Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 14 2017, @04:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the would-not-be-good dept.

[Ed note: Let's preface this story with the reality that this is, in reality, a question that cannot be answered - how may warheads will be fired, where will they land, what are the weather conditions? That stated, it is an interesting thought experiment and understanding the actual science behind the question can take us away from emotional appeals to a more nuanced understanding of the actual risks. --martyb]

There's an interesting pair of articles over at The Conversation which discuss the potential impacts of smaller scale nuclear conflicts, the perceptions of them, and the risks involved in even localised conflicts.

Initially Mattia Eken argued in March that the threat is often exaggerated and overhyped:

Claims exaggerating the effects of nuclear weapons have become commonplace, especially after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. In the early War on Terror years, Richard Lugar, a former US senator and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that terrorists armed with nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to the Western way of life. What he failed to explain is how.

It is by no means certain that a single nuclear detonation (or even several) would do away with our current way of life. Indeed, we're still here despite having nuked our own planet more than 2,000 times – a tally expressed beautifully in this video by Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto).

While the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty forced nuclear tests underground, around 500 of all the nuclear weapons detonated were unleashed in the Earth's atmosphere. This includes the world's largest ever nuclear detonation, the 57-megaton bomb known as Tsar Bomba, detonated by the Soviet Union on October 30 1961.

Tsar Bomba was more than 3,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. That is immense destructive power – but as one physicist explained, it's only "one-thousandth the force of an earthquake, one-thousandth the force of a hurricane".

He concluded that:

nuclear weapons are here to stay; they can't be "un-invented". If we want to live with them and mitigate the very real risks they pose, we must be honest about what those risks really are. Overegging them to frighten ourselves more than we need to keeps nobody safe.

More recently a response was published by Professor David McCoy, discussing research modelling the impact on environment and climate which indicates more significant long term impacts globally. Highlighting the impact of a limited conflict between India and Pakistan he discusses the worldwide impacts on global food production:

The greatest concern derives from relatively new research which has modelled the indirect effects of nuclear detonations on the environment and climate. The most-studied scenario is a limited regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, involving 100 Hiroshima-sized warheads (small by modern standards) detonated mostly over urban areas. Many analysts suggest that this is a plausible scenario in the event of an all-out war between the two states, whose combined arsenals amount to more than 220 nuclear warheads.

In this event, an estimated 20m people could die within a week from the direct effects of the explosions, fire, and local radiation. That alone is catastrophic – more deaths than in the entire of World War I.

Such an exchange would likely cause wide-spread fires casting megatons of soot into the stratosphere:

According to one study, maize production in the US (the world's largest producer) would decline by an average by 12% over ten years in our given scenario. In China, middle season rice would fall by 17% over a decade, maize by 16%, and winter wheat by 31%. With total world grain reserves amounting to less than 100 days of global consumption, such effects would place an estimated 2 billion people at risk of famine.

So much for a limited exchange. What if the US and Russia went at it?

A large-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would be far worse. Most Russian and US weapons are 10 to 50 times stronger than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima. In a war involving the use of the two nations' strategic nuclear weapons (those intended to be used away from battlefield, aimed at infrastructure or cities), some 150m tonnes of soot could be lofted into the upper atmosphere. This would reduce global temperatures by 8°C – the "nuclear winter" scenario. Under these conditions, food production would stop and the vast majority of the human race is likely to starve.

The DPRK {North Korea) currently has nowhere near the nuclear stockpiles of Russia or the US or any of the other nuclear powers. It was not long ago that they had none at all. Were the DPRK to enter into battle with its entire current arsenal, it would be a calamity, yes. As time passes, even more weapons are being added to its arsenal. Do we accept that a limited exchange is necessary, now, to preclude an even more catastrophic exchange later? What about all the refugees that would stream north into China? What would happen to Seoul in South Korea from which so many high tech as well as heavy industry products come (think Samsung, Hyundai, etc.)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 14 2017, @05:29AM (18 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday August 14 2017, @05:29AM (#553493) Journal

    Likely consequences in an exchange of nukes between NK and US:
      * Prevailing winds in the region hints that China will be the brunt recipient of the radioactive dust.
      * Increased rate of cancer sickness and death again in South Korea and maybe Japan depending on winds and sea currents.
      * The cancer inducing dust will spread around the whole globe to a lesser degree. Compare with Chernobyl of 1986.
      * Heavy economic crisis in South Korea as food will be banned from exports.
      * Specialists will refuse to go there and brain drain will set in.
      * 10 000 - 1000 000 dead in conventional weapons attack on Seoul etc.
      * If China is affected then Shanghai, Beijing and Taiwan seems to be the most exposed.
      * Prices on computer and home electronics would rise fast and sharply because of LG and Samsung. Just compare with the harddisc flood of 2011 in Thailand.

    Don't forget that Japan currently because of the Fukushima disaster dumps large amounts of radioactive waste in the Pacific Ocean and combust other material which western Canadians then have to breathe and eat..
    So it's not that radioactive pollutants are new to the region and China isn't that clean either.

    However if United States goes to attack. They could actually take out the launch sites ASAP, this ought to be the first priority and then prioritize any artillery launch sites. Any airplanes are likely to be shoot on sight. Invasion troops would be bombed, submarines found and torpedoed etc. The essence is SPEED and taking out all sites that matters first. They could do it. The question becomes what China will do.

    To make this work they would have to have a continuously updated map of sites to take out right now. That means lorry driven launchers also has to be counted as sites and be stalked with satellites or other means with more precision.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by tonyPick on Monday August 14 2017, @06:01AM (3 children)

    by tonyPick (1237) on Monday August 14 2017, @06:01AM (#553513) Homepage Journal

    Japan currently because of the Fukushima disaster dumps large amounts of radioactive waste in the Pacific Ocean

    Do you have a citation for that? According to : http://www.snopes.com/japan-dump-fukushima-nuclear-waste/ [snopes.com]

    Although they have been weighing such a plan for several years, to date the Japanese government has not announced its implementation.

    And this is solely for contaminated wastewater after it's been diluted it to a 'non-harmful' level

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Monday August 14 2017, @08:15AM (2 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Monday August 14 2017, @08:15AM (#553552) Journal

      The site leaks contaminated cooling water. It's regularly on the news.

      • (Score: 5, Touché) by shortscreen on Monday August 14 2017, @09:03AM (1 child)

        by shortscreen (2252) on Monday August 14 2017, @09:03AM (#553567) Journal

        Maybe you should have used the words "leaks contaminated cooling water" instead of "dumps large amounts of radioactive waste."

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Sulla on Monday August 14 2017, @09:24PM

          by Sulla (5173) on Monday August 14 2017, @09:24PM (#553846) Journal

          I imagine what he is probably referring to is the rate of "leakage" back in 2013, which was 300 tons/day (roughly 72k gallons/day).
          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukushima-radioactive-water-leak/ [nationalgeographic.com]

          Sounds like currently that water is being stored in giant tanks and as of March 2016 they had accumulated 750,000,000 tons.
          "We are not completely out of the woods," Buesseler said. The Fukushima site is still full of radioactive material, and there have been some leaks since the accident that have released more material into the environment. He said there about a thousand tanks full of "something on the order of 750 million tons of water that are far more radioactive than anything in the ocean." There is also radioactive material in the groundwater, soil and in the buildings. "I expect to see small leaks for decades to come," he said. "It is a difficult thing to have soil and groundwater and buildings contaminated to this extent and not have that leaking out."
          https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/us-watches-as-fukushima-continues-to-leak-radiation.html [cnbc.com]

          Personally I see 72k gallons/day as a dump, but I also have no affiliation with Tepco. I am unsure what the current rate is and don't have the time to look into it further (would be interested to know) but it sounds like what occurs now is actually occasional leaks rather than a stream running through the reactor like it was back in 2013. Although I suppose then the correct thing to say would have been "flows amounts of radioactive waste" but I assume Tepco would object to that as well.

          --
          Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Monday August 14 2017, @06:56AM (12 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Monday August 14 2017, @06:56AM (#553534)

    The question becomes what China will do.

    Yea that is the dragon in the room ain't it. I don't think Trump is up for what I'd do about it. But I realize sooner or later we have a war with the Norks and with every day that passes the butcher's bill grows. So here is what I'd do.

    Get a joint session of Congress in a very secret meeting, no staff. Lay out every bit of intelligence, etc. Then tell them they have two choices. Sign off on a formal Declaration of War on China. Conditional. Tell them I'm going to drop a set of choices on em and tell them they must pick one. One is they sign the Declaration of War, that has to be one of the conditionals. China is Communist, Evil, yea I get it. The one thing China isn't is insane. So it is obviously a bluff, any of the other options is better. The point is there can be no doubt as to whether it is a bluff or a deadly serious threat to make it work. Their other choice is watch me go rogue, the Korean War is still declared so I can take care of business there and we just see what China decides to do about it. But I'll be sure to remind the voters I tried to get some leverage with China first to make a better deal.

    So here are the choices I'd give China after Congress got up off their fainting couches and did what that had no real choice in.

    1. They can declare that "North Korea is our friend and ally, they must not be molested. We can control them. We accept full responsibility for their actions. Any act of War they commit means we are at war with the United States. Defined as any attack on South Korea, the U.S. or any present or future ally greater than three artilliary shells in a thirty day period, any attack on a naval vessel, etc." (more details of course to nail it down) (Conditional #1 above, Congress will already be on record so they can't cuck out. Total certainty, Woah, Fat does something dumb and they are hosed.) This agreement will be publicly entered into the official records at the U.N. so they can't renounce it.

    2. China washes their hands of North Korea, admitting they can no longer promise to control them. We agree to make a maximum effort to keep the Nork's radioactive cooties from drifting into China when we put the Wrath of God demo on them. And we agree to hold off on using any of our own nukes with the possible exception of field testing one of our new bunker buster toys. We agree to begin an orderly exit of all U.S. military units beyond a single air base within twelve months of the end of hostilities. Korea is unified, China doesn't get any territory. This one doesn't get made public, perhaps never. Why give up the element of surprise and why should China have to lose face?

    3. China agrees to deal with the problem. We do not care and do not really need to know the details. The Korean Peninsula will be "perfectly safe" and that being the case there will be no more need for an American presence in South Korea, the War can officially be declared over and we can begin moving troops out. If there are still two Koreas, U.N. weapons inspectors return, etc. This one can also be kept on the down low and China and the Norks can spin it however works for them and we will back the play, even if we look bad.

    4. War. Right now. Total, unconditional war, fought to unconditional surrender. Articles of War already signed off on by Congress attached. (Conditional #2, War unless another option is selected.) Obviously this unwise course would be public. We have no intention of being bogged down in a proxy war in Korea yet again. If China considers an attack on the Norks an attack on China, make it clear our armor columns ARE heading into China this time, we will achieve air superiority and then we will make their ports and industry a wasteland, sink most of their navy on day one and they WILL hurt far more than we do when the guns fall silent. Their army is nearly limitless but their ability to project power to America is still woefully limited. Add some over the top threats of the horrors of war as needed to assure they get the point that they would have to either resort to nukes or agree to be defanged and quite possibly submit to some "nation building."

    Notice that the only two viable options mean we get to end the Korean War with something approximating a win and come home. If you want Peace, prepare yourself for War.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 14 2017, @08:22AM (9 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Monday August 14 2017, @08:22AM (#553553) Journal

      If China is attacked, do you think Russia will stay out of it?

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday August 14 2017, @08:35AM (3 children)

        by jmorris (4844) on Monday August 14 2017, @08:35AM (#553555)

        If China and Russia truly want a World War there isn't much chance of denying them, and we are all truly boned. Doubt it or they could have it anytime they wanted it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @08:46AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @08:46AM (#553562)

        Yes. It is perfect for them to watch, unharmed, as their two biggest rivals reduce each other.

        Russians are pragmatic to the point of cynicism.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:20AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:20AM (#553591)

          I am not sure Russia an China are still rivals as they were when USSR was in its apex. I'd say today they are heavy hearted allies, because America with (and even without) her alliances is 800-pound gorilla in the room. Russia has been watching the unfolding of events in the world since the times of Gorbachev. They know with great precision that if China falls they are the next.

          Also, the very moment the last remaining great scare, either Russia or China, falls, America becomes the target of the whole world: too strong, too pushy, having nothing to do, not useful to any of her largest allies because there is not another credible threat on the horizon. Then we'll probably see a rise of an underground "rebel alliance" against the last empire, both among ruins of her last great adversaries as well as among some of her most faithful allies. The only way to quench sliding back into chaos will be for empire to try to do what Romans tried, to try to expand and absorb the whole world into its system on an egalitarian principle. It is not certain that it is even possible, and it is certain that original US nationals will (once again) not like it. And it could fail in same mode Roman Empire failed: through inner dissociative forces of competition combined with growing impatience of external ever greater masses clamoring to get in right now.

          So, I'd say that most safe way into the future is to try to keep the tension on its present level indefinitely, keep the Russia and China, or else the timer mechanism for the premature end of this civilization (and I don't mean nuclear Armageddon) will be set in motion.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @02:09PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @02:09PM (#553668)

            Russia has but one interest: Russia.

            They deeply resent the Chinese, and tolerate/cooperate out of expediency. Russians are masters of Realpolitik.

            If the US were to clobber them (China would be crushed by a massive US nuclear strike), and the US left hobbled, the Russians see no down side.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:42PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:42PM (#553776)

              They deeply resent the Chinese, ...

              Russians deeply resent just everyone, including themselves, that's just how they are, but they are not stupid (as long as they are sober).
              If US was in danger to be toasted by China, they would ally with US against China.
              If China was to be annihilated by US, they would try to prevent it by fighting US.
              However in this age and time, it has been much more likely that America would make a move than China.
              OTOH, the clock is ticking and China is gradually gathering what it needs for MCGA.
              They are not there yet, and won't be for at least few decades, but once they arrive, we will have some tough choices to make.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @06:22PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @06:22PM (#553789)

                The stereotypes and idiocy in this thread are too much.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 14 2017, @04:13PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 14 2017, @04:13PM (#553735) Journal

      "Total, unconditional war, fought to unconditional surrender."

      I'm not sure you *truly* understand the concept of "total war". We launch a strike that includes some nukes, shit tons of more conventional bombs, along with artillery and airstrikes. We destroy the government, the army, and the infrastructure as much as possible. That's without any type of invasion, mind you. We're going for a first strike to DESTROY their ability to fight.

      Now, who is left to surrender? Some peasants in an out of the way valley, way up north?

      Seriously, if we launch a strike, we MUST get Kim with that strike. Failure to kill Kim will mean mission failure. Now, this is North Korea. Who, with half of a mind, and subordinate to Kim, will ever consider makeing any kind of a public surrender? The entire population of N. Korea is terrorized by that cretin. NO ONE can possible even consider surrendering, unless they know for certain that Kim is dead. I mean, know it for certain. They have to view the body, and confirm the identity of that body beyond any possible chance of error.

      "Total war" means, we steamroll them, and crush all possible chance of reprisals. No government official senior to a village elder or small town mayor can be permitted to survive. The survivors have to be brought so far down, that they actually welcome either Chinese control, or South Korean control. In which case, there is no "surrender" per se - what follows is merely an acceptance of the new world order, without Kim.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @10:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @10:13AM (#554191)

        We launch a strike that includes some nukes,

        They have to view the body, and confirm the identity of that body beyond any possible chance of error.

        Gonna have to prepare a good quality fake body if you happen to nuke the real body beyond recognition.

        Or will the "Osama burial at sea" bullshit convince the North Koreans too?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:14PM (#553767)

    > * Prevailing winds in the region hints that China will be the brunt recipient of the radioactive dust.

    No, prevailing winds blow from the west. [ncsu.edu] Japan is the closest landmass to the east.