SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[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.)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday August 14 2017, @05:17AM (9 children)
Has the Trump phenomenon really brought us that close? I guess it's time to head to the cave and groove with a pict.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @09:46AM
I'm not grooving with Sean Connery ever.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bobs on Monday August 14 2017, @01:57PM (7 children)
Dont't Panic!
Look all, this is panicking over nothing.
N. Korea is not going to launch nukes at the USA. (Unless some moron shoots at them first.)
N. Korea has had nukes for years - they could have nuked us anytime. (Everybody knows the best way to get a nuke in the US is inside a bale of marijuana smuggled across the border) Or just put it in a shipping container with shielding. They could have put they things they have in a simple commercial / cargo airliner and flown it to the US.
They haven't tried.
N. Korea could attack and destroy millions of people with or without nukes. They haven't tried.
N. Korea uses its military might, and nuclear capability to blackmail other countries for resources and to keep the population in line.
They benefit from having outside threats to fight against, and love it when Der Trump says inflammatory things.
Trump also benefits form having somebody he can swagger at.
If N. Korea wanted to kill millions of people - they have had the ability to do it for years. They have chosen not to. Mainly because it would be suicide.
Nothing has changed just because they now have some new flying tubes.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 14 2017, @03:54PM (6 children)
"N. Korea has had nukes for years - they could have nuked us anytime. "
Seriously? I call bullshit on that one. N. Korea has indeed possessed nukes for few years now. But, N. Korea has lacked a delivery system. Missile test after missile test has been conducted, and almost all of them blow up or fall into the sea after travelling several miles. N. Korea hasn't been able to nuke anyone other than their closest neighbors, either S. Korea or China. Of all potential N. Korean targets, Japan is in most danger, and Lil Kim has sent some rockets and missiles as far as Japan. It is believed that none of those missiles were nuclear capable, but I'm less sure about that than the talking heads.
When N. Korea has a fleet of missiles capable of reaching the US and Europe, the equation will change drastically. That madman may well launch a nuke at someone.
That man who had his own uncle restrained in front of an anti-aircraft cannon, to be blown into tiny little bits, is indeed a mad man. He may be lucid from time to time, but his sense of right and wrong do not resemble that of rational people.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @04:25PM (4 children)
did you miss that point? Smuggled across the border inside a barrel of weed! 100% possible, would be pretty easy to take out a coastal city.
You fear mongers are freaking out over nothing, and this climate of fear and anger is much more likely to lead us into disaster.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 14 2017, @05:11PM (3 children)
http://www.strangehistory.net/2015/04/02/failure-appeasement/ [strangehistory.net]
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @06:19PM (1 child)
You really should hand write out all your personal beliefs, and itemize current news items as well. You might learn something, cause from over here it looks like you use arguments that fit a specific topic but overall your topics can be contradictory and have too narrow of a focus. Brighter minds have already determined that nuclear war is stupid, and it is clear that small powers like NK are simply trying to bluster their way into sounding important. If NK does launch a nuke then the weight of the world will descend upon them and China has already stated they won't defend NK if they attack first.
Why are you so afraid? Why are you worrying about this? Oh right, cause the media and radio talk shows tell you to... lawl
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:42AM
Current news item number one: Anonymous Coward is to be trusted just about as much as I trust a venomous snake.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:58PM
Re appeasement:
No. we can, should and are actively thwarting N. Korea.
We should continue to put as much pressure on him as we can.
But as he has nukes, there are substantial risks to pushing him too far.
That is one of the reasons why regimes want nukes: to keep foreign powers from getting too threatening.
So we push back, punish and harm him as much as possible. But everybody loses if the nukes start exploding..
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:52PM
Just to close this out.
Killing off his relatives is his version of 'Game of Thrones'.
His power / authority is inherited from his Grandfather, the founder of the state. The most credible ways to depose him involve putting another relative on the throne. So assassinating his relatives is not some crazed, random harm - he is doing it to consolidate his power. It is wrong, but it is rational and focused on self-preservation.
Starting a war with the US is the fastest way for him to die.
But threatening gets him attention, domestic power and possibly being paid off to sit down and shut up.
Again, he has had the means for years to kill millions with conventional or nuclear weapons if he wanted to. But that is not his game. The US can and will eliminate him and his regime if he starts actually killing lots of the 'right' people or does something real with the nukes.