The theme of nuclear arsenals may seem marginal in terms of relation to nature or ecology. If they are used, obviously the consequences will be so devastating that nature simply disappears in the region. But what about the rest of the world? If we deviate from the scenario of the complete destruction of mankind, which threatened decades ago with the nuclear arms of the Eastern and Western bloc countries, we find that the use of these weapons on a regional scale is far more realistic. Not only the US and the former Soviet Union have the proper arsenal.
The United States and Russia (with 6800 and 7000 nuclear-powered rockets) are on the top but there are also Great Britain (215), France (300), Pakistan (140), India (130), China (270) Probably also Israel (80) and North Korea (10). The chance that some of these nuclear powers will reach nuclear conflict will be larger than the Cold War due to the wider availability of these instruments. And if that happens? Adam Liska from Lincoln University in Nebraska brings answers. Why? "It is mainly that no one has ever thought about what could happen to the rest of the world after such a regional nuclear conflict."
For example, if "1300 square kilometers of built-up urban areas" (which is a fairly good option for a military retaliatory or preventive strike), would release about 5 million tonnes of black carbon dust into the stratosphere. At the site of the affected area radiation would be the most serious problem, but the surrounding regions, or rather the continents, would also get their share. "There would be no" blackest scenario "of the Cold War, that is to say the nuclear winter," said Liska. "But rather, something we might call a nuclear autumn."
As a result, for example, there would be a significant reduction in the total rainfall over the whole area. Depending on the specific conditions, rainfall will fall by 20-80%. Clearly, the "wiping out of the map" of the city on the extent of Prague would destroy agriculture from the borders of France to the end of Ukraine. "The collapse of collapse would be reflected in global farming and its production," says Liska. "These associated climatic effects would eventually kill a lot more people than the explosion and radiation itself. In total, we can talk about one billion dead lives just because of the unavailability of food. "
Nuclear autumn would also significantly affect the length of the agricultural season over the continent. "Its time would be reduced by 10 to 40 days for the next five years," adds Liska. How are similar considerations unrealistic? In order to erase 1300 square kilometers of built-up territory, hundreds of such bombs would be needed to hit Hiroshima, but progress did not stop there. "Of what it has in the arsenal of the US, Russia or China, only five pieces would be enough," says Liska. "For example, China has twenty five-megawatt nuclear weapons, and only one would be enough to launch the nuclear autumn."
"Of course, they are only theoretical conclusions," says Liska. "These professional debates have been going well for thirty years, and nobody really wants its conclusions to be practical." For example, the theory that "regional" nuclear sub-tropical explosions could make a substantial contribution to the global ozone layer. What is important is that a theoretical study of the consequences of local nuclear conflict helps to better understand the consequences. And it leads people to consider why they really prefer to avoid them. The consequences would have hit everyone.
Author: Radomír Dohnal
Source: Ekolist.cz
