How Devastating Would A Modern-Day Nuclear War be? (The US Government Believed That About 90% Of The World Population Would Die An Attack With Nuclear Weapons)
A nuclear war would be anticlimactic
Before the angry comments begin, I don’t mean anticlimactic in the sense of I hoped for more, or that I am attempting to downplay death and destruction. Rather in a sense of it being nowhere near the grand apocalypse what we’ve come to expect. I grew up in the 1980s and the prevailing opinion was that any nuclear war would be “the last war”. Humanity would be wiped out, all major cities would be struck, the Earth would be rendered uninhabitable, etc. This is so deeply entrenched in people’s understanding of the world, it’s never really questioned.
Also watch- COVID-19 returns in 2024! The video below will shock you because you will be among the first to find out the truth!
There’s the quote often attributed to Albert Einstein:
I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
There are, however, a handful of variables that make this outcome extremely unlikely:
- The grossly distorted public idea of how destructive a nuclear bomb actually is. I got angrily shot down in another answer on this topic a while back, with the commenter telling me “a single nuke could cause an Extinction Level Event”. Errr… no. A single nuclear warhead actually destroys an area of a few square miles and causes damage to maybe a few hundred square miles. They’re catastrophically destructive compared to conventional ordnance, but surprisingly local in a global sense. They don’t even come close to the destructive power of some erupting volcanos, and they’re a pin-prick in comparison to cosmic impacts from asteroids. A 300kt airburst strike over downtown New York would leave Central Park with only light damage; if you’re inside the green circle, you’re toast. The blue circle? probably toast. Outside of it, you’ve got an increasingly decent chance of surviving. While there would be millions with injuries and burns, about 85% of New Yorkers would survive a direct nuclear strike on the city.
- … Nukes are not giant planet-crackers. They never were. It’s a good job really, considering there have been thousands of nuclear explosions over the years in various tests. The combined yield of ALL of the world's deployable warheads is not actually as big as you’d think. And “deployable” is the operative word here, because…
- The Hollywood idea of a nuclear war is a sudden case of “the fur flying”. One missile goes, so they ALL go at once and the world is radioactive cinder an hour later. And as the US and Russia have thousands of warheads, that’s a lot of “stuff” in the air at one time, right? Except, that’s not remotely realistic. Having every available warhead loaded onto an ICBM or onto a bomber, and having them all primed and ready to go at a moment’s notice, just isn’t how it works. A lot of those thousands of nukes are in storage, and there aren’t necessarily the delivery mechanisms to get them all in the air at once anyway. And as the Ukrainian war has shown us just how badly corruption has undermined the Russian military, are we really that confident they could get all of their nuclear stockpiles stood up and launched in a matter of hours? Sure, both sides would get a decent amount of stuff in the air from submarines and mobile missile silos, but for a lot of the other stuff, they might not actually get them in the air at all, because…
- The idea that “cities would be first” is a popular trope, but makes no real sense. It’s an evocative image… the Bond villain style computer with a wireframe map of the world programmed with a variety of US cities to destroy. But doing this would be pointless. Strategically, the first thing you’d want to knock out is the other person’s ability to hit you. That means targeting their naval bases, airforce bases, known concentrations of military hardware, missile silos, storage depots, command and control centres, communications centres, air defence systems, etc. Your primary aim isn’t to eradicate the human race, it’s to render your opponent a non-threat. So a lot of the warheads (or the capabilities to launch them) would be destroyed before they even got in the air because they would be the targets in the first volley. Beyond cities that contain strategic military assets (and possibly seats of government), population centres would be left untouched because going after them would be a waste of your rapidly-decreasing ordnance.
- Finally, the most controversial one. Nuclear Winter. The general idea is that nukes cause fires, fires cause soot, and put enough soot in the atmosphere, and you block out the sun, reduce the temperature, and cause a collapse in ecology. The issue is, these models usually overemphasise the concurrent number of explosions, wrongly assume predominately urban strikes, overemphasise the amount of flammable material in a city, and assume perfect weather conditions to get the soot into the upper atmosphere. The science of Nuclear Winter is largely bunk, has been for decades, but no scientist wants to publicly correct the narrative because the fear of Nuclear Winter is actually one of the few pieces of propaganda that mutually benefits all sides. It overemphasises the consequences and therefore the risks of engaging in a nuclear war. It’s in everyone’s best interests to “play along”.
So what would it look like?
An engagement of a few hundred strikes, in tit-for-tat waves, over the space of a few days, targeting military installations. It would disproportionately affect Russia as the US missile defence system, while far from perfect, is more advanced and would be more successful at knocking some incoming missiles out. There would be frantic diplomatic work from neutral parties to try and de-escalate. When it fizzles out, there would be hundreds of thousands dead, predominately military personnel. Hundreds of separate wildfires in forests and grasslands would cause a slight, temporary decrease in global temperatures. The limited** fallout would kill thousands in the following days and many more of cancer (across the whole Northern Hemisphere) over a period of several years. Despite this, >99% of the World’s population would survive unscathed. In fact, most people around the world (particularly in the Southern Hemisphere) would spend the “nuclear war” going to work, going to school, and basically getting on with their lives.
However, there’d be a sudden crash to the global economy, international trade would be disrupted, there’d be painful shifts in geopolitical power, and the disruption, recessions and civil unrest would last for years. It’s not like the war would end and everything would go back to normal. The consequences would be painful.
Paradoxically, the fact that the global nuclear war didn’t wipe everyone out and the realisation that MAD was no longer a “thing”, would be catastrophic long-term. It would relegate nuclear weapons to viable battlefield assets, increase the likelihood of them being used in minor regional conflicts, and start a “new arms race” of countries that wouldn’t otherwise have considered having them.
** “Fallout” is predominately caused by ground impacts, through which thousands of tons of soil, dust and debris is ejected into the atmosphere and then falls back to earth as radioactive particles (hence “fallout”). But most nuclear strikes are detonated high in the air (although strikes to destroy bunkers and underground installations will be intentional ground impacts). Airbursts do more damage to surface buildings (and people) over a wider area. But beyond the initial burst of ionising radiation, the lasting effects of radiation is quite limited, as there’s not a lot of ejecta and therefore very little fallout.
I highly recommend this book! Here’s just a small glimpse of what you’ll find in The Lost SuperFoods:
The US Army’s Forgotten Food Miracle And 126 Superfoods That You Can Store Without Refrigeration for Years
The video below will shock you because you will be among the first to watching this secret!
Any war is terrible, horrible, bad. Let us not sugar coat it. We really don't know what a nuclear war would be like. We've been conditioned to believe wars are restrained. They are not. An all out nuclear war where nothing is held back. I don't want to say oh it won't be so bad. One bomb on a city, but how about 10. They say only military targets but the first thing we did was hit civilian targets in Japan. There is no such thing as a nice war where only 10% of the populatin dies. no one can predict the future. Lets not have a nuclear war to find out who is right or wrong. Humans must say NO to war.
ReplyDeleteEven Hiroshima and Nagisaki were considered to be military targets. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army -- which was responsible for the defense of what would have been the landing beaches if an invasion had bbeen necessary. Nagisaki was an important port. It was an alternate target that was chosen because of dense cloud cover at the the primary target of Kokura. Kokura had the biggest factory in western Japan for the production of aircraft, missiles and other weapons. It should be noted that Kyoto was on the initial list of possible targets but was taken off the list for cultural reasons.
DeleteMadge's analysis is of no use without a discussion of PDD 60 which directs the US to absorb a first strike: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-11/news/clinton-issues-new-guidelines-us-nuclear-weapons-doctrine ...and therefore seals the fate of US retaliation - there won't be one. Perhaps a bit more analysis before the story next time?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSorry, whatever you said it will be 10x worse then you can imagine. You didn't mention what the reaction of people left alive? Especially when they know they might die.
ReplyDeleteThere are better ways to cause calamity. 1) EMP bombs. Two or three placed over North America would wipe out almost all the electronics in the US. Everything that depends on computers would be toast. Think about what that means. Our electric grid would be history. Most of our population would be dead within a year. 2) Cyber attack. If the enemy took out our computers using an impervious virus we would end up with a civilization with no nervous system. Less damaging than an EMP attack, perhaps, but not too far behind. I'm sure there are any number of genius enemy hackers out there who could bring about such a disaster. They would be almost impossible to stop. We need to harden our grid and get our own genius hackers to find a way to prevent such an attack. Nuclear war, as most imagine it, is probably unlikely. I would pick cyber attack as most probable. Nuclear weapons are probably obsolete.
ReplyDeleteEMP attacks were debunked ages ago. But they remain as the prepper version of Y2K.
DeleteAs for killing us all by destroying our computers, that's nonsense. For centuries beyond count, people lived without computers. If every computer in the world disappeard tomorrow, there would be a few weeks of turmoil. There would be plenty of people who would be inconvenienced. Some would even die. But people would find a way to get by. Very few of us would give up the ghost just because we didn't have computers.
Kinzhal missiles also changed the battlefield. Proven to be unstoppable. Tit-for-tat might be end of US.
ReplyDeleteBut the aircraft which launch them are not hypersonic, and can be destroyed. Additionally, the actual range of the Kinzhal is less than 500km, or 300 miles. The range assumed by the missile includes the range of the launch aircraft, not the missile alone.
DeleteWhile much of this article makes great sense, what about the possibility of the power grid and network communications be knocked out for months on end? I suspect 90-95% of the US population is hardly prepared to live without electricity for months on end. That in itself would cause millions of deaths. And what happens to the dead? Water and air would continue to be polluted causing even more deaths. Nuclear war might just be the fuse that causes major destruction in other ways.
ReplyDeleteShe DID say there would be a collapse of the world economy that would cause a great deal of death and turmoil. Besides, we're about to experience all that WITHOUT a nuclear war. The world economy is literally built on debt. (Fiat currency is a debt instrument.) It is about to collapse. And when that happens, all the bad things you talk about are going to occur -- and more.
DeleteThis is a foolish and dangerous way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteThis is beyond foolish
Deleteoh, I think Madge is closer to the truth than these commenters here think. It’s a realistic analysis
ReplyDeletenot one tinged with alarmism. It would be bad, but not civilization-ending.
One is totally stupid to try and quantify what the results of an all out nuke attack would result in. The term mutual destruction is still the phrase that has prevented nuke weapons from raining down on the superpowers.
ReplyDeleteYeah -- but the people in Washyington, Moscow, and Beijing don't believe in MAD. And THEY are the ones who count. So there's no use lying to the rest of us.
DeleteNot mentioned is the probability of nuclear powerplant meltdown, 200 plus in U.S., which would result in much more contamination las in Fukishima and Cherbonol long term destruction of the environment. Uncontrolled powerplant radiation is civilization ending. EMP from say three bursts is enough, whether limited or in a general war.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting analysis. While cities may not be the primary targets, once the infrastructure is destroyed - military installations, military-industrial targets, something rather devastating begins to unfold: food shipments to the cities decreases and starvation sets in. Transportation (with EMP air bursts becomes non-existent) means no food arriving at city distribution centers - grocery stores, etc. People are unable to flee cities easily - no busses, no cars, no trucks, no trains: people will need to rely on their feet!
ReplyDeleteHow long can a person survive without food? How much water will be contaminated with radiation and so the survivors will have the long-term impacts of cancers - review what happened to the Japanese people exposed to radiation after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and then add in Fukushima's and Chernobyl effects. What the author appears to be condoning is that a nuclear war is winnable by one party or another.
Do I agree that people in some areas globally will survive? Definitely. Will there be incredible hardship trying to rebuild after such a conflict? Indubitably. Will the world's economic status devolve back to using carts and animals to till the soil and grow food? YES. I quote Einstein, when asked what the 4th World War would be fought with - STICKS AND STONES. If EMP air bursts are used over large areas of the globe (and they will be), the technological infrastructure will not recover for many, many decades.
Not decades but generations or quite possibly centuries. The first order of business will be simple survival where most will perish within months of starvation and the resultant chaos. From there itll be a slow descent until things stabilize through farming. How long that will take is anyones guess but it'll likely take longer than anyone expects because staying alive takes a lot of time and energy.
DeleteRussian air defense systems are a generation ahead of ours. Think SA-550. They would probably knock down 80% of our ballistic missiles. Russians have hypersonic missiles that can be launched from the sea, the land, or from the air. They range in several sizes, the largest capable of incinerating London. Our surface fleet would be eliminated in a few days as there is no known defense against these highly accurate missiles. And in case you think our woke military will be capable of launching a ground attack against a sophisticated opponent, forget it. We would not be able to even get men and materiel to Europe or Asia. They would be sunk or shot down well before they reached the theater of operations. As to Russia's military being degraded...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Keep reading those British tabloids, fool.
ReplyDeleteOh, I forgot to mention: the stone age Houthis have closed the Suez canal since December to US/UK/European/Israeli traffic. Think about the ramifications of this.
DeleteAnd, of course, you're only touching the surface. People who think the US military is able to "project power" are fools. (But many of those fools are in Washington.) As for the troops stationed overseas, when the US economy collapses, as is likely to happen in a matter of months, they will be hunted by the locals for sport. The locals MAY tolerate US troops because of the money they bring, but once the money goes, so will toleration. Decades of bitter scores are going to be paid off and it won't be pretty for American troops.
DeleteSo in conclusion stay away from military bases. Check!
ReplyDeleteI wuz wonderin'. . .What would be the effect of a 370 kiloton device detonated about 6000 feet under water, just off the east coast near the discharge of the Potomac river?
ReplyDeleteLook at the operaton crossroads baker test. This was a 20kt test 90 feet under water.
It lifted a tiny bit of water into the air and took a couple of 800ft long 45,000ton battleships with it. It produce a tsunami of a hundred feet or so.. .How high would th tsunami from a deep powerful burst be? How far inland would it go? Would it disable out ability to respond?
Would it hurt anyone other than military folk?
Just thot I'dd ask
Your example mentioned 1 bomb over NY city, now imagine 30…
ReplyDeleteI thought the plan was to blow up a nuke in space and knock out the computers and electrical grid. The next war is on infrastructure. Without food and electricity, nature does the killing.
ReplyDeleteEveryone thinks simplistically and conventionally. If and when it happens, nukes will be propositioned in shipping containers and trucks, and triggered without warning. They can be combined with prepositioned nuclear coastal mines to generate tsunamis to take out the densely populated coasts with a startlingly high percent of the us population. Think of all those COSCO containers you see on trains. So if you want to do a quick and decisive knockout blow, don’t even think of sub launched weapons. They are the best but they are retaliatory deterrents.
ReplyDeleteIf the entire US military capability is degraded 90% in an hour, it’s over.
Contrast this with, for example, Russia. They actually control their borders, and their military/government is far more serious than our petty, treacherous, totalitarian government. Russia is a really BIG place, with sparse and widely distributed population. Aside from vulnerabilities like Crimea/Sevastopol they are harder to target inherently, so American nukes will likely emphasize cities and production centers.
Our idiots in charge should tread cautiously, but they are arrogant and stupid. Their control would evaporate with just an infrastructure attack on the internet and the power grid, much less a decisive decapitation strike.
But what do I know, I’m just a deplorable hick in the middle of nowhere, clinging to my guns and my faith.
"I’m just a deplorable hick in the middle of nowhere, clinging to my guns and my faith." << God loves a person such as you, my patriot. I expect many, many thousands like you will survive and be available to rebuild our culture in a moral, Scripture-respecting, and a humble and rational manner.
Delete