So, will there be life after a nuclear war? Documents, calculations, photos, and evidence

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
Book of the prophet Isaiah, 5:20-21

The question of extending the New START Treaty hangs in the air. A Europe losing its grip on reality is calling for preparations for war with Russia. The United States needs a new round of nuclear arms race. Why, when the existing potential is sufficient for mutual annihilation? A number of materials have recently appeared about the "reassessment" of the consequences of nuclear conflicts. So, is there life after nuclear war?

"Myths" about the consequences - or about the consequences without "myths"

There's a cliché, for example: "Contrary to popular belief, it [a nuclear war] will not lead to the destruction of all living things. Even humanity will most likely survive, although it will be thrown back in its development..."

According to the "optimists" ("The end of the world is averted. Why won't nuclear war destroy humanity?"), "they often cite scientific studies (though they don't name specific ones) that estimate that 1,15 billion people would die from the first nuclear strike alone. And everyone else would die from radiation contamination and a nuclear winter, followed by famine. This logical point of view has only one problem: it has no basis in reality."

Like, you can try (?!) – I think it's definitely not worth it! Wasn't it the same after the atomic bombings, when the New York Times in August 1945 ran headlines like "No Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruins," and a little later, "SURVEY RULES OUT NAGASAKI DANGERS: Radiation Levels from A-Bomb a Thousand Times Less Than Those from Radium Watches."

Screenshot from the website nytimes.com

What can be said about the discussions about “bias” in the fears and consequences regarding the use of nuclear weapons? weapons? The studies aren't named (?) – but there are tons of them. Only people who got a "C" in physics in school can talk about this.

Assessing the consequences of a nuclear bombing: some tools, literature and examples

Modern military science and civil defense institutions have sufficient tools to assess the real consequences of nuclear weapons. Many of these are classified as "Top Secret," but some are also publicly available.

For example, in the United States, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), responsible for countering the consequences of the use of weapons of mass destruction, has made significant efforts to develop models for calculating civilian casualties as a result of a nuclear explosion, including CATS-JACE for modeling the impact of radioactive fallout from a nuclear explosion, and EM-1 for calculating the effects of an explosion.

There is also a fundamental work (680 pages) on assessing the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons: Northop J., editor: Handbook of nuclear weapons effects, 1996. The old edition also has our translation: "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Revised Edition." - Moscow: Voenizdat, 1963. Quite detailed information can be found in the reference book by G. Demidenko et al. "Protection of National Economy Facilities from Weapons of Mass Destruction."

And finally, the Russian fundamental work – “Physics of Nuclear Explosion” in 5 volumes (2014–2025), a monograph prepared by a team of 12 Central Research Institutes of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, conducted jointly with institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia.

In a widely published study, William K. Bell and Cham E. Dallas (2007) conducted a detailed assessment of the consequences of a nuclear explosion with a typical yield of 550 kT (and 20 kT) for four of the largest US cities. The above-mentioned programs were used to assess the consequences.

The table below shows that in New York City, approximately 6,5 million people out of a total population of 18,198 million people at the time of assessment—2004—will be affected by various nuclear hazards.

Table from the work of William C Bell, Cham E Dallas https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17328796/ (in translation)

Also of interest is the graphical assessment of the damage zones from the light radiation of such an impact, shown in the diagram below.

Drawing by William C Bell, Cham E Dallas

The explosion will cause a total humanitarian catastrophe: there will be no one to provide aid. A humanitarian impact assessment for New York City estimates the loss of 51% of hospitals and 53% of medical personnel within a 20-mile radius of the epicenter. The same thing happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (!).

An interactive map, NukeMap, has also been developed by Alex Wellerstein, a historian of science at Stevens Institute of Technology who studies history nuclear weapons, allowing users to simulate the effect of a nuclear explosion of varying strength in different cities.

There are other particularly important estimates concerning climate impacts. According to the most recent, repeatedly confirmed estimates for 2022, prepared by an international team of scientists who have long been studying this topic (Lili Xia, Alan Robock, Isabelle Weindl, Kim Scherrer, Jonas Jägermeyr, Cheryl S. Harrison, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Charles G. Bardeen, Owen B. Toon, Ryan Heneghan), who have at their disposal the most powerful advanced computer models and the necessary computing power, in the event of a full-scale nuclear conflict between the US and Russia, more than 150 Tg (teragrams) or 150,000,000 tons of soot would be emitted into the atmosphere, leading to irreversible climate change and large-scale famine. They estimate that 5 billion of the Earth's 6,7 billion people at that time would die within two years. And this is not an isolated calculation. In view of the existing unfounded criticism of such modeling, we will devote a separate material to this topic.

The main damaging factors of nuclear weapons

Let us first try to provide brief numerical information (due to the difficulty of finding it in one place) about the main damaging factors of nuclear weapons depending on the distance from the center (ground zero) or the center of gravity and the power of the charges.
Nuclear weapons are usually divided into five groups according to their power:

1. Ultra-small - less than 1 kt
2. Small - 1-10 kt
3. Medium - 10-100 kt
4. Large (high power) - 100 kt - 1 Mt
5. Extra-large (extra-high power) – over 1 Mt.

A nuclear explosion is accompanied by the release of a huge amount of energy, which is spent on creating the main factors of destruction: a powerful shock wave (40-60%), light radiation (30-40%), penetrating radiation and electromagnetic pulse (5%), radioactive contamination of the area (10%).

The last three factors fundamentally distinguish nuclear weapons from conventional ones. Nuclear weapons are not a multiple of the FAB-9000. But the main thing is their enormous yield and destructive power, which staggers the imagination.

The maximum temperature reached during a nuclear explosion is several tens of millions of degrees, while the maximum temperature of a conventional explosive is only 5000° C. Under the influence of such temperatures, all substances in the reaction zone (explosion products and remains of the munition's casing) heat up and transform into gases, forming a fireball. Any living thing caught in the high-temperature zone simply evaporates. This effect has been known since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The "shadow" of a man after the atomic bombing of 1945.

Light pulse

In clear weather, the magnitude of the light pulse from a 1 Mt ground nuclear explosion will be: at a distance of 1 km - 400 cal/cm2 (16,736 kJ/m2), 3 km - 145 cal/cm2, 5 km - about 65 cal/cm2, 10 km - about 15 cal/cm2 (627,6 kJ/m2). [1 cal/cm² = 41,84 kJ/m².]

The following table, according to the reference book by G. Demidenko et al. “Protection of National Economy Facilities from Weapons of Mass Destruction” (1987), shows the values ​​of the light pulse depending on the distance to the center of the explosion and its power.

According to the work of A. Ivanov et al. "Nuclear Missile Weapons and Their Damaging Effects" (1971), burns to people caused by light pulses are usually divided into 4 degrees: first degree (2-4 cal/cm2) (83-167 kJ/m2) - reddening of the skin, second (4-7.5 cal/cm2) - formation of blisters, third (6-12 cal/cm2) - necrosis of the deep layers of the skin, formation of ulcers; fourth (over 14 cal/cm2) (585 kJ/m2) - charring. Damage to the eyes is possible in the form of temporary blindness for up to 30 minutes, burns of the fundus, cornea and eyelids.

With a 1 MT explosion, a 2nd degree burn can be obtained at a distance of 17,6 km from the central vent.

Cotton, wool, and paper materials scorch or burn at pulses of approximately 10 cal/cm² (418,4 kJ/m²). Wood and polymeric materials scorch at higher pulses.

Fires

The zone of individual fires covers the area in which fires occur in individual buildings and structures. The zone of individual fires is characterized by the following light pulses: at the outer boundary 100-200 kJ/m2 (4.8 cal/cm2), at the inner boundary - 400-600 kJ/m2 (9.5-14.3 cal/cm2) depending on the yield of the nuclear explosion (the lower boundaries correspond to a yield of 268 to 100 kt, the upper boundaries - 1000 kt and more). [1 cal/cm² = 41,84 kJ/m².] For air bursts, the zone occupies part of the territory of the zone of weak destruction and extends beyond the site of nuclear destruction.

A continuous fire zone is an area where, under the influence of a light pulse, fires occur in more than 50% of buildings and structures. Within 1–2 hours, the fire spreads to the vast majority of buildings in the area, resulting in a continuous fire in which more than 90% of the buildings are engulfed in flames. The continuous fire zone is characterized by light pulses of 400–600 kJ/m² (9,5–14,3 cal/cm²) or more. It encompasses most of the severe destruction zone, the entire moderate destruction zone, and part of the mild destruction zone of the nuclear disaster site.

Firestorms are possible in areas with a density of at least 20% buildings and structures classified as fire resistance grades III, IV, and V. A firestorm reaches its full development 2-3 hours after the explosion. It occurs as a result of the formation of a strong draft in the center of the fire zone and is characterized by powerful upward flows of combustion products and heated air, creating conditions for hurricane-force winds blowing from all directions toward the center of the fire at speeds of 50-60 km/h or more.

Shock Wave

The shock wave is the primary damaging factor of a nuclear explosion. An air shock wave is a region of sudden air compression, propagating in all directions at supersonic speed. It consists of two phases: compression and rarefaction. Any obstacle first experiences the action of a forward shock wave, which tends to overturn the obstacle in the direction of its motion, and then a reverse shock wave, which tends to impact the obstacle in the opposite direction.

Time-lapse images of the impact of a nuclear blast wave on buildings

The speed of the shock wave's front depends on its pressure. Near the center, where the pressure is enormous, the shock wave's speed is measured in tens of kilometers per second. As one moves away from the center of the explosion, the pressure and the shock wave's speed decrease. At very large distances, it equals the speed of sound. The duration of the shock wave depends on the thickness of the compressed air layer and ranges from 0,5 to 1,5 seconds for a nuclear explosion and over 5 seconds for a thermonuclear explosion.

The following tables (according to the textbook by Egorov P.T. et al. Civil Defense, 1970) show the pressure assessment depending on the distance to the target and the power of the munition and the nature of damage to buildings depending on the excess pressure of the wave and (0,1 kgf/cm2 = 9,8 kPa).

Shock waves can leak into enclosed spaces through various leaks, cracks, and openings. For this reason, for example, air in the blast area can enter the pulmonary veins, and through them, the heart (arteries), damaging them.

Anyone who wasn't instantly incinerated by the lethal temperatures and the devastating shock wave that distorted everything would suffer horrific injuries: burns along with multiple traumatic injuries, including impacts from building debris and massive doses of radiation. While these factors significantly decrease with distance from the epicenter, which depends on the power of the explosion, the area affected is enormous.

The area of ​​the nuclear damage focus

And finally, the most important thing. According to P.T. Yegorov et al., "Civil Defense," the area of ​​a nuclear strike is considered a circle and is calculated using the formula:

Where r is the radius of destruction with an excess pressure of 0,1 kg/cm2 according to Table 4. For a “typical” charge with a capacity of 500 kT, it will be = 3,14 * 11,5 * 11,5 = 415 km2. A huge value!

The best presentation of this data is in the manual by Viktor Gatsenko and Vladimir Korolev, “Forecasting the Consequences of Explosive Phenomena and Civil Defense in Emergencies in Peacetime and Wartime” (Bauman Moscow State Technical University), 2009. Here it should be kept in mind that 1 kgf/cm2 = 98,0665 kPa, i.e. 0,1 kg/cm2 = 9,8 kPa.

Radiation and radioactive fallout

And finally, the last and most insidious factor of nuclear weapons is radioactive radiation during and after the explosion. According to the aforementioned Handbook, the distribution of radiation doses depending on the distance and power of the explosion, as well as the estimated casualties, is as follows.

In this case, the dispersion of the radioactive trace occurs over gigantic areas, dispersing in the form of an ellipse in the direction of the wind from the central ray.

As surveys at nuclear test sites show, it is the long-term consequences of radiation fallout that play a major role in making these lands unusable for human habitation and economic activity.

Electromagnetic pulse

A powerful alternating electromagnetic field generated by strong currents in air ionized by radiation and light emitted by a nuclear explosion. EMP damages electronic equipment, electrical appliances, and power lines. The large number of ions produced by the explosion interferes with the propagation of radio waves and the operation of radar stations. This effect can be used to blind warning systems. rocket attack. The strength of the EMP varies depending on the altitude of the explosion.

Climate factor

Finally, nuclear weapons have another factor that distinguishes them from conventional ones: global climate impact. If the center of the explosion is melted and leveled by the blast wave, then catastrophic fires will break out in the zone of partial destruction of buildings. Today, cities contain enormous quantities of flammable material. Modern multi-story buildings (especially tower-type ones) provide an unlimited supply of oxygen thanks to the "draft" effect (similar to furnaces with tall chimneys). These buildings house warehouses, fuel reserves, and plastic.

According to computer modeling, such fires could release enormous amounts of soot into the atmosphere, which would inevitably impact the global climate. And, as models show, even a limited conflict could cause massive damage to agriculture and global famine. While there may not be a "nuclear winter," there will be a "nuclear autumn." Due to their importance, we will examine the nature of these fires and their impact on climate in a separate publication devoted to the "nuclear winter" theory.

Although Soviet scientists actively participated in the development of theories and methods for assessing the climatic and other consequences of nuclear weapons in the 80s, collaborating equally with US scientists, this activity was suspended after the 90s.

Who is "debunking" myths about nuclear weapons while creating even more dangerous myths about the "acceptability" of the consequences of their use? Like, "Don't worry, we'll survive!" As one of the founders of the "nuclear winter" theory, Carl Sagan, wrote so memorably back in 1983: "There has been a dangerous tendency in technical studies of the consequences of nuclear weapon explosions to underestimate the results. This is partly due to a tradition of conservatism that usually works well in science but is of more dubious applicability when the lives of billions of people are at stake." Well, let's look at the bare facts known since August 1945.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: before and after

The photos below show these cities before and after. No commentary is needed on this horrific testimony.

Hiroshima before the attack, 1940

A street in Hiroshima before the attack (1945)

Nagasaki before the attack

A street in Nagasaki before the attack

Hiroshima after the nuclear attack

Nagasaki after the nuclear strike

It's best to turn to the testimony of eyewitnesses who survived this hell—the hibakusha. Yasuhiko Taketa, born in 1932, survived the bombing while at a train station (www.gensuikin.org, cited by Ridus.ru):

It was just after 8:10.

Suddenly, there was a blinding flash, brighter even than the sun. For a moment, I was blinded. The station building and everything around it appeared bluish-white. A second later, I heard a deafening roar, the sound of a powerful explosion. My ears popped. The ground shook beneath my feet, and all the buildings around me shook. Windowpanes vibrated and shattered. I received a powerful blow to the back and thought my stomach was about to burst.

My forehead burned, and I subconsciously touched it with my hand. As I looked up at the sky above Hiroshima, I saw a tiny sparkle, a white object the size of a grain of rice, tinged with yellow and red, which soon transformed into a monstrous mushroom. It was moving in my direction, and it seemed as if the mushroom was about to envelop me.

I was so paralyzed by fear and the shock that I had trouble breathing. I tried to run away, but I realized it was impossible. I found refuge under a nearby bench... Finally, the noise stopped. I carefully crawled out of my hiding place and looked around. I saw a huge, bright, red pillar of fire (I was later told it was 200 meters in diameter and rose to a height of 10,000 meters), which grew larger by the minute, continuing to grow and grow.
A pillar of fire rose from the ground toward the sky with tremendous force. Sometimes it was hollow in the center. At other times, blazing, leaping flames erupted from the center. The spectacle was so terrifying that I can't find the words to describe it...

In just a few minutes, a single atomic bomb turned the entire city of Hiroshima, now enveloped in this enormous fireball, into a sea of ​​flames. I never imagined that a weapon could create such a terrible, miserable living hell.

Our primary school became a temporary first aid station… Victims of the bombing were lined up, waiting for help.

The victims' hair was curled, and their faces were swollen with dark red burns. Portions of their skin hung from open wounds, and their clothes, covered in blood, were scorched and torn… They looked like ghosts… Some people simply moaned. Others screamed the names of family members. There were people begging, "Water, please. Give me water." It was a horrific scene.

Before the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, the city's population was approximately 245, while Nagasaki's was 260. By the end of 1945, after the bombing, the death toll in Hiroshima, including cancer and radiation sickness, was between 90 and 166, while in Nagasaki, the death toll was between 60 and 80.

Nagasaki after the atomic bomb

The effects of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki continue to this day, and people continue to die from the long-term effects of radiation poisoning and related diseases, especially cancer. As of August 31, 2013, the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the atomic bombings was approximately 450,000: 286,818 in Hiroshima and 162,083 in Nagasaki. The delayed effects are colossal.

According to a 2015 report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), nearly two-thirds (63%) of deaths among Hiroshima survivors since 1945 were attributed to malignant tumors (cancer), with the main types being lung cancer (20%), stomach cancer (18%), liver cancer (14%), leukemia (8%), colon cancer (7%), and malignant lymphoma (6%). Similar statistics are available for Nagasaki.

However, the Financial Times reports that, according to a study, only 1% of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors died from radiation-related cancer. Studies conducted 80 years after the atomic bombings show that high doses of radiation increase the risk of cancer to a lesser extent than is commonly believed. No comment.

A procession of unfortunate victims of the atomic bombing, photo 1, 1945.

A procession of unfortunate victims of the atomic bombing, photo 2, 1945.

Atomic bomb victims in Hiroshima, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/

Here is how François Bugnion, a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross, described the consequences of the explosion: “Everywhere within a distance of four to five kilometers from the epicenter of the explosion, houses were completely destroyed, trees were uprooted, cars were overturned... In total, about 90% of the buildings were damaged.”

The 13-kiloton bombs detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, covering approximately the following areas of impact:

1. A zone of complete destruction and annihilation—radius up to 800–900 m (excess pressure exceeding 1 kg/cm²). All buildings and structures were destroyed, with almost 100% fatalities.

2. The zone of severe destruction and severe to moderate human injury—a radius of up to 2–2,5 km (overpressure of 0,3–1 kg/cm²). However, according to the work "The Effect of the Atomic Bomb in Japan," within a radius of 2,5 km, all wooden buildings were destroyed, and brick buildings were reduced to rubble. The area where buildings were severely damaged or destroyed had a radius of over 3 km, while Bugnion (see above) reports a radius of 4–5 km.

3. Zone of minor damage and minor injuries – radius up to 3–4 km (overpressure 0,04–0,2 kg/cm²). According to the report, roof tiles were torn off and walls were destroyed up to 7,2 km away. Nagasaki – up to 6,2 km away.

It is enough to look at the photos after the explosion, which show the total destruction of everything within sight.
Keiko Ogura was eight years old when the Hiroshima bombing struck. After the explosion, burned people began flocking to a shrine near her destroyed home: "Their faces and hair were badly burned, their skin was hanging off. They didn't say anything, just moaned and begged for water." Ogura brought the victims water from a well, and they died after drinking it. "I didn't know it was dangerous to give water to people in such a state. For 10 years, I blamed myself for their deaths."

Here are the grisly drawings of those who survived the tragedy:

Image courtesy of UNFORGETTABLE FIRE | FARALLON FILMS

Yoshiko Mitsuji (Japan), I Fled to My Home Through a Sea of ​​Flames, 1974 (courtesy of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum)

Akihiro Takahashi, born in 1931, survived the blast, being 1,3 km from the epicenter (https://www.atomicarchive.com/, cited by Ridus.ru):

We were lining up when we saw a B-29 approaching and flying overhead. Everyone was looking up and pointing. Then a teacher emerged from the school building and ordered the monitors to lie down on the ground. We lay on the ground, our eyes fixed on the sky. At that moment, the explosion occurred. There was an incredible noise, and then darkness fell. I couldn't see anything. We were literally blown away by the shock wave. I couldn't understand anything until the darkness passed. I was thrown back 10 meters by the shock wave. My friends were lying right there, next to me, blown away by the same wave. Around us, as far as the eye could see, everything was destroyed and annihilated. I felt as if Hiroshima had disappeared from the face of the earth in an instant.

Then I looked at myself and saw that my clothes had been reduced to rags by the intense heat. The back of my head, my back, both arms, and my legs were completely burned. My skin had melted and was hanging off. I automatically walked west, as that was the direction my house was. After a while, I heard someone calling my name. I looked around and saw a friend of mine from school. His name was Yamamoto. He was terribly burned, just like me.

We walked toward the river, seeing hundreds and hundreds of victims along the way. We saw a man with the skin missing from his upper body, a woman whose eyes were dry from the temperatures, and her small child bleeding profusely. The mother and her child lay there, skin missing from them. We slowly crawled toward the river. A fire started, and it was only by sheer luck that we survived. If we had delayed even a second, we would have perished in the flames. The flames rose 4-5 meters into the sky.

There was a small wooden bridge that hadn't been destroyed by the explosion. I crossed to the other side of the river across it. Yamamoto was no longer with me; he'd gotten lost. I remember crossing the bridge alone, and there, on the other side, I doused myself in the water three times. The burns were horrific. I felt my body burning, so the cold river water seemed like the most precious treasure in the world. Then, I emerged from the river and wandered along the railroad tracks toward my home... completely exhausted, I met my grandfather's brother and his wife. As you know, we have a proverb about Buddha meeting in Hell. My meeting with my relatives back then was exactly the same. They, like Buddha, met me wandering in Hell.

Bridge Over the River, Unforgettable Fire | Farallon Films

Fire storm

Within 20 minutes of the explosion in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, a massive firestorm arose in the form of hurricane-force winds blowing towards the center of the fire from all directions, destroying even more buildings and houses, built primarily of wooden materials.

Although fires destroyed much of Nagasaki, there was no true firestorm despite the powerful blast. This difference was due to the hilly terrain, which dampened the blast wave, and the lower density of flammable materials in the city compared to Hiroshima.

The fires in Hiroshima were so intense due to the high building density and high flammability. In modern cities, however, the mass saturation of flammable materials has become even greater.

Radiation

Here is Sadao Yamamoto's story:

My mother's younger sister's husband managed to reach the first aid station. We were all relieved that my uncle had escaped wounds and burns, but as it turned out, another, unseen disaster awaited him. Soon he began vomiting blood, and we were told he had died. Having received a massive dose of radiation, my uncle died suddenly of radiation sickness. Radiation is the most terrible consequence of an atomic explosion; it kills a person not from the outside, but from the inside.

Recently, Brazilian scientists from the University of São Paulo conducted a study examining the bones of Hiroshima victims. They found that those who died during the explosion had previously been exposed to a powerful dose of radiation, 9,5 grays, or 1092,5 roentgens. [1 gray (Gy) is equivalent to 115 roentgens (R)]. A dose of 4 to 9 grays is sufficient to cause a slow and painful death. A radiation dose of 10 to 20 grays means almost instantaneous death.

Black Rain

One of the tragic and mysterious phenomena that became a symbol of the tragedy was the so-called "black rain," which fell on the outskirts of the city approximately 20 to 40 minutes after the explosion. The explosion sent huge masses of smoke, dust, and debris mixed with radioactive products into the atmosphere, which condensed with water vapor, forming black, oily droplets that fell as rain. The "black rain" was thick and sticky, covering buildings, plants, and people, leaving behind dark stains and invisible but deadly radiation. Those caught in the fallout later suffered from burns, radiation sickness, and other serious illnesses.

Map of "black rain" precipitation. Black/gray lines represent 1954 estimates; dashed lines represent 1989 estimates. Sakaguchi, A et al. / Science of The Total Environment, 2010

Efforts to care for the dying and seriously wounded were almost futile: 14 of Hiroshima's 16 major hospitals ceased to exist; 270 of 298 doctors died, as did 1654 of 1780 nurses.

Following World War II, Japan was recognized as an aggressor state. It waged a senseless war against the United States, launching a daring, tragic attack on Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941. It also invaded China and committed the Nanking Massacre. The Japanese were infamous for their sophisticated sadism and brutality against prisoners. By some estimates, from the invasion of China in 1937 until the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime killed between 3,000,000 and over 10,000,000 people, likely nearly 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. China estimates its losses to be even higher.

Many experts and historians believe that the United States deliberately tested nuclear weapons in densely populated Japanese cities to avenge Pearl Harbor and "intimidate" the USSR. This cynical act of barbarity was one of the most heinous war crimes in human history. There was no military rationale for it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although they had military installations, were not industrial or military centers of Japan, had no strategic significance, and were populated primarily by civilians.

On August 9, 1945, Soviet troops launched an offensive in Manchuria and the Kuril Islands. After the war, Admiral Soemu Toyoda said, "I believe the USSR's participation in the war against Japan, rather than the atomic bombings, did more to hasten the surrender." Prime Minister Suzuki also stated that the USSR's entry into the war made "the continuation of the war impossible."

Indeed, life has amazing resilience—other cities now stand in the place of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Modern Hiroshima

Radioactive traces from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively short-lived, largely because the nuclear explosions occurred high above the ground—approximately 600 meters—and the nuclear warheads were relatively small. The "Little Boy" bomb detonated over Hiroshima contained 64 kg of uranium, of which only about 0,7 kg reacted. In the "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki, no more than 20% of the 6,2 kg of plutonium reacted.

After taking measurements six months later, American military officials declared the bombed area safe to remain in. Meanwhile, at Chernobyl, many tons of uranium were released into the air.

Of course, before rebuilding the cities, a thorough radiation survey and decontamination of the area was necessary, removing a 10-20 cm layer of soil. The US conducted research, but the results were confiscated, classified, and have yet to be made public. There is no information about decontamination in open sources. Most likely, the remaining debris was cleaned up and removed. At that time, radiation physics and safety were only just beginning to take root.

On September 17, Hiroshima was struck by the exceptionally powerful Typhoon Makurazaki, which flooded vast areas. According to historian Yuki Tanaka, "the typhoon washed most of the residual radiation into the sea. After the typhoon, radiation levels dropped significantly."

In 2010, Japanese physicists studied radioactive residue in and around Hiroshima to find traces of "black rain" and radioactive fallout. According to the researchers, the blast's traces were "trampled" by traces of other radionuclides released into the soil by later nuclear tests in other regions. Uranium-236 and other isotopes were indeed present in the upper and lower layers of Hiroshima's soil, but the actual number of uranium atoms was approximately 100 times lower than theoretical calculations predicted.

In this situation, no one will ever tell you the real truth. People often write about former Soviet testing sites as if everything is fine, but dig deeper and the picture is different.

So, is it really that bad? The problem with nuclear weapons is the scale of their consequences. If such an area covers thousands or more square kilometers, how can it be cleaned up?

In Hiroshima, traces of radiation are mostly found under asphalt; there is virtually no impact on humans or, most importantly, migration into the food chain. The contaminated area is localized. The situation is quite different in the lands beneath the Semipalatinsk test site, where the area and degree of contamination are greater.

For comparison, the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant's exclusion zone (known as the 30-kilometer zone in 1986–1987) is approximately 2600 square kilometers. In a separate article, we will show that the lands within the nuclear test sites are "lost," and forever.

What will happen when using Yars?

The Yars (RS-24) missile system carries multiple warheads (multiple reentry vehicles, MRVs), each of which can be armed with a nuclear warhead with a yield of 300–500 kilotons (KT), meaning a single Yars missile can carry up to 3–4 such warheads. That's a total of 2 megatons. Europe, calling for preparations for war with Russia, which has the most powerful nuclear forces, is losing its grip on reality.

Yars (RS-24) on combat duty

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 ("Little Boy") had a yield of approximately 13-18 kilotons of TNT equivalent. But 2 megatons is 100 times greater!!! Theoretical studies have shown that the radii of the destruction and blast damage zones of nuclear and thermonuclear explosions of varying yields are proportional to the cube root of the TNT equivalent ratio. Therefore, to roughly compare the radii of blast damage zones of nuclear explosions of varying yields, one can use the following formula:

Considering that the specified zone of strong and medium damage from the explosion of a 15 kt bomb was at least 4 km, for a 500 kt explosion we get a zone of 12,8 km, and for a 2 Mt explosion – 20,4 km, which corresponds to the tables above.

The estimates of the damage caused by 550 kt charges are given above using four US cities as examples. Today, the typical charge is 500 kt, not 15 kt, a huge difference. If a large city is devastated by four 0.5 MT charges, it will be impossible to heal the aftermath of this attack like the Japanese cities.

Epilogue: Not scary at all, is it?

As Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated on February 22, 2020, "The United States continues to practice scenarios for the limited use of nuclear weapons in the format of command-staff and other exercises, including, as recently revealed, against targets within the Russian Federation..." And this was under the "peace-loving" Trump.

According to the latest reports from the Financial Times, NATO is discussing the idea of ​​launching a "preemptive strike" against Russia as a response to allegedly growing "hybrid attacks." This was stated by Admiral D.C. Dragone, head of the NATO Military Committee. Moreover, the term "preventive strike" is already being interpreted in the alliance's thinking as a form of "defensive action."

The US's lack of interest in extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is understandable. The US needs a new round of the nuclear arms race, which is pointless. There are too many nuclear weapons, and they must be reduced drastically, preventing any increase in the number of members of the "nuclear club."

If in the 70s the entire world lived in fear of total annihilation, then with the disappearance of the United States' main strategic rival, the USSR, everything changed. The United States has gone crazy with impunity, and Trump demonstrates this perfectly. We, in particular, and therefore our nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons are no longer feared at all. How can anyone fear a country whose stated goal was to "join the family of civilized nations"?

Our main adversary, Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, once said: "Russia can have as many nuclear briefcases and nuclear buttons as it wants, but since the Russian elite's $500 billion is sitting in our banks, you'll have to figure it out: is this your elite or is it ours? I don't see any situation in which Russia would use its nuclear potential."

As Daniel Immerwahr writes:

"The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the entire world fear the atomic bomb—even those who might use it. Today, that fear is largely a thing of the past, and with it, we may have lost a crucial precaution." "...many of Putin's opponents seem either to disbelieve his threats or, worse, to ignore them. Boris Johnson has categorically rejected the idea that Russia would use nuclear weapons."

In the 1990s, we allowed our economy to collapse to please the West, and our GDP fell to 50% of its 90 level. Sergei Mironov believes that "the Central Bank's increased key rate is madness," but the Central Bank's policy remains unsinkable, and no one asks why. Why are the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank run by people associated with the IMF?

And what do nuclear weapons have to do with this? Think about it. If, before 1985, our Great Motherland inspired awe in the West, with nearly half the world as allies, now we've lost virtually its entire geopolitical legacy, turning into a "liberal jelly," a "sanctions boy." And the SVO "marathon," which has already outlasted the Great Patriotic War without achieving its main goals, is proof of that.

The myth of the "acceptability" of using nuclear weapons is "fueled" by a group of politicians and generals in the US, NATO (and elsewhere) with high libidos but extremely low moral standards and IQs, who believe victory can be achieved in a "limited conflict." Or that Russia will "give in." This same group possibly sponsors publications with the agenda of "don't drift, we'll break through." But there will be no "limitations."

Nuclear weapons are not weapons, but rather a means of mass destruction (genocide) of an apocalyptic nature, transforming the site of their use into a fiery, radioactive hell that sweeps away everything in its path. In one famous film, its creators vividly depicted the hell of the aftermath of an atomic bombing.

The numerous factual and scientifically substantiated assessments of the picture of the world after a nuclear explosion can best be expressed by a quote from our Soviet scientist G. P. Stenchikov:

A global nuclear war would lead to a catastrophe of geological proportions. The Earth's climate would change. The biosphere would be destroyed. Forests and steppes would be scorched, cities and industry devastated. People and animals would be exterminated. The face of the Earth would be scarred beyond recognition, and these wounds would never heal. Those who survived the initial impact would find themselves in extreme cold, without water, food, or fuel, exposed to powerful radiation, pollutants, and disease, under extreme psychological stress, amid the chaos of a ruined civilization and annihilated wildlife.

The conclusion is simple: “black cannot be white” – no optimism in assessing the consequences of nuclear weapons is applicable – nuclear weapons are the apocalypse and the point of no return.

Links:
What can it be? Nuclear war scenarios
The end of the world is canceled. Why won't nuclear war destroy humanity? (Pikabu)
Questions Washed Away by the Rain: What We Still Don't Know About the Aftermath of the Hiroshima Nuclear Bombing
SURVEY RULES OUT NAGASAKI DANGERS; Radioactivity After Atom Bomb Is Only 1,000th of That From Luminous Dial Watch (NYT), Oct. 7, 1945
CATS-JACE User Manual version 1, c5.7. Defense Threat Reduction Agency. 2003.
Defense Nuclear Agency: Effects manual number 1 (EM-1). DNA-EM 1991 1991
Physics of Nuclear Explosions. In 5 volumes. — 3rd, supplemented / Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. 12th Central Research Institute. — Moscow: Publishing House of Physics and Mathematics, 2009
Vulnerability of populations and the urban health care systems to nuclear weapon attack – examples from four American cities William C Bell and Cham E Dallas, International Journal of Health Geographics
NUKEMAP2.7 (simulation of the effect of a nuclear explosion of varying strength in different cities)
Xia, Lili, Alan Robock, Kim Scherrer, Cheryl S. Harrison, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Isabelle Weindl, Jonas Jägermeyr, Charles G. Bardeen, Owen B. Toon, and Ryan Heneghan, 2022: Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection. Nature Food, 3, 586-596
Nuclear weapons and their combat properties. Nuclear explosion damage and its characteristics. Protection against nuclear explosion damage..
Yu.V. Nikitenko, Conditions for Fires in Accidents with Nuclear Weapons, cyberleninka.ru
CONDITIONS FOR FIRE OCCURRENCE IN ACCIDENTS WITH NUCLEAR MUNITIONS
Viktor Gatsenko, Vladimir Korolev, Forecasting the Consequences of Explosive Phenomena and Civil Defense in Peacetime and Wartime Emergencies
FORECASTING THE CONSEQUENCES OF EXPLOSIVE PHENOMENA AND CIVIL PROTECTION IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS IN PEACETIME AND WARTIME
Damaging factors of a nuclear explosion (Wikipedia).
Carl Sagan, Nuclear Winter, Parade Magazine, 1983
Testimony of Hiroshima survivor Yasuhiko Taketa (GENSUIKIN)
Only 1% of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing survivors died from radiation-related cancer, according to a study.
"Their skin hung like ribbons to the ground." 75 years ago, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Survivors still remember the horror of those days (Lenta.ru)
Testimony of Akihiro Takahashi
"I saw rows of dead people": what survivors of the hell of Hiroshima and Nagasaki say (RIA) News).
Physicists have revealed the radiation dose received by residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Ridus.ru)
STATISTICS OF JAPANESE GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER. www.hawaii.edu. Accessed February 20, 2018. Archived March 23, 2010.
Why is it possible to live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but not in Chernobyl?
Ryabkov: The US is starting a dangerous game, practicing a nuclear strike on Russia (TASS).
NATO is talking about a strike on Russia. Moscow already knows how it will end – an expert gave a frightening forecast (MK)
SRZP head Mironov on the increased key rate: it's complete madness

Comments

[staer-62]

A circle with a diameter of 5 km is 19 square kilometers of devastation. London is 1600 square kilometers. How many warheads would be needed to completely cover the city with nuclear explosions? 8 warheads with a yield of 500 kt. All this math is approximate, rounded. How many cities are there in Europe and what is their area? How many warheads do we have and what is their yield? So, don't go scaring us with stories about nuclear winter and radiation. As for burns and injuries, ask those who were caught in a high-explosive blast – is there any difference?

[Hole puncher]

Quote: staer-62

The area of ​​London is 1600 square kilometers.

The author also doesn't take into account the shadows from tall buildings, which would block light, shock waves, and radiation. So, 5 square kilometers is for open terrain; in a modern city, it would be much less.

[Alexander Odintsov]

In the case of an air blast, shielding is not as significant, although it is present. The extent of destruction in a city depends on the nature of the buildings, their number of stories, and the density of construction. For example, at a building density of 50%, the blast pressure on buildings may be 20-40% less than on buildings located in open ground at the same distance from the blast center. At a building density of less than 30%, the shielding effect of buildings is insignificant and has no practical significance. All this data is available in reference books. There is no point in presenting it here.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Alexander Odintsov

With a building density of less than 30%

Let's take London, where many respondents dream of a nuclear strike, as the building density there is simply off the charts. Or Moscow, where the situation is similar. Buildings caught in the blast wave will certainly suffer damage, destruction, and fires, but those located behind them will not be particularly affected.

Quote: Alexander Odintsov

There is no point in citing this here.

During an inspection of the area after the explosion at the Totsky test site, a surviving horse was discovered near the epicenter, which survived because there was a tree nearby.
I suppose there is no point in giving such examples either, otherwise people won’t develop a feeling of fear?

[Alexander Odintsov]

Dear Puncher! The area of ​​New York is 1200 km2. The affected area of ​​500 kt is 401 sq. km. From open-access research, in the well-known work of William K. Bell and Cham E. Dallas (2007), a detailed assessment of the consequences of a nuclear charge explosion with a typical yield of 550 kt for the four largest US cities was conducted. According to these calculations, about 6.5 million people in New York will suffer from various damaging factors of a nuclear weapon, out of a total population of 18.198 million people at the time of the assessment - 2004. There, a program of the US Department of Defense did the calculations. Taking into account shielding and other nonsense. They even calculated that more people would be injured and killed during the day. If you do the math, then 2-3 pieces of 500 kt and the city is practically gone. What else do you want to add to this? Or is our sense of reality slipping away?

[staer-62]

What is the diameter of a circle with an area of ​​401 square kilometers? If the area of ​​a circle with a diameter of 5 kilometers is 19 square kilometers, that's 19 square kilometers.

[Last centurion]

But isn't halving the population anywhere part of the "golden billion" standard-bearers' vision? So what if the planet's population were reduced from 8 billion to, say, 4 or 3 billion? Won't they all clap their hands in joy? Sipping champagne on their own private islands somewhere in the Caribbean? So what if the world's major capitals disappear? The planet's surface area is large enough to destroy every corner. In 300-500 years, the radiation will subside, and they'll find themselves in a new "garden" with untapped resources. In a couple of years, probably by 2030, there will be fairly advanced robots for most jobs. To replace the departed workers with machines... So what's stopping the nuclear war buffs from wiping out everything, or rather, everything they don't like, around 2030?

[alexoff]

And if the New York Stock Exchange were destroyed, even more people would suffer, and trillions of dollars would disappear in the blink of an eye. So what? Isn't that what nuclear weapons are for?

[Doctor]

A circle with a diameter of 5 km is 19 square kilometers of devastation. London is 1600 square kilometers. How many warheads would be needed to completely cover the city with nuclear explosions? 8 warheads with a yield of 500 kt. All this math is approximate, rounded. How many cities are there in Europe and what is their area? How many warheads do we have and what is their yield? So, don't go scaring us with stories about nuclear winter and radiation. As for burns and injuries, ask those who were caught in a high-explosive blast – is there any difference?

All the nuclear weapons we have are an area the size of France. About one percent of the entire land area.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Hi! Study physics and chemical defense. The area of ​​destruction is calculated based on the radius with an excess pressure of 0.1 kg/cm² according to Table 4. Consider that 1 kgf/cm² = 98.0665 kPa, i.e. 0.1 kg/cm² = 9.8 kPa. According to Table 11.10, the destruction zone for an air burst with a yield of 500 kt is 401 km². The area of ​​London, as you say, is 1600 km². So calculate how many warheads are needed. A school course is enough for this. To cover a city, you don't need to hit it densely.

[staer-62]

So, a 500 kt warhead will destroy everything within a 22.6 km diameter circle? I read that it would be 5 km. I think there's a mistake somewhere.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Here are the data from Bauman Moscow State Technical University

[staer-62]

It's correct to consider the zone of complete and severe destruction to be up to 30 kPa, the radius is approximately 4.5 km, and the fact that the windows will be broken is a trifle. ))

[Alexander Odintsov]

Do you want to write your own textbook? Write.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Consider also fires, see the chart for Washington

[staer-62]

I'm simply not satisfied with the complacency surrounding the quantity and yield of nuclear weapons. We have very few nuclear weapons, which isn't enough to deal with all our enemies. We need to increase our nuclear weapons tenfold, and we shouldn't be afraid to use them. All the persuasions and treaties since the 20th century have proven empty. Europe has always had one goal: to destroy the Russians, which is what they're doing. To prevent this from happening, we need to destroy them. It's a simple idea. If 500 kt destroys everything within a circle 22.6 km in diameter or 400 square kilometers in area, then great. But the arguments that it will come to us too are already coming, but not to them. We need to fix that.

[Alexander Odintsov]

You're right. But it's worth noting that Russia can rightfully be proud of its nuclear arsenal, which could now be expanded with the Poseidon guided supertorpedo with a nuclear propulsion system. A clear advantage is the development of the Oreshnik hypersonic IRBM, capable of carrying a warhead weighing up to 1,5 tons, making it formidable in both conventional and nuclear variants (up to 900 kilotons).
Our Armed Forces have not only maintained parity with the United States in nuclear weapons, but have also been able to actively modernize their core components over recent decades, while striving for leadership in precision-guided weapons complements this policy. Yars missile systems already constitute the bulk of our ground-based missile forces and have completely replaced the older Topol missiles, while the new Sarmat system will replace the legendary R-36M2 Voevoda. According to 2025 data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Russia possesses 5,459 nuclear weapons, while the United States possesses 5,177. Deployed: Russia has 1718, the United States 1,670.

[MBRSS]

Quote: Alexander Odintsov

Russia can rightfully be proud of its nuclear arsenal, which can now be supplemented by the Poseidon guided supertorpedo with a nuclear power plant... "Oreshnik"... "Yars"... "Sarmat"...

The most unfortunate thing is that all of the above doesn't really sober up the enemies, meaning nuclear weapons are only fulfilling part of their purpose. They're simply spitting in Russia's face, despite its entire nuclear potential. It's necessary to move, if not to use, then to full-scale testing, especially in the atmosphere. To achieve this, it's necessary to declare the suspension of all previously concluded agreements due to the critical situation. Yes, there's no need to be shy about declaring that Russia is incapable of confronting the West with conventional weapons alone, not to mention the disproportionate economies of the US, EU, and Russia. Have they decided to "simmer a frog" (and are they successfully doing so)? This must stop!
Unfortunately, a second 60-megaton "Kuzka's Mother" won't be possible on Novaya Zemlya (low-orbit satellites are hit by EMP), but a series of 150-300-kt explosions could be conducted to "test the operability of all nuclear weapons on duty and in storage." They'll ask us why we're not detonating them underground? The answer: "To reduce testing costs, we're short on funds, especially after your economic sanctions and asset freezes. It's your own fault for forcing us to do this!"

Russia has 5,459 nuclear weapons, the US - 5,177. Expanded - Russia - 1718, US - 1,670.

Only the detailed version is relevant, but I have a feeling that this will be enough for the complete destruction of humanity.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Regarding political motives, beyond Brzezinski's famous line about our 500 billion-strong elite and nuclear briefcases, two points of view can be added. I believe that if there's a commotion, our side will definitely get the better of them. So, NATO views Moscow's "softness" as a symbol of its impunity. This is why the US dismantled the USSR, which ensured peace in Europe, because everyone knew that any attempt at provocation against the Soviet Union would guarantee the complete and utter destruction of the US and the EU.
K. Sivkov, for example, holds a conservative view:

"The current Russian elite... is very closely connected to the elites of other states and the transnational community and is largely dependent on them... when deciding on actions to ensure Russia's security, it will inevitably be guided by the limitations dictated by this dependence... Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the current political elite of Russia will decide to use nuclear weapons in a low-intensity conflict, even in the face of possible defeat."

But things aren't so clear-cut here. Everything stated is true. However, although the Kremlin, for this reason, is deliberately not waging war with adequate means to achieve the complete surrender of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, planning to end it with Minsk III and possibly a Western-agreed partition of Ukraine, in the event of a NATO missile strike, whether conventional or nuclear, an adequate response will most likely occur. A war in Ukraine and a war with NATO are different.
As Andrey Gurulev believes:

"The reality is different. The Russian General Staff... is working with a target catalog that was approved long ago... it is activated when certain external actions occur. Any attempt to implement Western plans will be perceived as a signal to launch algorithms that have long been defined... The first to be disabled will be NATO command and control. Headquarters, communication hubs—elements of a unified network... The next step is the destruction of logistics. Eastern European railway hubs, bridges, ports—these are accessible targets, key points without which the movement of armed forces is impossible. The destruction of the transport network makes the transfer of troops technically impossible... Missile defense bases in Poland and Romania are considered elements of a potential strike configuration and will be destroyed in the first minutes of escalation. Solutions for them are available and do not require further development... The result is simple: there will be no protracted battle. There will be a rapid destruction of NATO's controllability and infrastructure. There will be nothing to restore—the conflict will not have time to reach the stage that the West calls conventional."

[Stanislav Chernov]

Nuclear weapons are heading your way? Just another idiot who can't see the consequences even one step ahead. How will wiping out 90% of Russia's population help preserve the Russian people, let alone the complete collapse of civilization as we know it?

[Alexander Odintsov]

This is how François Bugnion, a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross, described the consequences of the explosion in Hiroshima: “Everywhere at a distance four to five kilometers “The epicenter of the explosion completely destroyed houses, uprooted trees, and overturned cars... In total, about 90% of the buildings were damaged.”
The 13-kiloton bombs detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, covering approximately the following areas of impact:
1. A zone of complete destruction and annihilation—radius up to 800–900 m (excess pressure exceeding 1 kg/cm²). All buildings and structures were destroyed, with almost 100% fatalities.
2. The zone of severe destruction and severe to moderate human injury is a radius of up to 2–2,5 km (overpressure 0,3–1 kg/cm²). However, according to the work "The Effect of the Atomic Bomb in Japan," within a radius of 2.5 km, all wooden buildings were destroyed, and brick buildings were reduced to rubble. The area where buildings were severely damaged or destroyed had a radius of over 3 km, while Bugnion (supra) suggests a radius of 4–5 km.
3. Zone of minor damage and minor injuries to people – radius up to 3–4 km (excess pressure 0,04–0,2 kg/cm²). According to the report, up to 7.2 km – roof tiles were torn off, walls were destroyed. Nagasaki – up to 6.2 km.

[alexoff]

Quote: Alexander Odintsov

Here is how François Bugnion, a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross, described the consequences of the explosion in Hiroshima: “Everywhere within a distance of four to five kilometers from the epicenter of the explosion, houses were completely destroyed, trees were uprooted, cars were overturned… In total, about 90% of the buildings were damaged.”

Well, American newspapers said that no one would live there for another hundred years and that grass wouldn't grow because of radiation, although people continued to live on the outskirts of the city, and began returning as early as 1946.
And no one was worried about Las Vegas at all, even though they say there was a testing ground nearby

[alovrov]

Author, go to school and study. 1 kgf/cm² is 1 atm. Do you need to explain what +0,1 kgf/cm² is and how many meters below sea level would you have to go to reach that pressure?

And yes, 1 kg/cm2 and 1 kgf/cm2 are not exactly the same thing.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Brother Alexander didn't understand what he was learning? 1 kgf/cm² = 0,967841 atm. So what? There are accepted civil defense qualifications. There's a textbook for that, by the way, by Egorov :))

A zone of severe destruction, where the excess pressure at the blast front ranges from 0,5 to 0,3 kg/cm2. In this zone, buildings and structures are severely damaged, while shelters and utility and power networks remain intact. Most basement-type fallout shelters are also preserved. The destruction of buildings results in massive rubble.
Solid fires arise from light radiation.
The main rescue operations in this zone are: clearing rubble, extinguishing fires, rescuing people from collapsed shelters and fallout shelters, as well as from destroyed and burning buildings.
The moderate destruction zone is characterized by excess pressure at the blast front ranging from 0,3 to 0,2 kg/cm2. Within this zone, buildings are moderately damaged, while shelters and cover are completely preserved. Building destruction results in localized rubble.
Solid fires arise from light radiation.
The main rescue operations in this area are extinguishing fires and rescuing people from under the rubble of destroyed and burning buildings.
The zone of minor damage is characterized by excess pressures of 0,2 to 0,1 kgf/cm2. In this zone, buildings experience minor damage (partitions, door and window infills collapse), which may result in isolated rubble. Isolated fires may start due to light radiation.

Do you want to write your own textbook?

[alovrov]

Okay, let me try another way... 0,1 kgf/cm² is a wind speed of about 40 m/s. That's a pretty nasty wind, but to say it destroys everything alive... that's a bit ridiculous. Go to the island of flying dogs, it can get over 55 there. The standard anemometer goes way off the charts, so we don't know exactly how much.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Alexander, everything is clear. Yes, the pressure is enormous. But it's all written down in the manuals and actually measured. You don't believe it? What are you suggesting? Change the facts? See the tables again.

[alovrov]

Huge, yes. Winds of 40 m/s or 144 km/h would be unpleasant if you stuck your hand out at that speed. But it wouldn't blow your hand off.

[Dometer]

If there is a big city consistently If three warheads were launched, there would be "partially damaged" zones, each "partially damaged" two or three times. The question is: how resilient are various structures to multiple blast wave impacts (from opposite directions).
If they spread it over a large city, simultaneously If three warheads are detonated, the shock waves in the explosion triangle will combine, collide, and reflect... Such tests (with nuclear bombs) have never been conducted. But modern modeling methods make it possible to identify the optimal configuration of simultaneous explosions and significantly improve the efficiency of using existing nuclear weapons stockpiles. Perhaps it's time to declassify such research and allow it to leak into the uninitiated minds of the Western public.

[Reklastik]

Ask those who were caught in a high-explosive blast about burns and injuries. Are there any differences?

- And did they receive 6 Gray on the whole body from a land mine?

[Alexander Odintsov]

Is this a joke? A bad one. A landmine costs 0 gray.

[Belisarius]

As they said in one famous film: “So, well, comrades, the team is large, the people are qualified, a lot of work has been done, I personally have no doubts - this is not how things will go.”
The article by the respected author is full of shortcomings, both general and technical.
1) The article mixes technical issues and political propaganda. This is fundamentally incorrect.
2) Technical issues and emotions are being mixed. This is also wrong. Both emotions and propaganda are fine, no objections there. But they don't address the purely technical issue of the consequences of nuclear weapons in modern conditions.
3) The author confuses the reality and conditions of completely different times. Hiroshima is one thing, the reality of the 70s and 80s is another, and today's reality is a third. They are simply incomparable, and one is not a model for the other.
4) Even within the context of propaganda, the author misrepresents the facts. For example, he writes about "Europe losing its grip on reality and preparing for war with Russia." But in reality, Europe's position is completely opposite – they are preparing to defend themselves against Russia if it attacks EU countries. Russia promised (practically swore on her mother's word) not to attack the territory of Ukraine, which it recognizes, and then launched the Second World War. From the EU's perspective, there are now no guarantees that it won't attack them either. You can disagree with Europe's assessment (I, for example, disagree), but you can't distort it. Or the author writes that the idea of ​​accepting nuclear war comes from "NATO generals," but in reality, the only officials threatening nuclear weapons and talking about incinerating Europe with Oreshnik, etc., are Russian officials. This is simply a fact of life; how can one ignore it?
As for the technical side of the issue, the author did not even consider the question of what a nuclear war actually looks like.
a) The adversaries aren't attacking each other's cities; they're attacking missile silos and other high-priority military targets. The key factors are who launches first, the element of surprise, and the success of the attack. These silos themselves are located far from major cities, mostly in sparsely populated areas. It's easy to see that if the enemy's silos or submarines are destroyed, nothing will fly from there. Therefore, any calculations about the simultaneous detonation of nuclear arsenals are an absolute myth.
b) Missiles are not 100% reliable. Some missiles will fail completely due to technical issues.
c) Genocidal strikes on cities are planned either if you have a lot of nuclear weapons, or if, on the contrary, you are weak and this is your “safety belt”
d) Nuclear weapons have become many times smaller than in the mid-80s.
d) Nobody knows the real state of Russia's nuclear arsenal. I hope it's better than everything else in modern Russia, but frankly, there's little hope for that. Extrapolating from the military situation (70% of new weapons, according to Shoigu), it would be nice if, at the crucial moment, we had something that could take off somewhere and fire at least a couple of submarines.
So, in reality, the notorious destruction of all humanity evaporates, and instead, there arises a need to strengthen the nuclear shield to be able to respond in the event of a real attack on Russia. I doubt that simultaneous talk about nuclear weapons as the apocalypse and threats to strike first with these very same nuclear weapons will help here.

[Per se.]

Quote: Belisarius

So, in reality, the notorious destruction of all humanity evaporates and instead there is a need to strengthen the nuclear shield in order to be able to respond in the event of a real attack on Russia.

This raises the question of what kind of attack... NATO is already striking Russia with weapons. It's no secret that guidance and maintenance also require NATO specialists. If Ukraine receives the Tomahawk (BGM-109 Tomahawk) or a similar variant, launching strikes deep into Russia, what will change in Russia's response? After four years of the Joint Military Operations, Donbas hasn't even been fully liberated, and there's no question of an ultimatum for Ukraine's capitulation. Only two main options are visible. Either the grinding continues, with the counting of liberated villages, and even individual houses, and the bleeding of Russia against the US and EU economies, until an ultimatum is accepted from the West, or some other "shameful peace" or "not so shameful" one. Or the conflict escalates to a large-scale direct intervention by NATO. In the first case, we'll get not only a "shameful peace" but also certain conditions from the West, which may include a demand for international oversight of our strategic nuclear forces. Secondly, it's not a given that our leadership will use nuclear weapons, especially if the West attacks with conventional strikes. The joke about Voronezh involuntarily comes to mind. The question is, why would the West use nuclear weapons if Russia's optimized industry can't withstand a confrontation with the EU and US economies? Our "elite," which has long been deeply committed to the West, is to blame. So, either Russia will be attrited, or our bad boys will have to be driven out of Russia to their beloved bourgeoisie. With a dependent, henpecked "elite," it's unlikely that we'll ever win, or even truly defend the country's national interests, rather than the selfish desires of the rich. The conclusion is that Russian capitalists won't use nuclear weapons against their favorite "partners" and their junk in the West. The West won't use nuclear weapons against those who are willing to compromise. If something were to provoke a change of power in Russia, options without "Voronezh" and "red lines" would be possible, but the West and our fat cats don't need that. That's the apocalypse: if not nuclear fire, then degradation. Time will tell what will happen in reality, but time is hardly on Russia's side right now.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Dear Belisarius! I'm not mixing things up. I presented you with data from technical manuals. The reality is that the denser the city, the more devastating the impact will be. Fires are catastrophic. Remember how the twin heads burned? During air strikes, shielding is minimal. Oddly enough, they will be hitting cities. At least in the final stages. That's a separate topic. But a 500 kt charge is not needed to destroy military installations. The state of Russia's nuclear potential is excellent. Modifications have been carried out. We are better than the US.

[Inevitably]

A good comment, I agree with almost everything, with one caveat: major political and industrial centers have been, are, and will be among the primary and secondary targets of the opponents' strikes. Unfortunately, there are enough warheads for that...

[Alexander Odintsov]

The first nuclear war plan with the USSR, "Totality," was developed by the United States as early as August 1945, when the first atomic bombs had already begun to enter service. The list included 20 cities: Moscow, Gorky (Nizhny Novgorod), Kuibyshev (Samara), Sverdlovsk (Yekaterinburg), Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad (St. Petersburg), Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov (Perm), Tbilisi, Stalinsk (Novokuznetsk), Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl. At the time the plan was developed, the United States did not have that many warheads.
In 1949, another, the well-known "Dropshot," was developed. It even specified a specific date for the strike on the Soviet Union: January 1, 1957. The targets were 100 cities, which would be detonated with 300 atomic bombs. The first US nuclear weapons tests were conducted on Japanese cities, and the first plans for strikes on the USSR were designed specifically for cities. A charge of 0.5-1 MT is hardly necessary to destroy large power plants, oil and gas chemical plants, major power grid nodes, and oil and gas pipeline hubs. High-precision weapons are sufficient to destroy the vast majority of these targets. And a charge of 0.5-1 MT is also excessive for obliterating any enemy military base. As one review put it: "Back in the 60s, speculation began to surface in the press that cities would be the most likely targets of nuclear strikes... But then... not only would clouds of dust, like those from volcanic eruptions, rise into the upper layers of the troposphere, but also a huge amount of soot. And soot has completely different properties."
The peculiarity of any nuclear war is its escalation. Any massive attack will receive a massive response. And if someone initiates a "limited conflict," the responding side, seeing the enemy's launches on their radar screens and realizing this is their last chance, will respond with full force, receiving a second "maximum" burst in response. Then, a "doomsday" weapon may be used, which has a different priority—inflicting total destruction on the enemy. A nuclear war is a "Pandora's box"—once opened, it cannot be closed.

[Alf]

Quote: Belisarius

a) The opponents are not attacking each other's cities at all; they are attacking missile silo positions and other priority military targets.

You're not taking into account one factor called "flight time." Let's take a minimum of 10 minutes.
The US strikes first. Within a minute or two, our General Staff learns of this and informs the President. He presses the button. The signal is sent to our nuclear weapons basing sites. They take action, and some time passes, maybe a minute. Our missiles take off, aiming, as you say, at the American silos. But! The American missiles are already en route, the silos are empty, and there's no point in hitting empty silos. We'll have to hit economic centers, that is, US cities.
Furthermore, the American military will also target our cities with first-strike missiles, because as soon as Russia's leadership learns of a US missile launch, it will order a retaliatory strike. So what's the point of the American military firing at our EMPTY silos, the missiles from which will already be en route to the US?

[Vic Vic]

They won't launch their entire arsenal of missiles simultaneously (most likely). That's the first thing.
Secondly, which silos are empty, and which still contain missiles, are no longer so important, and it will be difficult to determine this after the first salvos, and perhaps no one will be able to do so. The goal of survival becomes secondary; the main thing is to prevent the enemy from surviving, to prevent their state from preserving itself.

[Alf]

Quote from vicvic

They won't launch the entire arsenal of missiles at the same time (most likely).

Yeah, they'll shoot one at a time... The first strike is always the strongest. That's the alpha and omega of military science. That's the first thing.

Quote from vicvic

The main thing is not to let the enemy survive, not to let his state survive.

This is precisely why cities are Goal N1.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Absolutely right, that's exactly the logic.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Alf

Within 1-2 minutes, our General Staff receives word of this, and the President is informed. He presses the button. The signal is sent to our nuclear weapons deployment sites. They take action, and some time passes, maybe a minute.

Wow, your standards are so far removed from reality. The ZGLS post operator could only possibly press the button to send a signal to the higher-up on duty in 1-2 minutes. In reality, they'll be able to reach many installations within 10 minutes of approach, so that option isn't worth discounting.

[Alf]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

Wow, what are your standards?

That's why I wrote "approximately".

[lazy]

Will the damage be greater for the population of Russia or America? Unfortunately, I think it's Russia. Concentrated in cities, while Americans have scattered to the suburbs. (The question is whether this happened because Americans were drawn to their own homes or whether the government deliberately encouraged it, since the move to the suburbs began in the 60s when the threat of nuclear war arose.) The strength of the air wave weakens inversely proportional to distance, and light radiation weakens, too, and the more the population is dispersed, the fewer will be hit. True, houses made of sticks and shingles require less blast force and burn better. A combined heat and power plant is good, but if it hits it in winter, tens of thousands will be without heat, and it's harder to set up a stove in an apartment than in your own home and go to the toilet. In general, we also need to move the population from the anthills to their own homes in the suburbs (not necessarily mansions). The question is how.

[Vadim S]

We have a lot we need, but it's being done the opposite way. Therefore, the consequences for us will be dire.

[Inevitably]

Yes, we don't have much reason for optimism. Here, boasting is especially inappropriate!

[builder]

While Americans fled to the suburbs, dispersed (and the question is whether this happened because Americans yearned for their own homes or whether the government deliberately encouraged it, since the move to the suburbs began in the 60s when the threat of nuclear war arose).[quote][/quote] No need to invent how thoughtful Americans are. They've always lived like this. "One-story America," read Ilf and Petrov.

[lazy]

Well, look at photos of American cities (not regular megacities) in the 60s and now. Instead of residential areas, there are office buildings, giant parking lots, and deserted streets.

[Illanatol]

Yeah, and American cities are empty in the center. Of course. In fact, the population concentration in the US is much higher. And there are more megacities there. People live in the suburbs, but work in the city centers.
Yeah, the Yankees heat their cottages with wood. They probably use coal or gas, but more often than not, they use heaters. And that still has to be delivered, including electricity. Maybe the Yankees even produce their own food in their suburbs, along with medicine and clean fresh water?
Everyone will be screwed, except for the rednecks in some remote Oklahoma. But there won't be many of those. For everyone else, it will be very sour.

[Hole puncher]

It's like, "What if we hit them with a nuclear bomb and everything will be terrible for them?" That might have been the case (somewhat reduced) if the missile and warhead arsenal had been what it was in 1985. Today, it's so small that a nuclear winter is out of the question, not even a nuclear autumn. As has already been pointed out above, spending nuclear weapons on terrorizing the population is wasteful, because then the response will be 100% "all guns blazing," meaning the enemy's military potential must be destroyed, and these are targets where a single charge won't suffice. And there are a lot of them. Even an ordinary airport is already a strategic asset.
Regarding the killing of billions. Author, we learned how to mitigate the effects of a nuclear explosion back in the 60s. Evacuate the population and decontaminate the area. It's all quite simple. Even a simple change of clothing and a "petal" reduce the risk of radiation sickness. Those at the epicenter will die, and not all of them. Regarding the horrific destruction, the Hiroshima Exhibition Center, located at the epicenter of the explosion, symbolizes the so-called "destructive power" of an atomic blast, or rather its impotence. All the footage shown of the explosion pulverizing a prefabricated building might impress only housewives, because a modern city is made of reinforced concrete. To destroy a reinforced concrete building, a direct hit is required. And anyone in the shadow of a high-rise building will not feel either the blast wave or the radiation.
The author can be commended for using reference data, but he did not take into account many factors influencing it.

[Illanatol]

Few people will die from nuclear weapons, but what about the consequences?
What about the stability of the financial system? Are you aware that 99% of modern money supply is now in electronic form? And what will happen to the internet, to big data, to all those databases after nuclear strikes and EMPs?
After the nuclear explosion, humanity will be set back technologically by a century. And the human population will decline, albeit not immediately, to levels seen a century ago. Farewell, global markets and world trade. We'll return to a subsistence economy. And it will be the most developed who will suffer.
Have you considered the secondary effects of the destruction of nuclear power plants, chemical plants, and other such facilities? Have you also considered famine and epidemics? To make life in a modern metropolis practically impossible, you don't need to turn it into a radioactive crater. Without electricity, running water, and heating, it's a disaster for almost everyone. Today's average person is like a fish in an aquarium, heavily dependent on the benefits of civilization, which will simply disappear.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Illanatol

Few people will die from nuclear weapons, but what about the consequences?

This article discusses the horrors of an atomic explosion and the physical consequences of its components. The author does not consider the economic and social consequences (which undoubtedly accompany it).

[Sergey Valov]

Absolutely right! And the secondary consequences will be dire. Without electricity, virtually everything will stop—there will be no fuel for cars, tractors, or ships. Consequently, food shortages will quickly arise—planting grain crops will be impossible, fishing impossible, and processing existing grain and meat reserves impossible. Refrigerators storing millions of tons of pre-prepared food will stop working, and the food will perish. Communications will be nonexistent. And worst of all, anarchy and banditry will break out due to the collapse of the state.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Sergey Valov

And what’s most terrible is that anarchy and banditry will begin due to the destruction of statehood.

You've watched too many post-apocalyptic movies.

[Sergey Valov]

Think of Russia after the fall of the Tsarist regime. And that's still an easy option.

[Illanatol]

Sergei is absolutely right. Imagine how the loved ones of those killed in the conflict and its aftermath will feel. How will the "electorate" react to the catastrophic drop in living standards? This isn't like the migrant crisis. And among the dissatisfied will be security forces, too. They, too, have families and friends, and they, too, will experience the consequences firsthand. Loyalty to the authorities, obedience to superiors and commanders... all this will be forgotten. Even if the elite sits in bunkers, after the nuclear strikes, all these bosses will be dragged out and hung from lampposts.

[Inevitably]

I completely agree! The socioeconomic consequences of the massive use of nuclear weapons would be extremely dire...

[Alexander Odintsov]

Dear Anatoly, you're absolutely right. As for the death toll being low... According to Pentagon simulations, a 500-kilogram explosion in New York City would cause approximately 6.5 million casualties from various nuclear hazards, out of a total population of 18.198 million at the time of the assessment, in 2004. That's 36%. That's from a single charge. I imagine there could be 3-4, for example, from a single Yars. The remaining people would then die from radiation and lack of medical care. Then there would be food shortages, etc. There would be NO LIFE. THERE WILL BE SUFFERING AND EXTINCTION.

[Ivan F]

Hmm, it seems you're clearly not very aware of how America is structured and functions. And you're projecting your surrounding reality onto it. Therefore, the "absence," "shortage," and other "horrors" you speak of apply more to us than to the States.
One example: in the United States, with a population of 340 million, there are about 10 cities with over a million people, while in Russia, with a population of 140 million, there are about 15. They also have a ton of production (warehouse, etc.) facilities distributed much more evenly across the territory than here, where everything is concentrated in a few local points. And so it is everywhere.
So, in a mutual strike of comparable magnitude, the United States would get off much easier than we would. And if you consider that they can launch ground-based missile strikes directly from our borders, while we can only attack them from our territory, things get even more dire.

[Alexander Odintsov]

So, in the event of a mutual attack of comparable power, the States will get off much easier than we do.

This is a mistake; our area is larger. But in the cities, yes, their damage will be greater. I don't design anything. I use scientific data and bare facts.

[flint]

Much easier? You're forgetting about something like Yellowstone. If it were to be reactivated (and that's not difficult at all with a few nuclear weapons), then at the very least the United States would definitely be gone, and at the very most the entire planet would be in serious trouble. In this regard, everything is fine and stable here.

[Illanatol]

Are you aware that in an agglomeration like Greater New York, more than 30 million (more likely 40 million) people live in a very limited area?
American experts themselves have calculated that in an exchange of equal numbers (in terms of the number of warheads and their total yield), three times more people would die in the US than in Russia.
Well, it will fly to them later. A big relief.
Let's not forget that the most important centers (in terms of population and industrial potential) of the USA are on the coast of ice-free seas, while in our country they are often located inland.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Alexander Odintsov

According to Pentagon programs, during a 500 kt explosion in New York, approximately 6.5 million people will suffer from various damaging factors of a nuclear weapon.

Your program is crap - it simulated an explosion in the tundra - the diameter is the same as in New York City, i.e., it doesn't take into account buildings and terrain, which would greatly reduce the radius...

[Alexander Odintsov]

Kolya, are you serious? Send me the link. It won't let me in. The calculations in the table are from a different program, it's closed access. Everything there is well calculated. It's a US Department of Defense program.

[2 Level Advisor]

https://nuclearsecrecy.com только центру города хана.. да и как бы вопрос- откуда у Вас доступ к программе МО США и как Вы себе сами представляете - учет и расчет тех же небоскребов и иных высоток, как фактора защищающего тех кто за ним? просто вот как? как бетонных несколько стен каждый считать? ну и прикиньте-насколько воздействие ослабеет после пары десятков бетонных стен... по мне так очень-очень грубо рассчитать получится, если и ктото задумался об этом...

[Alexander Odintsov]

Firstly, in an airborne nuclear explosion, the shielding effect (obscuring the flash by clouds of dust, shielding by buildings and terrain) is insignificant compared to a ground explosion. As a result, the shock wave spreads over the maximum possible distances, resulting in a larger area of ​​damage from light radiation and penetrating radiation compared to a ground explosion.
Secondly, this was the American opinion. From open-access studies, a well-known work by William K. Bell and Cham E. Dallas (2007) provided a detailed assessment of the consequences of a nuclear explosion with a typical yield of 550 kt for four of the largest US cities. The above-mentioned programs were used to assess the consequences. Of course, I do not have access to them. According to their data, approximately 6.5 million people out of a total population of 18.198 million at the time of the assessment, 2004, will suffer from various damaging factors of a nuclear explosion. Calculations were made using the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) programs CATS-JACE for modeling the impact of radioactive fallout from a nuclear explosion, and EM-1 for calculating the effects of the explosion.

[Illanatol]

Could you elaborate on the hills and mountains in New York City? Incidentally, practical experience with hurricanes in large cities has shown that these skyscrapers can amplify the speed and destructive effects of air currents, much like a wind tunnel. Skyscrapers' resistance to shock waves is limited, given their windage and large contact area with the shock wave. And the collapse of skyscrapers can exacerbate damage to infrastructure caused by debris. Did you see the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001? The streets were littered with debris, hampering rescue efforts and evacuation efforts.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Illanatol

Could you please elaborate on the hills and mountains in New York City? Incidentally, practical experience during hurricanes in major cities has shown that these skyscrapers can amplify the speed and destructive effects of air currents, like a wind tunnel.

So, my assertion that conditions in the tundra and in a metropolis can't be equal is false? Nuclear radiation isn't just wind, but also light and shock waves, which operate on different principles, just like a radioactive pulse and an EMP. Some will collapse, some won't. Where there is a collapse, it's all the same—surviving from other factors is problematic. Therefore, I insist that the damaging factors in the tundra and in a metropolis are absolutely not equivalent.

[Illanatol]

You mentioned the relief, and I was wondering what kind of relief you were talking about in the city you mentioned.
A shock wave can also concentrate when the space for its propagation is limited. And let's not forget that a shock wave also has a return wave, caused by a pressure difference.

Well, they're not equivalent... there would be far fewer secondary consequences in the tundra, since the tundra is practically empty. There's not much to burn in the tundra. But in the city, there would be severe fires, toxic emissions, and other "delights." So, a nuclear explosion in an open area is preferable, especially if there are small folds in the terrain.

[Good Evil]

Quote: Illanatol

Few people will die from nuclear weapons, but what about the consequences?

And later, "the living will envy the dead." I think those who survive immediately after a nuclear attack will die, some quickly, others slowly and painfully. Think about it, city dwellers (not necessarily megacities, but even urban-type settlements). How will you live without electricity? Without gas? Without water? Without sewage? Without grocery and other stores? Without heat? Without transportation (the streets are littered, there's no fuel)? Gangs of marauders roam the streets, ready to kill you for a can of food or a pair of felt boots. The city fathers, supposed to ensure law and order, have fled in all directions or are holed up in personal bunkers, guarded by loyal, well-armed lackeys. These men will eventually become local potentates who will fight other such potentates for control of the remaining food and fuel depots, while the rest will be reduced to slaves...
How do you feel about this aspect of the consequences of a nuclear war?

[Illanatol]

Quote: Good evil

How do you feel about this aspect of the consequences of a nuclear war?

I've written something similar myself. But it's astonishing that there are those who don't grasp such obvious things. It seems some people judge things by computer games, believing that in real life, too, everything can be fixed by loading the latest save.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Regarding the killing of billions. Author, we learned how to mitigate the consequences of a nuclear explosion back in the 60s. Evacuate the population and decontaminate the area. It's all quite simple.

A hole puncher, of course, will do just fine. The Chernobyl zone is 2600 square kilometers. You've been to Pripyat. I was there before the accident, when it was a thriving city. And around 1992, when it was just a nuclear slum. When you had thousands of square kilometers, removing 10-20 cm of land is a huge technical challenge. All the land after the tests is lost. Bikini Atoll, Semipalatinsk, etc. There's radioactivity everywhere there that lasts for hundreds and thousands of years.

[Cartalon]

And what about Pripyat? It's now a wonderful nature reserve, where nature thrives without humans.

[Alexander Odintsov]

I was there in 1992, the city was like a slum. Here's a photo of the central hotel.

[Illanatol]

Yep. 30cm-long pine needles, blind catfish, and other oddities.
How is it with gr. Kraftwerk... "Chain reaction and mutation contaminated population..."

[Alf]

Quote: Puncher

In order to destroy a reinforced concrete house, a direct hit is required.

Judging by the quality of our MODERN home construction, a direct hit is not at all necessary.
And one more thing. I think both we and they will drag their feet about announcing an evacuation, because this is no joke. Now imagine what would happen in a major city—I won't even mention cities with a population of over a million or capital cities—if an evacuation were suddenly announced. The first and last thing you'd see would be monstrous traffic jams on the streets, as the population would rush to save itself.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Brother Evgeny, study these works—there are many of them. Of course, there won't be a nuclear winter. There will be a nuclear autumn, and there will be nothing to eat. According to the most recent, repeatedly confirmed estimates from 2022, prepared by an international team of scientists who have long been studying this topic (Lili Xia, Alan Robock, Isabelle Weindl, Kim Scherrer, Jonas Jägermeyr, Cheryl S. Harrison, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Charles G. Bardeen, Owen B. Toon, Ryan Heneghan), who have at their disposal the most powerful advanced computer models and the necessary computing power, in the event of a full-scale nuclear conflict between the US and Russia, more than 150 Tg (Teragrams), or 150,000,000 tons of soot, will be released into the atmosphere, which will lead to irreversible climate change and large-scale famine. They estimate that 5 billion of the Earth's 6.7 billion people at that time will die within two years. And this isn't just a calculation. But that's not all. According to calculations by American scientists Owen Toon and Richard Turco, an Indo-Pakistani war using warheads with a combined yield of 750 megatons would release 6,6 million tons of soot into the stratosphere. This level of pollution is sufficient to drop Earth's temperature below that of 1816 (the "Year Without a Summer").
A nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan could kill one in three people on Earth. Corn and wheat harvests—the world's most important crops—would fall by 13%, leading to "consequences for global food security unprecedented in modern history." In other words, "the living may later envy the dead."
Furthermore, as Matt Bivens, MD, argues, “Severe climate change and long-term famine would be the consequences of even a localized use of nuclear weapons.” Famine could kill a third of the world’s population—even if only 3% of the world’s nuclear arsenal were used in a conflict.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Alexander Odintsov

Brother Evgeny, study these works—there are many of them. There certainly won't be a nuclear winter. There will be a nuclear autumn, and there won't be anything left to eat. According to the most recent, repeatedly confirmed estimates from 2022, prepared by an international team of scientists who have been studying this topic for a long time.

Forgive my skepticism, but "Comrade Scientists, Associate Professors, and Postdoctoral Fellows" regularly produce studies that, after reading them, require digging a bunker or flying to Mars and digging a bunker there. I vividly remember the story of the "ozone layer" being destroyed by deodorants and hairspray, and about global warming being caused by cows... And regarding nuclear explosions... everything there is so far-fetched that it's hard to take seriously. I'm definitely in favor, because those who can press the button don't possess special intelligence or knowledge, and they should be afraid of what they might do, and for the average person, it's better to "over..." than to "under...." But I share the opinion of those who are critical of such research.

[Illanatol]

Well, anthropogenic activity really does have little impact on the climate. Both the ozone hole and global warming are caused by entirely natural factors. But, as we know, even a little extra weight can break a camel's hump. The biosphere is already in poor condition; we are currently living in the Anthropocene, another mass extinction of flora and fauna, so the additional negative impact caused by a nuclear conflict could very well cause us to share the fate of the dinosaurs.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Illanatol

The negative impact caused by a nuclear conflict could very well cause us to share the fate of the dinosaurs.

There have been similar moments in human history. Volcanoes have temporarily altered the climate more than once, but nothing drastic happened. They'd sit in winter for a couple of years, and that was it.

Quote: Illanatol

Both ozone holes and global warming are caused by completely natural reasons.

But how many scientists were involved in this "hype"? I'm critical of research into the consequences of nuclear war because there wasn't much practical experience. All the data comes from open-air nuclear tests and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Russian_Ninja]

Well, how can I say that nothing terrible happened?

As far as scientists and their scientific publications can be trusted, humanity itself has gone through a bottleneck at least three times, including due to volcanoes and climate

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Russian_Ninja

Humanity itself has gone through a bottleneck at least three times, including due to volcanoes and climate

The level of development of society was much lower.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Puncher

The level of development of society was much lower.

A civilized person, having undergone a course of training, is able to adapt and survive in emergency situations. For our savage ancestors, every situation was normal.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Illanatol

For our savage ancestors, any situation was normal.

On the one hand, yes, but on the other. Humanity has a reserve of food and medicine that (in limited quantities) will allow it to survive the first, most difficult days. Plus clothing. Our ancestors couldn't count on such a thing.

[Illanatol]

Well, our ancestors had clothing too—animal skins. They had caves, they could make fires, and they had game to hunt. But for modern humans, replenishing food and medicine supplies would be problematic, and the forest wouldn't be particularly good for firewood.
In the game "STALKER" (or rather, in the prequel), there was a location called the "Red Forest." It really exists, this forest. The trees have accumulated a fair amount of radionuclides, and the needles have withered. If there's a forest fire, all this radioactive sludge will be released back into the atmosphere.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Puncher

There have been similar moments in human history.

Yes, there were. And phylogenetic studies have shown that at least once the entire human population dwindled to just a few dozen individuals and experienced a so-called "bottleneck." So the biblical story of the "Great Flood," from which only Noah and his household survived, may not be such a far-fetched fiction. Some "fellow scientists" even claim that all modern humans are descended from a single woman ("mitochondrial Eve") who lived in Africa approximately 100 years ago. I doubt it myself, but it's entirely possible that humanity has already been on the brink of total extinction. And should we tempt fate again if even humanity as a whole may be doomed, let alone us, individual humans?
Well, death at the epicenter of a nuclear explosion is the quickest and most painless. However, this is still of little comfort.

[Alexander Odintsov]

As for nuclear explosions... everything there is so far-fetched that it's hard to take seriously.

Go ahead, relax. The Hiroshima experience doesn't impress you. The city was wiped out with one bomb.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Alexander Odintsov

They wiped out the city with one bomb.

paper city... and after just 5 years it was populated and rebuilt.

[Alexander Odintsov]

And they began to die of cancer. The aftereffects of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki continue to this day, and people continue to die from the long-term effects of radiation poisoning and related diseases, especially cancer. As of August 31, 2013, the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the atomic bombings was approximately 450,000: 286,818 in Hiroshima; 162,083 in Nagasaki. The delayed effects are colossal.
According to a 2015 report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), nearly two-thirds (63%) of deaths among Hiroshima survivors since 1945 were attributed to malignant tumors (cancer), with the main types being lung cancer (20%), stomach cancer (18%), liver cancer (14%), leukemia (8%), colon cancer (7%), and malignant lymphoma (6%). Similar statistics are available for Nagasaki.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Alexander Odintsov

According to the 2015 report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the cause of death of people, survivors of the bombing in Hiroshima since 1945

That is, we are talking specifically about those who survived the bombing, and not about the infection from which everyone has been dying since then. And do you know that all Mazdas are and were made in Hiroshima?

[Alexander Odintsov]

That's great. The city is practically clean now. I wrote about it in the article. I don't understand what you're trying to say. That the city was burned down, thousands died from burns and radiation, and all that, but everything's okay? Level 2 Advisor? What do you recommend?

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Alexander Odintsov

Level 2 Advisor? What do you recommend?

Fear nuclear weapons, as they could very well destroy Russia and the United States as countries and inflict very large losses on these countries, but don't be afraid as earthlings - immediately after the exchange of nuclear weapons between us, the EU and the United States, the world will have new leaders, and humanity will survive, but without the aforementioned countries, as they are worth a lot on the planet... Although in 100 years we will have a chance to recover - is that a big chance - that's the question

[Illanatol]

Yeah, we'll even build communism, in a couple of millennia, like in "The Andromeda Nebula." But just like in Yefremov's novel, few will have Russian names and surnames; most will have Indian ones.
It depends on the person, but this prospect is not particularly encouraging.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Alexander Odintsov

They wiped out the city with one bomb.

Luckily, we don't live in houses with paper walls on a wooden frame.

[Chack wessel]

Now the bombs are different, and there is more than just one of them.

[Cartalon]

Comparing Hiroshima and Nagasaki to modern cities is strange. In our money, these are large villages. A firestorm requires dense buildings and wood or wooden floors. It will happen in the center of St. Petersburg, but I doubt it will happen in residential areas.

[Illanatol]

Modern cities are much more vulnerable. Sure, concrete blocks might survive far from the epicenter. But without transportation, communications, electricity, food supplies... how long can you survive in such conditions? Where will you get clean water? How much is needed? And who will handle the sewerage system, and how? Do you think everything will continue to function? There will be mass epidemics, thirst, hunger, and other such delights.
Modern civilization is much more vulnerable than it was in 1945.

One Soviet writer, although I don’t like him, rightly noted: a village hut can survive a nuclear conflict, but skyscrapers cannot.
Shock waves and radiation aren't the worst things. An EMP would be even more devastating. A power outage alone is enough to turn life in a modern city into a living hell.

[flint]

You forget that around large cities, and not only cities, there is a huge amount of suburban real estate, where, in the worst case, 80-90% of the city population will move, so at first it will be possible to live, but then the deaths from hunger, lack of medicine and medical care, from anarchy and banditry will begin.

[Illanatol]

Will they be able to relocate "in a pinch"? Are you sure? Are you aware of the "organized" evacuation of the small town of Harrisburg (smaller than Pripyat) after the Three Mile Island disaster?
So chaos will start there right away, even before our nuclear batons reach us.

[flint]

Well, of course, I don't mean before the strike, given the speed of the ammunition, but afterward, when the housing and utilities sector begins to collapse, the survivors will be able to find a place to live until other consequences occur.

[Illanatol]

A possible strike will likely be announced in advance, as it will be a retaliatory strike. As soon as it becomes clear that their rulers have given the order to fire, the real action will begin, as everyone understands that a retaliatory strike is inevitable.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Of course, it was just wood. Remember how the Twin Towers burned? Or our own Crocus. If everything in the center of the explosion is melted and leveled by the blast wave, then catastrophic fires will break out in the area where the buildings aren't completely destroyed. Today, cities contain enormous amounts of flammable material. Modern multi-story buildings (especially tower-type buildings) provide unlimited oxygen supply thanks to the "draft" effect (like in furnaces with tall chimneys). These buildings contain warehouses, fuel reserves, and plastic.

[Cartalon]

But there won't be a firestorm, well, a firestorm won't happen from isolated buildings, now the ruins of cities don't look like in WWII, there aren't those burnt-out boxes, some things will burn, some won't, and reinforced concrete structures are not at all, not wooden Japanese houses.

[Alexander Odintsov]

The Changsha fire. The Crocus fire. There was a firestorm there, by the way. The Twin Towers fire. Everything's burning perfectly. Lots of plastic.

[garri-lin]

Remember the fires in the southern United States? When a simple forest fire destroyed the villas of the wealthy, located quite far from each other.
Moreover, these fires were actively fought.

[alovrov]

All the photos of the nuclear bombings show Hiroshima. Because it's a paper city, traditionally Japanese. In Nagasaki, the destruction was much less dramatic because the buildings there were made of stone.

[Alexander Odintsov]

The terrain there was simply different, hilly.

[Illanatol]

Let's not forget the radioactive contamination of the area. Hiroshima was rebuilt long ago, as was Nagasaki, but the descendants of the survivors still suffer from genetic deformities and cancer.
Let's take into account that after the nuclear disaster there will be no one to take special care of the victims, as well as to fight epidemics.
Nuclear explosions themselves do not cause significant radioactive contamination of the area. However, the consequences of the destruction of nuclear power plants and other facilities related to nuclear energy will last for millennia.

[Dometer]

For a firestorm, dense construction and wood or wood floors are needed

There will be more wood, textiles, and plastic in a multi-story stone house than in a wooden barn of the same area.

[Alex66]

Only the mentally ill, religious fanatics, or elites hoping to hide in bunkers can avoid fear of nuclear weapons. The problem with society is that these groups are heavily represented in decision-making bodies.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Alex66

Only the mentally ill, religious fanatics, or elites hoping to hide in bunkers can avoid fear of nuclear weapons.

Any weapon is scary. Ukraine is a case in point; cities are destroyed even without nuclear weapons. That's not the point, but rather that demonization shouldn't be done.

[Illanatol]

The analogy doesn't hold. In Ukraine, these aren't even "flowers," just small buds. But if electricity, running water, and heating were to disappear completely and irrevocably, even in the major cities, then something would definitely start to happen.

[Illanatol]

The difference is that conventional weapons only harm those directly caught in the blast zone. In the case of nuclear weapons (as with other types of WMD), the majority of casualties will be caused by the delayed effects of their use.
Fewer than 70 people died during the nuclear attack in Hiroshima. But considering the consequences, the death toll is over 200. And this is with a practically isolated use in a city that had no nuclear power plants, large chemical plants, or other similar infrastructure facilities.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Illanatol

Less than 70 people died during the nuclear attack in Hiroshima. But taking into account the consequences, more than 200 died.

Back then, no one knew what radiation was or how to deal with it. The bomb was dirty, and most of the uranium turned to dust and settled on the city. People wandered through the rubble, searching for loved ones, and were exposed to radiation. A timely evacuation and decontamination would have saved most of the dead. In Soviet times, all organizations had posters with instructions on what to do in the event of a nuclear explosion. Unfortunately, they no longer have them.

[Illanatol]

A timely evacuation may be feasible in the case of a single disaster. There are few examples of the timely and orderly evacuation of entire cities. The practical experience of rescue services in the aftermath of natural disasters in the United States, for example, can be considered rather negative. It's well known how "effectively" rescuers there worked during fires in California or hurricanes in Florida. But if something similar were to be widespread, affecting not just one or two cities but many more, and were accompanied by anarchy and mass unrest, then... the picture would be bleak.
And forget about mass decontamination. In practice, it simply means moving the radioactive waste and storing it elsewhere. The radioactivity doesn't disappear. This procedure is very expensive and time-consuming, requiring a lot of time and resources. How did they manage to completely "decontaminate" the area around the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant or Fukushima? The radiation will still be there for a long time...

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Illanatol

Well, how did you manage to "deactivate" it?

We're talking about people. The easiest way is to "take off all your outer clothing and throw it in this pit. Here's some water, wash all exposed areas of your body."

[Illanatol]

Yeah, but where does the radioactive waste go next? Into the groundwater, then into the water supply?
Decontaminating military equipment and personnel is one thing, but mass events for civilians are quite another. In the former case, maintaining combat capability during combat operations is sufficient; the long-term consequences of such "decontamination" aren't particularly considered. What happens in a year or five years isn't particularly concerning. The main thing is that we can fight here and now.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Only the mentally ill, religious fanatics, or elites hoping to hide in bunkers can avoid fear of nuclear weapons.

Finally, someone with a sense of reality has been found. It's all true. In the 70s, when I was a boy, everyone understood exactly what would happen. Schools taught civil defense lessons. They told us about it. In the 90s, we relaxed with the West, like it was peace. What do you mean, the end of the world? And now people who write, to put it mildly, strange things in the comments are relaxing their fear of nuclear war into the self-delusion that we'll survive and everything will be fine.

How many warheads would it take to completely cover a city with nuclear explosions? Eighty warheads with a yield of 500 kt.

How about 2-3? And one more super relaxation:

Regarding the killing of billions. Author, we learned how to mitigate the effects of a nuclear explosion back in the 60s. Evacuate the population and decontaminate the area. It's all quite simple. Even a simple change of clothes and a "petal" reduce the risk of radiation sickness. Those at the epicenter will die, and not all of them.

Do you even understand what you're writing? Keep relaxing. Of course, it's calmer that way.

[Jacques sekavar]

The Bible says that after a huge stone falls from the sky, 1/3 of all life on earth, air and sea will perish.

[Trapperxnumx]

Revelation also speaks of the fall of a star and "the name of the star is wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many people died from the waters because they became bitter."
You know that Chernobyl (or Chernobylnik) is the Ukrainian name for a plant that sounds like "common wormwood" in Russian?

[staer-62]

Just a thought, not even a proposal. I'm generally in favor of the complete destruction of Europe, which killed so many Russians in the most brutal way in the 20th century and continues to do so today, and that we have every moral right to do so. Back at the beginning of the Cold War, when Europe joined in, I proposed detonating nuclear weapons along Ukraine's entire border with the West, spaced approximately 5 kilometers apart. A 1000-kilometer border divided by five would yield 200 nuclear weapons, preferably ground-based ones, to maximize radiation and reduce border intrusion. That way, few people would suffer, and we'll demonstrate that we're ready to launch a nuclear attack on Europe. I'd go straight to Europe; they deserve it.

[Alexander Odintsov]

staer, you're amazing!!!

Europe, I proposed detonating nuclear explosions along Ukraine's entire border with the West, spaced approximately 5 kilometers apart. Dividing the 1000-kilometer border by five would yield 200 nuclear warheads, preferably ground-based, to maximize radiation and reduce cross-border intrusion.

All of Europe will die from radiation, and we'll get some too!!! You understand, nuclear weapons aren't a hundred FABs - they're 9000!!!! They have completely different secondary effects.

[staer-62]

I liked the part about Europe. What if it's not all at once, but once a week? Will Europe survive?

[alovrov]

He won't die from radiation, just calculate the radiation output from a modern thermonuclear weapon. Arithmetic

[Alexander Odintsov]

So, is a hydrogen bomb clean? Another myth. Since thermonuclear charges are two-stage, with a conventional nuclear explosion occurring first, it's impossible to talk about the radioactive "cleanliness" of a hydrogen bomb, as demonstrated by the data from the Castle Bravo explosion. As Academician Yuri Izrael writes in his monograph,

"The explosion of a thermonuclear bomb releases significantly more neutrons than an atomic bomb, and consequently, a greater amount of neutron-induced activity is produced. In such a bomb… elements with higher numbers may be produced. When U238 is added to the thermonuclear bomb shell to enhance the explosion power (a fission-fusion-fission bomb), the isotopes Np239 and U237 are produced in very significant quantities… the Np239 content… in the radioactive products… after 3-4 days can reach 50-65% of the total activity."

According to American data, the detonation of a large hydrogen bomb produces approximately 10^6 curies of Sr90. The surface soil layer contains, on average, approximately 10^-3 curies per square kilometer of strontium, i.e., approximately 10^5 curies over the entire land area. Consequently, after the detonation of a large hydrogen bomb, the total amount of strontium on the contaminated land surface would increase by more than an order of magnitude.
As the authors of the reference book by G. Demidenko et al., “Protection of National Economy Facilities from Weapons of Mass Destruction” (1987) write:

"To divert world attention from issues related to the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the cessation of their testing, American imperialist circles have put forward the idea of ​​creating a so-called 'clean' hydrogen bomb. The American newspaper The Washington Post and Times Herald explained: A 'clean' bomb is one that, while its destructive power is not diminished, can be detonated under certain conditions in such a way that it will not spread strontium-90, which would poison the Earth's atmosphere in a conventional hydrogen explosion."
Some commentators on the American press's announcement addressed the question: how realistic is the idea of ​​creating a "clean" hydrogen bomb in the full sense of the word? The answer was clear: "clean" bombs are fundamentally impossible, since a nuclear explosion cannot occur without the production of neutrons, and the capture of neutrons by air and soil (water) creates radioactive "dirt." However, the radioactivity of an explosion can be reduced to some extent.
In order to reduce the amount of fission fragments from uranium or plutonium, which are the main source of contamination of the atmosphere and earth during a hydrogen explosion, it was necessary, as indicated in the foreign press, to change the design of existing hydrogen bombs, namely, to abandon the use of a uranium shell and an atomic detonator of the bomb.
This inevitably raises the question: how can we create the high temperature necessary for a thermonuclear reaction with hydrogen or lithium hydride? This remains difficult to answer. Foreign publications have suggested the possibility of finding a new method for detonating hydrogen bombs, based on the use of shock waves from the detonation of a conventional explosive.
It is indicated that either the principle of cumulation or other properties of shock waves can be used in this case. Velocities of the order of 10 cm/sec have been observed for a very small portion of the cumulative jet front of a beryllium-lined charge detonated in a vacuum. This enormous kinetic energy corresponds to the initial velocity of the shock wave at an explosion temperature of approximately 1 million degrees. However, the average velocity of the cumulative jet is approximately ten times lower. Therefore, the practical implementation of the method of using shock waves to initiate a thermonuclear reaction faces significant difficulties. Resolving these difficulties will require some time.

[alovrov]

Stop distorting the facts. Fusion produces practically nothing but helium. What you wrote is again about a dirty bomb, which we no longer have in our current arsenals.
Let's do some arithmetic. The fuse contains approximately 1 kg of plutonium-239. If you take a thousand warheads, you'll have a ton of plutonium. They'll burn, producing isotopes of strontium, cesium, iodine, and other minor components. But all together, it's no more than a ton. Well, screw it, let's calculate two tons; the warheads might be old. That's two tons of plutonium-239 decay products in total. About three tons of fuel were released from Chernobyl, though that included both uranium and plutonium, so it's a bit harsher, to put it mildly. And yes, most of the explosions will be airbursts, unlike...

And after this, we're going to claim that the entirety of Europe will die from the radiation of 1000 people? There will be a significant surge in radiation in some places, yes, but nothing more.

Do not thank.

[Alexander Odintsov]

What you wrote is again about a dirty bomb, which is no longer in current arsenals.

Sasha, don't talk nonsense. There are no such things as clean nuclear weapons. This is a fake story for idiots, spread from Washington.

Don't be afraid, little goat, everything will be fine with you: the bomb is clean."

Read the whole damn thing above, it's all laid out there. Your calculations don't take into account induced radiation. Besides, at Chernobyl, the bulk of the fuel went into the red forest. Everything will be blown away here. Europe is a pathetic little patch of land. It'll be the end.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Additions:

A thermonuclear reaction can be ignited without a nuclear "primer," for example, with a super-powerful laser or gamma pulse, as is done in tokamaks. However, this requires installations the size of a huge building, not to mention the monstrous energy consumption. Compact warheads are out of the question in this case, and they won't last very long. Furthermore, a thermonuclear reaction won't be completely pure; the neutron flux will inevitably cause changes in the atomic nuclei and induced radiation by converting surrounding substances into radioactive isotopes. Why did people so quickly abandon neutron warheads?

[Illanatol]

Did you know that the casings of our warheads were often made of uranium-238? It's a very strong and refractory material, which is important for missile warheads. During a chain reaction, this uranium transforms into highly radioactive isotopes, and there will be hundreds of kilograms of them.

How many kilograms of uranium were in the bomb dropped on Hiroshima? Also only a few kilograms. But there was a fair amount of radioactive fallout.

[Alexander Odintsov]

There is such a book. Men and Atoms Lawrence William L. WikiReading
CHAPTER 24 "Clean" hydrogen bomb. Look what the Americans write about the torture at Bikini Atoll.

"Indeed, the Pacific tests of 1956 included tests not only of multi-megaton hydrogen bombs, but also of much smaller hydrogen bombs, the creation of which was made possible by removing the heavy "dirty" isotope. These small hydrogen bombs greatly increased the potential of "clean" weapons as a means of defense. They could be used as warheads in radio-controlled missiles, as a powerful defensive weapon in the event of an air attack, and as transportable weapons that could be delivered by supersonic jets.
All these known facts allow us to conclude that that we have succeeded in making the hydrogen bomb more “humane” by limiting its enormous killing power to fire and explosion alone and turning it from a radioactive monster, which draws most of its strength from the "dirty" element, into a weapon of local action.

Did you know that the atoll was uninhabitable after these tests? And how many people were irradiated there? The radioactive contamination extended over 550 kilometers, downwind, and carried the radioactive fallout across all the nearby atolls of the Marshall Islands. Decades later, many islands remain contaminated and uninhabitable even today.
US sailors, stationed on ships hundreds of kilometers from the epicenter of the explosion and not expecting such a spread of radiation, were forced to hide indoors.
Worse consequences awaited the sailors on fishing vessels and island residents who had no shelter. The highest dose, 300 roentgens, was received by the crew of the Japanese fishing vessel "Lucky Dragon," which was located 170 km (an enormous distance!) from the explosion site. Twelve of the 23 crew members died, while the rest developed radiation sickness, leaving them disabled for life.
Despite government promises, these and subsequent nuclear tests (Redwing in 1956 and Hardtack in 1958) rendered Bikini completely uninhabitable, contaminating the soil and water, making them unsuitable for farming and fishing. A 2016 study found that radiation levels on Bikini Atoll, while not off the charts, reached 639 millirem/year (6,39 mSv/year), significantly exceeding the safe occupancy level. Natural background radiation is approximately 200 millirem/year. Couldn't get any cleaner?

[alovrov]

Japan, for fuck's sake! How much more can we talk about dirty bombs from the 60s? What kind of uranium casing do modern warheads use?

And yes, did you know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are habitable? And that at the epicenter in NZ, two hours after Kuzka's mother, there was no radiation at all? Well, yes, it's 4 km away, but it's also the power and the uranium shell.
And how many above-ground special operations have there been in the interests of the national economy? Not underground ones, just in case.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Sasha, our conversation is over, I'm sorry. I just have nothing to say to you.

And by the way, did you know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are habitable? And that at the epicenter in NZ, two hours after Kuzka's mom, there was no radiation at all?

You're out of the loop and there's nothing to talk about with you.

[gsev]

Quote: alovrov

And yes, did you know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are habitable?

As a result of nuclear tests, the maximum permissible concentration of radiation in breast milk in New York City was approximately 5. Even though these maximum permissible concentrations are overstated, the danger of radiation may be understated. It's often overlooked that humans are at the top of the food chain, and any organism, from grass to pigs, often accumulates toxic substances, including radiation. Radiation levels in the air may be acceptable, but in wheat or potatoes, its concentration is many times higher. It's even higher in milk and meat. Furthermore, while alpha and beta radiation barely penetrate the skin, if particles emitting this radiation are absorbed by a plant and eaten, they will begin to damage the body from within through radiation, after radioactive salts from food enter the stomach and are distributed through the bloodstream. In modern nuclear accidents, victims are quickly evacuated and treated. If nuclear weapons were used en masse, radioactive ash would settle everywhere, making it difficult to find safe areas on Earth. There would simply be nothing to eat due to the concentration of population there.

[Illanatol]

Quote: alovrov

Japan, for fuck's sake! How much more can we talk about dirty bombs from the 60s? What kind of uranium casing do modern warheads use?

From AI:

The warhead casing of a ballistic missile, especially in thermonuclear weapons, is often made of depleted uranium. It serves as a neutron reflector, increasing the explosive power, and creates an aerosol upon detonation, enhancing the radiation and chemical effects. This dense metal is also used in armor-piercing ammunition.
Key aspects of uranium shell:

Material: Primarily uranium-238, a byproduct of uranium enrichment, is used. Purpose: The cladding serves as a "trampler" (neutron reflector) in nuclear weapons, slowing the dispersal of fissile material and increasing the efficiency of nuclear fuel use.
Properties: Provides high density (70% higher than lead) and strength.
Effect: When detonated, the shell partially turns into an aerosol, which causes serious environmental and health consequences.

It's simply cost-effective to use uranium-238; it's inexpensive. Some warheads are designed to hit heavily defended and buried targets, and not every material can withstand flight at sub-space speeds in the dense layers of the atmosphere (the final part of the trajectory).

[staer-62]

I believe the use of depleted uranium weapons in Donbas pollutes the area far more than a nuclear explosion, and the consequences will last for generations, affecting everyone involved and living in this territory. They say the decay of such elements takes millennia. They don't talk about it, but we know such weapons exist and are being used.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Both of these make no difference, the consequences are the same.

[Inevitably]

I'm generally in favor of the complete destruction of Europe, which killed so many Russians in the most brutal way in the 20th century and continues to do so today. We have every moral right to do so. Back at the beginning of the Cold War, when Europe joined in, I proposed detonating nuclear weapons along Ukraine's entire border with the West, spaced approximately 5 kilometers apart. A 1000-kilometer border divided by five would yield 200 nuclear weapons. Ground-based ones are best, so there would be more radiation and less cross-border activity.

Citizen "stayer", have you still not completed your treatment at the PNB?!

[staer-62]

Are you against it? If so, I propose we forget all those killed in the past and forgive in advance all enemies present and future, as well as your death and the death of your loved ones, who will be killed with pleasure in the most brutal manner. Is your imagination working? Who plans to kill 50 Russians a month? The Ukrainians? Or Europe? What difference does it make?

[Inevitably]

Only you, citizen "stayer", are seething with pathological imagination!

[staer-62]

What fantasy? They're openly telling us their plans, which they're already implementing. Only people with mental or educational problems can fail to see this. Just search "Atrocities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces." It's just mind-blowing. So, I'm a psychopath, a nuclear maniac, and all around us are nice, kind people? Should we destroy them with nuclear strikes and leave them to be grazed by mutant boars the size of cows for thousands of years?

[Inevitably]

Don't try to fool me with your propaganda from the National Security Service.

[rinat1955]

When I was serving my military service at Baikonur, I saw an article in a publication called "Diary of an Agitator" about another damaging factor in a high-power thermonuclear explosion. This would be, for example, the detonation of Poseidon at a depth of a kilometer or more. That's when a thermonuclear reaction with the hydrogen in the seawater would occur.
And then life on Earth is guaranteed to disappear... In half an hour at most, a charred ball will be spinning in orbit.

[Alexander Odintsov]

This is an explosion, for example, of Poseidon at a depth of a kilometer or more... That's when a thermonuclear reaction with the hydrogen in the seawater will occur....
And then life on Earth is guaranteed to disappear... In half an hour at most, a charred ball will be spinning in orbit.

Poseidon is a great idea. Just don't hit the shore; the wave won't be big. Instead, launch it into the cracks in the seafloor rifts off the US coast—there are plenty of them. However, seawater won't react. There are no conditions. Otherwise, all this would have happened in Bikini. They detonated 15 MT of thermonuclear fusion there. The sea wouldn't evaporate. :)))

[alovrov]

The author is simply a fool and a demagogue, born straight out of the period of détente, when, to justify peaceful coexistence and the upcoming dismemberment of the corpse of the USSR, illiterate scientists of this type concocted these very same horror stories for the Soviet population.
Only a cretin, a demagogue, or a provocateur would compare the dirty bomb in Hiroshima to modern thermonuclear weapons. Apparently, it's all of them. The potential contamination of a kilogram of burned plutonium can certainly be calculated, but it's of little use. Chernobyl was still 10000 times larger.

Yes, the globalists are counting on Russia, with the help of such idiots, not daring to use nuclear weapons in a future war with NATO. We must dissuade the globalists. In a nuclear war, there will be winners and losers, and we must prepare for this. Just as they did in the USSR before détente.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Dear and beloved brother Alexander! This article confirms that we shouldn't start a nuclear war against us. That's why all these statistics and math were compiled. I didn't make anything up here. If you think the people who described the consequences of nuclear weapons are fools and even illiterate, I sincerely feel sorry for you.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Yes, the globalists are counting on Russia, with the help of such idiots, not daring to use nuclear weapons in a future war with NATO. We must dissuade the globalists.

For globalists, a special point: What will happen when Yars is used? Didn't read it? In vain.

The Yars (RS-24) missile system carries multiple warheads (multiple reentry vehicles, or MRVs), each of which can be armed with a nuclear warhead with a yield of 300-500 kilotons (KT), meaning a single Yars missile can carry up to 3-4 such warheads. That's a total of 2 MT. Europe, which is calling for war with Russia, which has the most powerful nuclear forces, is losing its grip on reality. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 ("Little Boy") had a yield of approximately 13-18 kilotons of TNT. But 2 MT is 100 times greater!!! The estimates of the effects of 550 KT warheads are given above using the example of four US cities. Today, a typical warhead is 500 KT, not 15 KT, a huge difference. If a large city is wiped out by 4 charges of 0.5 MT, it will not be possible to heal the consequences of this attack in the same way as Japanese cities.

[alovrov]

Dear Brother Alexander, I've read a variety of people, not just those who engage in propaganda. And yes, some academies graduated and served directly on this very topic. If possible, read other sources, not stupid, overt propaganda. This topic needs to be approached realistically and carefully; it has become too relevant.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Dear Brother Alexander! I just graduated from the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI in Moscow, Faculty of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Department of Safety, Department 1 - Radiation Physics, Dosimetry, and Protection. I have the same military specialty. I worked at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant before and after the accident. And I was at Unit 3 after the accident. I took samples and measured them. As a radiation practitioner, could I handle something like this? I was in Pripyat before and in 1992, and I walked under the Sarcophagus then, so I know from experience what it's like.

[alovrov]

Let's assume so. But then you have to know how much was lost from Unit 4 and how much of the 239th will burn if 1000 passengers arrive in Europe. And why write that everyone in Europe will die from radiation? For what purpose?

[Alexander Odintsov]

Because I know it and can prove it if I want to :)))

[alovrov]

Well, prove that two tons of burned plutonium will kill all of Europe. And don't even mention neutrons and induced radiation; that's a pittance. And cobalt munitions don't exist yet.

[Alexander Odintsov]

There's no point in this. I've said it all, Howe. Prove they won't kill me and I'll have a laugh for now.

[Illanatol]

How many tons (tons, Karl) of radioactive material are contained in just one nuclear power plant unit? And how much spent nuclear fuel is stored in storage facilities near the plant? And yes, even if a nuclear power plant is closed and not in use (as in Germany), that doesn't mean it doesn't contain uranium. Uranium can only be completely removed from power units after complete dismantling, and no one is doing that. Europe has plenty of nuclear power plants; in France, 70% of electricity is generated by nuclear power plants. In the event of war, they would be a priority target. There would be hundreds of "Chernobyls," contaminating vast territories. Consuming foods contaminated with isotopes is unlikely to be beneficial; even small doses, consumed domestically, would be enough to dramatically shorten life expectancy.
Well, the consequences of other man-made accidents can be left unmentioned. At one point, an accident at an American chemical plant in the Indian city of Bhopal killed approximately 4 people and left 100 disabled.

[alovrov]

Just like now, no one will attack the nuclear power plant. There's no need to use nuclear weapons. No need for empty scare stories.

[gsev]

Quote: alovrov

As now, no one will attack the nuclear power plant.

The French nuclear power plants are precisely the ones that need to be targeted. The enemy will be deprived of sources of explosives for atomic bombs in World War IV, and the area within 100 km of the French nuclear power plant will be contaminated with radiation. Just 50 warheads will hit France, and there will be about 100 nuclear accidents on its territory, like Chernobyl, which no one will clean up by building sarcophagi.

[Vic Vic]

It happens that sometimes the apocalypse is the only way out, if the main goal is not to preserve one's life at any cost, but to consider the destruction of the enemy and his statehood in a situation where one can no longer preserve one's own state.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

The main problem is not damage from radiation or shock waves, but the consequences of the destruction of technological connections

[Illanatol]

Not just technological ones. Also financial and informational ones. Or will the internet continue to function after a global war? That's only in American blockbusters, perhaps. And too much is tied to the internet, from financial transactions to public transportation regulations.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Illanatol

Also financial and informational

The main thing is technology. There will be no food, water, heating, or medicine. Money is nothing. You can switch to natural exchange, but when there is nothing to change...

[Illanatol]

Money is nothing? Who would work for free without a salary? Communism doesn't exist anywhere yet. And it's impossible to create an economy capable of providing for even a quarter of modern humanity based on barter.
Without money, everything will collapse. Even if the factories and plants survive. A "communist subbotnik" is hardly believable, even on the scale of a single country. Without wages, there will be no labor for the workers and peasants, and without labor, all these "technologies" are just empty air.
In the absence of "economic coercion" (through money), the only option left is to switch to non-economic coercion. It's a bleak prospect, and one that the "civilized" ones in particular won't like...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

No, it is precisely the technological order that will be the most difficult factor, and you will work for food, for medicine, for water, there will be no factories, no plants, no other delights of civilization, moreover, I am afraid that the state system in its old form will not exist either

[Illanatol]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

no, it is precisely the technological structure that will be the most difficult factor, and you will work for food, for medicine, for water, there will be no factories, no plants, no other delights of civilization,

There won't be any extra food, much less medicine, if production collapses. People will have to switch to foraging and subsistence farming, and not everyone, especially city dwellers, is capable of that.
In short, hunger, disease, and complete savagery, even to the point of cannibalism. It's pure Fallout. The only option is to join the Brotherhood of Steel, but there's a lot of competition to get in.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

That's roughly what I was writing about. Perhaps someone will turn to farm labor; they will be in high demand, since there will be no technology, although there is a chance of a return to slavery.

[gsev]

Quote: Illanatol

Money is nothing? Who would work for free without a salary?

The world is largely based on altruism. The ruling elite are dominant males who, in order to gain power, subjugate those who strive not to be parasites but to live in harmony with others. In reality, the authorities treat ordinary people as objects of consumption and exploitation, much like humans treat pigs or sheep, or wolves treat hares and deer. Such people, unable to indulge their sinful desires, either join Epstein's organization or attempt to bully Russians, as the authorities in Ukraine and the Baltics do.

[Illanatol]

You're contradicting yourself. If the ruling elites are so vile, then altruism is definitely not the answer. What "values" do modern Western regimes preach? Altruism, collectivism, solidarity? No, it's quite the opposite. Just analyze Hollywood productions. Social Darwinism is oozing out of every nook and cranny, along with egoism and "money has no smell" propaganda.

How do the good guys in Western action films really differ from the villains? They have stronger fists and are better shots.

That's right, nothing but uber-minor perverts. And altruists are hard to find. So, the modern Western world is largely based on the need to satisfy material needs through a regular income.

[gsev]

Quote: Illanatol

What "values" do modern Western regimes preach? Altruism, collectivism, solidarity?

Western society is beginning to lose out to China, Korea, and India. And in Russia, over the past three years, those who merely profit from the property seized during the collapse of the USSR have begun to be burdened by the problems caused by the possession of such property and the lack of competence to develop their businesses.

[Illanatol]

And that nuclear war will help us get rid of this dark legacy of the past?
Well, yes... Ivan Efremov also built a "bright future" on the ruins of World War III. What a utopia, "The Andromeda Nebula."

[gsev]

Quote: Illanatol

And that nuclear war will help us get rid of this dark legacy of the past?

Nuclear weapons allow Russia to maintain its independence in its standoff with the West for now. Whether they will always be effective without their use in war is unknown. I was led to believe that Britain and France were planning a nuclear war against Russia for March 2026.

[Illanatol]

Nuclear weapons are needed to ensure that these weapons are practically never used again.

[BAI]

In terms of energy, all nuclear weapons stockpiled on Earth are equivalent in power to the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora. This is what Ivan Grachev, chief researcher at the Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, writes in his article for BUSINESS Online.

And civilization didn't die. Moreover, no one remembers it.

[alovrov]

And yes, a supervolcano spews out much more soot than what the propagandists write about nuclear winter.

[gsev]

Quote: alovrov

And yes, a supervolcano spews out much more soot than what the propagandists write about nuclear winter.

Have you checked these calculations? Or do you at least know what a food chain is and how excess radiation is transmitted through it? By the way, there are climate theories that suggest that even without a nuclear winter, glaciation could begin on Earth within the next 100-1000 years.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Bravo. Opponents of the "nuclear winter" concept cited the fact that during the "nuclear race" from 1945 to 1998, approximately 2000 nuclear explosions of varying yields were conducted worldwide, both in the atmosphere and underground. Taken together, they argued, this was equivalent to the effects of a protracted, full-scale nuclear conflict. In this sense, a "nuclear war" has already occurred without leading to a global environmental catastrophe. The time-prolongation effect is at work here: with a huge concentration of power, the effect will be multiplied, especially in terms of long-term consequences. Meanwhile, all the test sites are still contaminated with radiation. Bikini Atoll, Novaya Zemlya, Semipalatinsk, and others.

[garri-lin]

I am writing before reading the comments.
The author takes a somewhat one-sided view of a large-scale conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons.
The main negative factor for humanity will not be the explosions of nuclear weapons themselves.
And not the primary consequences in the form of fires in cities.
The main threat is posed by man-made disasters at chemical plants and nuclear power plants.
Dam failures and fires in oil-producing regions.
One warhead landing on a nuclear power plant would turn it into a source of contamination for hundreds of kilometers.
The consequences of a global exchange of nuclear weapons strikes must be assessed primarily by their impact on industrial facilities, "sources of potential danger."

[staer-62]

So, peacekeepers, opponents of nuclear weapons, how do you like the news about the secret transfer of nuclear weapons to Ukraine for use against Russian cities? Do you still love Europe? If such news has appeared, you can be sure that nuclear weapons are already in Ukraine, and instead of calculating the area of ​​London and the number of warheads for them, we will be calculating the area of ​​Belgorod or Kursk, or nuclear power plants. And what about the deployment of nuclear weapons in the Baltics? A hundred kilometers from St. Petersburg? How about that? You are ready to die and kill your families if only Europe could survive. Right? But I prefer to destroy the enemy before they destroy me. Anyone who is against destroying the enemy in his lair, anyone who spares the lives of the enemy more than the lives of their own citizens, is a traitor to the Motherland.

[Jimenez]

But we need to test tactical nuclear weapons on Novaya Zemlya. Oh, everyone's gotten too comfortable. They're too weak. Oh well. They'll move the Doomsday Clock forward a notch, that's all...

[Horn]

Before the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, the city's population was approximately 245, while Nagasaki's was 260. By the end of 1945, after the bombing, the death toll in Hiroshima, including cancer and radiation sickness, was between 90 and 166, while in Nagasaki, the death toll was between 60 and 80.

In 2026, 1,5 million people live in Hiroshima, 448 thousand in Nagasaki.

[evgenii67]

Well done, author! I recall an article on this very topic on this very site a few years ago, roughly titled "Glazing Won't Work." It was described more optimistically, claiming there would be no global extinction and all that. In this article, the author relies on scientific papers and provides specific calculations, although that article did have calculations, but not to such a large extent. I find the article interesting. We won't know for sure which of these authors is 100% right until we try, and I hope we don't try and find out. All the best!