Limited Nuclear War Would Decimate Ozone Layer

Apart from the human devastation, a small-scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan would destroy much of the ozone layer, leaving the DNA of humans and other organisms at risk of damage from the Sun's rays, say researchers.

Michael Mills of the University of Colorado at Boulder, US, and colleagues used computer models to study how 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs would affect the atmosphere.

They say that their scenario – in which each country launches 50 devices of 15 kilotons – is realistic, given the countries' nuclear arsenals.

"The figure of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs compares pretty accurately to the approximately 110 warheads that both states reportedly possess between them," agrees Wyn Bowen, professor of non-proliferation and international security in the War Studies Group at King's College, UK.

Mills and colleagues found that a regional nuclear war in South Asia would deplete up to 40% of the ozone layer in the mid latitudes and up to 70% in the high northern latitudes.

"The models show this magnitude of ozone loss would persist for five years, and we would see substantial losses continuing for at least another five years," says Mills.

The effect is far greater than was calculated in the 1980s in a study that modelled the effect of global nuclear war. Mills says old models did not take into account the impact of columns of soot that would rise up to 80 kilometres into the atmosphere.

Up to 5 million metric tons of soot would be spewed out by fires on the ground, says the team. Once in the upper stratosphere, it would absorb energy from the sun, heating the surrounding gases and catalysing the breakdown

Short version:
One kid said that was horrible, it would kill everyone.
Dad: 1. Not if you do it right, and that’s where the modeling comes in. 2. Carl Sagan’s nuclear winter scenarios of the 1970s were overblown, and even he admits not everyone would die in a worse case scenario. 3. Another reason to model.
Other kid: Nukes are destructive, and should be destroyed.
Dad: then put them to good use saving the planet, since you think it needs it.
One of the kids: what if global warming is based on the sun?
Dad: Aricebo effect.
Other kid: what if the world actually starts cooling as a result?
Dad: go nuclear with the fuel, build up more power plants and keep everything warm. Use the same fuel in a positive way.
One of the kids: What if the global warming is solar based?
Dad: then you still need nuclear winter, or the aricebo from the dust clouds to cool us off.
Other kid: What if global warming is solar and that output decreases?
Dad: back to building power plants.

Did I mention: I wasn’t just an attendee, I was one of the finalists of the science fair. My project was more mundane: outwitting radar systems via materials and angles.

I grew up to do software modelling and data management system support. (And write science fiction on the side.)

The Tunguska Event in 1908 was the equivalent of 1000 simultaneous Hiroshima explosions and had a negligible effect on world climate.

The Krakatoa event in 1883 was estimated to have been the equivalent of 13,000 Hiroshima explosions. It lowered average global temperature by 1.2 degrees Celsius. Crop yields in the Northern Hemisphere were barely affected and in the Southern Hemisphere not at all.

What have these guys been smoking?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.