Disregarding the economic effects and such, what envrionmental effects would a Pakistan/India nuclear war produce on the US?
Probably minimal - they ARE halfway around the world.
The background radiation world-wide will spike. We’ll probably have some spectacular sunsets/sunrises if they blow up enough nukes, but I don’t think Pakistan and India combined have enough nukes to truly make an impact on the world-wide ecosytem.
Of course, the effects will be truly nasty on the Pakistan/India border and nearby regions.
And that’s assuming the dispute stays strictly between those two countries. If it spreads all bets are off.
Broom,
It would be so nice if that was all that mattered.
Back in the sixties, the PRC exploded a few Nukes in their testing program, in the deserts of western China. The background radiation in most of China stayed pretty much the same. The background radiation readings in Pennsylvania and Ohio, on the other hand went up.
Ooops.
Kind of takes the fun out of nuking ‘em ‘til they glow, huh?
Tris
Let’s see what I can dig up.
India’s nuclear tests on 11 May 1998 were relatively low-yield. A thermonuclear device with a 43 kiloton yield, a 12 kiloton one, and a few <1 devices. See the chart here.
Pakistan’s tests on 28 May 1998 were even smaller. One was claimed to be 25-36 kilotons, others 12 kilotons, and three <1. Seismic data indicated that the announced 12 kiloton warheads were much smaller. Scroll down to the chart on this page.
Triskadecamus, not that I have any reason to disagree with you, but I haven’t been able to find a citation on what you mentioned. Can you elaborate on that?
What I’m getting at with those numbers above is that the atomic bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Little Boy and Fat Man, had yield of 12.5 and 22 kilotons, respectively. Is someone able to find a cite on how these weapons (roughly the same size as what is in India or Pakistan’s arsenal) affected radiation levels in the US? My initial thought is similar to Broomstick’s.
Upon reflection, I seem to recall it was the seventies, not the sixties. Several above ground tests took place, and newly deposited products of those tests were detected in Pennsylvania (Strontium[sup]90[/sup], Tritium, and increased beta emissions over a fairly wide area) It was reported in the Washington Post, and reviewed in Science Magazine, as well. I am not at my home computer, and cannot access Science’s archives until next month.
The use of weapons in combat is likely to include low atmospheric detonations, which inject large amounts of particulate matter into the upper atmosphere, that would mean significant amounts of stratospheric involvement. Targeting existing nuclear facilities increases the possible pollution danger by an order of magnitude.
Tris
I don’t think it’s likely that another war between India and Pakistan is likely to go nuclear, but even if it did, Pakistan, in particular, most probably would be able to actually launch, land, and detonate very few nuclear warheads.
The question is, should hostilities escalate, and should India begin to kick Pakistan’s ass yet another time (as is likely), at what point would Pakistan’s government become desperate enough to try nukes? India has no interest in taking over Pakistani territory; they just want to sweep away the Pakistani-backed terrorists and end their ability to send terrorists and arms across the border.
India is not likely to be the first to use nuclear weapons, because it’s not in India’s interest to do so. Frankly, there would be much less of a danger of a nuclear conflict if the United States would see sense and treat Pakistan the same way it’s treating Afghanistan. Even though bin Laden happened to be hanging out in Afghanistan at the time, Pakistan is actually more responsible for harbouring and nurturing international terrorists.
India and the United States are natural allies with converging interests and values and it’s about time that the United States acknowledged that and supported India’s position with regard to Pakistan. Believe me, if it weren’t for the fact that Pakistanis were continuously trying to incite insurgencies in Indian territory, India wouldn’t give two shakes for the Pakistanis.
India and Israel (and perhaps Turkey) are the United States’s only real and dependable potential long-term allies in the region and it’s time the United States started acting like it.
P.S.: Uh … Sorry for the hijack. I couldn’t help myself.
acsenray - I know this is not really the right forum for your “outburst” - probably more suited to GD - but I found it interesting - thanks. I hadn’t thought of it that way.
I almost think it might be a good thing, even environmentally. In addition to sweeping the planet of a good share of terrorist dirtbags, the devatation and loss of life might finally make it clear that there should be a way to find and eliminate all of the nukes in the world. If it worked out that way, we’d be spared an even worse exchange by more powerful types that would hurt us.
Don’t be too sure we would escape unscathed, people. For starters, if the nuclear detonations polluted the upper atmosphere sufficiently to (even slightly) disrupt agriculture worldwide, then we could be in for some serious trouble. Even more so the nations who import much of their food from North America… Even if we managed to grow enough for domestic consumption, the economic effects of diminished exports could be severe. And what if the effects persisted to a significant degree for a second or third year?
And I wonder what the risk would be that the increased radiation in that part of the world might spur a virulent mutation in, say, influenza, resulting in a deadly global epidemic, or in a pathogen or parasite species which would threaten global agricultural yields or animal husbandry. Not likely, to be sure, but surely a fractional risk.
Going back to the question posed by the OP, IIRC, it was estimated that some 40,000 miscarriages above the predicted norm occurred in the U.S.A. in the year following Chernobyl, as radionucleotides from that disaster were widely disseminated over the U.S., in a pattern that was especially concentrated over the broad latitudinally middle swath of the country – i.e., the nation’s breadbasket, but extending from coast to coast.
Factor in the incalculable numbers of additional birth defects and cancer cases over the following decades, etc. etc. Not a happy thought.
Sorry, no cite for the OP, but happy hunting in Google.
Do you have a cite for that?
The effects in North America from all but the worst possible nuclear conflagration wouldn’t be that severe. Remember, hundreds of nuclear weapons have been detonated in the past with little ill effect. Hell, plenty were tested right inside the U.S.
But that’s little comfort, because the economic and human damage would be on a horrendous scale. It could easily be the greatest loss of life in the history of warfare. Not a pleasant prospect.
But it’s looking more and more dangerous with every passing day.
I think I read it in Harper’s or The Atlantic Monthly, about 1-2 years ago.
Hmm… Harper’s… Atlantic Monthly… yes, that’s where I go for acurate information on thermonuclear effects as well. :rolleyes:
** Triskadecamus,** I never denied radiation would increase world-wide - I even said so in my post - but you have to compare it to the radiation we are currently experiencing. Right now, the background environmental radiation anywhere on the planet is 3-4 times what it was in, say, 1900. The US and Russia detonated far more nuclear kilotonnage in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s than the combined arsenal of both India and Pakistan. Compared to the environmental damage already done, a Kashmir conflict would not be significant.
Scrivener, agriculture in this this country is already disrupted. Drought for the past 2-3 years has trashed most of the US wheat crop, which is why virtually all bread products are now cut with “barley flour” (go ahead, check the labels next time you’re in the grocery store). Floods are disrupting planting in the Mississippi basin and points east - here in Indiana the farmers are weeks behind, which means a shortened growing season, which means a diminished yield. It’s called climate change, it’s really happening, and we’re just going to have to adapt or starve.
Not too worried about the Horrible Mutated Flu Virus - radition tends to lead to death more often than advantage for any given species. And such has not happened either at the Japan nuke sites, Chernobyl, or at the nuke test sites. Possible yes, but I think extremely unlikely.
Broomstick do you have a cite on this?
My high school physics textbook, the location of which I am not sure of at this point in time. Probably should have thrown in a “as I best recall” phrase to that statement.
Background radiation pre-nuclear age is somewhat estimated. And variable by location. Increasing alittude means greater radition, so Nepal gets more than Death Valley. Certain rock formations, such as granite (not to mention pitchblende) also emit more radiation than such landscape features as topsoil and loess.
Near as I can recall, the background radiation in my area at the time was given as 35 millirem. I definiately remember the discussion of the background radiation jump in class. We did a bunch of calculations to determine our individual exposure over the course of the prior year. I distinctly remember that the x-ray of my injured knee completely blew away the quantity of radiation I had absorbed from all other sources. I was so shocked and disbelieving that I actually called a local clinic and asked radiologist to confirm the amount I had been told, which he did.
Not to diminish the horrific suffering that would ensue in the Kashmir region should this happen, the effects here in the US really would be minimal provided the conflict stays local. Detectable? Yes. The oil fires of the Gulf War lofted pollution into the air that was detectable in trace amounts world wide, too, but the real impact was local, not global. Volcanos like Pinatubo and Mt. St. Helens also have devasting local effects and can errupt with the force of a nuke (minus radiation), loft tons of debris into the air, even up to the stratosphere, but again, the strongest impact is local. Global agriculture was not devastated, although, again, some slight effects were detectable anywhere you went.
I believe the last time a volcano had significant global effects on agriculture was in the 19th Century with Krakautaua, which resulted in the “Year Without a Summer” (the exact date escapes me) with crop failures world-wide due to low temperatures.
Unless the Indians and Pakistanis have been holding back, they just don’t have the bang to cause global ecological catastrpohe. Others sorts… yes, it will be horrific locally.
It is not completely hysterical to think that the 400 some odd US-Soviet tests over 15 years caused 11,000 cancer deaths. What is virtually certain is that you personally have absorbed some fallout from those tests.(1)
http://tms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/214/other/news/030102ExposureNYT.html
What does that really mean in a Nation that does almost everything it possibly can to give itself cancer (e.g. tobacco, sunbathing, consuming 70 hotdogs per yr per person etc.)? I don’t know, but I don’t think much.
My WAG on an India/Pakistan exchange, and it is hard to do because there is such disagreement as to number of nukes each country has, let alone how they might play out using them. Still if they exchanged I feel safe saying :
According to the National Academy of Sciences(2) you can expect an increased in the intensity of Ultraviolet rays hitting the earth. This is because nuclear explosions inject large amounts of nitrogen oxides into the stratosphere, acting as a catalyst to reduce ozone levels. Again, how much depends on how many nukes are exploded. Even if we know the number, it is unclear & debatable just what that means beyond “wear a hat & use a higher SBF at the beach” … but THEORETICALLY (& this is meant to scare ya) it could make it difficult for plant life to grow until the Ozone layer repaired itself. Oh, Btw the U.S. has circa 90 days worth of food in the pipeline at anyone time …
1.CDC, NCI (re 11,000 deaths “highly gaurded terms”)
2.Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear-Weapons Detonations (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1975)…
Now that was interesting, jimmmy. Thanks!
What a charming topic of discussion…
I can just imagine it - global ecotastrophe, and me trying to cook dinner:
Husband: “Honey, what’s for dinner?”
Me: “Soylent green and long pork”
Husband: “Again?”
i don’t know the likely environmental fallout, but i know i’ll be dead 
I have to say, the loss of a fellow Doper such as xash would affect me more than the likely fallout of such insanity. All very well for folks on the opposite side of the planet to debate in the abstract, just don’t forget we’re talking about a situation that involves real, living, breathing human beings, millions of them, who are the ones who would truly suffer should this come to pass. And THAT is the real potential tragedy, not the potential effect on Iowa’s corn crop next year.