Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Help Support EcoWatch

Here's One More Good Reason Not to Launch a Nuclear War

Climate
Here's One More Good Reason Not to Launch a Nuclear War
iStock

By Tim Radford

Four U.S. scientists have just introduced one more good reason not to launch a nuclear war. It would not simply guarantee the mutual destruction of the participants. It would also precipitate catastrophic climate change.

And, they argue in the journal Environment Magazine, even a single nuclear missile strike could darken the skies, chill the atmosphere, stop rainfall, ruin harvests and cost a billion lives.


Observers with memories that stretch back to the Cold War and the arms race between the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) powers on the one hand and the USSR on the other will know something of this already.

In 1983 the astronomer Carl Sagan and colleagues introduced the idea of global annihilation or at least the end of human civilization, in a "nuclear winter" as a consequence of a nuclear weapons exchange.

Years later, as the Soviet Union collapsed and the Russian Federation was born, the same scientists did their calculations again, and reduced the threat to a kind of "nuclear autumn."

Nuclear Club

Eight nations now possess a nuclear arsenal; the US, Russia and China all have nuclear weapons big enough to precipitate a nuclear calamity, and a ninth, North Korea, now claims to have nuclear capability.

This prompted researchers and political scientists from the University of Nebraska Lincoln to revisit the question, based on a theoretical study of the effect of one hundred 15-kiloton warheads, with the explosive power of 150,000 tons of TNT.

Once exploded, such a strike would incinerate 1,300 square kilometres of a city and its surrounds. This would be quite enough to push five million metric tons of black carbon smoke particles into the stratosphere."

This would be enough to screen solar radiation, reduce the agricultural crop season by between 10 and 40 days a year for at least five years, and lower global temperatures to a point lower than normal for at least 25 years.

In the very short term, this cold snap would be colder than anything for the last 1,000 years. Rainfall would decrease by as much as 20 percent to 80 percent in the Asian monsoon region.

The American southwest and western Australia could become 20 percent to 60 percent drier. South America and southern Africa, too, would see less rain. This global "nuclear drought" and the resulting famines "could kill up to a billion people from starvation.

The most immediate victims would be those in countries that are already poor or food-insecure. And, the scientists warn, should a warhead fall upon a nuclear power facility "the spread of toxic radionuclides and their long-term effects would be greatly magnified."

The drop in precipitation would, they warn, also increase conflict in developing regions, "although global temperature reduction may reduce social violence in the United States and other developed countries."

"We're losing our memory of the Cold War and we're losing our memory of how important it is to get this right," said Tyler White, a political scientist concerned with international security and nuclear policy and one of the authors.

"Even a conflict that doesn't involve the United States can impact us and people around the world."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Climate News Network.

People Have the Power - VOTE 2020

Climate-action nonprofit Pathway to Paris first launched in 2014 with an "intimate evening" of music and conversation after the People's Climate March in New York City.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Heo Suwat Waterfall in Khao Yai National Park in Thailand. sarote pruksachat / Moment / Getty Images

A national park in Thailand has come up with an innovative way to make sure guests clean up their own trash: mail it back to them.

Read More Show Less

Trending

The 2020 presidential election poses a critical test of climate conservatives' willingness to put their environmental concerns before party politics. filo / Getty Images

By Ilana Cohen

Four years ago, Jacob Abel cast his first presidential vote for Donald Trump. As a young conservative from Concord, North Carolina, the choice felt natural.

But this November, he plans to cast a "protest vote" for a write-in candidate or abstain from casting a ballot for president. A determining factor in his 180-degree turn? Climate change.

Read More Show Less
Headquarters of the World Health Organization in Geneva amid the COVID-19 outbreak on Aug. 17, 2020. FABRICE COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced Monday that 64 high-income nations have joined an effort to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine fairly, prioritizing the most vulnerable citizens, as Science reported. The program is called the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility, or Covax, and it is a joint effort led by the WHO, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

Read More Show Less
Exterior of Cold Tube demonstration pavilion. Lea Ruefenacht

By Gloria Oladipo

In the face of dangerous heat waves this summer, Americans have taken shelter in air conditioned cooling centers. Normally, that would be a wise choice, but during a pandemic, indoor shelters present new risks. The same air conditioning systems that keep us cool recirculate air around us, potentially spreading the coronavirus.

Read More Show Less

Support Ecowatch