Updated Oct.
2009 version
Todo o mundo brada aos céus sobre as mudanças climáticas causadas pelo efeito estufa devido ao uso dos combustíveis fósseis e não se escuta uma voz a reclamar contra as consequências climáticas provocadas pelo uso e testes dos armamentos nucleares.)
Despite a
two-thirds reduction in global nuclear arsenals since 1986, new scientific
research makes it clear that the environmental consequences of nuclear war can
still end human history. A series of peer-reviewed studies,
performed at several U.S. universities, predict the detonation of even a tiny
fraction of the global nuclear arsenal within large urban centers will cause catastrophic
disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of the protective
stratospheric ozone layer. A nuclear war fought with several thousand
weapons would leave the Earth uninhabitable.
The studies
conclude that a “regional” nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, in
which 100 Hiroshima-size weapons were exploded in the cities of those nations,
could produce as many fatalities as World War II1 and would
significantly disrupt the global climate for at least a decade. Up to 5
million tons of smoke would quickly rise above cloud level and block about 10%
of the light from reaching surface of the Northern Hemisphere; the smoke would
remain in the stratosphere for ten years and impact average surface
temperatures for more than a decade. Following such a “regional” nuclear
conflict, average surface temperatures beneath the smoke layer would become
colder than they have been in the last 1000 years, significantly shortening
growing seasons and reducing average global precipitation.2
The
combined explosive power of 100 Hiroshima-size weapons represents less than 1%
of the explosive power contained within the currently deployed and operational
US-Russian nuclear arsenals. As of 2009, virtually all of the land-based
strategic nuclear forces of both the US and Russia remain on alert and ready to
launch with only a few minutes warning.3 The new research
predicts that immense firestorms, produced by a nuclear war fought with these
weapons, could loft 150 million tons of smoke into the stratosphere. There it
rapidly would block 70% of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Northern
Hemisphere and 35% of sunlight from reaching the Southern Hemisphere.4
Under such
conditions, it would only require a matter of days or weeks for daily minimum
temperatures to fall below freezing in the largest agricultural areas of the
Northern Hemisphere. Nightly killing freezes would continue to occur for a
period of between one to three years. Average surface temperatures would become
colder than those experienced 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice
Age, and the prolonged cold would cause average rainfall to decrease by up to
90%. Growing seasons would be completely eliminated for more than a decade and
cause most humans and large animal populations to die of starvation.5
Deadly
Climate Change from Nuclear War
Nuclear
detonations within urban and industrial areas would ignite immense mass fires
which would burn everything imaginable and create millions of tons of thick,
black smoke (soot). This soot would ultimately be lofted into the stratosphere.
There it would absorb and block sunlight from reaching the lower atmosphere
where greenhouse gases mainly reside, and thus act to reduce the natural
greenhouse effect.6
The
profound darkness and global cooling predicted to be result of this process
(along with massive amounts of radioactive fallout and pyrotoxins7,
and ozone depletion) was first described in 1983 as nuclear winter.8 Joint
research by Western and Soviet scientists led to the realization that the
climatic and environmental consequences of nuclear war, in combination with the
indirect effects of the collapse of society, could produce a nuclear winter
which would cause famine for billions of people far from the war zones.9
These
predictions led to extensive international research and peer review during the
mid-1980s. A large body of work which essentially supported the initial
findings of the 1983 studies was done by such groups as the Scientific
Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE),10 the World
Meteorological Organization,11 and the U.S. National Research
Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.12
The idea of
nuclear winter, published and supported by prominent scientists, generated
extensive public alarm and put political pressure on the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
to terminate a runaway nuclear arms race which, by 1986, had created a global
nuclear arsenal of more than 65,000 nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this was
anathema to the nuclear weapons establishment and thus nuclear winter created a
backlash among many powerful conservative groups, who undertook an extensive
media campaign to brand it as “bad science” and the scientists who discovered
it as “irresponsible.”
Critics
used various uncertainties in the studies and the first climate models (which
are relatively primitive by current standards) as a basis to denigrate and
reject the concept of nuclear winter. In 1986, the Council on Foreign Relations
published an article by scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR), who predicted drops in global cooling about half as large as
those first predicted by the 1983 studies and described this as a ‘nuclear
autumn.’
Subsequent
widespread criticism, in such publications as the Wall Street Journal and Time
Magazine, often used the term “nuclear autumn” to imply that no important
climatic change would result from nuclear war. In 1987, the National Review
called nuclear winter a “fraud.” In 2000, Discover Magazine published an
article which described nuclear winter as one of “The Twenty Greatest
Scientific Blunders in History.”13
Sadly
enough, for almost two decades this smear campaign limited serious discussion
and prevented further studies of nuclear winter – and such criticism will
continue.14 Yet the basic findings of the nuclear winter
research, that extreme climatic changes would result from nuclear war, were
never scientifically disproved and have been strengthened by the latest
studies.
Most
importantly, the new studies show that the original research actually underestimated by
an order of magnitude the amount of time the soot from nuclear
firestorms would remain above cloud level to block sunlight. This greatly
magnifies the impact such a global smoke layer would have on weather and
climate. The new studies clearly demonstrate that massive changes in climate
created via nuclear conflict, which are much less severe than “nuclear winter”,
would certainly have catastrophic and devastating impacts on human populations.
Regional
Nuclear Conflict Fought with Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons
To create
the new studies, U.S. researchers used the latest NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies climate model (Model 1E, also used for the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change), which is able to model the entire troposphere,
stratosphere, and mesosphere from the Earth’s surface up to 80 kilometers. They
simulated a small nuclear war between two countries in the sub-tropics in which
each nation attacked the other’s most densely populated urban centers with 50
Hiroshima-size (15 kiloton per weapon) low-yield nuclear bombs.15
This
scenario is possible because the smallest nuclear weapon states today (India
and Pakistan) are each believed to possess more than 50 of these low-yield
weapons, and an arsenal of this size (or larger) could be acquired by other
nations in the near future. Thirty-two countries that do not now have nuclear
weapons own sufficient fissionable nuclear materials to construct weapons, some
in a relatively short period of time.16
U.S.
warplanners aim their extensive nuclear arsenal at a mix of military targets
(nuclear forces, conventional forces, leadership and communication facilities,
and war-supporting industries)17 and it is assumed that Russian
warplanners do the same. However, it is commonly believed that small nuclear
powers with limited arsenals are most likely to aim their weapons at the
largest cities of their adversaries.
Toon et al.
calculated that a “regional” nuclear war which employed this targeting strategy
would create 1-5 million metric tons of soot from the burning cities.18 Robock
et al. used the NASA climate model to demonstrate that this soot would be
lofted to near the top of the stratosphere. 19 There the
smoke would remain, far above the area where weather occurs, for a decade –
about ten times longer than previously thought possible.
Further
modeling demonstrated that smoke particles from much larger nuclear conflicts
would also remain in the upper stratosphere for at least a decade,20 and
these findings provided the basis for rejecting the conclusion of the studies
which suggested that “nuclear autumn” instead of nuclear winter would follow a
full-scale war. Robock’s team also discovered that smoke in the sub-tropical
latitudes would undergo more solar heating than smoke studied in previous
nuclear winter scenarios, and this heating would insure that the smoke
particles would be lofted into the stratosphere year-round, regardless of the
month in which the war would occur.21
Figure
1: Map showing the
present principal area of Canadian wheat production and the reduction that
would result from small decreases in average surface temperature21
Although
there would not be enough sunlight blocked to create a “nuclear winter”, the
massive smoke emissions from the fires of a small “regional” nuclear war would
cause a global climate change unprecedented in human history. In a matter of
days, average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere would become colder than
any experienced during the last 1000 years.23 Growing seasons
in the middle latitudes would immediately be significantly shortened,
completely eliminating some crops that had insufficient time to reach maturity.
The studies
predict climatic consequences significantly greater and more persistent than
those which resulted from greatest volcanic eruption of the past 500 years, the
1815 Tambora eruption in Indonesia. Tambora lofted enormous amounts of volcanic
smoke particles into the stratosphere, which blocked and scattered enough
sunlight to cause the 1816 “Year Without Summer,” when killing frosts disrupted
agriculture every month of the summer in New England and widespread harvest
failure and famine occurred in Europe.
The
long-term global climate, as measured by the average surface temperature over
the planet, has not varied by more than 10º C from current values during the
entire climatic history of the Earth accessible to modern science.24 Ice
Ages represent periods of cooling of about 5º C below the global average which
extend for periods of thousands of years. Modern agriculture is finely tuned to
the present climate and would be severely impacted by rapid average temperature
declines of even a few degrees Celsius.
Computer
simulations of the regional nuclear conflict predict a global average surface
cooling of 1.25º C which would persist for three years, with the global average
temperature still 0.5º C below normal a decade after the war. One year after
the smoke injection there would be temperature drops of several degrees Celsius
within the grain-growing interior regions of Eurasia and North America. There
would be a corresponding shortening of growing seasons by up to 30 days and a
10% reduction in average global precipitation – which would have major impacts
on global food supplies.25
In
addition, the stratospheric smoke plumes from this regional conflict would
significantly disrupt the ozone layer. Studies by Mills, et al, predict ozone losses
of 25–45% at mid latitudes, and 50–70% at northern high latitudes persisting
for 5 years, with substantial losses continuing for 5 additional years.26 Such
levels of ozone loss have previously been forecast only for large nuclear
conflicts between the U.S. and the former U.S.S.R.27
Severe
ozone depletion would allow intense levels of ultraviolet light to reach the
Earth even with the stratospheric smoke layer in place. It is unknown what
effects such massive increases in UV would have upon terrestrial and marine
wildlife and ecosystems.
Unfortunately,
no studies using modern climate models have yet been done to assess ozone
depletion following larger nuclear conflicts fought with high-yield strategic
nuclear weapons. This is an area of critically important research which should
receive funding.
Nuclear War
Fought with High-Yield Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Using the
vastly more modern NASA climate model and new supercomputers, in 2007 Robock et
al. re-examined the climate response to a range of nuclear wars which detonated
moderate and large portions of the global nuclear arsenal in a combination of
urban, industrial, and military targets.28 The researchers
utilized data from previous studies to calculate that the “moderate” and
“large” nuclear conflicts would produce 50 and 150 million tons of smoke,29 which
they found would be lofted into the stratosphere, where it would impact surface
climate for more than a decade.30
The
“moderate” war simulation employed one third of the global nuclear arsenal
(1,667 megatons) – roughly equivalent to 60% of the explosive power contained
in the strategic nuclear weapons now kept at high-alert, launch-on-warning
status by the U.S. and Russia.31 The large war simulation used
one of the current published estimates for the total explosive power of the
entire global nuclear arsenal (approximately 5,000 megatons). However,
additional research in 2008 indicated that significantly lower total numbers of
weapons and megatonnage (explosive power) could cause the same levels of damage
and climate change previously predicted in the large war scenario.32
A large
nuclear war would produce enough smoke and soot to quickly block a very large
percentage of sunlight from reaching the surface of the entire Northern and
Southern Hemispheres. In the target areas, for the first few days after the
attack, sunlight would be reduced so much that at mid-day it would appear as
dark as a moonlit night before the war.33
Within a
matter of days, winds in the upper atmosphere would distribute this smoke and
soot around the Earth. The research predicts that 150 million tons of
stratospheric soot would block 70% of sunlight from reaching the surface of the
Northern Hemisphere and 35% of sunlight from reaching the lands of the Southern
Hemisphere.34 This smoke layer would remain the stratosphere
for ten years and its cooling effects would last for many years after it had
dissipated.
This
profound darkening of the sky would cause average global surface air
temperatures to rapidly cool by 7-8º C. Even a decade after the fires had gone
out, the Earth’s average surface temperatures would be cooled by 4º C. Both the
moderate and large nuclear wars would produce cooling equal to or greater than
that experienced 18,000 years ago during the coldest period of the last Ice Age35 –
and these temperature drops would occur abruptly in a matter of days or weeks,
rather than over centuries or millennia.
The most
recent research (December, 2008) predicts that a U.S.-Russian war which
detonated 4400 strategic nuclear weapons would put up to 180 million tons of
soot into the stratosphere.36 The resulting nuclear darkness
would cause rapid cooling of more than 20º C over large areas of North America
and of more than 30º C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions
(Figure 2). Daily minimum temperatures in the world’s agricultural heartlands
would plummet below freezing for one to three years.
Figure 2: Surface Air Temperature (degree C) changes
following a full-scale nuclear war averaged for June, July, and August of the
year following the conflict33
Under such
conditions, it would be impossible to grow food crops for more than a decade.
Long-term consequences of the large nuclear conflict are implied by Figure 3,
which depicts predicted decreases in the growing seasons during the third year
following the conflict.
Figure 3
: Changes in the
growing season (the time period with freeze-free days) in the third year
following a large nuclear war which caused 150 million tons of smoke to enter
the stratosphere34.
Agriculture
would be affected by not only the catastrophic drops in temperature, but also
by a dramatic decrease in sunlight (insolation) and precipitation. The cooling
of the Earth’s surface would weaken the global hydrological cycle and the
Northern Hemisphere summer monsoon circulations would collapse because the
temperature differences that drive them would not develop. Consequently, a 45%
reduction in average global precipitation is also predicted to occur.
Catastrophic climatic effects lasting for many years would occur in regions far
removed from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict.39
Nuclear War
Fought with U.S. and Russian High-Alert Strategic Nuclear Arsenals
The failure
of the U.S. and Russia to relax their Cold War nuclear confrontation has led
each nation to continue to operate under policies that assume the opposing side
could authorize a disabling nuclear attack against them. Both nations
consequently still maintain a large fraction of their strategic nuclear
arsenals on high-alert status (in 2009, more than 2000 warheads were on
high-alert),40 with virtually all their land-based
intercontinental ballistic missiles able to be launched within 30 seconds to 3
minutes, apparently operating under the policy of launch-on-warning.41 Thus
the “moderate” war simulated in the new research, which as noted contains a
destructive power equivalent to that contained by these high-alert arsenals,
can be ordered and executed by either of these nations in less time than it
takes to read this article.
The 2007
studies predicted that a “moderate” nuclear war which lofted 50 million
tons of soot into the stratosphere would cause average global surface air
temperatures to plummet 3.5-4º C, roughly half the drop predicted for a war
which created 150 million tons of stratospheric soot.42 Consider
that average global temperature declines of 3-4º C would prevent all grain
production in Canada, and a single night below freezing is sufficient to
destroy the entire Asian rice crop.43 Because of its rapid
onset, this level of climate change (although the duration would be much
briefer) would cause more stress to plant and animal life than would a severe
Ice Age.44
Climatic
Consequences of Nuclear Conflict Compared with Global Warming
Climatic
changes resulting from nuclear conflict would occur many thousands of times
faster – and thus would likely be far more catastrophic – than the climatic
changes predicted as a result of global warming.45 The rapidity
of the war-induced changes, appearing in a matter of days and weeks, would
allow human populations and the whole plant and animal kingdoms no time to
adapt.
It is worth
noting that the same methods and climate models used to predict global warming
were used in these studies to predict global cooling resulting from nuclear
war. These climate models have proved highly successful in describing the
cooling effects of volcanic clouds during extensive U.S. evaluations and in
international intercomparisons performed as part of the Fourth Assessment of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.46
Predicted
drops in average global temperatures caused by a range of nuclear conflicts are
contrasted with the effects of global warming during the last 1,000 years in
Figure 4.
Global
Warming versus Global Cooling from Nuclear War
Figure 4:
Northern Hemisphere average surface air temperatures anomalies during the last
1000 years contrasted with forecast temperature drops from a range of nuclear
conflicts. The anomalies are with respect to the 1902-1988 Northern Hemisphere
average surface air temperatures. 42
There are,
of course, other important considerations which must be made when estimating
the overall environmental and ecological impacts of nuclear war. These must
include the release of enormous amounts of radioactive fallout, pyrotoxins, and
toxic industrial chemicals into the ecosystems. A decade after the conflict,
when the smoke begins to clear, there will also be massive increases in the
amount of deadly ultraviolet light which will reach the surface of the Earth as
a result of ozone depletion. All these by-products of nuclear war must be taken
into account when comparing the danger of nuclear conflict to other potential
dangers now confronting humanity and life on Earth.
Conclusions
The
scientific studies summarized in this paper make it clear that the
environmental consequences of nuclear war threaten the continued survival of
the human species. Yet neither the U.S., nor Russia, nor any other nuclear
weapons state has ever officially evaluated what effects a war fought with their
weapons would have upon the Earth’s climate and ecosystems.
Therefore,
we cannot allow our political and military leaders to continue to ignore the
grave threats which their nuclear arsenals pose to the global environment and
human existence. The nuclear weapon states should be required to create
Environmental Impact Statements on the likely results of the detonation of
their arsenals in conflict.
The
environmental consequences of nuclear war must be included as primary
considerations in the ongoing debate about the abolition of nuclear
arsenals. Without this essential information, the debate loses the sense
of necessary urgency needed to bring about fundamental change in the nuclear
status quo.
The U.S.
and Russia must recognize the senselessness of continued planning for a nuclear
first-strike which, if launched, would make the whole world – including their
own country – uninhabitable. As a first step, they should end their
preparations for the pre-emptive use of their nuclear arsenals, stand-down their
high-alert strategic nuclear forces, and eliminate the standard operating
procedure of launch-on-warning.48
Nuclear
arms control agreements can no longer focus primarily on the dismantlement of
delivery systems and fail to include the verified dismantlement of nuclear
warheads. Future negotiations must consider all the potential effects of the
total number of nuclear weapons in the nuclear arsenals.49
It is
essential that all the nuclear weapon states be convinced of the need to honor
their commitments under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to act “in
good faith” to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. As long as they ignore this
commitment and maintain nuclear weaponry as the cornerstone of their military
forces, they confer validity to the false idea that nuclear weapons provide
security to those who possess them, and thus encourage non-nuclear weapon states
to follow in their footsteps.
The
unalterable conclusion is that a nuclear war cannot be won and must not be
fought. Nuclear weapons must be seen not only as instruments of mass murder,
but as instruments of global annihilation which put all humanity and
civilization under a common threat of destruction.
About the
Author:
Steven
Starr is a Senior Scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the
Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of
Missouri. He has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and
the STAR (Strategic Arms Reduction) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and
Technology. He can be contacted by email at nuclearstarr@gmail.com or through his website at www.nucleardarkness.org
References
- Owen B. Toon, Richard P. Turco, Alan Robock, Charles Bardeen,
Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, Atmospheric effects and societal
consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual
nuclear terrorism, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 7, 2007, p.
1973-2002.
- Alan Robock, Luke Oman, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, Owen B. Toon,
Charles Bardeen, and Richard P. Turco, Climatic consequences of regional
nuclear conflicts, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 7, 2007, p.
2003-2012.
- Starr, Steven, High-Alert Nuclear Weapons: the Forgotten Danger,
SGR Newsletter, Autumn, 2008, pp. 1 – 16.
- Alan Robock, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, Nuclear
winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals:
Still catastrophic consequences, Journal of Geophysical Research –
Atmospheres, Vol. 112, No. D13, 2007.
- Toon O, Robock A, Turco R, The Environmental Consequences of
Nuclear War, Physics Today, vol. 61, No. 12, 2008, pp. 37-42.
- Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitric oxide are
the main greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They allow short wavelength
solar radiation to reach the Earth but absorb radiation of longer
wavelength, which causes warming of the atmosphere. This process occurs
naturally and has kept the Earth’s temperature about 33 Celsius degrees
(59 Fahrenheit degrees) warmer than it would otherwise be. Current life on
Earth could not be sustained without the natural greenhouse effect.
- A term to designate toxic chemicals released during combustion,
particularly from plastics and industrial chemicals. In a nuclear war,
sources of such materials would be widespread; mass fires in urban and
industrial areas would release enormous amounts of pyrotoxins into the
air, land, and water.
- R. P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackermann, J. B. Pollack, and Carl
Sagan, Nuclear Winter: Global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions,
Science, Vol. 222, No. 4630, December 1983, pp. 1283-1292.
- Robock et al., Climatic consequences…, op.cit., p. 2003.
- Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Report
28, Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War: Vol. I, Physical and
Atmospheric Effects by A. Ptticok, T.P. Ackerman, P.J. Crutzen, M.C.
MacCracken, C.S. Shapiro & R.P. Turco (eds.), 1986, 2nd ed. 1989,
Wiley & Sons, New York; Vol. II, Ecological and Agricultural Effects
by M.A. Harwell and T.C. Hutchinson (eds.), 1985, 2nd ed. 1989, Wiley
& Sons, New York; PDF files available at www.icsu-scope.org.
- G.S. Golitsyn and N.A. Phillips, Possible Climatic Consequences of
a Major Nuclear War, World Meterological Organization, World Climate
Program Report WCP-142, Geneva, 1986.
- U.S. National Research Council, The Effects on the Atmosphere of a
Major Nuclear Exchange, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1985;
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=540&page=R1.
- Judith Newman, 20 of the Greatest Bunders in Science in the Last 20
Years, Discover Magazine, Vol. 27, No. 10, October 1, 2000;
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders.
- Russell Seitz (ed.), The ‘Nuclear Winter’ Meltdown. Photoshopping
the Apocalypse, Adamant: What’s the matter with science and the media?, December
20, 2006; http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/12/preherein_honor.html.
- Robock, et al., Climatic consequences…, op.cit., p. 2003.
- Toon et al., p. 1974.
- Bret Lortie, A Do-It-Yourself SIOP, The Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, July/August 2001, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 22-29.
- Toon et al., p. 1998.
- Robock et al., Climatic consequences…, op.cit., p. 2006.
- Robock et al., Nuclear winter revisited…, pp. 1-7 of 14.
- Ibid, p. 2004.
- Figure 4.8a on p. 302 of SCOPE Report 28, Vol. II, op.cit.
- Toon O, Robock A, Turco R, The Environmental Consequences of
Nuclear War, op. cit. p. 39.
- Carl Sagan and Richard Turco, A Path Where No Man Thought –
Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race, Random House, New York, 1990,
p. 22.
- Robock et al., Climatic consequences…, op.cit., p. 2005.
- Mills M, Toon O, Turco R, Kinnison D, Garcia R (2008). Massive
global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Apr 8, vol.
105(14), pp. 5307-12.
- John W. Birks, and Sherry L. Stevens, Possible Toxic Environments
Following a Nuclear War in: Fred Solomon and Robert Q. Marston (eds.), The
Medical Implications of Nuclear War, National Academy of Sciences, 1986,
pp. 160-161.
- There are approximately 23,300 nuclear weapons in the global
nuclear arsenal; 95% of these weapons belong to the U.S. and Russia. About
8,400 of these weapons are fully operational weapons ready for immediate
use. An additional 14,900 intact nuclear weapons are in a ‘reserve’ status,
with some of these scheduled for dismantlement. About 5,850 of the
operational weapons are high-yield strategic nuclear weapons with an
explosive power equal to or greater than 100,000 tons of high explosive;
there are at least several thousand strategic weapons also in reserve
status.
- Robock et al., Nuclear winter revisited…, op.cit., state that this
is the greatest area of uncertainty in their calculations, but note that
the amount of smoke affects the amplitude but not the timescale of the
climatic response, p. 12 of 14.
- Ibid., p. 3 of 14.
- As of 2009, a minimum of 2200 U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear
warheads remain on high-alert status. These include a very high percentage
of the warheads on U.S. and Russian land-based intercontinental ballistic
missiles and some fraction of the warheads on U.S. and Russian nuclear
submarines. The total yield of these U.S. and Russian high-alert strategic
nuclear forces is the range of 960 to 1020 MT, which is roughly equivalent
to 60% of the explosive power of the 1,667 MT model used in the
simulations.
- Toon O, Robock A, Turco R, The Environmental Consequences of
Nuclear War, Physics Today, vol. 61, No. 12, 2008, pp. 37-42.
- Personal correspondence with Alan Robock, Sept. 9, 2007.
- Personal correspondence with Luke Oman, Dec. 1, 2008.
- Robock et al., Nuclear winter revisited…, op.cit., p. 6 of
14.
- Toon O, Robock A, Turco R, The Environmental Consequences of
Nuclear War, op. cit. p.
38.
- Robock et al., Nuclear winter revisited…, op.cit., Figure 4.
- Ibid, Figure 10.
- Ibid, p. 6 of 14.
- Starr, Steven, High-Alert Nuclear Weapons: the Forgotten
Danger, op. cit., p. 1.
- Launch-on-warning (LOW) is the Cold War policy of launching a
retaliatory nuclear strike while the opponent’s missiles or warheads are
believed to be in flight, but before any detonation from the perceived
attack has occurred. Early Warning Systems (EWS), high-alert nuclear-armed
ballistic missiles, and nuclear command and control systems, all working
together, provide the U.S. and Russia the capability to launch a nuclear
retaliatory strike to a perceived nuclear attack before the attack arrives
and is confirmed by nuclear detonations. However, it is the policy of
Launch on Warning, converted into standard operating procedure, which
could lead to the decision to launch solely on the basis of electronic EWS
data. The combination of capability with policy has created what is
commonly referred to as launch-on-warning status.
- Robock, et al., Nuclear winter revisited…, op.cit., p. 7 of 14.
- Sagan and Turco, op.cit., p. 101.
- Sagan and Turco, op.cit., p. 26.
- This comparison is not meant to minimize the dangers of global
warming, which warrant grave concern, rather it is intended to make the
point that the potential environmental dangers posed by nuclear war should
receive at least as much attention as is that now being afforded to the
issue of global warming.
- Robock et al., Nuclear winter revisited…, op.cit., p. 11 of 14.
- Ibid, Figure 9, adapted with permission.
- Alan Phillips, Steven Starr, Change Launch on Warning Policy,
Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology Center for Arms Control, Energy
and Environmental Studies, 2006;
www.armscontrol.ru/pubs/en/change-low.pdf.
- Alan Robock, Owen B. Toon, Richard P. Turco, Luke Oman,
Georgiy L. Stenchikov, and Charles Bardeen, The continuing environmental
threat of nuclear weapons: Integrated policy responses needed, EOS
Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol. 88, No. 21, 2007,
pp. 228.
For further
detailed information on the environmental consequences of nuclear war, please
visit the website of the author at www.nucleardarkness.org
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.