Nuclear Winter

[Zipper730]

Nuclear winter - Wikipedia

In 1952, a few weeks prior to the Ivy Mike (10.4 megaton) bomb test on Elugelab island, there were concerns that the aerosols lifted by the explosion might cool the Earth. Major Norair Lulejian, USAF, and astronomer Natarajan Visvanathan studied this possibility, reporting their findings in Effects of Superweapons Upon the Climate of the World, whose distribution was tightly controlled. This report is described in a 2013 report by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency as the initial study of the "nuclear winter" concept. It indicated no appreciable chance of explosion-induced climate change.[67]

The implications for civil defense of numerous surface bursts of high yield Hydrogen bomb explosions on Pacific Proving Ground islands such as those of Ivy Mike in 1952 and Castle Bravo (15 Mt) in 1954 were described in a 1957 report on The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, edited by Samuel Glasstone. A section in that book entitled "Nuclear Bombs and the Weather" states: "The dust raised in severe volcanic eruptions, such as that at Krakatoa in 1883, is known to cause a noticeable reduction in the sunlight reaching the earth … The amount of [soil or other surface] debris remaining in the atmosphere after the explosion of even the largest nuclear weapons is probably not more than about 1 percent or so of that raised by the Krakatoa eruption. Further, solar radiation records reveal that none of the nuclear explosions to date has resulted in any detectable change in the direct sunlight recorded on the ground."[68] The US Weather Bureau in 1956 regarded it as conceivable that a large enough nuclear war with megaton-range surface detonations could lift enough soil to cause a new ice age.[69]

I'm curious when they say "tightly controlled" in the first paragraph (1952) if this included the President or Secretary of Defense? It sounds ridiculous but there are security clearance levels higher than the President of the United States, as weird as that sounds...

As for the 1956-57 reports: Would this have reached the Secretary of Defense or President of the United States?

 

[tyrodtom]

What would make you think the President wouldn't have access to " tightly controlled" information ?
Saying something is " tightly controlled " really tells you nothing about how it was classified .

There's confidential, secret, then top secret, you'll only allowed to see information your cleared for, then another requirement is that you have the " need to know".
Just because you have a Top Secret clearance doesn't mean you can see all top secret and below information, in addition to the clearance you have to have to need the information to do whatever job you're assigned to do.
Then above Top Secret, there's Top Secret Cryto, which deals with codes, and just people who deal with codes have access to that.
There may be other clearances I know nothing about, because I didn't need to know of them.

I had a Top Secret clearance myself for about 2 years in the USAF, it took about 6 months to get it.
They did a national agency check, and the FBI came around and interviewed my old high school teachers, old employers, neighbors, but not anyone kin to me.
But after moving to a job that didn't require a TS clearance, my TS clearance wasn't renewed, and I was downgraded to a secret clearance

 

[Zipper730]

What would make you think the President wouldn't have access to "tightly controlled" information?

Well, there were security clearance levels that went above the President of the United States (crazy as that sounds), and people periodically hide information from superiors for all sorts of reasons. I'm not a totally distrusting, but, well, some people are self-serving dicks, who don't care about the greater good.

Saying something is " tightly controlled " really tells you nothing about how it was classified.

True enough, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, I didn't know there was Top Secret Crypto, but I know there's TS/SCI, and of course "Need to Know" which is self explanatory.

I had a Top Secret clearance myself for about 2 years in the USAF, it took about 6 months to get it. They did a national agency check, and the FBI came around and interviewed my old high school teachers, old employers, neighbors, but not anyone kin to me.

I'm guessing they didn't ask family because family usually side with each other.

 

[MIflyer]

We now know that the Nuclear Winter concerns that were raised back in the 1980's and that attracted so much concern from people such as Carl Sagan were in fact Soviet propaganda. They cooked the books in hope of weakening our nuclear weapons programs, the idea being advanced amounted to, "Why shoot back if it means the end of the world, anyway?"

As for classification of material, let's just say there are multiple levels of security classification that differ according to the type of material being protected. Some classifications "Do Not Exist." The Dept of Energy has its own classifications, and having a DoD security clearance does not convey the same degree of clearance at DoE.

 

[Zipper730]

We now know that the Nuclear Winter concerns that were raised back in the 1980's and that attracted so much concern from people such as Carl Sagan were in fact Soviet propaganda.

The data came from a program code that was used in 1983. I wouldn't be surprised if the data was exploited for all sorts of reasons.

1. Disinformation would be an obvious one
   • It would generate public opposition against nuclear weapons programs
   • While I'm not for censoring disinformation (from both a civil liberties and practicality standpoint -- it can be seen as a coverup): Disinformation should be countered quickly, or it'll spread. Saying "I'm not going to dignify that with a response", doesn't do it: Such failure to respond results in the whole matter being seen as evidence of guilt. Consider this: Many people still believe that Fort Detrick created HIV to kill off homosexuals, and African Americans.
2. People opposed to nuclear war would be another group: There are quite a number of people who would hop on the bandwagon, including...
   • Scientists: Many were not proponents of nuclear war, and had some reasons to be this way...
     • Nuclear weapons can cause an amazing amount of destruction very quickly (basically each bomb does the damage of a WWII air-raid) and, while air-bursts don't produce much persistent radiation; some warheads were to be detonated as ground-bursts, which would produce persistent radiation.
     • They likely saw the US military (in particular the USAF and USN) as being far too eager to use them.
     • If they were had become aware of studies made in the 1950's and 1960's (something that does happen periodically as, stuff is usually classified for a limited period of time and, for various reasons, people do sometimes disclose information): This would definitely add concern over the threat to the environment
     • During nuclear tests in the Pacific, there were cases where radiation scattered over large areas.
   • Environmentalists: They were quite concern with the state of environmental pollution, whether caused by business or government
     • Radioactive materials were known to cause birth defects, to cause cancer, and to be fatal to human beings
     • Most people don't realize that the bulk of harm caused by radiation were released in the uncontrolled fission reaction that also produced the fires and blast-wave: Since the bomb was detonated in an air-burst, there was little persistent radiation except from precip (black rain as it was called); that said: Ground bursts do cause persistent radiation release.

Among both scientists and environmentalists is an attitude among some that, if the cause is justified, one can exaggerate or lie for the greater good.

Some classifications "Do Not Exist."

Understood

 

[tyrodtom]

Most nuclear test were air burst, and then several below ground test ( well below ground level).
But how many, if any, test were done at ground level, or just slightly below ground, like you'd get if you were trying to destroy a below ground missile silo?

So how do we know how much dust could be lofted into the air from a real nuclear exchange, where a good proportion might be targeted at underground installations?

Sagan did admit to error in his assessment in how much world wide temperatures might drop from the Kuwait oil fires set after Desert Storm 1.
Not everyone who thinks nuclear war might be bad for humanity's future is a communists dupe.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The data came from a program code that was used in 1983. I wouldn't be surprised if the data was exploited for all sorts of reasons.


Among both scientists and environmentalists is an attitude among some that, if the cause is justified, one can exaggerate or lie for the greater good.

And politicians, and professional military...

 

[michael rauls]

The nuclear winter thing sounds quite plausible as large volcano eruptions that spewed debris into the atmosphere have resulted in a season of cooler than normal temperatures. I don't know that I buy that it would last years though.
I suppose that it is somewhat academic though as a large scale nuclear exchange would make for a really bad day nuclear winter or no nuclear winter.

 

[Zipper730]

I'm curious how much debris (non-radioactive from burning cities, and radiation from bomb detonation or ground-bursts where applicable) would be pumped up into the atmosphere and how much of an effect this would produce to our environment.

1. South East Asia as Proposed by LeMay
   • Vietnam
     • Kep airfield struck; additional fields stuck as need be
     • Petroleum, oil, and lubrication hammered
     • Mining of Haiphong
     • Raids executed on Hanoi and Haiphong at the minimum like done in Linebacker II, and at maximum as incendiary area raids turning each city into blowtorches
     • Raids executed on a few of the smaller cities
   • China
     • Cratering of airfields in China
     • Firebombing of cities in China
     • Attack on Lop Nor nuclear plant with conventional or nuclear ordinance
     • A total of 5-10 nuclear bombs expended
2. Korean War Scenario gone Nuclear
   • 30-50 cities in China, or China & North Korea were struck with nuclear bombs of the Mark 3-4 types: I'm not sure what targets would have been attacked as Ground Bursts or not
   • B-29's would deliver the payloads
3. 1949 Bombing Plans as Proposed by LeMay
   • 133 nuclear bombs to be delivered to cities, military targets, or industrial sites as LeMay would have dictated most likely
   • Firebombing to be executed when nuclear bombs were available.

Consider a few degrees of global temperature may have significant climate effects, at least from what I've been told. This should be on the science only, not into the political area.

Yes, I know this is morbid, but I'm simply curious if any of these scenarios would have rendered us extinct.

 

[GrauGeist]

Nothing man-made (so far) can equal volcanic eruptions, and it's been verified that major volcanic events can and have altered weather patterns for a year and up to several years.

A major volcanic eruption immediately thrusts thousands of metric tons of ash and pumice into the stratosphere, where it's dispersed globally by the jet stream. This in turn has spawned "mini ice ages" within human history.

Archaeologic evidence has shown that the Super Caldera eruptions have gone as far as to alter climate.

So a "Nuclear Winter" is not all that far fetched of a notion...

 

[mikewint]

On April 5, 1815, the Mount Tambora volcano began a four month eruption that ended when the volcano exploded in the largest volcanic explosion in recorded history, 10 times more powerful than Krakatoa. Thousands of people near the volcano were killed outright by the force of the explosion and the resulting pyroclastic cloud. While in the East Indian region 90,000 would soon die. During the eruption Mount Tambora ejected so much (100 cubic kilometers) ash and aerosols (sulfur dioxide) into the atmosphere that the sky darkened and the Sun was blocked from view for months. Larger particles fell to the ground nearby, covering towns with enough ash to collapse homes. Several feet of this ash covered the surface of the ocean and ships had to plow through it to get from place to place.

The smaller particles and aerosols ejected by the volcano reached into the stratosphere,where they were distributed around the world. Far more important than the particulate matter is the sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide gets converted into sulfuric acid, which then forms aerosols high up in the atmosphere that also serve to block incoming solar radiation for several years after the eruption. The resulting long term blockage of the sun's rays reaching the Earth dropped the average global temperature by three to six degrees Celsius.

In the eastern United States summer temperatures fell back below freezing, and communities from New England to Virginia experienced heavy snowfalls and crop-killing frost during June, July and August. Many of these Easterners moved further south and west to escape the cold. The influx of people triggered the western expansion of the US.

The crop failures caused grain prices to soar. Some poorer Americans were even reduced to eating hedgehogs and scrounging for wild turnips. In New England, 1816 was nicknamed "Eighteen-Hundred-and-Froze-to-Death". On July 4th of that year, for instance, the high temperature in Savannah, Georgia, was only 46° F. As far south as Pennsylvania, lakes, and rivers were frozen over during July and August.

In Europe winter snows refused to melt, and between April and September, some parts of the Continent were drenched by as many as many as 130 days of rain. Harvests perished in frost and drought or were washed away by flooding rains. Crop failures across Europe and China caused deadly famines and outbreaks of typhus and other diseases. Germans would call 1817 "The Year of the Beggar". In India, the disturbances gave rise to a virulent new strains of cholera and typhus that eventually killed millions.

Mary Shelley, her husband, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and poet Lord Byron were on vacation at Lake Geneva. While trapped indoors for days by constant rain and gloomy skies, Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, a horror novel set in an often stormy environment. Lord Byron wrote the poem Darkness, which begins, "I had a dream, which was not all a dream. The bright sun was extinguish'd." John Polidori was inspired to write The Vampyre, which later influenced Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Because the price of oats increased, it was more expensive for people to feed their horses so with expensive oats, the cost of travel increased. A German named Karl Drais invented a way to get around without a horse: the bicycle (Fred Flintstone style) was born.

Thomas Jefferson's Mount Vernon was an income producing farm. That year's extreme weather caused Jefferson's crops to fail for several years afterward, heavily contributing to the Jefferson's already-considerable debt. Jefferson never recovered financially, and he lived the rest of his life deeply in debt.

 

[Zipper730]

And politicians, and professional military...

Yeah, but politicians can go either way, and the military would be likely to under-rate such things.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Depends on what they are selling...
Never pass up an opportunity to exploit a crisis, even a theoretical one.

 

[MIflyer]

The last full-fledged Ice Age ended in 9600 BC. It seems that it ended due to a massive outpouring of energy from the Sun that all by itself wrecked civilizations as well as causing the melting of the ice sheets that covered most of the land.

The period of about 1300 -1800 is known as the Little Ice Age. We know from records of sunspots that Solar output was lower then. In contrast, the last half of the 20th Century was marked by more Solar activity than in the last 10,000 years. Around the year 2000 scientists observing the Sun noted that solar surface currents were lower than they ever have been since such observations began in the 1890's. The prediction was that circa 2020 Solar sunspots - and energy output - would drop off, and that has occurred.

 

[Barrett]

A late friend and colleague, retired VADM, specialized in Naval Nukes. He said he was a-mazed at what Ikenhower did not know about the subject, and apparently was not overly concerned about tracking the inventory. In context, that could help explain the 1960 campaign issue in which the Democrats (!) complained about a Nuke Gap, whether it existed or not. It's hardly as if We revealed Our Numbers or publicly discussed Their Numbers--the flail had to be taken on faith, which of course is a rare commodity in politics.

 

[MIflyer]

Hard to believe that JFK attacked the Republicans from the Right, complaining about them not doing enough to stop Communism both in terms of nuclear capabilities as well as in the Third World. But Ike's Admin was like a duck, serenely cruising on the surface while paddling like mad below; they knew things they were not saying out loud. Both JFK and RMN were dedicated cold warriors. The night before his election to President, JFK told some close friends, "If I were not running myself, tomorrow I would be voting for Nixon."

 

[Zipper730]

Depends on what they are selling... Never pass up an opportunity to exploit a crisis, even a theoretical one.

That's unfortunately, a sad fact.

The prediction was that circa 2020 Solar sunspots - and energy output - would drop off, and that has occurred.

Sunspots worry me a bit, as that can result in coronal mass ejections. There was one in 1859, the Carrington Event, which produced some interesting results. 1972 saw some amazingly bad activity (it was arguably as bad as the Carrington event, it's just that we were grazed instead of directly clobbered) that caused outages, in 1989 saw some outages in Canada, and July 23, 2012 saw us miss a massive CME.

A late friend and colleague, retired VADM, specialized in Naval Nukes. He said he was a-mazed at what Ikenhower did not know about the subject, and apparently was not overly concerned about tracking the inventory.

That's kind of amazing. I assume the USN & USAF probably did their best to keep track of the inventory?

In context, that could help explain the 1960 campaign issue in which the Democrats (!) complained about a Nuke Gap, whether it existed or not.

First there was the bomber gap, then the missile gap.

 

[GreenKnight121]

As for the findings of the report discussed in the first post, that report was considering the environmental effects of a SINGLE weapon - therefore it is not surprising that the conclusion was "no appreciable effects".

It is only when we get into the hundreds, and even thousands of warheads that the effects become "appreciable" and even "significant" - as noted in the final quoted sentence.

 

[RCAFson]

As for the findings of the report discussed in the first post, that report was considering the environmental effects of a SINGLE weapon - therefore it is not surprising that the conclusion was "no appreciable effects".

It is only when we get into the hundreds, and even thousands of warheads that the effects become "appreciable" and even "significant" - as noted in the final quoted sentence.

Yes, and then we have to consider the effects of hundreds or thousands of cities burning uncontrollably for days and the potential for massive forest fires as well.

 

[Zipper730]

As for the findings of the report discussed in the first post, that report was considering the environmental effects of a SINGLE weapon - therefore it is not surprising that the conclusion was "no appreciable effects".

Which report are we talking about? There were a few mentioned just in the opening post. Regardless, it seems to make sense that a couple of hundred nuclear weapons going off would have substantial effects on the environment.

Yes, and then we have to consider the effects of hundreds or thousands of cities burning uncontrollably for days

I figure it could be burning for weeks. From what I remember the fires in Hamburg were still burning all the way into August of 1943, from what I recall.

and the potential for massive forest fires as well.

If they were near enough to the blasts, yeah, that would produce considerable soot. I'm not sure which would do more, that or a city.

There's also two other factors I was thinking of, which I'm not sure were ever addressed

1. Low-Altitude/Ground-Bursts/Subterranian Detonations
   • If I recall, air-burst maximize blast and fire-damage to un-hardened structures: The fire damage would produce a lot of combustion that would proceed for quite a while
   • Ground bursts might not have as much blast and fire damage over the largest area, but blast damage might have a higher overpressure right where the bomb went off: It would produce a lot of persistent radiation
   • Subterranean Detonations: I would imagine it would scatter huge amounts of debris into the air, and much of it appears to be radioactive.
2. Nuclear Reactor Attacks: I could just imagine that would produce some spectacular fall out. I know to some extent you'd see quite a lot of fission, but the heat of that blast would just vaporize so much material and scatter it.