A Nuclear Holocaust Cannot End The Human Race
Aby August 1st, 2007
There is a popular myth is that a US vs Russia nuclear war would put an end to the existence of the human race or to an extreme, end living existence in the world itself. Such hypes are propagated mainly by anti-nuclear groups and Soviet strategists to alarm the masses or put an element of fear among their scientifically unaware enemies. If survival strategies are known and adequate protections are taken to limit casualties, a nuclear holocaust however destructive would yet be survivable.
A musical video pieced together by a YouTube user to simulate the outcome of a nuclear holocaust. (Please don’t click on the video if you are disturbed by brutal scenes)
It is beyond doubt that a full scale US vs Russia nuclear war would be destructive beyond comprehension to both these countries but the total elimination of either of these countries is far from possible. It would cause huge loss in terms of property and human lives on a massive scale, yet the total elimination human habitation is a far cry from reality. A lot of Americans however believe the exaggerated myths about the dangers of a nuclear holocaust which could supposedly ‘bring an end to human existence’. Ignorance about scientific facts and media myths by Hollywood movies (like Day the World Ended or On the Beach) are some of the important factors which contribute to such beliefs. It would be wiser and more sane to look into real facts before blindly believing fictitious myths.
Let us look at some scientific facts about a ‘nuclear holocaust’. If all the nuclear warheads possessed by US and the Soviets during the height of the Cold War were detonated, the average radiation dose per human being on this earth would be well below 10 REM (Roentgen Equivalent Man); as calculated using the data collected from the 500+ nuclear tests done by 9 countries till date. Such a low dose of radiation would cause cancer in less than 2% of the victims exposed to it and the chances of offspring being genetically mutated is extremely small, according to medical findings after the Chernobyl disaster.
Most of the devastating effects of a nuclear explosion would be in the first 72 hours of the blast in the form of high level radiation doses (300+ REM), firestorms which can ignite flammable materials on its way and also the high energy shock waves (overpressure) which can collapse building structures. However the shock waves would cease almost immediately after the blast, the firestorms would subside a few hours later and the radioactive remains would decay out in about 3-10 days depending on the weather. People protected in underground or overground shelters with thick walls and adequate provisions would face little of the shock waves, radiation or fire storms. In a few months, the survivors of a nuclear holocaust will live on, just like they did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A comprehensive and scientific analysis of a real nuclear war scenario has been done by the Nobel Laureate Physicist Eugene P. Wigner. which you can check out using the links provided below.
One popular claim that the U.S. and the Soviet Union have the power to kill the world’s population several times over is based on misleading calculations. One such calculation is to multiply the deaths produced per kiloton exploded over Hiroshima or Nagasaki by an estimate of the number of kilotons in either side’s arsenal. The assumption is that somehow the world’s population could be gathered into circular crowds, each a few miles in diameter with a population density equal to busy downtown Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and then a nuclear warhead would be exploded over the centre of each crowd. The fear mongers exploit the ignorance of people to incite panic and fear among them and this is one such case.
In a real world scenario it would be virtually impossible to assemble equally dense crowds in flat expanses of the world, so that nuclear bombs can be detonated in the centre of the crowd. Furthermore, the casualties of a nuclear war would exponentially decrease with every additional warhead deployed. For example the first 100 warhead dropped on 25 most populous US cities would kill up to 33% of the US population. The next 100 warheads would be able to kill no more than a further 6% and so on, decreasing due to the diversity of land terrain and uneven population distribution. In short, eliminating the entire population of a large country or destroying all habitation is an unattainable feat considering the current and near future nuclear technologies.
The whole of US or Russian nuclear stockpile would be emptied to zero if only the inhabitants of the small Himalayan country of Nepal or the mountainous Colombia were targeted and hit. The terrain of high mountains would shield the effects of the nuclear blasts and vastly increase the amount of warheads required to destroy a given area. Unless weapons which could destabilise the earth’s core are developed, eliminating the whole world would take much more. Even if such weapons were to be developed in the far future - no country, not even US or Russia or China would be mad at such wanton self-annihilation.
More Information and References -
- Nuclear Weapons Myths and Facts - Eugene P. Wigner., Physicist and Nobel Laureate
- Nuclear Weapons and Radiation: Misc Facts - Nuclear Weapons Factoids (A nuclear information site by John Moore)
- Humanity , Myth Busters
- Comments(15)
Loading ...
That video is horribly scary. Makes me think we should not have nuclear weapons at all. They have no good except mass destruction.
Nuclears are always a mass destruction and horrible! I just dont like violence! Its scary!
The use of nuclear weapons is despicable but the posession of nuclear bombs in a political necessity. Nuclear bombs and the means to successfully deliver them makes for the cheapest and most effective insurance against becoming a victim of American imperialism.
I can never support nuclear bombs for any reason. There is always a risk they can be accidentally used and millions of innocents will die for it.
Effects of nuclear war is far more than more than radiation and firestorm death. Nuclear bombs can create severe ice age winter and destroy the land making it barren and useless for many years to come. The survivours will have genetic defects and mutations to worry about, human race will be altered if not destroyed.
Very informative. Despite considering myself logical and scientific, I admit I have fallen for this fear mongering, thank you for this enlightening article. Nevertheless, however, nuclear weapons are still utterly deplorable.
Nuclear warheads are not all powerful to create total destruction. They are terrible but it takes quite a few of them to destroy a city with a large area like New York or DC. The most devastating effect of nuclear war would be in cost of destruction of property and fallout in gazillions of dollars. Humans will live on…
Public officials scaring the general populace? That’s been going on and on for centuries, and is nothing new to face. The article is very precise and informative, so congratulations on a job well done. I strongly disagree that having nuclear weapons is a political necessity. It kills indiscriminately, and to suggest that it is a political necessity makes one wonder just what type of politics we are playing. I’m well aware of the realities outside the standard rhetoric, but it just seems too far out to suggest that we cannot survive politically without nuclear weapons. Did we not survive when nuclear weapons did not exist? Of course, I will concede that with their existence (and the past use by the United States), having them definitely beats not having them, regardless of the dangers to human life and property associated with it. It simply doesn’t make it right.
Hmmmm. I disagree on this one. If one US or Russian submarine fired all of its nuclear missles, the results would be devastating. The US Trident missiles are capable of having 12 individually targeted warheads of 100 kilotons each (Hiroshima was 13 kilotons), however the US only equips them with five. With 10-12 submarines active at one time, with around 200+ missiles with approximately 1200 warheads. The exchange between US and Russian nuclear subs would drastly alter the climate of the earth.
@ ericoak -
This much is pretty obvious, the results would be devastating but as explained above, would not be the end of the world nor the total destruction of either country.
Nothing revolutionary or news here, Russia and US both have MIRV capabilities since the 1970s. Russian RS-20 and RS-22 are capable of 6-10 MIRVed warheads of 550 kilotons each. The RSM-54 (Skiff) can be deployed with 10 warheads of 100 Kilotons each. Under the START II treaty neither US nor Russia are allowed to deploy more than 4 warheads per missile, which is expiring in 2009.
A simple calculation. Let us take 20000 warheads, more than the entire US and Russia stockpile at an average of 2.5 megaton each. Each 2.5 MT would have a blast radius of 15 km which would give an area of 706 sq.km. each assuming the maximum. Let us take it to be 750, extra for your advantage. Now 750 X 20000 = 15000000 sq.km. The combined area for US and Russia is (9,826,630+17,075,200) = 26901830 sq.km. Now even if all the warheads managed to detonate and assuming all the warheads had the high yields of 2.5 MT each the total area destroyed would be 1.5 million sq. km.; about a million less than the combined area of both these countries. The actual yield is much lower as well as the actual warhead count and deployment capabilities.
Any proof, researched facts or any kind of evidence that such a thing could happen as you claim? Unless you come up with something of the sort, I think it would be wiser to trust the research findings of a Nobel laureate Physicist, particularly when the report is publicly available for anyone to examine or analyse.
Well the cities where most of the population and all of the infrastructure are would be completely crippled. Is Russia’s population spread evenly throughout the country? From the population maps I am looking at, more than half of Russia has 2 people/km. And less than 13 people/km make up most the rest. In the Western part of the US and Alaska the population density is quite small. These areas would resemble nothing of the current country.
So, a nuclear holocaust cannot end the human race?
Nice, let’s get started then!
But, wait…
Can it end a million of lifes?
Can it end just one life?
Is it not enough?
Where is the difference?
Cool, I’ll link to this once I get around to posting on the subject, not that it will raise any publicity. I agree: Even if you could do the circle thing, it would still take some 60,000+ Hiroshima-era bombs, or hundreds of the most advanced modern ones. Even more sad, yet raising the overall odds of survival, the top cities would probably take a lot of overkill.
do you think atom bombs are so terrible? the usa and russia are working on sub atomic weapons of incredable power that are capable of tearing the universe apart.will the madness ever end?
I believe that yes some humans will survive because they saw the nukes in time, and hid in their shelters. No it is not the end of the human race. But it disturbs me that a possibility like that does exist. The possibility of a Nuclear War / Holocaust does exist. :0