Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
countervalue targets like missile silos and Hardened CnC centers are targeted by low air or ground bursts, Not only smoke, and soot but a lot of Local falloutLike most of the huge US and Russian nuclear warheads are aimed in a first strike at missile silos in wilderness or suburban military installations. There is not much to burn and after the first warhead hits ..the subsequent explosions would not release much additional smoke.
Nuclear exchange in Indo-Pak scenario is not going to be completely countervalue (cities etc) or counterforce(military targets) but a mix of both.But au contraire a regional exchange say between India and Pakistan where both the adversaries would target each others megacities ...would ignite huge urban firestorms. The smoke released per kilotonne of explosive yield would be 100 times greater than in the Cold War scenarios.
But incase of an airburst , (detonations against a countervalue targets are airbursts) , The residual radiation is minimised.
e.g. Hiroshima
please elaborate the last line .
............................................................
what if i tell you guys that a real nuclear exchange will be more similar to these tests as compared to these simulations which predict a ''nuclear winter'' as a result of even a regional nuclear war
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
yeah you may heard about these studies, one link i gave in my OP where they claim soot , dust , will be be blown up into the atmosphere and will cover up the earth causing a nuclear winter....
well most of these simulations and studies assume that every detonation will
and greatly exaggerate
- be a ground burst
- will produce firestorm
If we look into the facts , the fact is that countervalue targets (cities) are targetted by airbursts , the hieght of the detonation is set to maximise 5-10 PSi overpresure the Optimum hieght depends upon the yeild........
at that hieght the fireball doesn't touches the ground even and the ''Local fallout'' is negligble
what is local fallout?
Secondly , Volcanic eruptions e.g. the Tambora eruption (equivalent to 800 megatons) did not produce a nuclear winter,
which actually throw out billions of tons of ash and smoke at once.
and these studies want us to believe that even regional nuclear wars will cause a nuclear winter.. pfft
thirdly not every detonation causes firestorms The only nuclear detonation ever to produce a firestorm was the one over ( yeah airburst to maximise destruction and reduce fallout) Hiroshima, and the soot sucked into the air rained down immediately afterwards. Yet for a nuclear winter to take place, every single detonation would have to produce a firestorm, and the dust and ash and other particles would have to stay in the athmosphere for years. so Nuclear winter depends upon a string of assumption that are not found in reality
i can explain every point in detail, so feel free to ask anything
@RescueRanger @Abingdonboy @Donatello @jaibi @Slav Defence
As i explained earlier , please also read @hellfire 's postThe pair modelled the impact of 100 explosions in subtropical megacities.They modelled 15-kilotonne explosions, like the
Hiroshima bomb. This is also the size of the bombs now possessed by India and Pakistan, among others.
The immediate blast and radiation from the exchange of 100 small nuclear bombs killed between three million and 16 million people,depending on the targets. But the global effect of the resulting one-to-five million
tonnes of smoke was much worse. "It is very surprising how few weapons are needed to do so much damage," says Toon.
Banvanaxi said:Both of the above scenarios are way below the threshold of what might cause a nuclear winter.
Cheers
Well I told you what I read.....countervalue targets like missile silos and Hardened CnC centers are targeted by low air or ground bursts, Not only smoke, and soot but a lot of Local fallout
Nuclear exchange in Indo-Pak scenario is not going to be completely countervalue (cities etc) or counterforce(military targets) but a mix of both.
And as i explaned earlier, not every detonation result in firestorms
secondly
Volcanic eruptions e.g. the Tambora eruption (equivalent to 800 megatons) did not produce a nuclear winter,
which actually throw out billions of tons of ash and smoke at once.
No one live there where Tsar bomb was dropped. In operation Mike, the bomb was detonated on island. That island is still not in position to be lived on. What else do you want?
Maybe this didn't happen because they put less material in it.
The initial three-stage design was capable of yielding approximately 100 Mt, but it would have caused too much radioactive fallout. To limit fallout, the third stage and possibly the second stage had a leadtamper instead of auranium-238 fusion tamper (which greatly amplifies the reaction by fissioning uranium atoms with fast neutrons from the fusion reaction). This eliminatedfast fission by the fusion-stage neutrons, so that approximately 97% of the total energy resulted from fusion alone (as such, it was one of the "cleanest" nuclear bombs ever created, generating a very low amount of fallout relative to its yield). There was a strong incentive for this modification since most of the fallout from a test of the bomb would have ended up on populated Soviet territory.[7][8]
countervalue targets like missile silos and Hardened CnC centers are targeted by low air or ground bursts, Not only smoke, and soot but a lot of Local fallout
Nuclear exchange in Indo-Pak scenario is not going to be completely countervalue (cities etc) or counterforce(military targets) but a mix of both.
And as i explaned earlier, not every detonation result in firestorms
secondly
Volcanic eruptions e.g. the Tambora eruption (equivalent to 800 megatons) did not produce a nuclear winter,
which actually throw out billions of tons of ash and smoke at once.
EMP at ground level or low airburst is not so significant, electrons (ejected from the air by gamma rays) are stopped quickly in normal air for bursts below roughly 10 kilometres (6.2 mi), so they are not significantly deflected by the Earth's magnetic field.I think size of the country also a matter and before fallout and we must also considered about EMP .
USSR now Russia ,US China ,India are large countries.So even if there is nuclear strike.they can survive EMP effect.But in the case of NK,Pakistan ,Israel,UK ,there countries are small.We can except UK .because they are using SLBM detternce.But another countries like Pakistan,Israel etc I have some doubt . For example A MT range strike in Islamabad or Tel Aviv creates a massive EMP burst
completely destroy all the communication facilities.EMP give more problem to smaller countries
nuclear weapons are in essence are in direct conflict with the both Hindu and Islamic teachings.
And yet so many Pakistani and Indians blindly support their production and worse their use.
pathetic.
coming back to the topic.
Nuclear winter is a fact. Yes the severity of such winter is dependent on how much dust and debris is shot up in the atmosphere.
but it will be rather childish to ignore much worse impact of nuclear detonations and concentrate only on one of the outcomes aka nuclear winter.
Many of you live in the West and behave as childish armchair warriors by quoting few snippets of the western based books and analysis.
The reality is that Paksitani and Indian population lives all the way to the border areas.
Both of us deploy our troops in the few open areas available between villages, towns and cities.
And thus any use of weapons be they conventional against the opposing militaries will no doubt result in civilian deaths on BOTH sides,
But since most of you are geographically illiterate, you may not realize how horrible the war between pakistan and India is.
peace
please see this thread for detailed discussion on this topic
India and Pakistan will destroy their own people if they use nuclear bombs and missiles
Agreed nuclear war would at the best result in a temporary drop in temperatures and it might not lead to a nuclear winter.But then if the propagation of this myth makes it that much harder for nations to start nuclear wars then I am propagating it further.
The ways nuclear wars are ''supposed'' fought and planned to be fought , all the concievable nuclear exchanges i can think ofSo,by that you mean that nuclear winter is a myth?