If Europe would have been hit by nuclear warheads this fictitious war would have cost 800 million lives as direct results of the bombs because of the high population density. Taking the high number of military forces deployed by both sides in Europe in this time such an attack would have been most likely. The number of immanent human casualties would have risen one third of the world population if Asiatic countries as China and Japan would have been included in the attacks.
Facing the high dependence of Third World countries, the devastation of the industrial states would have horrible consequences for them, even today. Since vital goods such as food, medicine and fertilizers would have disappeared from one second to the other horrible epidemics and famines would have been the result with an unpredictable but most likely high number of victims.
As it was mentioned before all these numbers are estimates with a lot of uncertainties. Only the fact that a total nuclear war on earth would change the human civilization drastically and that every state on earth would have to deal with the effects of such an attack, even the states that aren’t hit directly by nuclear weapons is disturbingly enough to question the sense behind such a war itself. How much higher will the uncertainties be as the ties of interdependence between the states grow stronger and expand?
3.2. Environmental effects
In contrast to the description of a full- scale nuclear war the description of the environmental effects isn’t that much dependent on theoretical assumptions. In this case most of the knowledge comes from atmospheric nuclear weapon test that were carried out by the USA and the Soviet Union until the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963 came into force. However France and China continued with atmospheric tests and other states continued their nuclear test programs underground. It is estimated that the total number of all kinds of nuclear tests performed until 1980 is approximately 1270.
Mostly fission bombs with an explosive power less than 1 kiloton were used. On the other hand the few thermonuclear weapons with strength up to 60 megatons made up the main part of the whole explosive power of nearly 300 megatons. If this power is compared to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and the damage it caused with “only” 12 kilotons it doesn’t become more understandable for the human mind.
The majority of the tests were performed in the north hemisphere. This also means that most of the radioactive fallout stayed there, too. It is assumed that the dose of internal and external radiation, that people received, was three times higher than in the southern hemisphere. Nearly 100.000 additional deaths by cancer might have been the result of these tests. A lot of criticism has been made on the way radioactivity was passed through the food chain to the human. If the critics prove right the risk and therefore the casualties might be considerably higher.
Ionizing radiation is harmful to any kind of organic organisms, although the sensitivity varies from species to species. Generally it can be said, that the higher the organism is developed, the higher it is sensitive towards it. If a biosphere would be contaminated with radiation, some animals and plants would be more damaged than others. A serious disruption of the ecological balance would be the result. This balance is harmed even more the more complex the biospheres are.
For example if a lot of birds would die the amount of insects would rise rapidly, because they are not as sensitive to radiation as birds are. Having lost their natural enemy, insects may have a huge impact on the environment. For example plants will be severely damaged and the number of disease-causing agents will rise extremely. If this is combined the destruction of the pharmaceutical industry huge epidemics will raise the number of victims even more.
Most of the wild animals will probably die because they will be exposed to fallout without any shelter. Even if they live underground they will probably die, because of the contaminated water and food. They might get the radiation sickness as well as humans, and it is possible that they become infertile as well.
Plants have a much higher resistance against radiation as animals have. High doses of radiation will eventually kill plants, too. Depending in how much they have evolved the plants might change in different ways. For example their ability to bloom might be reduced and delayed. If plants bloom to late their blooms might not be able to survive, thus whole species might be extinguished. Even if the radiation is not high enough to damage the plants, it is still quite possible that they assimilate the radiation through the soil. This would make them inedible and useless for the human feeding.
Especially the population of cities will have tremendous problems with their water and food supply. Most likely water pumps and pipelines will be destroyed by the bombs. Eventually the people will have to look for other water resources because of the lack of tap water. Rainwater will be contaminated by fallout and therefore undrinkable. The radiation dose would be reduced by water treatment facilities and letting the water stand for several weeks.
Food which has gone bad because of the fallout could be cleaned with pure fresh water. Three major problems emerge after a nuclear attack. The first is the lack of fresh water, which has been mentioned before. Secondly it is expected, that the majority of the radiation will be taken through the exposed leaves of young plants. In this case radiation would become a part of them and it couldn’t be just washed away with fresh water. These contaminated grazing lands would be dangerous for livestock as well. Lastly you shouldn’t underestimate the danger that comes for humans and wildlife from the natural food chain.
For example, herbivores would eat radioactive plant. These herbivores would fall victim to carnivores. Finally plants, herbivores as well as carnivores would die and disintegrate into the soil. Micro-organisms would transform the carcasses into humus. This way the radioactivity would come back into the farmland. The experience the USA made on the Bikini- Atoll confirms how hard it is to eliminate fallout particles even with extensive decontamination measures. "
This was an early draft, so please look over any grammar and spelling mistakes.
If you are interested I can give you a list of scientific literature that isn't too hard to read.