Would any use of nuclear weapons nowadays, mean "the end of all things"?

Great Debates
1

I feel very ignorant in raising this question; but with SDMB’s proclaimed role being, to fight ignorance…

In the main, I make a point of not closely following current affairs; am so constituted as not to find the subject, of consuming interest – plus, for myself find it too potentially fostering of suicidal impulses. There is thus a lot, current-affairs-related, on which I am vague / out of touch.

The level of anxiety is high at the present time, and currently at its peak so far, about the likelihood of a nuclear exchange consequent on the antics of the leadership of North Korea. In the course of a recent conversation with a relative of mine – who is in comparison with me, a learned and eager current-affairs-buff – this subject came up. He opined something which was new and surprising to me: that the power and sheer toxicity of modern nuclear weapons is such that any use of them whatever, would be beyond calamitous. Thus; even what one might think a small, restricted, and piffling nuclear exchange – such as, North Korea nukes a couple of places, and is in turn, itself effectively destroyed – would: with the pattern of winds and other global natural forces, circulating and broadcasting the “nasties” thus released, result within a brief span of time, in the extinction of humanity and of most forms of life on earth.

This scenario of which he spoke, was new to me; but I am so poorly and “spottily” in touch with current affairs, that many scenarios would be liable to be new to me. What with spending much time on the Net, I absorb by “osmosis”, a certain amount about current affairs; this has not included my relative’s horror-scenario – and I would “gut-feel”, that with the news media’s passion for seizing on, and loudly trumpeting, the worst-possible-imaginable (and with their devotees’ seeming love for hearing about, and bandying-around, same): if that horror-scenario were widely considered certain even if only a few of today’s nuclear devices were to be let off – this would be something which the whole world would be talking about, unceasingly.

Obviously, one greatly wishes for no nuclear weapons to be used in anger; however (should that unhappily come to pass) I do wonder – is my relative full of alarmist crap? Or does nobody in fact know what would happen as a result of a limited nuclear exchange nowadays – with assorted ways it might possibly go, being postulated? Or would even a small, limited nuclear exchange indeed mean the ineluctable end of the human race – but that is an ugly truth which very few people talk about? Or other contingencies, “between” those set out above? As said, perhaps I am a wildly ignorant dweller-under-a-rock; but, would be interested in people’s thoughts.

2

The quote function isn’t working for me for your post for some reason, but:

" Thus; even what one might think a small, restricted, and piffling nuclear exchange – such as, North Korea nukes a couple of places, and is in turn, itself effectively destroyed – would: with the pattern of winds and other global natural forces, circulating and broadcasting the “nasties” thus released, result within a brief span of time, in the extinction of humanity and of most forms of life on earth."

Is pure, utter, undistilled bullshit.

3

A nuclear exchange between North Korea and the US would certainly result in a great many Korean lives lost (both North and South), and a lesser but still too large number of Americans, from the direct attacks. It would probably also kill some number of other people, especially in China and Japan but scattered throughout the Northern Hemisphere, from the fallout (though it’d be tough to attribute any specific death to the fallout, since it’d mostly manifest as higher cancer rates, and there’s always some amount of cancer). And that would be about it. Heck, we’ve already set off two nukes in that part of the world, and that didn’t end all life: Even the target cities themselves are again thriving metropolises now. Plus all of the many other nukes we’ve set off since then, in tests.

Even a full-scale, everyone-vs.-everyone war, where the US, Russia, and China all completely empty all of their silos, wouldn’t result in human extinction. It’d kill a heck of a lot of us, and it’d take centuries for our society to rebuild itself, but humans are spread too far across the globe, in too many different environments, and are too good at using our intelligence to adapt quickly, for us to be driven extinct by any single event.

4

It’s alarmist crap.

Consider that before the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the nuclear powers of the world detonated hundreds of nuclear weapons above ground, If you include all tests, it runs into the thousands.

You may notice we are not a glowing radioactive heap yet.

Now, a military exchange instead of a testing program will probably have a lot more fallout, but we’re not going to drop hundreds of nukes on NK if they lob one at us (or an ally). It might be closer to a dozen. Japan and SK will probably be annoyed by the fallout but they aren’t going to be dying in droves hours later.

5

There have already been over 520 nuclear detonations within earth’s atmosphere, including many of multi-megaton size, and one was over 50 megatons:

This video animation shows the location, date, type and size of each one: https://vimeo.com/135580602

6

The United States nuked itself hundreds of times during above-ground nuclear weapons tests in the 50s and 60s. Same with the Russians.

7

I would be surprised if we used nukes on NK at all, even if NK nuked us first. There’s strong disincentive, given the proximity of China and South Korea - and there’s little need to resort to nukes, given that we possess more than enough conventional firepower to overwhelm the NK military.

8

Since this requires speculation, let’s move it to IMHO.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

9

Your relative may have been thinking of the Nuclear Winter scenario, in which it is hypothesized that a large number of firestorms ignited simultaneously by a nuclear exchange could put enough soot into the atmosphere to disrupt global climate. In this case it’s not the nuclear weapons themselves that cause the damage, but the fires. If this were to occur, it would certainly be catastrophic but probably wouldn’t extinguish all human life and certainly wouldn’t extinguish all life on earth.

10

This. We have more than enough conventional weapons to turn NK into a parking lot without making it a glass parking lot…and there would be a lot less ‘collateral damage.’

11

It’s probably left-over Cold War thinking in which “any” nuclear war meant war between the USSR (plus, possibly, Eastern Europe) and the US (plus, possibly Western Europe) in which case there would inevitably be dozens if not hundred of nuclear strikes. That would not mean the end of all things, but it would probably be as close as we have come in historical times.

So, yeah, you’re relative is out of date and still overly alarmist.

Nuclear war is no bueno. But making up shit about the consequences when said shit is easily recognized as shit doesn’t make the anti-side look good. It just makes them look ill-informed.

12

This would probably be a temporary relief from global warming! :wink:

13

Except that said conventional firepower is not in place. And using nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack would send a message to the rest of the world.

14

It would be a social/political catastrophe, but not necessarily an environmental one.

When I was 9 years old the Soviet Union tested the Tsar Bomba. It remains the biggest bomb ever exploded. I have a fairly distinct memory that our local newspaper ran stories that tracked the radioactive cloud around the world. But I don’t think there was any immediate environmental impact (outside of the blast zone, of course.)

15

The problem is - do you want to use conventional?

Iraq proved that using cruise missiles and roving bombers (once achieving air superiority) did not completely remove the resistance of the opposition. there’s the conventional wisdom that Truman was not about to kill half a million American soldiers to spare Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

the only downside to using nuclear weapons, particularly against a city like Pyongyang, is - what are the odds you’d take out Kim and the leadership? You know they’re going to be well hidden before the fan gets hit. So you just wipe out a few million civilians.

The only productive use of nuclear weapons I could think of would be just over the border from Seoul, to destroy as much of the artillery as possible trained on Seoul before it has a chance to fire. I’m sure Seoul would appreciate a dozen or more tactical nukes going off 40 miles away. Hope the wind blows the right way.

the “end of world” scenarios related to an all out exchange between the USSR and the USA. At the time, they each had between 10,000 and 20,000 warheads, many in the megaton range compared to the 20-kiloton r so units tested by North Korea. Setting one of those multi-megaton weapons over LA, for example, would probably start forest fires in the hills dozens of miles away, if the destruction was not enough. these 20,000 warheads would target every major city, military base, missile silo, critical supply and infrastructure - all over the world, and several times in case one misfired - since the USSR would want to ensure NATO and any friends of the USA were also effectively neutralized; and we’d probably want to take out China as well as USSR - since once we were pulverized, China could walk all over us (and Russia).

that’s a far cry from a few 20-kiloton bombs that may or may not be accurately targeted. Read stories of Hiroshima or Nagasaki survivors sometime. People within a mile or two of ground zero survived if hey were indoors in a solid building. (I think I remember one POW describing being moved to Nagasaki after his Hiroshima prison was destroyed…)

Should note the USA did nuke John Wayne. Apparently he was filming the Genghis Khan movie near where they were doing nuclear testing, and one theory is the radiation eventually led to his cancer.

16

Thanks to everyone, for replies. It does indeed seem that my relative is “off-beam” here: I wondered, because I am – as described – largely wilfully, pretty ignorant about these matters; and he is an intelligent guy, interested in and closely in touch with current affairs, and not “a gloom-and-doom-merchant to trade”. He would just appear, for whatever reason, to have this one wrong.

In our conversation, I cited the two Japanese cities in 1945, and the fact that large numbers of nuclear bombs have been tested above-ground, between then and now. His response was that the devices concerned in those happenings, were the equivalent of penny firecrackers compared to even the least of the contents of today’s nuclear arsenals. Seemingly he is not, after all, Mr. Omniscient.

Of course one greatly hopes – and prays, if that is one’s thing – that the current doings will not involve the use of nukes in anger; but at all events, thanks to respondents.

17

I think this also relates to Cold War theories of nuclear use. One side uses one little nuclear bomb during some crisis, the other side just might launch everything they’ve got in a first strike, leading to a retaliatory launch once the first side sees the missiles coming in over the Arctic Circle.

So that’s a way where one use of nuclear weapons results in The End of the World As We Know It. Not because that one nuclear bomb is in itself a global catastrophe, but because it triggers a full scale nuclear exchange that would be a global catastrophe.

18

And that, I hope, is a question that never has to be asked.

19

Whether the conventional weapons are in place or not matters very little. We could get them in place very quickly, and the only part of the operation that’d be time-critical would be silencing the artillery. While nukes would make that part a lot quicker, we probably don’t want to be setting off nukes that close to Seoul.

And John Wayne dying from a nuke isn’t really theoretical: The movie set was definitely hit by a lot of fallout, and the cast and crew definitely got cancer at much greater rates than normal. It’s possible that Wayne’s cancer was caused by something else, but the nuke is the way to bet.

20

John Wayne was a SIX-pack-a-day smoker, survived lung cancer, and eventually died of stomach cancer, which it’s very possible metastasized from the lung cancer. I think a nuke was the least of the causes, if at all.