Would a nulear war really end the world?

[Anonymous No.10053716]

I think this is just propaganda that was spread during the Cold War to make nuclear war politically impossible.

Most of the radiation disperses after a couple weeks. Some soil is thrown up into the air which could drop the temperature a bit for a year or two, but it's really not such a big deal.

[Anonymous No.10053730]

>>10053716
I belive you OP

[Anonymous No.10053737]

>>10053716
yeah let's just forget the uncontrollable wildfires

kys

[Anonymous No.10053749]

>>10053716

an all out nuclear war can cripple us technologically without repair.
just imagine detonating nukes in outer space creating massive global EMP frying everything electrical related.
imagine all the cities being destroyed, farmlands contaminated, governments crumbling.

no nuclear winter per se, but tons of shit hitting supersonic fans, yes.

[Anonymous No.10053760]

>>10053716
Nuclear war became the level of dangerous capable of destroying the planet when hydrogen bombs were discovered. Unlike traditional atomic bombs, these were so efficient that they could commit the damage of 10 hiroshimas or more in a single strike.
Capable of taking out 10 cities in a single blow.

[Anonymous No.10053762]

https://youtu.be/bIAF7kBbGKk?t=4m15s

[Anonymous No.10053774]

>>10053749
wars are organized by a small group of elite individuals who mostly reside in the cities. These people are usually insulated from the costs of warfare themselves. So isn't it interesting that as soon as it's THEIR lives on the line, suddenly war becomes impossible. Millions of peasants getting drafted and sent into slaughtering fields is perfectly acceptable however

>>10053760
actually larger nuclear weapons are less efficient. You need to square the yield to double the destructiveness. Most of the energy goes upward. Smaller yields are way more efficient. 10 bombs 1/10 the size will do far more total damage

[Anonymous No.10053783]

>>10053774
>actually larger nuclear weapons are less efficient
Hydrogen bombs are not just larger nuclear weapons.

[Anonymous No.10053947]

>>10053774
>You need to square the yield to double the destructiveness.
Okay, let's define the amount of yield in one nuke as 1ny (nuke yield). To double the power, we have to square the yield... 1^2=1 so our starting nuke is now twice as strong. Repeat the process for unlimited power.

[Anonymous No.10054060]

>>10053749
> creating massive global EMP
EMP is a theoretical effect arising from a nuclear bomb test in outer space over Hawaii. Scientists noticed a voltage drop in their instruments at time of explosion, and theorized that it was due to the nuclear bomb.

Nobody knows what would happen with multiple groundbursts, as above ground nuclear tests were banned in the 1980s. MAYBE all electrical systems would cease. MAYBE nothing.

[Anonymous No.10054068]

>>10054060

interesting, do you have anything related, like publications or reads about this kind of phenomena?

[Anonymous No.10054226]

Consequences of a large nuclear war between US and Russia
Hundreds of large cities in the U.S., Europe and Russia are engulfed in massive firestorms which burn urban areas of tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles/kilometers. 150 million tons of smoke from nuclear fires rises above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it quickly spreads around the world and forms a dense stratospheric cloud layer. The smoke will remain there for many years to block and absorb up to 70% of the sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere, and up to 35% in the Southern Hemisphere. Surface temperatures on Earth would drop more than 20°C overNorth America and of more than 30°C over much of Eurasia.
Minimum daily temperatures in the largest agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere to drop below freezing for 1 to 3 years. Nightly killing frosts would prevent food from being grown. Growing seasons would be virtually eliminated for decades.
Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also occur, allowing intense levels of dangerous UV light will reach the surface of the Earth. Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated and spread both locally and globally. The targeting of nuclear reactors would significantly increase fallout of long-lived isotopes. Gigantic ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would be released from the fires; enormous quantities of industrial chemicals would be released. Land and marine ecosystems would collapse.
Unable to grow food, most humans would starve to death. A mass extinction event would occur, similar to what happened 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out following a large asteroid impact with Earth (70% of species became extinct, including all animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight). Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.

[Anonymous No.10054247]

>>10053716
It might be worth noting that there have been roughly 2,200 nuclear devices detonated in testing (many underground so the effects would be at least partially contained) plus 2 weapons used in combat.

The effects of this, globally, are too small to be measured.

There are estimated to be about 15,000 warheads/bombs in the world's stockpiles -- but in the event of a nuclear war, it is unlikely that all of them would be used, and unlikely that all of them that were used would detonate.

Still, we'd be looking at a LOT more potential fallout/radiation/just-general-destruction than we got from the testing. But it would HAVE to be a lot more to be even noticeable, on a global level.

The impact on electronic infrastructure and the like would be severe, so it would definitely be bad for US. Not sure the world would notice it much, certainly no more than it notices the occasional KT event -- bad if you happen to get scragged, but a non-event in the great scheme of things for life in general, which recovers quickly.

[Anonymous No.10054251]

>>10053716
Nope, just mankind. It even could randomly affect mutation rate in species making them easier to adapt to the nuclear waste that is the planet.

[Anonymous No.10054376]

>>10054226
Nuclear winter was debunked more than a decade ago

[Anonymous No.10054386]

>>10054376
bs

[Anonymous No.10054401]

>>10054247
2,063 tests and only 533 atmospheric and from 1945 to 1980
>Not sure the world would notice it much, certainly no more than it notices the occasional KT event
a geologist, eeeeewwww!

[Anonymous No.10054409]

>>10054386
yes, that's what I'm saying

[Anonymous No.10054416]

>>10054226
>Europe and Russia are engulfed in massive firestorms

stopped reading right there.

your typical russian/european urban space is constructed with non-flammable materials like concrete and brick. the conditions for a firestorm to emerge are not present

[Anonymous No.10054438]

Electrocyclic reactions. Can someone explain why the first stereoisomer results in 6é ring opening and the second in 4é ring closing under the same conditions.

I would be forever grateful

[Anonymous No.10054442]

>>10054438
This was suppose to be its own thread but ok.

[Anonymous No.10054676]

>>10053716
>Most of the radiation disperses after a couple weeks
Hence the booming tourism in Tsjernobil.

[Anonymous No.10054712]

>>10053716
>Most of the radiation disperses after a couple weeks.
Depends on what the warhead is meant to do.
There are warheads that are as clean as possible, while there are others that are meant to make an area uninhabitable for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.10054791]

>>10054676
Get out of here stalker.

[Anonymous No.10054831]

>>10054416
So why are there still firefighters if nothing is flammable?

I guess trees, cars, furniture and people are also made of brick in Russia?

[Anonymous No.10054838]

No but it could kill most humans.

[Anonymous No.10055145]

>>10054376
Oh my no, nuclear happened alright, but thankfully global warming cancelled it out. Also, you just read this in my voice, oh my yes.

[Anonymous No.10055146]

>>10054831
In Soviet Russia, brick is made of YOU!

[Anonymous No.10055151]

>>10054676
Your choice of transliteration makes me hate you.

[Anonymous No.10055301]

>>10053716
Not end of the world, I doubt that even if we converted all uranium in the crust to nuclear bombs we would be able to destroy it.

But with the destruction of main production and population centers, distribution of services networks, the suspension of international commerce, the collapse of food production because of a 10-15% dimming of the sunlight and the complete disruption of the productive cycles in the industrialized nations of the "first" and "second world" it would have been pretty much the end of industrial society for decades.

But not the end of the world or even the end of the human species.