Continuing CNRP

[Lynneth]

I just wanna point out to all the drama queens out there that there is currently no threat of nuclear winter. For once I actually decided to do some looking around so I would know how to rp during nuclear winter, but there would have to be thousands of nukes dropped on a huge number of major cities in order to cause a nuclear winter. Nuclear winter isn’t caused by just detonating a few bombs or even a few thousand bombs. The cause if the burning of large cities, and the smoke and debris being distributed into the sky.

Since there have been only a handful of nuclear detonations over cities the most damage we can expect right now is widespread nuclear fallout in central Europe. Right now the causes would be, after the initial loss of life at ground zero, heath problems caused by the radiated particles traveling though the sky and being deposited in other areas. Crops and food stocks will be unsafe to eat, famine will hit Europe.

I also maintain my position that North + South America, Central + Southern Africa, Australia and the majority of Asia wont feel any short term effects, The devistation is mainly contained in central Europe and eastern Europe. Most likely maximum fallout will reach as far as Moscow, but even at this point that’s somewhat unlikely.

Now remember I’m not an expert on nuclear weapons, fallout or nuclear winter, but these are the conclusions I’ve drawn from looking around, mostly on wikipedia.

Thoughts?

Fun fact: Burning, say, 20-30 major cities...That gives you several Megatons of smoke getting into the atmosphere. You don't need thousands of nukes, you need less than a hundred. Forest-fires, burning cities, that stuff produces metric megatons, literally.

That's more than enough to plunge great parts of the atmosphere into a nuclear winter, where temperatures may drop by 10 to 30 degrees Celsius (NOT Fahrenheit), depending on the exact location. Include here that some people may go nukehappy after this war and you've got yourself global winter.

[LeVentNoir]

I am still waiting for any reasonable evidence of 'nuclear winter' or global radiation poisoning. I think the first is highly dubious, and the second has little to no evidence for it.

And finally, I do not like the idea that people get to dictate RP for others, if we allow effects like this, why not doomsday devices?

Btw, how is having cities burning different to having large forest fires? Going on equal amounts of particulate matter released, I would say that more hectares of forest is burnt annually (globally) than the area you seem to have nukes. Add to this that you concentrated your attacks, and I truly begin to doubt wide spread radiological / climate effects.

Edited February 17, 2009 by LeVentNoir

[Justinian the Mighty]

You’re gonna need a lot more dust Tahsir. In most of those cases the dust and smoke are local. It would take city after city after city being nuked to jumpstart worldwide nuclear winter. At least that’s the conclusion I’ve come to.

[Lynneth]

You’re gonna need a lot more dust Tahsir. In most of those cases the dust and smoke are local. It would take city after city after city being nuked to jumpstart worldwide nuclear winter. At least that’s the conclusion I’ve come to.

I point you to the Krakatoa and its global effects.

This volcanic eruption in the southern hemisphere caused a global winter where temperatures dropped by 1.2 degrees celsius. Now burn a number of cities which will create thicker and more smoke - ever burned plastic? - than the Krakatoa could ever dream of.

[Uberstein]

I live in Southern California, the smoke from forest fires are huge, and cause bad things. It's like an annual event for us, "hmm, looks like someone threw a match into the brush again."

"Darn, and I just finished rebuilding my huge wooden house from last year's fire!"

[mykep]

the other side didnt even launch yet....People act like this is over....its not.

[LeVentNoir]

I point you to the Krakatoa and its global effects.

This volcanic eruption in the southern hemisphere caused a global winter where temperatures dropped by 1.2 degrees celsius. Now burn a number of cities which will create thicker and more smoke - ever burned plastic? - than the Krakatoa could ever dream of.

Thanks for citing an effect of about 200MT worth of power, ejecting 12 cubic kilometers of rock ash and pumice.

Its just a little bigger than what we have here.

[LeVentNoir]

I live in Southern California, the smoke from forest fires are huge, and cause bad things. It's like an annual event for us, "hmm, looks like someone threw a match into the brush again."

"Darn, and I just finished rebuilding my huge wooden house from last year's fire!"

Yes, I live in NZ, and the smoke from the aussie fires reached us, however, it lasted a single day. I don't dispute that the fires will have an effect, but global it will not be.

EDIT, sorry for the dp.

Edited February 17, 2009 by LeVentNoir

[Uberstein]

Yes, I live in NZ, and the smoke from the aussie fires reached us, however, it lasted a single day. I don't dispute that the fires will have an effect, but global it will not be.

That is because of wind, what happens when the smoke is everywhere?

Also, why do you take the stance of "they have no right to dictate my RP?" in context of a nuclear winter? Are you saying that if someone declares war on you, and RP's well, and kills your army, it has no effect? Because that is what I am seeing right now.

[Lynneth]

Thanks for citing an effect of about 200MT worth of power, ejecting 12 cubic kilometers of rock ash and pumice.

Its just a little bigger than what we have here.

What you forget, LVN, is that the explosion equalled 200 MT of TNT, but there are several crucial differences.

For one, it was not on the surface. You do know that nuclear explosions underground are weakened a lot? Had it been on the surface, the fireball would've exceeded that of the Tsar Bomba, easily.

Our explosions are spread around the globe, a number of cities and other locations being burned. The Krakatoa was in the middle of the ocean, with no other land for dozens of kilometers, and thus not a lot stuff to burn.

There also was no plastic or oil that could be burned.

Why are you forgetting all these crucial facts?

[mykep]

Fat boy was 21 kilotons. A CN nuke is 1 megaton, 5x the amount. Its estimated 100 or less nukes for global nuclear winter.

[Lynneth]

Fat boy was 21 kilotons. A CN nuke is 1 megaton, 5x the amount. Its estimated 100 or less nukes for global nuclear winter.

5*21 kilotons = 105 kilotons.

1 Megaton = 1,000 kilotons.

You've forgotten a ten.

[LeVentNoir]

That is because of wind, what happens when the smoke is everywhere?

Also, why do you take the stance of "they have no right to dictate my RP?" in context of a nuclear winter? Are you saying that if someone declares war on you, and RP's well, and kills your army, it has no effect? Because that is what I am seeing right now.

First of all, if the smoke was everywhere, the world would be on fire. Second, yes, if they invade / nuke me, I will rp that. I do not consent to have my RP influenced by the totally disconnected RP actions of other RPers on the other side of the world.

What you forget, LVN, is that the explosion equalled 200 MT of TNT, but there are several crucial differences.

Yes there is. First of all, a volcanic eruption is the forcing of liquid rock into the air, not the destruction of atomic nuclei by intense radioactive forces. This is the reason why your next points are irrelevant, but i'll just keep talking, you were the one who brought this comparison up.

For one, it was not on the surface. You do know that nuclear explosions underground are weakened a lot? Had it been on the surface, the fireball would've exceeded that of the Tsar Bomba, easily.

Yes they are weakened. However, you cited a volcano. A volcano who released twenty one cubic km of rock into the air.

Our explosions are spread around the globe, a number of cities and other locations being burned. The Krakatoa was in the middle of the ocean, with no other land for dozens of kilometers, and thus not a lot stuff to burn.

So you are saying that your nuclear exchange will release enough particle matter to fill a cube, roughly 2.75 km a side? Or roughly the volume of a small mountain.

There also was no plastic or oil that could be burned.

Of course there was not, on the other hand, nuclear explosions (especially airbursts, which is what I assume you used) never throw massive amounts of rock into the atomosphere.

Why are you forgetting all these crucial facts?

Because you are using a flawed comparison?

[Lynneth]

Yes there is. First of all, a volcanic eruption is the forcing of liquid rock into the air, not the destruction of atomic nuclei by intense radioactive forces. This is the reason why your next points are irrelevant, but i'll just keep talking, you were the one who brought this comparison up.

I used the comparison for the amount of ash/etc thrown into the air, not for the explosion itself.

Yes they are weakened. However, you cited a volcano. A volcano who released twenty one cubic km of rock into the air.

See above.

So you are saying that your nuclear exchange will release enough particle matter to fill a cube, roughly 2.75 km a side? Or roughly the volume of a small mountain.

The exchange itself will not release that particle matter.

However, the burning cities, forests, et cetera, those will likely release enough smoke.

Of course there was not, on the other hand, nuclear explosions (especially airbursts, which is what I assume you used) never throw massive amounts of rock into the atomosphere.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were airbursts, yet the cities were not only destroyed by the explosion itself, but also by raging fires. Such fires could easily spread, especially if half the country has been nuked and there's nobody to really do anything against it.

Because you are using a flawed comparison?

Or you are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say; See first part of the post.

[LeVentNoir]

So, you are saying that these nuclear detonations (and subsequent fires) will release 21 km³ of particle matter? Its possible.

It requires more than 21km³ of material to burn. so, assuming that this layer of material is spread evenly, constantly and solidly(the biggest joke, human settlements are far from solid) at a height of 4m (about the height of a suburban house) then you need about half a million ha of land. Considering that there have been numerous fire events where more land, with a higher density of flammable material has been burnt, (forests are taller, and contain more flammable material per unit volume), I would say that these fires are not going to have a global effect.

I am admitting europe is screwed, but it will not have global effects.

[mykep]

Nuclear Winter - Carl Sagan and his colleagues in their studies found that a war in which 100 megatons were exploded in low-yield airbursts over cities could ignite thousands of fires. The smoke from these fires would be enough to generate a Nuclear Winter, darkening and chilling the earth and reducing world food crops.

Done.

[MercyFallout]

I can assure you, over 100 MT will have been detonated before today is done.

[Arkantos]

I'm glad nobody detonated a Tsar Bomba lookalike.EDIT: yet.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Arkantos

[Tahsir]

Oh yeah...thousands of fires can't cover much...

Only ya know...a few hundred miles long smoke and ash trails that get blown around on the winds, and don't need to completely fill a volume to block sunlight. Actually if they got stuck in an atmopsheric level they could just act like a blanket. Same effect, no need to fill all that useless upper and lower volume.

I mean, its not like it could get out of hand with just a few fires right?

Edited February 19, 2009 by Tahsir Re

[KingEsus]

^This^ Come on guys finally not an Utopia

But i like my utopia

I'll RP some poor crops, higher cancer rates and helping to rebuild your sorry arse. Shame I missed out on the fun. I get net on wed.

But i am kind of down here in this cul-de-sac and didn't have part in this, so i guess i'm not too bad off.