Nuclear winter

[Tom Mazanec]

Even limited, non-Superpower nuclear exchanges could cause climate disaster https://mashable.com/2017/08/09/north-k ... Pui8x.3iqU

[Trevor]

Few things I should point out for that, considering that Nuclear Winter does seem to be exaggerated.

The assumption they're making is that every single city and every single bomb would cause a massive firestorm everywhere and that all of it would end up deposited in the stratosphere. Firestorms are not automatic; certain conditions are necessary for a firestorm to occur. You need lots of dry wood, very high density, flat terrain, and clear weather. There's a big difference between modern cities and 1945 Hiroshima. Modern cities are made of concrete and steel, while Japanese buildings were primarily constructed of wood. Makes quite a difference.

My second point is that while Hiroshima did erupt into a firestorm, we often forget that Nagasaki did not, despite being a larger yield. It didn't have a sufficiently fuel density to cause one.

How much dust and smoke that enters the atmosphere and how severe the effects would be depends on many, many factors: yield of the warheads, number of warheads, where the warheads are detonated, detonation height, modernity of the city, the terrain on ground zero, the time of year the exchange takes place, and over what period of time the exchange occurs. That's a simplified version of the equation. None of them can be fully known and some of them can't even be estimated.

The idea that just a limited exchange would lead to a 10-year nuclear winter would kill billions of people, to me, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Even a total nuclear exchange wouldn't wipe out the planet, or wipe out the human race, or even destroy civilization. Nuclear weapons are very destructive, but they aren't infinitely destructive.

[John]

> The idea that just a limited exchange would lead to a 10-year
> nuclear winter would kill billions of people, to me, doesn't stand
> up to scrutiny. Even a total nuclear exchange wouldn't wipe out
> the planet, or wipe out the human race, or even destroy
> civilization. Nuclear weapons are very destructive, but they
> aren't infinitely destructive.

Trevor, the following is an exchange I had on Breitbart:

> One point Mr. Xenakis, is our "winning". There have been numerous
> books written about it and it was even, for a time, included on
> the Dept. of Homeland Security's website, about the EMP
> assault. It will literally only take one, not even well placed,
> but moderately placed, nuclear weapon to wipe out what is
> estimated to be 80-90% of our population.

> The science is hard, not like climate change, on what the effects
> will be. My thoughts on it were that once the Chinese felt that
> they were losing any future conventional conflict, they will
> detonate a 20 MT about 25 miles above the continent and it would
> wipe out every power grid and every electronic device. That would
> include every gasoline powered car made since 1982, some diesels
> vehicles from 93 onward, every jet, train, semi, cell phone, and
> watch. Look up the Carrington Event from 1863.

> In all of history no opponent ever let slip such a massive
> vulnerability, and not nation in history has had such an massive
> vulnerability. What I am saying is that we are already screwed,
> its just waiting for it to happen now.

> This is not my area of expertise, but every time I try to research
> this EMP issue, the wild claims get debunked.

> Some people claim that an EMP attack would immediately kill 90% of
> the population. Actually, an EMP attack would kill nobody. It
> would fry electronic circuits, but that's it, according to
> everything I've read.

> Some people claim that an EMP attack would kill 90% of the
> population within a year. The reasoning is that the entire
> electronic grid and all electronic devices, including cars and
> trucks, would be fried, and so 90% of the population would starve
> to death.

> This doesn't make any sense to me at all. The EMP attack would
> not damage existing food stocks, as I understand it. There would
> be looting and maurading gangs going around killing people, but
> that would only mean that the existing food stocks would last
> longer.

> It would take only a few days for Americans to find other ways to
> start to bring existing crops and food stocks to market.

> So I could believe that a lot of people would starve, perhaps even
> 40-50%. But 90%? I don't believe it, even over the period of a
> year.

> And that's under the assumption that ALL electronics would be
> fried. I've read elsewhere that it would fry only electronics
> that were currently operating. That means, according to that
> article, if your computer is turned off, then it won't be fried.

> Also, since the danger of an EMP attack has been known for
> decades, it's possible that many critical parts of the electric
> grid will be shielded.

> Here are a couple of articles that claim to debunk the 90% claims:

> ** No, North Korea Can't Kill 90 Percent of Americans

> -- Pyongyang isn't going to knock out the electrical grid and
> cause riots at the supermarket.

> -- https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... americans/

> ** What Is an EMP Bomb?

> -- https://lifehacker.com/what-is-an-emp-bomb-1820610036

> According to these and other articles, the whole 90% claim comes
> from a science fiction novel called "One Second After."

> John, I am sorry, I am not trying to argue with you and hope that
> this is as dispassionate as I am- just honing what I have found
> with someone else.

> When Mao said that, there were only two powers with the bomb; us
> and the USSR. I only said that as I felt it was indicative of what
> the Chinese Politburo's own thoughts are. They are willing to get
> their population killed. They are after all, under communist
> principles, only units of economic productivity. Not people.

> There are many cereals and wheat that will rot if not
> harvested. Corn dries up and really loses most of its nutritional
> benefit. As to asking the people in the city- how? They are in no
> better position to communicate and travel. We will be back to
> 15-20 miles a day of walking because even if there are enough
> vehicles to transport- which there won't-there won't be enough
> gas. The semi's and the trains are down.

> As to inventive ingenuity, I certainly hope that is the case and
> not "Every society is only three meals away from anarchy". Yemen
> had the benefit of the UN and lots of other charities. If the
> trains are down, and semi's- well, anyone more than 100 miles from
> a water port is a goner. Maybe I'm sensitive since I am in
> Denver-the largest metropolitan area in a 7 state region. But it
> is 17 miles to the edge of the eastern border. West, south and
> north aren't options because that is all city now.

> One thing, about the EMP's effects; I too have gotten a lot of
> crap info on it, discarded most. What seems accurate though is the
> effect on computer chips. They are in everything now, and are the
> Achilles heel. If you haven't looked up the Carrington Event, I
> would suggest it.

> As I said, I know nothing about farming, so I defer to your expert
> knowledge. All I have is a feeling that people would find a
> solution. When WW II began, General Motors turned around
> overnight and started producing tanks, something that many people
> might have thought would be impossible. Something similar would
> happen again, long before anywhere close to 90% of the population
> starved to death.

What do you think about the argument that 90% of the population would
die within a year?

[Trevor]

I've seen those and they operate on the belief that all the power grids, all electronics, all vehicles throughout the country will be completely destroyed. Having done some of my own research into this and witnessing some of the EMP tests, I don't see that happening.

One of the tests I witnessed was the effect of EMP on vehicles. They're not as vulnerable as science fiction assumes, although newer cars are more vulnerable than older ones. Even at 50kv/M, which is close to ground zero from a multi-megaton nuclear weapon (something North Korea or Iran aren't capable of), approximately 15% of vehicles were forced to a stop. Out of those vehicles, only a couple could not be started again. However, on a major expressway, this would still be enough to cause massive traffic jams and a lot of accidents.

Most active, unshielded electronics would indeed be fried, but those that are turned off would survive in most cases. I hope at least some power grids have had the foresight to add some shielding. It would depend on how far away we are from ground zero, but most of us would have to do without modern luxuries for a while.

Most of the people who would die in this scenario wouldn't be dying of starvation. We'd have enough vehicles and gasoline intact to feed everyone, even if it might have to be rationed. Those who would likely die are the elderly who are dependent on medication and procedures such as dialysis.

You wouldn't see the collapse of civilization or half the country starving, but that doesn't mean an EMP wouldn't cause massive amounts of damage.

[John]

What about multiple EMP attacks from China?

Also, what's the range of an EMP attack? I've been told that a single
EMP attack could wipe out the entire country.

[Trevor]

It's going to depend on the yield of the bomb. Multiple emp attacks will do more damage than a single one, but even then, we'd still be able to feed the population. Of course, that doesn't take into account that many bombs will also be dropped on cities, military bases, air fields, etc. that will destroy a large portion of our infrastructure.

Of course, everything they do to us, we're quite capable of doing to them as well.

[Higgenbotham]

By the way, I posted something about EMP strikes and farming
for Trevor in the Nuclear Winter thread.

http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 505#p39505

If you have any insight, feel free to contribute.

The last information I looked at on this topic was an interview with Joseph Tainter, Utah State University professor and author of The Collapse of Complex Societies, where he states in 2014 that an EMP attack would wipe out 2/3 of the US population in 3-4 months. As I recall, and I don't think he discusses this in the interview, the key question is whether an EMP attack would take out key transformers (in the power grid) that the US may no longer have the capability of manufacturing and therefore may take several months to replace (the inability of the US to manufacture and replace certain types of key transformers was stated to be a vulnerability several years ago but I haven't seen a statement to that effect recently). The link takes you directly to the spot where this is discussed.

https://youtu.be/6x16AqmzxS8?t=341

[Higgenbotham]

Q: Even if an EMP happened wouldn’t we be able to simply repair the grid and quickly restore power?

A: An EMP event would destroy the large electrical transformers needed for transmission and render them useless. US utility companies have few spare transformers in their inventory to replace those that become damaged. These massive transformers are no longer made in the United States and must be imported from overseas. Only a few foreign suppliers manufacture these transformers and it takes at least eighteen months to produce just one. With so few spare transformers, a widespread EMP event could cause blackouts literally lasting years.

http://deephaven.ca/emp-called-the-grea ... o-america/

Or in the case we are talking about, somebody targeting a few specific transformers that they know fall into this category.

From what I recall reading in 1991, there were many transformers that were replaced by the various crews that were involved in repairing damage from the ice storm but there was one transformer they didn't have the means to replace. From what I remember being told, it took a lot longer than 2 weeks to get it, but I copied the official record above. I remember being told RG&E lied and tried to whitewash what really happened but there is no corroborating documentation I can find in any forums. I believe is is accurate to say that the majority of the power was restored in 2 weeks.

The above was posted early in 2014. I posted a few years after that about the fact that in my estimation the biggest problem that will result from sporadic power outages, assuming the grid can be brought back up to some extent, will be pathogen contamination in water systems that lose pressure if the grid is not up around the clock.

[John]

I understand that large parts of Puerto Rico are still without power.

[Trevor]

I understand that large parts of Puerto Rico are still without power.

That's true, but while things are still rather miserable, you don't see 90% of the population dead. Not to mention their infrastructure was in ruins well before the hurricane.