Skip Navigation
Science @lemmy.ml
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ @lemmy.ml
• 98%

A study found that a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would kill more than 5 billion people – just from starvation

www.nature.com Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection - Nature Food

Calorie availability and extent of food shortages for each nation are estimated following regional or global nuclear war, including impacts on major crops, livestock and fishery production.

42
42 comments

  • This comes from a long line of shoddy "research" exaggerating potential effects of nuclear war. With MAD in place, like it was for the last 70 years, there's no need to make shit up, it'd be as bad as it can be. At first, they tried to convince people that NOx generated in fireball would strip atmosphere out of ozone; when proven wrong with experimental evidence (supersonic airliners generate some NOx; their output was big enough that it should have some effect on ozone layer according to their model, but it had none) they pivoted to "nuclear winter":

    Although never openly acknowledged by the multi-disciplinary team who authored the most popular 1980s TTAPS model, in 2011 the American Institute of Physics states that the TTAPS team (named for its participants, who had all previously worked on the phenomenon of dust storms on Mars, or in the area of asteroid impact events: Richard P. Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack and Carl Sagan) announcement of their results in 1983 "was with the explicit aim of promoting international arms control".[91] However, "the computer models were so simplified, and the data on smoke and other aerosols were still so poor, that the scientists could say nothing for certain".[91]

    When proven wrong again with empirical evidence of oil fires of 1991 Gulf War, they shut up for some time:

    When Operation Desert Storm began in January 1991, coinciding with the first few oil fires being lit, Dr. S. Fred Singer and Carl Sagan discussed the possible environmental effects of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan again argued that some of the effects of the smoke could be similar to the effects of a nuclear winter, with smoke lofting into the stratosphere, beginning around 48,000 feet (15,000 m) above sea level in Kuwait, resulting in global effects. He also argued that he believed the net effects would be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the "Year Without a Summer".

    The idea of oil well and oil reserve smoke pluming into the stratosphere serving as a main contributor to the soot of a nuclear winter was a central idea of the early climatology papers on the hypothesis; they were considered more of a possible contributor than smoke from cities, as the smoke from oil has a higher ratio of black soot, thus absorbing more sunlight.[93][101]

    In a 1992 follow-up, Peter Hobbs and others had observed no appreciable evidence for the nuclear winter team's predicted massive "self-lofting" effect and the oil-fire smoke clouds contained less soot than the nuclear winter modelling team had assumed.[118]

    The atmospheric scientist tasked with studying the atmospheric effect of the Kuwaiti fires by the National Science Foundation, Peter Hobbs, stated that the fires' modest impact suggested that "some numbers [used to support the Nuclear Winter hypothesis]... were probably a little overblown."[119]

    then came back again hoping that someone would not remember the former and believe them. Even one of authors (Owen B. Toon) is the same, they cite their old papers and use old wrong numbers. This is not somebody trying to figure out how reality works, this is somebody trying to sell you a story. That story tries to make them relevant, but they aren't anymore, and more importantly they're wrong

    This all is also before noticing that 70s era nuclear arsenal doesn't even exist anymore, so their predictions lack a plausible starting point in the first place. It's horseshit start to finish

    6

  • The living will envy the dead

    15

  • 5 billion humans is a lot of meat.

    2

    • irradiated meat though, you'd have to add a lot sriracha sauce

      1

  • Hey, at least in 10 years the earth will be mostly the same!

    4

  • I like my odds

    7

  • If only either of the government cared about the people.

    A megalomaniac using his population as cannon fodder Vs a military industrial complex that could care less if people die for its interest.

    3

    • it's notable how you "your side" is allowed to be a wide system of dispassionate material interests and power structures involved in seeking to overcome contradictions against its interests in callous yet rational competition; while the "other side" is a single cartoon comic book villain singlehandedly doing 'all the bad things' on an irrational whim for reasons of 'vanity and cruelty' I guess. And its people and their interests and opinions from the rural poor to the college liberal to the oligarch capitalist to the Prime Minister are only relevant to pity or otherwise also one-dimensionally criticize. I hope you analyze the ways in which you are conditioned toward orientalism and myopic essentializing that serves your own "side's" imperialism by not recognizing and erasing the realities of other nations as just as complex and multifaceted as yours.

      You're carrying a colonial outlook to distill such a huge and diverse country with a massive population of its 150 different ethnic/national people groups and 20+ autonomous republics and all its various economic interests and players and political trends and history as in Russia to an idealist child's comic book picture of one man's "megalomania". As the west not-so-coincidentally concocts this exact image for every country it tries to overthrow or attack, distilling them to 'one crazy irrational madman dictator who only knows force' and erasing the material existence and interests of the nation and its constituent classes and peoples and the history and context from which these things all arose as they exist. Which is very convenient then for "your side" to make it into whatever it wants.

      Do you know what the Duma's structure and role is, its party and factional makeup is and has been, what their members' stances has been on topics like Ukraine since 2014, and what actions Putin has taken in accordance or against what they've been pushing for? Do you think its existence is just for show? You'll be surprised on some points and maybe dig deeper. To really have true understanding of a country you'd have to also dig into the historical, social, political, and economic realities, trends, and topics in the country --- and the contradictions, struggles, and syntheses between them over the years; and go past just 2014 to root these trends in their relevant circumstances experiences, struggles, transition periods, etc. from which they all arrived in their present form, on both a structural and people level. Optimally bolstered by some culture studies and language.

      But learning about the RF's federal governmental structure, and the Duma, and then the differences between the statements and actions of the Duma vs the Russian President's statements and actions since 2014 is a starting point to start chipping away at this cartoon caricature notion you have, which is not rooted in reality. For any country on the planet. And you know this about your own country, but don't extend the same humanity and respect toward other countries. It's a very US American thing. Maybe if you don't have the language skills you can also machine translate some stuff that they say themselves in their statements and speeches and congresses rather than dubbed 8 second snippets followed by 10 minutes of punditry on CNN too. And that's just politics --- history and economy is important too. And never forget about the people on the ground. In who they actually are, not who you've decided they are, or your media has told you they are.

      7

  • Sad to see that study having gone through peer review in Nature. The type of nuclear weapons that are in the current arsenals aren't bringing up soot into the atmosphere. That's the propaganda from the 60s and 70s speaking.

    "Who are you to ... "

    Agree, so read the study and see that it isn't based on the actual arsenals.

    Also: "In the 1980s, there were investigations of nuclear winter impacts on global agricultural production"

    That's proven and quite famous russian propaganda. Including that in their study has me doubting their motivations.

    1

  • Not if enough of Russia get exploded first, also killed Putin don't require nuking them, nuking them would be a good idea tho

    -4

  • So, a population of 3 billion afterward? That's what our population was in 1960.

    A lot of people conflate "the end of our comfortable familiar civilization" with "the end of humanity as a species, woe, all shall perish."

    Even if this prediction is sound it's not the end of the world.

    -12
You've viewed 42 comments.