Skirmish Could Wreck the climate

[meteorologist]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/nuclear-war-climate-change/

[okie333]

http://www.wired.com...climate-change/

<sarcasm>So the best way to stop global warming is to nuke all the big cities?</sarcasm>

[Clifford]

Whoever came up with concepts such as "Mutually Assured Destruction"... not to mention fallout that would destroy 3/4 of the planet, including those not involved in the conflict?

My guess is that nuclear arms will be used once more in war, but will likely be 1 or 2 bombs the size of the Hiroshima bombs... because they will be built and activated by a small country with a very limited nuclear arsenal, either as an offensive strike, or as a "last resort".

After that, there will be such an international backlash that it will cause nuclear disarmament.

A decade long dip in the ozone, to a large extent concentrated in the polar regions would likely be the least of our concerns following a major nuclear conflict.

While plants don't use UV for photosynthesis, it still may help offset some of the hypothesized global cooling.

[BethesdaWX]

This is where our tax money is going?

[Fozz]

I was about to start a similar thread.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/

[BethesdaWX]

reading is fundamental.

If anyone needs to read, its you hon.

In NASA climate models, this carbon then absorbed solar heat and, like a hot-air balloon, quickly lofted even higher, where the soot would take much longer to clear from the sky.

Where do you think the money creating the NASA models comes from? My pocket. Research is another story completely.

[WeatherRusty]

This is where our tax money is going?

If it is then good. What, are you against basic research too? Or is it just that you see computer modeling as crap? I have news for you, computer modeling is a huge part of scientific research in this day and age. Get used to it because it's going nowhere but to further power our understanding of worldly processes as an enormously beneficial tool.

[BethesdaWX]

If it is then good. What, are you against basic research too? Or is it just that you see computer modeling as crap? I have news for you, computer modeling is a huge part of scientific research in this day and age. Get used to it because it's going nowhere but to further power our understanding of worldly processes as an enormously beneficial tool.

"Nuke our planet to stop warming"...are you kidding me? The word "Nuclear Bomb" gives me a shiver by itself, I wish they didn't exist.

[aslkahuna]

Should be noted that the basic Nuclear Winter models have been around for a long time. In fact they have been used in determing what the effects of asteroidal impacts would be on the climate system. Such a model successfully retrodicted the effects of the Tugunska impact upon the Ozone layer globally- a result BTW which surprised many since the effects were forecast (and observed) to be greater than expected.

Steve

[Clifford]

Research into the effects of a nuclear bomb isn't the same as research into making better bombs.

If our country spends billions of dollars on making bombs... and now they are all obsolete, with degraded radioactive materials and need to be destroyed...

Shouldn't we also spend a few thousand on research into the effects of the weapons?

Perhaps the more the public understands about what we... our people/government have built.

Perhaps the sooner there will be a push for total nuclear disarmament (just like chemical and biological weapons are banned... well, technically at least).

Unfortunately, once the technology exists, it is difficult to go backwards and erase it. Unless somehow we can accede to a point where there will no longer be wars. For example, I doubt there will be any more wars of Europeans fighting Europeans (outside of the soccer stadium).

Without the bomb... we may not have nuclear power today (or be working on fusion power).

[skierinvermont]

This is where our tax money is going?

reading is fundamental.

If anyone needs to read, its you hon.

In NASA climate models, this carbon then absorbed solar heat and, like a hot-air balloon, quickly lofted even higher, where the soot would take much longer to clear from the sky.

Where do you think the money creating the NASA models comes from? My pocket. Research is another story completely.

You asked "this is where our tax money is going" in reference to the original post concerning a study of nuclear winters.... trixie pointed out that the study in question was not funded by tax money.

Yes the model used by the study was developed with tax dollars.. but the model is multi-purpose and can be used to study many aspects of science besides the effect of nuclear war.

So not only were you rude to tixie, but you are also wrong.

[WeatherRusty]

"Nuke our planet to stop warming"...are you kidding me? The word "Nuclear Bomb" gives me a shiver by itself, I wish they didn't exist.

Do you really think that was the point of the research?

[BethesdaWX]

I just get pissy when nuclear bombs are even brought into the picture in any regard, I'm not a fan.

I'm out

[Mencken_Fan]

I just get pissy when nuclear bombs are even brought into the picture in any regard, I'm not a fan.

I'm out

Awwww...don't be a wuss, lol.

A lot of us actually lived with a real threat of nuclear attack (1950s-1980s.) And during the 1970s when I served in NORAD our biggest fear wasn't war; it was that of an accidental launch.

By the way, back then the metro D.C. area was targeted by about six Soviet thermonuclear warheads; the suburbs would have been vaporized along with the city itself. I used to know the actual target points but I've long forgotten half of them. Oh, and as an extra bonus...due to fact Soviet missile guidance systems could not match the stunning accuracy of ours, their warheads were larger to make up the difference. Metro D.C. would have received a horrific nuclear "shot gun blast."

You should be thankful those days are over!

Tim in NC

[BethesdaWX]

Awwww...don't be a wuss, lol.

A lot of us actually lived with a real threat of nuclear attack (1950s-1980s.) And during the 1970s when I served in NORAD our biggest fear wasn't war; it was that of an accidental launch.

By the way, back then the metro D.C. area was targeted by about six Soviet thermonuclear warheads; the suburbs would have been vaporized along with the city itself. I used to know the actual target points but I've long forgotten half of them. Oh, and as an extra bonus...due to fact Soviet missile guidance systems could not match the stunning accuracy of ours, their warheads were larger to make up the difference. Metro D.C. would have received a horrific nuclear "shot gun blast."

You should be thankful those days are over!

Tim in NC

haha++ It has more to do with my family in WWII than being terrified of nukes.

[aslkahuna]

Awwww...don't be a wuss, lol.

A lot of us actually lived with a real threat of nuclear attack (1950s-1980s.) And during the 1970s when I served in NORAD our biggest fear wasn't war; it was that of an accidental launch.

By the way, back then the metro D.C. area was targeted by about six Soviet thermonuclear warheads; the suburbs would have been vaporized along with the city itself. I used to know the actual target points but I've long forgotten half of them. Oh, and as an extra bonus...due to fact Soviet missile guidance systems could not match the stunning accuracy of ours, their warheads were larger to make up the difference. Metro D.C. would have received a horrific nuclear "shot gun blast."

You should be thankful those days are over!

Tim in NC

I was assigned to a SAC Base in 1962 so you can imagine how we all felt in October of that year knowing that if the buzzer went off we'd all be dead in 30 minutes. That very same base (Whiteman AFB in MO) became notorious in the ABC miniseries "The Day After".

Steve

[superjames1992]

I just get pissy when nuclear bombs are even brought into the picture in any regard, I'm not a fan.

I'm out

Nukes are a love/hate relationship. On one hand, they have the capability to bring widespread and massive devastation across the globe. On the other hand, they have been the greatest peacekeeping agent in modern times and are the reason we have not had any wars with other major powers since World War II. I think it would have been pretty much a guarantee that we and the USSR would have dueled it out in Europe after World War II if it were not for the atomic bomb.

Anyways, I wasn't aware that nuclear detonations are now considered a "skirmish".

[Snow_Miser]

Where do you think the money creating the NASA models comes from? My pocket. Research is another story completely.

Must be the money that falls from trees again...

[Mencken_Fan]

I was assigned to a SAC Base in 1962 so you can imagine how we all felt in October of that year knowing that if the buzzer went off we'd all be dead in 30 minutes. That very same base (Whiteman AFB in MO) became notorious in the ABC miniseries "The Day After".

Steve

Wow, I've been around the block a few times but you have about a decade on me. I was only in 6th grade during the Cuban Missile Crisis but the nervousness of the adults around me was thick enough to cut with a knife. Surprisingly, I remember that event quite well; and I know today that was the only time NORAD ever went to DEFCON 2.

In the early '70s I was stationed at NORAD's Southeast U.S. Regional Command and Control Center in Petersburg, Virginia (a blast-hardened above ground installation.) I worked in a large dark room full of Sage System consoles, and one day just after arriving for my swing shift....well...right before my eyes I saw among the row of "code boxes" high along the wall - the DEFCON 5 light blinked off...and the DEFCON 3 light came on. Well, I about crapped my pants! My mind immediately raced to my family up in D.C. and how they'd soon be nuked! LOL (well, I can laugh at it now, ha-ha.) Thankfully we didn't need go to DEFCON 2 or God forbid any of the color codes in DEFCON 1.

It took a little while but eventually we were told war had broken out in the Middle East (the Yom Kippur War) - and our satellites had detected the Soviets staging their bombers. (It's the latter that caused Nixon to make the DEFCON change.) That latter part also triggered "weapons delta" for SAC; something that should be meaningful to you.

I always had empathy for the guys in SAC because your installations were almost always in God-forsaken places; but it's not like NORAD installations were always in great places either. Who'd want to spend a year at a small radar station on the Arctic Coast or on a remote Alaskan mountaintop? (My 1-year tour in Alaska was at the relatively pleasant King Salmon NORAD Control Center.)

On a final note, I spent some time in Thailand (at U-Tapao Air Base) and got to see the B-52s and KC-135s in action. Standing on that beautiful beach at the end of the runway...watching fully-loaded B-52s take off with black smoke billowing out each of their 8 engines was a sight to behold! The struggle to get airborne reminded me so much of an albatross! (The lift-off of a B-52 is unlike any other plane; it has to be seen to be believed!)

Cheers!

[Mencken_Fan]

Nukes are a love/hate relationship. On one hand, they have the capability to bring widespread and massive devastation across the globe. On the other hand, they have been the greatest peacekeeping agent in modern times and are the reason we have not had any wars with other major powers since World War II. I think it would have been pretty much a guarantee that we and the USSR would have dueled it out in Europe after World War II if it were not for the atomic bomb.

Anyways, I wasn't aware that nuclear detonations are now considered a "skirmish".

Historically, Russia had been on the wrong end of war repeatedly; about a dozen times - with Napoleon and Hitler being the creme de la creme. I don't see how anyone can blame them for seizing a buffer zone following WWII. From their point of view, it was "enough of this already!" And as for seizing a chunk of Germany...well? That's called "pay back" for the 20 million slaughtered Russians.

For the Soviets to ever invade Western Europe is nonsensical. There is nothing in Russian history to suggest such a scenario. When has Russia ever started a war? Against whom? There's certainly no history of Russia attacking western European nations (who themselves have an endless history of starting wars.)

I would add too that Russians and Eastern Europeans are the same people; that is, they're Slavic. And where is it in history that Slavic people ever had any interest in attacking the West? Why in the world would Russia want a nation like France? What would they do with France? It's totally nonsensical. (The French probably figured that out from the beginning, hence their reluctance to participate in the Cold War.)

What Russia did after WWII is quite simply, logical - which is more than I can say for the Cold War; a gold mine for the military industrial complex - driven by greed and propaganda.

[Clifford]

For the Soviets to ever invade Western Europe is nonsensical. There is nothing in Russian history to suggest such a scenario. When has Russia ever started a war? Against whom? There's certainly no history of Russia attacking western European nations (who themselves have an endless history of starting wars.)

Afghanistan?

And all the efforts to keep the satellite nations in line including the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Another European War would be to nobody's benefit. It has nothing to do with Nukes.

How close were we to just accidentally annihilating the world?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter021099b.htm

With or without Nukes, I would hope our leaders are smart enough not to drive tanks into Russia, and trigger a global war 10x as bloody as WWII. Nukes were not the only factor that the Korean and Vietnam wars didn't escalate to include China.

[Mencken_Fan]

Afghanistan?

And all the efforts to keep the satellite nations in line including the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Another European War would be to nobody's benefit. It has nothing to do with Nukes.

How close were we to just accidentally annihilating the world?

http://www.washingto...tter021099b.htm

With or without Nukes, I would hope our leaders are smart enough not to drive tanks into Russia, and trigger a global war 10x as bloody as WWII. Nukes were not the only factor that the Korean and Vietnam wars didn't escalate to include China.

I'm a fan of world history but honestly know scant little about Russia's involvement in Afghanistan (it's "too recent" so to speak.) My suspicion would be that Afghanistan somehow provoked Russia; because frankly who would want Afghanistan? To arbitrarily invade such a miserable nation with the idea of annexing it seems rather odd.

Russia's aggression in Eastern Europe was simply a military reinforcement of territories already under their control. That doesn't qualify as "war." After the WWII political boundaries were set, Russia never sought so much as an acre of new land; in fact, as you know, their efforts were only to try and hold on to what they already had. It is primarily the U.S. military-industrial complex propaganda that made us fear the Soviets.

The next "European War" might be an internal one between secularism and Islam. One can only wonder how long Europeans will put up with loss of culture.

I'm familiar with the false alarm story in Russia. It's a good story but as one reads through it, it becomes clear it wasn't as "dangerous" as the headline.

Back in the '70s we used BMEWS (ballistic missile early warning system) radars to track all space objects. With antennas the size of a football field, these monsters tracked everything above the earth. And we once had a false alarm too; that of a single Soviet missile launch. (Serious because we knew the greatest nuclear threat was that of an accidental launch.)

That the Soviet officer took the appropriate action is no surprise. In a real war, he who launches first has the advantage but but being ICBMs take over half an hour to reach their targets, there's almost no way to pull off a sneak attack. SLBMs reach their targets much more quickly but with shorter range they're aimed only at continental peripheries. For example, Washington D.C. would have about 5 minutes warning; while Omaha, Nebraska or Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado would have over half an hour. (The obvious reason why SAC and NORAD are headquartered so far away from our coasts.)

The tactical goal of nuclear war was to hit enemy silos before they could launch. Anyone stationed at a missile base could take it to the bank they were going to get nuked. In reality, half our ICBMs would land on empty Soviet silos and vise versa.

The other half was aimed at military bases, cities, and industrial areas (especially along the Gulf Coast.)

I participated in many simulated nuclear wars and in every one the Soviet missile attack was horrendous. And with what was left of NORAD, we then dealt with the Soviet bombers. The word "win" never existed in these war games; the goal was only to survive enough to be able to stop the bombers that followed the missile attack.

Stopping Bombers: We had two ways to stop bombers; our fighter-interceptor force, and our SAMs (surface to air missiles such as the Nike Hercules.) SAM batteries once surrounded many cities but were phased out during the late 60s and early 70s. Gaithersburg, Maryland was one of several missile sites in the D.C./Baltimore area when I was young.

Stopping ICBMs: We had a treaty with the Soviets that allowed only two anti-missile missile batteries. We used both of ours to defend some of our ICBM sites; the Soviets used both of theirs to defend Moscow. We used a solid-fuel rocket called the "Sprint" that was breathtaking to see when launched - talk about acceleration, holy cow! (One needs a damned fast vehicle to catch a target moving at 8,000mph, lol.)

What I always found odd or funny back then was that almost every non-NORAD person I ever spoke with had the false belief that somehow we were capable of defending against missile attack. It was never the case. We could determine a launch; calculate the time and point of impact; and issue a warning. Not much help eh? The only thing we could stop was bombers.

It was simply mad; it was... Mutually Assured Destruction.