Nukes are used as one way to prevent war - debunk of fantasy ideas - nukes can’t make a country uninhabitable - Soviet Union/ Russia NEVER had ability to win with a nuclear “first strike” nor did USA
- even the most ruthless dictator can never win with a nuclear “first strike”
This is something I often have to explain to the people I help who get scared of nuclear war, so I’m making it into a separate blog post so it is easy to refer to it.
Before I get into the details,
there is no way any country is going to start a nuclear war intentionally
we have done a huge amount of work over the decades to make sure that we can’t have one by accident.
We have also made sure any minor incident can be deconflicted quickly, ensuring there are lines of communication to clear up any misunderstandings quickly.
Nukes are used as one way to prevent war, as a deterrent to stop countries invading each other
There are many other ways to prevent war of course, The entire southern hemisphere is in a nuclear free zone. Most of the world doesn’t want nukes and many have have ratified the Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons
Most of the world is at peace.
We do get occasional minor incidents involving nuclear states, e.g. when Turkey (NATO member country) shot down a Russian fighter jet, or when Pakistan shot down an Indian fighter jet, and we see there how the de-escalation starts right away. Pakistan and India in particular have frequent minor border clashes but no use of nukes.
If you haven’t ‘seen my earlier debunks here is my main nukes as bodyguard debunk.
BLOG: How nuclear deterrents work - like a bodyguard - their job is to prevent fights
For my debunks for Ukraine
For Gaza Strip see:
BLOG: WW3 in Middle East? Bulls**t
Even if impossibly, all the nukes that Russia has were dropped on the USA alone, the fallout plumes would only cover a fraction of the total area of the USA and within a few days it would be possible to walk across the fallout plumes and within months they would be places people could live again, as happened with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
The cesium would persist in the grass for a long time and it would be necessary to monitor meat and milk for radioactivity for up to decades because animals concentrate the radioactivity, for a low level risk of radiation poisoning - but the crops would still be standing, most could still be eaten, emergency services could get to victims in the fallout plume areas in a couple of days after the attacks, people who are inside houses at the time and not contaminated with the dust, or even inside cars would be protected from a lot of the harm from the fallout, etc.
Remember there were numerous air burst tests before the partial test ban treaty and also we have the two examples of the use against cities that were soon re-populated after they were bombed.
Please click on the graphics to unblur them. All my graphics are kid friendly e.g. this first one is just a map of the USA with fallout plumes shown over it. Quora auto-blurs all the graphics in many war related posts
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
No way Russia does this.
If Russia launched ALL its nukes it could make the areas on orange radioactive for a couple fo days, some lingering for weeks, worst over in hours.
Focus of largest humanitarian operation ever
Anyone indoors will be much safer and can leave their house after 2 days.
There is no fallout outside the orange areas - fallout is just heavy dust.
It’s impossible for Russia to win a war by using nukes like this.
Using the all-out war simulator here: what would happen in a nuclear war?
For details including where I got this simulation from see:
In reality the worst of the radioactivity is gone after 2 days and even within hours properly equipped emergency teams could start rescue missions within the fallout plumes.
So there would be rescue missions on their way - and people in hazmat suits and in enclosed vehicles can do rescue missions right away. NATO soldiers would be trained in fighting in a nuclear battlefield - they would be early on the scene.
The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt after the nukes and many people live there. 1.2 million living in Hiroshima.
Here is Hiroshima showing the Atomic Bomb dome, which they preserve without reconstructing it as a memorial for the nukes..
Atomic Bomb Dome and Motoyaso River, Hiroshima, Northwest view
It is kept as a peace memorial
. Hiroshima Peace Memorial - Wikipedia
Cesium is radioactive for centuries but it is only able to stay radioactive so long because the level of radioactivity is very low. The main risk from cesium is eating meat and drinking milk from animals that graze on grass contaminated with cesium. Fallout is much misunderstood.
The numbers in this graphic show how much protection you get from fallout inside a building, e.g. 80 = 80-fold protection
If you can't get to a building before the fallout, if you are in some area with no buildings nearby then in your car or even in a ditch and cover yourself is better than nothing. It is better to get into a car or into a shed before the fallout starts than to try to rush through fallout dust to a building some miles away.
Because the fallout rapidly gets less radioactive within minutes to hours
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Fallout is VERY hazardous when it reaches the ground at 15 minutes but RAPIDLY gets much less dangerous Okay for trained rescuers - or soldiers - in enclosed vehicles and HazMat suits after a few hours Okay for unprotected civilians after 2 days if they need to leave their shelter See details here . Fallout from a Nuclear Detonation: Description and Management
It reaches the ground around 15 minutes after the explosion, (depending how far you are) so for a ten-fold reduction in the initial radioactivity when it reaches the ground, multiply that by 7 and you get 1 hour and 45 minutes.
So if you are in a car you get half the radiation dose as long as you are in it and are protected from the dust, it may be better to wait there for the dust to stop falling, if e.g. it would take half an hour getting to the nearest house and you’d arrive there covered in dust that fell on you as you ran.
Most people even in the fallout zones would survive as nowadays many will be in houses. Those in cars would have some protection until they can get to better shelter. Not so many working out of doors so far from a house that they can't get back easily and not even in an enclosed tractor.
That's the main thing people don't know.
But if there was a significant risk we'd all know this as it would be on the news on the TV telling us what to do and experts explaining it.
More detailed version of that map
:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Hypothetical impossible scenario: Russia fires ALL its nukes at the USA
Russia won’t do this - BECAUSE NEITHER SIDE CAN WIN WITH A FIRST STRIKE
Nobody dies even in fallout plumes if they
1. can get inside before the dust falls
1. stay indoors for up to 2 days
2. evacuate to an uncontaminated area.
Cell phone towers have at least 8 hour backup batteries and work outside range of fireballs and explosions.
Many hospitals and doctors survive.
Rest of the world with over 7.5 billion people not affected and mount the world's largest humanitarian mission ever
NATO remains far stronger than Russia at the end of this scenario even if it doesn't use a single nuke.
Rescue missions within hours with hazmat suits and enclosed vehicles
No nuclear winter (out of date science)
No effect on crops outside the fallout plumes.
Inside the plumes, MOST of the fallout radioactivity is gone in a couple of days.
ONLY THE DEPLOYED NUKES ARE AVAILABLE TO USE - THE REST ARE LIKE SPARE LIGHT BULBS WITHOUT LIGHT SOCKET
S
Stockpiles nukes are like spare light bulbs
Only deployed nukes are ready to use
Analogy: if you have 5889 spare light bulbs but only 1,674 light sockets in your company buildings you can’t use the extra bulbs to increase light levels
Stockpile and retired nukes figures from here:
. Status of World Nuclear Forces - Federation of American Scientists
NEITHER THE USA NOR THE SOVIET UNION / RUSSIA HAS EVER HAD “FIRST STRIKE”CAPABILITY - THIS IS BASIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT NUKES WHICH MANY PEOPLE WHO MAKE UNINFORMED COMMENTS DON’T KNOW
This is very basic stuff and goes back to the cold war when both sides had far more nukes but still neither side had “first strike” capability, neither side could eliminate the nuclear capabilities of the other side..
Neither the US nor Russia has ever had first strike capability. The early nukes were just not accurate enough to target the other side’s hardened silos. They could only aim for very big targets like cities not small targets like an individual silo.
Even with modern nukes it requires a direct hit with a very large multi-megaton nuke to eliminate a single nuke in a hardened silo.
The Soviet Union had huge conventional superiority in Europe over European countries. With NATO and modern Russia it has swapped entirely the other way.
. First strike (nuclear strategy) - Wikipedia
When the first submarine launched nukes were developed in the 1970s it then became impossible for either side to ever have first strike capabilities.
. Submarine-launched ballistic missile - Wikipedia
The reason is that nuclear subs are so quiet that there is no chance of detecting them by the sound they make, radar can’t get through water, and sonar has too limited a range to detect a nuclear sub unless it is very close to the shore.
It is impossible for Russia to eliminate NATO's nukes or its conventional forces even if it used all its nukes. No matter how barbarian and ruthless theywere, this is a military impossibility If Russia wanted to do a first strike against the UK they would hit our nuclear submarine base HMNB Clyde on Gare loch But this wouldn't work because we always have one submarine at sea A nuclear sub in action is very quiet and can't gbe detected with sonar or radar It is IMPOSSIBLE for Russia to destroy NATO's ability to attack them. . HMNB Clyde
Similarly, Russia can’t “take out” the UK with a Satan 2. It is just bluff and bravado on Russia’s side. The Satan 2 (not Russia’s own name for it) doesn’t give Russia any new capabilities and is rather puzzling, it makes them less not more flexible.
ALMOST ENTIRE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE IS NUCLEAR FREE ZONE
Then, just about the entire southern hemisphere is a nuclear free zone and there are several in the northern hemisphere too, including Mongolia. It's not recognized as a nuclear free zone as that needs more than one country but it's a nuclear weapons free state
. United Nations Platform for Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones
This shows the world’s nuclear-weapon free areas
:
. Overview of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones
Also, in the hypothetical war between the USA and Russia, with the Russian nukes only targeting the USA, the other nuclear power states, China, Japan, India, Pakistan, Israel etc would not be involved in it and not affected.
In this highly abstract and theoretical scenario even NATO is not affected. NATO has a population of 949.06 million people.
. Members of the NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization
In this hypothetical scenario with only the USA affected it has a population of just short of 332 million.
. Population, total - United States
Of those, 185 million die.
The rest of the world has a population of over 7.84 billion.
Those 7.5+ billion people plus the first responders and doctors in the USA would be on the case within hours.
It would be the same situation if the nukes were spread over several NATO countries, you could expect the total effects to be the same if Russia used all its nukes, impossibly.
It would be the largest humanitarian mission the world has ever seen. But they wouldn't be just left to themselves - and there would be first responders on the scene immediately just as for a major flood, earthquake etc. Even from the USA from many of the nearly half the USA population that survived.
Many countries have also ratified or signed the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons
.
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
.
NO EMPS DON’T TRASH ELECTRONICS SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE AIR BURSTS WE’VE HAD
If you worry that EMPs would trash all consumer electronics, no that’s not true either. EMPS do not have that effect. We have had numerous air bursts, nuclear test, some dropped from planes, they did not cause noticeable EMPs.
First, to get a significant EMP the air burst would have to be detonated high in the atmosphere and anyone wanting to develop this capability to its max would need to test this out to find the optimum place for the explosion. The tests haven’t been done and because of the partial test ban treaty now can never be done.
But even then, based on the data we have so far, the effects would be far less than people have made it out to be.
An EMP might have caused the fuse to blow for one row of street lights in Hawaii, the evidence isn’t clear other street lights weren’t affected.
In attempts to test what it would do then some cars and trucks find their engine stops but is easily restarted, there is some damage to very few but only minor repairs.
The idea that it would be devastating goes back to a potboiler thriller, not a scientific study.
For details see my:
NOT AT RISK FROM NUCLEAR WINTER - AN OUT OF DATE IDEA THAT THE MODELERS CAN’T GET TO WORK
This is the idea that there would be so much soot in the air that plant life would die and the planet cool down to a permanent winter for many years without light.
Yes as with a big forest fire there would be a few days or weeks when it’s very dark,
Video . Brazil Fires: Sao Paulo Goes Dark as Smoke from Amazon Fires Blankets City
But plants don’t die of a few days of darkness.
In most places it will soon rain and then that washes away the soot and dirt.
The idea of nuclear winter is that the soot from the fires after a nuclear war would go high up in the atmosphere above the rainclouds. But this doesn’t work.
The evidence is pretty clear, a global winter is not possible from any number of nukes.
This was never about the mushroom clouds, those can't block out the sun, not big enough. The mushroom clouds also for the most part quickly fall out of the sky as fallout as they are full of heavy radioactive dust.
The nuclear winter claim is that soot from fires set up in cities would cause a nuclear winter. These wouldn’t start until much later long before the updrafts are over that raised the mushroom cloud into the sky.
So there are no unusual winds involved. Just the updrafts from the fires themselves. But we have vast wildfires every year and they don't cause these winter effects. Not even temporarily. The soot just isn’t able to get up above the level of the rain clouds.
Also after the Kuwait war (Gulf war) the retreating Iraqis set fire to the oil wells turning midday to night over much of the Middle East - but those big fires in Kuwait from burning oil wells didn't cause even the local area to cool down much either. The reason is the soot simply didn't go high enough in the atmosphere and soon washed out.
Sagan agreed he'd made a mistake after the Kuwaiti oil fires.
Some researchers still promote this idea. They do produce model runs that end with a nuclear winter effect - but to achieve this they have to start their model runs with vast amounts of soot already high in the stratosphere.
They give no explanation of how the soot gets up there.
Others try modelling the fires and they just never can get so much soot up so high no matter what they try.
So there are these two separate teams of modelers and they have written papers answering each other. The first team thinks of new ways the smoke could get up into the atmosphere. The second team looks at these ideas, tries to implement in their models and says “nope that didn’t work either”.
So far they have found no way to get anything like the necessary amount of soot into the stratosphere.
The ones with the models that start with soot in the stratosphere already continue to remain optimistic (or pessimistic depending how you think about it) that somehow they will think of a scenario that will get the soot up there, but it’s not very convincing after so many tries with no success.
I talk about this here.
Even if all the nukes in the world were used we still wouldn't have a nuclear winter because they just produce fires in cities similar to wildfires, or the Dresden bombing fires, and the soot doesn't go up high enough.
To put this in context - all my life since I knew what nukes were I have been in favour of immediate denuclearization of the UK - I don’t see any benefit in our nukes and I see it as a way that we can start the process of eliminating nukes altogether. I talk about that here.
BLOG: Is Corbyn Right About The Bomb?- Op Ed
So when I -fact check nuclear winter it is NOT to support nations that want to keep nukes. It is to help people who panic about an impossible scenario.
Nukes are bad enough as they are and there is no need to motivate denuclearization by emphasizing a scenario that is out of date science - in the sense that though it still has proponents, they can’t get their scenario to work in the models no matter how they try to get the soot to get into the upper atmosphere even after hypothesizing increasingly improbable ways that the fires might work.
I don’t think there is any real risk of nuclear war because we have worked so hard to make them safe and eliminate mistakes and make sure that we have lines of communication to prevent escalation - but I think the world is still better off without them.
However I think we do need to find a way to give the weaker countries with militarily far superior neighbours like Russia, Pakistan, and North Korea confidence that their neighbours won’t invade them before we can expect them to give up the nuclear deterrent altogether.
It is an easier objective to reduce the numbers of nukes considerably.
SEE ALSO MY:
My answer to: How accurate are the nuclear war movies Threads and The Day After? in Questions for Doomsday Debunked
WW3 in Ukraine BULLS**T
Ukraine doesn’t have nukes.
Russia’s nukes are a deterrent
Russia will only use its nukes if the future of the Russian Federation is at stake (NOT for Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson or Zaporizhzhia).
Russia has removed almost all its defence against NATO and lost most of it in Ukraine
China and India would cut off ties with Russia and make it a rogue nation.
Boris Johnson:
- “He would immediately tender Russia's resignation from the club of civilized Nations."
- "And above all in his own country I think he would trigger an absolutely hysterical reaction".
"So I don't think that is a realistic possibility"
US intelligence NEVER sees preparations for nukes
Here I am using the world BULLS**T as a technical term from philosophy.
Bulls**t is a respectable academic term. A bulls**tter is someone who is only interested in sounding impressive and doesn’t care or know what is true and what is false. Bulls**t is also not a swear word in the UK. You can use it in a conversation with the King, a professor or an archbishop.
For details see:
Text on graphic: Q. Asked if Putin would use a tactical nuke.
Boris Johnson’s view: Not a realistic possibility of nukes Boris Johnson says that if Putin uses a nuke:
- “He would immediately tender Russia's resignation from the club of civilized Nations."
- "It would be a total disaster for his country."
- "Russia would be put into a kind of cryogenic economic freeze"
- "There's a lot of of willingness to give Putin the benefit of the doubt. That will go the minute he does anything like that [if he uses a nuke]."
- "And above all in his own country I think he would trigger an absolutely hysterical reaction".
"So I don't think that is a realistic possibility [for Putin to use nukes]." Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of UK during first few months of Ukraine invasion Screenshot from: .Exclusive with Boris Johnson on the Ukraine conflict (4:51)
NOTHING NEW ABOUT BORDER CLASHES BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL - LEBANON WANTS AN IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE IN GAZA STRIP - DOES NOT WANT A FULL SCALE WAR WHICH IT WOULD QUICKLY LOSE AND HAS NO CAPABILITY TO ENGAGE IN A WORLD WAR, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, NOT EVEN IRAN CAN DO THAT OR WANTS TO - MOST OF LEBANON’S MISSILES CAN’T EVEN REACH THE FAR SIDE OF ISRAEL
This isn’t new. Lebanon is one of the many nations calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza Strip. It just does token attacks on Israel and Israel does token attacks back.
Israel often attacks Lebanon. It has fired missiles at Lebanon most days since Oct 7.
2023 Israel–Lebanon border clashes - Wikipedia (2023 Israel–Lebanon border clashes - Wikipedia)
Israel and lebanon have had border clashes going back many years and naturally increased during the conflict in Gaza.
US will not get involved in this, Israel can handle those attacks by itself. The US strikes are against militants who directly target US bases.
And there is no way Hezbollah can fight a world war with the USA it’s missiles just can’t get anywhere near it, not even to NATO countries like Turkey. It is just not interested in fighting Europe.
There is no possibility of any large war involving Lebanon. Remember Lebanon’s missiles can barely reach the far side of Israel. It can’t target Europe or the USA and has no interest in them either it is focused on Israel.
Israel often fires back to Lebanon.
And there is no way that Lebanon can fight a world war, or interested to. It wants an immediate ceasefire. And its weapons can barely reach the far side of Israrel from Lebanon.
And Israel is vastly superior, it could flatten Lebanon just as it did for Gaza Strip with need for a bit more protection for its bombers.
That is what scares Lebanon.
Most of Lebanon’s rockets have a range of 4 to 40 km, with a typical range of 20 km.
Most of its missiles can only reach the dark red area at the top of the map in this map (20 km) or the orange area (40 km) by the Israeli Defence Forc
e
. Range-of-Fire-from-Lebanon.aspx
QUOTE STARTS
Hezbollah operates several Katyusha models, which are typically distinguished by their range (4-40 km), warhead (10-20 kg, high explosive (HE) or submunitions), and launch weight (45-75kg).
The 122 mm 9M22 Grad-type is one of the more popular Katyusha variants today. It was originally fitted for the Soviet BM-21 MRL, and has a range of approximately 20 km while carrying 6 kg of HE or submunitions, both dispersing antipersonnel fragments. The rocket may be fired through tripod launchers or from truck-based MRLs, and is accurate within a 336 m x 160 m space.
Katyushas make up the majority of Hezbollah’s rocket force and were the party’s weapon of choice in the 2006 Lebanon War. According to a 2006 report, Hezbollah was estimated to hold between 7,000-8,000 107 mm and 122 mm Katyusha rockets; this number has since increased, but more recent estimates are unreliable.
It may have a few cruise missiles with a range of hundreds of kilometers.
. Arming Hezbollah: Syria's Alleged Scud Missile Transfer
It is no match for Israel. It can’t fight a war with the USA and is not even interested, its missiles are all focused on Israel
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: WW3 in Middle East - Nobody in the area has ICBMs or nukes except Israel. Russia and China do not support Hamas BULLS**T
BLOG: WW3 in Middle East? BULLS**T
