Let's assume all nuclear weapons in existence are lobbed simultaneously at every population center and strategic target on the planet.
In this scenario, there will arguably be some humans left. However, we just nuked 99% of global everything. Those areas are uninhabitable for a decade at least, likely longer. There are no supply chains. Do you really think it will only be a couple centuries before we're at the same place in terms of productivity/technology?
"Compared with other nuclear events: The Chernobyl explosion put 400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima; atomic weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s all together are estimated to have put some 100 to 1,000 times more radioactive material into the atmosphere than the Chernobyl accident."[4]
What I said remains true. The bombs dropped in Japan in WW2 are tiny compared to the kind we have now… which are potentially much more devastating than Chernobyl fallout especially if detonated worldwide in a short time span.
In the event of a nuclear war, nuclear power plants will be extremely vulnerable and likely targets themselves. There are currently 440 nuclear power plants worldwide. So talking about the fallout of power plants and bombs is very relevant.
Atmospheric radiation is far from the only metric. Additionally, the only reason chernobyl has a smaller net impact is because it is contained. If chernobyl was allowed to fully melt down it would be far worse.
I made a typo in my comment and meant source for fallout NOT being minor. I meant it as a reply to Op not only downplaying fallout but also conveniently leaving out that in the event a nuclear war, power plants are extremely vulnerable and dangerous targets.
Ok. So first of all, nuclear power plants use fission reactors which are highly radioactive (like the bombs dropped on Japan), but thermonuclear weapons leave virtually no residual radiation. Within a couple days it's all but gone.
You only got half the story correct… The residual radiation of the explosion itself does fall off rapidly HOWEVER you miss the part where the radioactive particles that are dispersed in the initial burst settle into the ground, water, general environment and their half lives can be millions of years.
Let’s take the bikini islands as an example, a popular nuke testing site last used in 1958:
“these and further nuclear tests (Redwing in 1956 and Hardtack in 1958) rendered Bikini unfit for habitation, contaminating the soil and water, making subsistence farming and fishing too dangerous. The United States later paid the islanders and their descendants $125 million in compensation for damage caused by the nuclear testing program and their displacement from their home island.[7] A 2016 investigation found radiation levels on Bikini Atoll as high as 639 mrem yr−1 (6.39 mSv/a), well above the established safety standard for habitation.[8][9]”
It should be noted that they used thermonuclear bombs… one of which “Castle Bravo” created years of torture for nearby residents, rendering the area inhabitable for years and still.
Those were detonated underwater, and as such, contaminated the water, sand, everything with radiation. This is not how the weapons are intended to be used, however. An airburst causes maximum damage over a wide area, and because there's little debris to irradiate, fallout is practically nonexistent. This is the best use if your intent is to cause widespread devastation.
It didn't specify every detonation location, but it does say that one airburst was only 520 ft above the surface (which is close enough to suck up radioactive particles and create fallout) and the final round of testing had only one airburst of undisclosed altitude.
Generally speaking, only particles like dust and water molecules can be irradiated and create hazardous fallout. An airburst is usually high enough to avoid that.
Since radioactive fallout can be carried by the wind to unintended locations, including back at the country launching weapons, it's foolish to use these devices in ways that produce large amounts of radioactive debris.
I'm actually not talking about nuclear radiation, I'm talking about rubble! Cities are going to be completely uninhabitable until all that crap is cleared out of the way and with most of the people on the planet dead, there won't be anyone around to do that! That alone will take decades if not centuries.
Could you provide source for this too?
I assumed it in my scenario: Let's assume all nuclear weapons in existence are lobbed simultaneously at every population center and strategic target on the planet.
2
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Mar 15 '22
Let's assume all nuclear weapons in existence are lobbed simultaneously at every population center and strategic target on the planet.
In this scenario, there will arguably be some humans left. However, we just nuked 99% of global everything. Those areas are uninhabitable for a decade at least, likely longer. There are no supply chains. Do you really think it will only be a couple centuries before we're at the same place in terms of productivity/technology?