Is Nuclear Winter a meme ?
Since 1945 humans have realised 2400 nuclear tests (543 on the surface), this mean 2400 (or 543 if you only count surface explosions) nuclear explosions have happened yet we dont have nuclear winter
So is it true or just some bullshit from the cold war ?
>is an event that would result from thousands of effectively simultaneous events a meme? We've had hundreds of events spread over 70 years and it hasn't happened yet
KYS moron
Its not 70
Its between 1945 and 1980 alone you moron
One-off, spaced out detonations in remote deserts, Pacific islands and the middle of the ocean versus a couple hundred or thousand strikes at once hitting urban centers and vital infrastructure and contaminating good land.
Im talking about nuclear winter you moron
Not effect of the bombs on cities and major living centers
It was invented by soviet propagandists to discourage the western nuclear retalation "for the sake of humanity"
The climate is incredibly complex and hard to model. Nuclear tests aren't a good example because you're generally doing them in the middle of nowhere or over the ocean, or more recently underground.
Nuclear winter is due to firestorms in cities releasing massive amounts of soot into the atmosphere. How bad it is depends on how much gets into the stratosphere.
Recent work has mostly confirmed the threat, but one model found it was unlikely. A huge unknown factor is how bad the fire storms in cities will be.
Tests are not a good proxy. No one said you'd get nuclear winter from detonating bombs over the ocean or on the desert. You get it by blowing up cities where shit tons of particulates get shot up into the atmosphere.
To get global cooling from a blast just hitting some random desert you need way more force, something like a meteor hitting the Earth. But humans have basically built small mountain ranges of material that is in a configuration where it is much more likely to produce the amount of soot needed to cause cooling.
>Nuclear winter is due to firestorms in cities releasing massive amounts of soot into the atmosphere.
We had firestorms in Japanese cities constructed largely from wood. There's no evidence that caused any sort of cooling event.
Yeah, but the models have exponentially more cities burning and much more powerful blasts to help carry soot higher.
I am of the opinion that it is too complex to model effectively anyhow with the data we have.
How does a more powerful blast help carry soot higher? The burning comes after the blast.
They assume higher total megatonnage to utilize more available mass in metro-areas and heat injection into the atmosphere. The whole simulations are designed to get the desired result, not to query whether or not an outcome is likely.
How much does the variability in wildfires change global temperature? It's the exact same thing that they do with climate modeling
>Only 5000 polar bears were alive in 1995
>Now, only 45000 remain
>Sob
BTW, it's worth pointing out that more dire models have countries firing nukes at major population centers to get their effect.
In reality, many targets are launch sites, which are isolated.
The number gets inflated too. The US only maintains 1,200 weapons at the ready per treaty obligations and Russia just 1,600. These are lower yield.
We know from Obama era leaks and reports that the US arsenal was a total mess. It could fire far fewer than 1,200 nukes on short notice.
The US nuclear budget is almost the size of the entire Russian defense budget. When Russia announced a nuclear surge to upgrade its arsenal, the new budget was still less than $1 billion USD.
We know the US doesn't spend enough to keep all its nukes ready, and we know Russia is spending about 1.8% of the US budget to keep an arsenal that is in theory 25% larger. Recent Russian performance suggests this funding is also likely misused.
Both sides have stock piles of other nuclear weapons, but they are likely not ready for use. Nukes to bad, they have a shelf life.
ICBMs also need constant maintainance. Command and control to actually fire them is an issue too. The US is using delivery systems that are now very old, although they are doing new builds and replacements. Russia is very reliant on old missiles that are near or past their original retirement date. Russia's gravity bombs are also basically useless since their air force has preformed like shit.
Then you have to consider interception. The US has two missiles that have proven able to intercept ICBMs and others that could hit a missile early in its flight. You also have to consider how many get destroyed on the ground.
So it's less likely just because less nukes would be used. I'd honestly be surprised if Russia could get more than 80 out before retaliation that actually worked, meaning a decent amount might be intercepted, but likely not all.
Their new delivery mechanism is a liquid rocket, so much easier to take out.
Yes.
The models that confirm it are 1 and 2 dimensional models that treat all cities the same. 3 dimensional atmospheric models basically reduce it to "Nuclear Autumn" in the absolute worst case scenarios. The fuel loading figures are also incredibly questionable, as they're based on Hiroshima and assuming every city struck will firestorm like it did, ignoring that Nagasaki had no firestorm. Many of the fires in Hiroshima are thought to have not been started by the blast, but from wood or coal burning stoves in buildings leveled by the blast.
>How bad it is depends on how much gets into the stratosphere.
Firestorms themselves will not have a significant effect. Huge fires are natural phenomena and aren't going to upset any global balances or reach the stratosphere.
High yield nuclear weapons (multi-MT) might throw shit up high enough, but that's not really a big problem as the vast majority of the world's stockpiles are low yield tactical weapons.
Even pic related is showing an exaggerated effect because it's assuming ground burst and not air burst, which would be the norm.
Its all vatnig fudding propaganda because they know they would get straight up deleted. Nuclear winter and pollution are a meme. Nuclear overwhelming decapitating first strike is feasible, safe and moral option we have on the table.
anything is good as long as russians stop existing
It literally is a meme. Look at the assumptions of the models. Firstly they assume that a huge percentage of modern cities burn after being flattened. This is unlikely for multiple reasons including
>Steel and concrete are the major structural components of modern metropolitan construction.
>Rubble doesn't readily burn so the assumptions of super fires is not reasonable
>Radiation deaths are calculated with the linear-zero-threshold model,
Which assumes that humans have absolutely no radiation resistance at all, so even trivial exposures increase rate of cancer and mortalities.
Nuclear winter is a fantasy that was invented to scare people away from using atomic weapons.
Nuclear winter itself is perfectly reasonable as an equivalent to volcanic or impact winter. It's just that the existing nuclear weapons came near the energy released in events like the Tambora eruptiun. Nobody was interested in creating a huge multi stage doomsday device.
I swear there's like 3 anons that have to sperg every time nuclear winter is brought up.
World anthropogenic background radiation levels peaked at 0.11 mSv/yr above natural levels in 1963, the year that the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was enacted. Since then, anthropogenic background radiation has decreased to 0.005 mSv/yr above natural levels.
Why don't you keep on provoking Russia for a mindless cause, so you can find out?
That's the plan. Justified retalation and wiping out the russia forever.
Little nuclear devastation is worth it on the long run as long as russia is gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
This one was ~15Mt one (albeit in a good place, lifting a LOT of soot), and caused a 3-year volcanic winter that wiped ~97% of humanity, creating a genetic bottleneck.
One fully equipped soviet Tsar bomb is 100Mt, and this is probably not the upper limit. Now try to use your brain, moron.
>this homie thinks that the war would be fought with tzar bombas
1, a volcanic eruption propels material into the stratosphere through the blast, not through firestorms, meaning significantly more material is spread.
2, volcanic winter is heavily augmented by sulphur aerosols created by reaction with water vapor, which wouldn't be present in a nuclear blast.
Source on the 15Mt?
>nuke is same as volcano
Kys brainlet
Except this a moronic theory that's been rejected by most of modern science, first off there's a 6,000 year gap between the start of the genetic bottleneck event and the volcano's eruption, secondly there's no other actual evidence that anything died off because of the volcano- the geologic strata that contain the sediment from the volcano don't indicate any any increase in die off by chemical content or fossil evidence. I swear to christ morons like you can't even consider the fact that all that ash is denser than air, and falls to the ground, it's like thinking that if enough fish disturb the seafloor all plankton will die off because the water will be too cloudy.
> 800 ( !!!) km3 of ash fallout
>15 Mht
How about no. It takes like 10000 more powerful nuke to rise so much soil into air
I think he confused Gigaton and Megaton and the Tambora eruption with the Toba event.
Fricking accelerate,man, I can't wait any longer
We don't know if all the soot and shit thrown into the air would create a nuclear winter. But your comparison is moronic.
>this mean 2400 (or 543 if you only count surface explosions)
What kind of fricking moron thinks there's any doubt as to whether or not subterranean explosions should count here?
>yet we dont have nuclear winter
And all out nuclear war could have seen over 50000 weapons used in an afternoon. If you're wondering what difference that could make first lick a half empty 9V battery, and then go down to the subway and lick the power rail. You'll make humanity a favor in the process.
weapons used in an afternoon.
What year do you live in?
It is that old frick who still lives in 80s or so
Yes its a meme, back when Oppenhimer was on here he could have gotten in to far better detail. Nukes don't cause the kinds of firestorms you'd need for Nuclear Winter.