Summary of consequences:
>U.S.-Russian war producing 150 million tons of smoke
>2600 U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons on high-alert are launched (in 2 to 3 minutes) at targets in the U.S., Europe and Russia (and perhaps at other targets which are considered to have strategic value).
>Some fraction of the remaining 7600 deployed and operational U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads/weapons are also launched and detonated in retaliation for the initial attacks.
>Hundreds of large cities in the U.S., Europe and Russia are engulfed in massive firestorms which burn urban areas of tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles/kilometers.
>150 million tons of smoke from nuclear fires rises above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it quickly spreads around the world and forms a dense stratospheric cloud layer. The smoke will remain there for many years to block and absorb sunlight.
>The smoke blocks up to 70% of the sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere, and up to 35% of the sunlight is also blocked in the Southern Hemisphere.
>In the absence of warming sunlight, surface temperatures on Earth become as cold or colder than they were 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age
>There would be rapid cooling of more than 20°C over large areas of North America and of more than 30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions
Tfw it can actually happen.
Consequences of a US-Russia nuclear war
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere would cause minimum daily temperatures in the largest agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere to drop below freezing for 1 to 3 years. Nightly killing frosts would occur and prevent food from being grown.
>Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45% due to the prolonged cold.
>Growing seasons would be virtually eliminated for many years.
>Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also occur, allowing intense levels of dangerous UV light to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth.
>Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated and spread both locally and globally. The targeting of nuclear reactors would significantly increase fallout of long-lived isotopes.
>Gigantic ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would be released from the fires; enormous quantities of industrial chemicals would also enter the environment.
>It would be impossible for many living things to survive the extreme rapidity and degree of changes in temperature and precipitation, combined with drastic increases in UV light, massive radioactive fallout, and massive releases of toxins and industrial chemicals.
>Already stressed land and marine ecosystems would collapse.
>Unable to grow food, most humans would starve to death.
>A mass extinction event would occur, similar to what happened 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out following a large asteroid impact with Earth (70% of species became extinct, including all animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight).
>Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.
Veeky Forums, what do you think, will it really be so horrible?
Sounds groovy. There is a school of communism called Posadism that encourages nuclear hellfire as a means to destroy capitalism and bring about conditions necessary to build communism. kek
>There would be rapid cooling of more than 20°C over large areas of North America and of more than 30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions
Could this be used to combat global warming?
Also how accurate are ICBMs? If I live a couple hours from a military base could there be enough of a spread of nukes going for that base to hit me? Not that it matters since I'd die from stuff besides the initial explosion, just wondering.
If this does happen, we should nuke africa as well for no reason.
>Could this be used to combat global warming?
At that point, you would prefer global warming.
pretty sure some are still aimed at parts of africa from the cold war, as well as fear that South Africa still has nukes.
>getting Venus'd is better than small ice age
No.
This, but all the fallout and radiation would suck. How about just tossing some industrial chaff into the upper atmosphere, like the jet stream or something?
you can release aerosols into the atmosphere without resorting to nukes. It is a possible approach, but there's a million things that can go wrong, because protip: we dont understand the atmosphere and climate all that well.
however we do understand them well enough to know that just FUCKING STOPPING FOSSIL-FUEL CO2 OUTPUT would really help, but of course then the oil-industry jews cant make their shekels
en.wikipedia.org
it's really telling when the only way to deal with a PREVENTABLE catastrophe is to nuke the planet because of greed of a few individuals
when will you realise that the "russians" are just the latest in a long series of fake news pieces carefully curated to keep you quiet and unquestioning of the greater narrative?
the butthurt liberal media multinational conglomorates who construct the realities of their readers are very, very butthurt today
>send tanks
>post picture of toy tanks to disprove last step
Really rustles them neurons.
>le /pol/ russian cock sucker
you know where to go back
>>Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also occur, allowing intense levels of dangerous UV light to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth.
You could just generate more ozone.
There has to be a way to bring down the soot. To think we'd just not try and let it stay up there.
Also seems bogus the soot itself wouldn't block UV radiation.
>You could just generate more ozone.
With most of mankind industrial base in flames, and most governments either collapsing or trying to avoid mass starvation, I doubt it.
what if you had 1000 tesla ozone generators hooked up to niagara falls?
By the way, looking at the picture, it seems likely that you can actually survive at Antarctica.
You need a way to get that ozone into the upper atmosphere. O3 is a heavy gas, when produced at ground level it mostly stays at ground level where it's a fairly potent poison.
Yeah. And they want us to decrease our carbon emissions when they fucked up the planet themselves. It's the idiots who wanted to play with their destructive toys and then found out the nuclear fallout was irreversible. My only suggestion to fix this is to find the 12,382 bomb sites and introduce some type of lepton or proton to combine with the radioactive elements. It takes a lot of energy and "dust" to correct.
Tay Nash shey wa. It means basically "shame on you."
No man woman or child has the right to offend, only defend. Universal law states that you never fight unless to defend. Defending your ego is different than defending your honor. God doesn't agree with hurting someone else because they verbally offended you.
Don't piss off Putin.
Dubya-hat?