The Mess

[SuburbanFarmer]

No one is even discussing the heat generated by the explosions - you're not even bothering to read the source, so we can't possibly argue in good faith.

If you're interested, the information is there.

limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which each side detonates 50 15 kt weapons could produce about 5 Tg of black carbon (BC). This would self-loft to the stratosphere, where it would spread globally, producing a sudden drop in surface temperatures and intense heating of the stratosphere.

Given the article I posted from the DoD, there would be no firestorm at the extent these scientists seem to believe. They are operating under the false assumption that nuclear bombs are incendiary weapons, which they are not. The majority of the damage comes from the heat generated due to the release of energy, as well as the kinetic energy exploding out from the apex. This has been public knowledge since at least the 70s, but no one reads, evidently.

They are using climate models to determine what a nuclear explosion would do. If a supervolcano exploded, that would be what covers the stratosphere in black carbon and what would usher in a volcanic winter. A nuclear weapon behaves differently. They start with a false assumption, and connect the dots from there. If they researched how a nuclear weapon worked, rather than making assumptions, I'd give the article more credence.

Another gem:

Even the smallest of nuclear weapons, such as the ∼15 kt weapon used on Hiroshima, exploding in modern megacities would produce firestorms that would build for hours, consuming buildings, vegetation, roads, fuel depots, and other infrastructure, releasing energy many times that of the weapon's yield

There would be no significant firestorm in this scenario. They're making stuff up.

You're conflating 2 different things. Yes, obviously, the center of a nuclear blast would not 'burn' in a traditional sense. However, that material does not simply cease to exist. It is blasted apart into elemental particles, and energy.

Surrounding areas would be simply blown apart from the blast wave, and burn accordingly - while being bathed in radiation, of course. That material is the main concern here. Similar to a 'nuclear winter' scenario from an asteroid impact. The millions of tons of material blasted up into the atmosphere spreads across the globe, blocking the sun. There is no difference, outside of the 'vaporization' area - whatever name that carries.

The classic 'mushroom cloud' is not smoke from fires - it's thousands of tons of dirt and particles being lofted into the stratosphere by the force of the blast.

[Xenophon]

No one is even discussing the heat generated by the explosions - you're not even bothering to read the source, so we can't possibly argue in good faith.

If you're interested, the information is there.

limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which each side detonates 50 15 kt weapons could produce about 5 Tg of black carbon (BC). This would self-loft to the stratosphere, where it would spread globally, producing a sudden drop in surface temperatures and intense heating of the stratosphere.

Given the article I posted from the DoD, there would be no firestorm at the extent these scientists seem to believe. They are operating under the false assumption that nuclear bombs are incendiary weapons, which they are not. The majority of the damage comes from the heat generated due to the release of energy, as well as the kinetic energy exploding out from the apex. This has been public knowledge since at least the 70s, but no one reads, evidently.

They are using climate models to determine what a nuclear explosion would do. If a supervolcano exploded, that would be what covers the stratosphere in black carbon and what would usher in a volcanic winter. A nuclear weapon behaves differently. They start with a false assumption, and connect the dots from there. If they researched how a nuclear weapon worked, rather than making assumptions, I'd give the article more credence.

Another gem:

Even the smallest of nuclear weapons, such as the ∼15 kt weapon used on Hiroshima, exploding in modern megacities would produce firestorms that would build for hours, consuming buildings, vegetation, roads, fuel depots, and other infrastructure, releasing energy many times that of the weapon's yield

There would be no significant firestorm in this scenario. They're making stuff up.

You're conflating 2 different things. Yes, obviously, the center of a nuclear blast would not 'burn' in a traditional sense. However, that material does not simply cease to exist. It is blasted apart into elemental particles, and energy.

Surrounding areas would be simply blown apart from the blast wave, and burn accordingly - while being bathed in radiation, of course. That material is the main concern here. Similar to a 'nuclear winter' scenario from an asteroid impact. The millions of tons of material blasted up into the atmosphere spreads across the globe, blocking the sun. There is no difference, outside of the 'vaporization' area - whatever name that carries.

The amount of black carbon released into the atmosphere would be far less than what your article says. They're essentially parroting the same studies done in the past which are constantly having to be walked back as a result of the overestimation of black carbon in the atmosphere.

Asserting that it would spread across the globe and block out the sun is unprovable. It's all moonshine. It all comes from the assumption that everything hit by a nuclear weapon would light up into an inferno, pushing black carbon into the sky. That's simply not the case when you examine actual nuclear explosions.

[Smitty-48]

Now see, for the folk out there who are too young to remember, "nuclear winter"; is the original "global warming", think of "nuclear winter" as being the lefty's dry run for "global warming", what you have to understand is, all lefties are Marxists at heart, and thing about Marxism, is that you need a doomsday, Marxism won't get any traction whatsoever without a doomsday.

It's not to say that "nuclear winter" wasn't successful as a quasi-Marxist doomsday, it certainly was, and the liberal media is always keen to play along, so "nuclear winter" was elevated to the level of "fact" in America, totally unfounded as it may have been. But the problem for the Lefty's was that the Cold War suddenly ended, and the whole nuclear issue was dropped by the public like a hot potato.

None the less, the success of the "nuclear winter" scam, is what gave the Lefty's the inspiration for the "global warming" scam, stripped of their "nuclear winter!", the lefty's just modified it into "global warming!", "carbon!" was the new "fallout!" so to say.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Given the article I posted from the DoD, there would be no firestorm at the extent these scientists seem to believe. They are operating under the false assumption that nuclear bombs are incendiary weapons, which they are not. The majority of the damage comes from the heat generated due to the release of energy, as well as the kinetic energy exploding out from the apex. This has been public knowledge since at least the 70s, but no one reads, evidently.

They are using climate models to determine what a nuclear explosion would do. If a supervolcano exploded, that would be what covers the stratosphere in black carbon and what would usher in a volcanic winter. A nuclear weapon behaves differently. They start with a false assumption, and connect the dots from there. If they researched how a nuclear weapon worked, rather than making assumptions, I'd give the article more credence.

Another gem:



There would be no significant firestorm in this scenario. They're making stuff up.

You're conflating 2 different things. Yes, obviously, the center of a nuclear blast would not 'burn' in a traditional sense. However, that material does not simply cease to exist. It is blasted apart into elemental particles, and energy.

Surrounding areas would be simply blown apart from the blast wave, and burn accordingly - while being bathed in radiation, of course. That material is the main concern here. Similar to a 'nuclear winter' scenario from an asteroid impact. The millions of tons of material blasted up into the atmosphere spreads across the globe, blocking the sun. There is no difference, outside of the 'vaporization' area - whatever name that carries.

The amount of black carbon released into the atmosphere would be far less than what your article says. They're essentially parroting the same studies done in the past which are constantly having to be walked back as a result of the overestimation of black carbon in the atmosphere.

Asserting that it would spread across the globe and block out the sun is unprovable. It's all moonshine. It all comes from the assumption that everything hit by a nuclear weapon would light up into an inferno, pushing black carbon into the sky. That's simply not the case when you examine actual nuclear explosions.

Well, you're correct that it's unprovable, until we do it. That much I can't argue.
The inferno matters, but also the amount of material kicked up into the atmosphere. Again, if you suppose that all of the dinos were clustered around Mexico when the asteroid hit, then we can ignore that factor, I suppose.

I'm sure we'll be fine. Go ahead and nuke everything then.

[Smitty-48]

Nobody ever said nuclear war is not going to be bad, even a limited nuclear war could kill as many people in half an hour as were killed in the Second World War, so nobody is saying a nuclear is going to be fun in the sun. Just because your lefty wefty breahtless over exaggeration of the effects is shot down for being what it is, that don't mean anybody is keen to push the button on a countervalue strike just to prove you wrong.

It's not going to be an extinction event, it will be the most destructive war in human history none the less.

[Montegriffo]

Nobody ever said nuclear war is not going to be bad, even a limited nuclear is could kill as many people in half an hour as were killed in the Second World War, so nobody is saying a nuclear is going to be fun in the sun. Just because your lefty wefty breahtless over exaggeration of the effects is shot down for being what it is, that don't mean anybody is keen to push the button on a countervalue strike just to prove you wrong.

But at least it's green eh Smitty?

[Smitty-48]

Nobody ever said nuclear war is not going to be bad, even a limited nuclear is could kill as many people in half an hour as were killed in the Second World War, so nobody is saying a nuclear is going to be fun in the sun. Just because your lefty wefty breahtless over exaggeration of the effects is shot down for being what it is, that don't mean anybody is keen to push the button on a countervalue strike just to prove you wrong.

But at least it's green eh Smitty?

Well think of the neutron bomb as the "Kyoto Protocol" of nuclear war, not entirely green, but greener than a run o' the mill hydrogen bomb by several orders of magnitude.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Nobody ever said nuclear war is not going to be bad, even a limited nuclear war could kill as many people in half an hour as were killed in the Second World War, so nobody is saying a nuclear is going to be fun in the sun. Just because your lefty wefty breahtless over exaggeration of the effects is shot down for being what it is, that don't mean anybody is keen to push the button on a countervalue strike just to prove you wrong.

I'm sure. You've certainly made it clear that many are not breathless with anticipation over the prospect of killing millions, so that we can roll out our awesome toys.

As for nuclear winter scenarios, I can only hope that you're right. If you're not, I won't be around to tell you so. It concerns me that the dismissal of this theory would make it easier for someone to push the button, but I suppose they'll do it anyway, regardless of what 99% of humanity wants. Because we must never let The Enemy win, or stuff. Good show, old bean. Curtains!

[Smitty-48]

Well here's the thang, when Jimmy Carter, liberal democrat, nuclear scientist, enacted the program to begin converting America's nuclear arsenal to neutron bombs back in the 70's, starting with the tacical weapons on the trace in Europe, the oppostion to it was, that it made nuclear war "more pallatable", because the neutron bomb was less destructive, that made nuclear war "more likely", so that's why you haven't got to the neutron bomb as of yet, the technology is proven, the weapons were successfully tested, live fire, not simulated, but the problem with the neutron bomb, is basically that it works, and in fact works too well, so instead of the better bombs, you're stuck with the run o' the mill hydrogen bombs, under the rubric that they are so terrible, they are preferable to better bombs therein.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well here's the thang, when Jimmy Carter, liberal democrat, nuclear scientist, enacted the program to begin converting America's nuclear arsenal to neutron bombs back in the 70's, starting with the tacical weapons on the trace in Europe, the oppostion to it was, that it made nuclear war "more pallatable", because the neutron bomb was less destructive, that made nuclear war "more likely", so that's why you haven't got to the neutron bomb as of yet, the technology is proven, the weapons were successfully tested, live fire, not simulated, but the problem with the neutron bomb, is basically that it works, and in fact works too well, so instead of the better bombs, you're stuck with the run o' the mill hydrogen bombs, under the rubric that they are so terrible, they are preferable to better bombs therein.

That sounds like good policy to me, actually..

Make a machine gun that only kills enemy soldiers, and you'll see the world paved with their bodies within a year.