Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
mitztronic
Jun 17, 2005

mixcloud.com/mitztronic

Dante80 posted:

Here is the abstract of a 2014 study on the matter, that uses current, precise weather models and also takes into account nuclear warhead miniaturization.

Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict


Its not good. Far better than ye olde Nuclear Winter scenarios (based on earlier climate models and very large, imprecise warheads hitting counter-value targets), but still not good at all.

Moreover, have in mind that radiation knows no borders. Open a map of Ukraine/Belarus, and see what Chernobyl did to both due to the wind/rain.

Quick example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU4_bJT8W3Y

How is this possible? Collectively, we have tested over 500 nuclear weapons above ground for a total of 545 MT. In 1962, there were something like 140 nuclear tests in total. We are still alive. How is it that 100x 15 kT weapons would cause so much destruction?

e: added wikipedia link with the nuclear test graph

mitztronic fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Feb 13, 2017

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread