Comments on: A Nuclear Holocaust Cannot End The Human Race

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:20:39 +0000

This was great to read. I too have a few concerns with some of the findings. Although I’m just an average citizen, I have heard many times about the effects of the so called “nuclear winter”. The residual effects of such an all out nuclear holocaust will certainly have an ongoing negative effect on all the living species of earth. Also, the fellow who had concerns about the environment or the effects of such an event on our weather. What are the prognostications on this? And lastly, the poisoning of the planet, most especially, the soils in which we cultivate so much of the world’s foods. Are there any thoughts on the devastation of plant life and all of the obvious snowballing negative effects that would befall the atmosphere of the planet if the two super nations were to spill all their nuclear arsenals?

By: Jenny

Jenny — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:20:04 +0000

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

By: james nastally

james nastally — Sat, 03 May 2008 19:22:54 +0000

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?

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:51:32 +0000

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.

By: Serb

Serb — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:56:56 +0000

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?

By: ericoak

ericoak — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:27:06 +0000

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.

By: Dmitri

Dmitri — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:54:46 +0000

@ ericoak -

"If one US or Russian submarine fired all of its nuclear missles, the results would be devastating."

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.

"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."

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.

With 10-12 submarines active at one time, with around 200+ missiles with approximately 1200 warheads.

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.

The exchange between US and Russian nuclear subs would drastly alter the climate of the earth.

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.

By: ericoak

ericoak — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:32:18 +0000

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.

By: Abhishek Kumar

Abhishek Kumar — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:11:50 +0000

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.

By: Galosh

Galosh — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:39:51 +0000

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…