I thought that during the height of the Cold War in which the USSR had tens of thousands of nukes, that it was presumed that there would be strikes against major targets in the southern hemisphere just to eliminate nominally pro-Western countries as post-war rivals. Sort of how the USA’s Single Integrated Operational Plan - Wikipedia to nuke the Soviet Union used to include China just as a matter of course.
Good prediction. Russia just did that.
My impression of this is that Putin is basically saying “Waaah, you’re supposed to just give up and let us win!” like a spoiled brat who was never disciplined.
NATO suckered him into invading Ukraine.
And @Miller beats me to my point.
A particular case I think is oil - deep sea platforms are going to be right out, I assume the same for shale oil at a large scale, and I’m pretty sure most new land-based wells are really deep - and those are not going to be drillable again for a while.
I very much doubt the NATO countries got together and wished this to happen. Do you think Poland is happy this?
I think there was a measure of sarcasm in DesertDog’s post.
In which case I missed it so apologies.
I might be wrong though… It’s hard to tell with just the bare words staring at you…
Human?
Hardly.
I tend to think the media portrayals of nuclear war are often exaggerated.
- The Krakatoa eruption in the 1800s was the equivalent of a 200 Megaton detonation. While temperatures cooled for a bit, it didn’t plunge the Earth into decades of nuclear winter.
- Radiation is usually reduced to safe(ish) levels within a few days. Nuclear weapons don’t render entire regions into permanently radioactive “forbidden zones”.
-Most nuclear weapons are not the 50 megaton Tsar Bomba.
That said, one thing we do know is that a couple hundred 0.5 to 3 megaton bombs hitting the largest cities on both sides would kill tens of millions of people, injure millions more, and wreck havoc on the global economy.
Think about how much chaos 9/11 created. Or the COVID pandemic. Just one nuclear bomb exploding in a major city would overwhelm medical facilities for the entire region. At the very least, the USA and Russia (or whoever is engaging in nuclear war) would no longer be a “global power” in any meaningful way.
Even if humanity isn’t “destroyed”, it’s difficult to imagine any scenario involving the mass exchange of nuclear weapons that could be interpreted as a “win” for the combatants.
Yes, there’s no winning a nuclear war, just gradations of losing.
If Putin is facing his personal mortality, he won’t give two shits about losing, as long as he’s remembered as the guy who fucked up the world.
I really do believe that he’s that nuts.
Yeah, it’s hard to disagree. The guy decided to invade Ukraine on a fantasy. It was never going to work.
If he decides to use a nuclear weapon because he can’t complete his invasion with conventional weapons? We’re in a situation where I have no idea where he won’t use nuclear weapons. It may not happen because he doesn’t care about being remembered as the guy who fucked up the world, but he just doesn’t understand what using that weapon in this context actually means.
To the brim, but I can’t help but think Putin believes that in his heart of hearts now.
Can you explain to the ignorant (=me) how this is different from Chernobyl? I know the difference between a power plant and a weapon, but I’m not so clear on how that difference affects ambient radiation. (As a child of the Cold War, I was rather affected by Alas Babylon, Z for Zachariah, and Children of the Dust : how could three different novels all be wrong?)
I’ve been trying to answer that question to my own satisfaction for years now. I’m not a nuclear expert, just a layperson with enough knowledge to be a bit dangerous.
A difference between a nuclear bomb and Chernobyl is partly quantity. “Little Boy”, the uranium powered bomb that devastated Hiroshima, contained about 70 kg of uranium (around 140 or so pounds). Chernobyl contained about 190 tons of uranium. It caused more problems because there was more problem-causing stuff inside.
Then you have differences between the radioactive byproducts of a nuclear explosion vs. what’s produced inside a nuclear reactor. That’s way more complicated than I understand, but some resulting stuff is worse than other stuff.
Whether a nuclear weapon is an airburst vs. a groundburst also significantly impacts fallout and its results.
Ummm… yes and no.
WWII-style bombs used in 1945 don’t do that. However, there ARE places on Earth, and not just the Chernobyl exclusion zone, that are considered too radioactive for human habitation, such as Bikini Atoll, decades after being irradiated. It won’t kill you instantly, no, or over the course of weeks or months, but after years of living there cancer can be a near certainty and who knows what the long-term multi-generational consequences might be?
So sure, after a “few days” the radiation usually (but not always, see below) drops to a level where you can safely walk around but the food chain is contaminated and humans being at the top of that we’d start accumulating radioactive isotopes if we tried subsistence farming there.
Then there are “salted” nukes, which are designed to generate long-lived fallout. Supposedly, none have ever actually been built outside of one small test. Supposedly.
But even with normal nukes, multiple hits on a target could generate sufficient fallout that, even if most of the radioactivity is gone within “a few days” even that minimal amount could be sufficient to cause illness or death.
Then there is the problem of the type of radiation. Alpha radiation can be stopped by the surface of your own skin - the problem is if it gets inside you where it causes problems from the inside. Beta can cause surface burns (sometimes called a “nuclear tan”) and you don’t want them getting inside, either. Anything emitting gamma is bad - that’s what takes a lot of thick shielding to stop and if a gamma-emitter gets inside you, well, that’s really bad. So, OK, the ambient radiation drops after a few days, great, you crawl out of your bomb shelter… and start inhaling dust, and swallowing the dust that gets into your mouth, some of which is radioactive fallout, and that shit starts winding up in your bones, your internal organs, etc. and doing damage from the inside. It won’t kill you immediately, but it could kill you in months, years, or a decade or two.
It’s conceivable, after a nuclear war, that you might have areas where death is not immediate but those who were/are inside those areas will have greatly shortened life spans and may not be able to successfully reproduce. A slow death over years/decades rather than an immediate one.
That’s what I meant by “-ish”. Certainly dangerous with some potential long-term environmental and health impacts. Not quite creating permanent death zones full of mutants and rampant Hullkism as portrayed in film.
Peacetime standards on acceptable radiation levels are a lot more stringent than “post war rebuild civilization” levels.
One problem is that humans are such a long-lived species, requiring many years just to get to reproductive age, during which they accumulate isotopes. Even if they manage to produce healthy offspring the parents still have to remain alive long enough to raise them. Very difficult in a world where fertility will likely be impacted by lingering contamination and cancer rates are likely to soar and hit people in their prime years. Not to mention all the modern cancer treatments might be gone.
Post-nuclear war life on Earth might really suck.