The "nuclear winter" theory is a banal scam

The topic of the consequences of nuclear strikes is in the air. Apparently, this issue is being closely monitored. There is also the article appeared with a well-known depiction of horrors, with all the required set of horror stories.

I think a detailed analysis of all this is worth several sessions, but for now I'll take the "nuclear winter" theory as my main topic. It was also present in the most recent publication, but somehow lacking in brilliance. Unlike during the perestroika era, when, under its influence, people rushed to proclaim theses about universal nuclear disarmament, which ended in the complete collapse and dissolution of the USSR.

The collapse of the classical theory of "nuclear winter"

By the classical "nuclear winter" theory, I mean the model proposed by Academician N.N. Moiseyev of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The idea is that during a nuclear war, explosions would set cities and forests ablaze. Forests would burn over an area of ​​1 million square kilometers, releasing 4 billion tons of soot, which would blanket the entire Northern Hemisphere in opaque clouds, ushering in a "nuclear winter."

The model was highly hyped at the time, promoted at the highest international level by a long list of prominent scientists. This, however, doesn't prevent it from being absolute nonsense.

Firstly, it's completely impossible to understand how anyone who's ever lit a fire or heated a wood stove could believe it. Wood, after all, produces almost no smoke; it's not diesel fuel or rubber. The main products of combustion are colorless carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide gases, along with a small amount of aerosolized ash particles, which gives the smoke a bluish tint.

This is clearly visible in aerial photographs of forest fires.

When the fire spreads to the crowns of coniferous trees and a crown fire begins, black soot is clearly visible in the smoke - carbon black from the combustion of resinous and essential substances.

Secondly, it's not difficult to divide and calculate the specific soot emission during a forest fire, which Academician Moiseyev incorporated into his model. This yields 4000 tons per square kilometer, or 4 kg per square meter of forest area. Given that the average organic matter content per square meter of forest is 15–20 kg, this becomes highly questionable.

Thirdly, what's completely incomprehensible is why Academician Moiseyev's model wasn't compared to soot emissions from real forest fires. Forests burned fiercely even during the Soviet era; for example, in 1972, after a severe drought in the European part of the USSR, forests burned over an area of ​​1,8 million hectares (18 square kilometers). Aircraft collect air samples at various altitudes above high-intensity forest fires, providing a three-dimensional picture of soot distribution in the atmosphere.

Such results have already been obtained today, based on long-term observations, including the massive fires of 2010, which burned approximately 12 million hectares, or 120 square kilometers of forest, or 10% of the scale of Academician Moiseyev's model. The "nuclear winter" effect should have manifested itself, albeit in a greatly weakened form.

But it didn't manifest itself. For the simple reason that the soot emissions from a real forest fire are 25 kg per hectare, or 2,5 grams per square meter. Non-forested areas produce even less soot—4,1 kg per hectare, or 0,4 grams per square meter.

Thus, Academician Moiseyev incorporated soot emissions 1600 times greater than those actually observed into his model. And there's no need to argue that "nuclear" fires are somehow special; the physical and chemical combustion processes would be the same, regardless of whether the fire was caused by a nuclear explosion or a common cigarette butt.

These aren't minor errors, but rather the scientific inconsistency of the "nuclear winter" theory. It's also a deliberate lie on the part of Academician Moiseyev. He died in 2000 and can't contradict me. However, a mathematician with extensive experience developing various mathematical models for various applied purposes couldn't have made such a gross error, three orders of magnitude, through ignorance or oversight. For a mathematician developing a mathematical model, the number one question is the adequacy of their model. Here, the discrepancy with reality is so great that one can only shrug one's shoulders. That's why I suspect foul play.

It's hard to say why. But there's a hint. Academician Moiseyev's father, Nikolai Sergeyevich Moiseyev, a privat-docent at Moscow University, was arrested in 1930 and died in Butyrka prison. His mother, Elena Nikolaevna Moiseyeva, was the adopted daughter of Nikolai von Meck, a member of a noble family, a railroad magnate, head of the Moscow-Kazan Railway, and so on. After the revolution, he worked for the People's Commissariat of Railways, was arrested in 1928 for sabotage and ties to the White Guards, and executed in 1929. What a fascinating biography this Academician Moiseyev's family has to offer!

What a horror – 0,3 grams of soot per square meter.

Okay, let's leave Academician Moiseyev and his counterrevolutionary relatives behind. What are they trying to scare us with now?

The article cites some "multiple-confirmed estimates" for 2022, produced by an international team of scientists, with computing power and so on. There's no need to even bother trying to figure out who concocted this, because it's obviously nonsense. You just need to do some basic calculations.

We are promised that as a result of a nuclear war, 150 million tons of soot will be released (Academician Moiseyev scared us with the release of 4 billion tons of soot), as a result of which 5 billion out of 6,7 billion people will die within two years.

It follows that this amount of soot will cover the entire sky with black clouds, and all over the globe, since it is obvious that for such a large-scale extinction of people, the black sky must be everywhere and everywhere.

The volume of the Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 51,8 billion cubic kilometers. This can easily be divided to find that approximately 2,8 kg of soot is emitted per cubic kilometer of atmosphere.

This can be calculated based on the Earth's area, 510,1 million square kilometers. This yields 294 kg of soot per square kilometer of area, or 0,294 grams per square meter of surface.

Anyone can try this experiment themselves. Take a sheet of paper 1 square meter in area, add 0,3 grams of soot, spray it over the paper, and see if the soot blocks the light.

The same can be done for Academician Moiseyev's model. This yields 77 kg of soot per cubic kilometer of atmospheric volume; his model only considered the Northern Hemisphere, so it comes out to 154 kg of soot per cubic kilometer. Based on the Northern Hemisphere's area, this equates to 15,6 tons of soot per square kilometer, or 15,6 grams per square meter. Now, tell me, are 15,6 grams of soot capable of completely obscuring a square meter of paper from light? You can try.

What's the conclusion? The whole "nuclear winter" theory is a banal scam by people who don't know how to count and compare.

Worldwide forest fire statistics

I can't resist throwing another stone at the "nuclear winter" theory. The fact is, forests around the world are burning on a massive scale, significantly exceeding the darkest fantasies of "nuclear winter" theorists.

A simple forest fire can look completely apocalyptic.

Here are the Oxford project's Our World in Data estimates for the world:

2012 — 437,6 million hectares (4,3 million sq. km)
2013 - 387,9 (3,8)
2014 - 406,3 (4)
2015 - 443,5 (4,4)
2016 - 416,1 (4,1)
2017 - 411,7 (4,1)
2018 - 329,7 (3,2)
2019 - 407,4 (4)
2020 - 408,7 (4)
2021 - 384,2 (3,8)
2022 - 364 (3,6)
2023 - 399,9 (3,9)
2024 - 388,1 (3,8)
2025 - 388,8 (3,8).

Academician Moiseyev promised us "the death of all living things" from forest fires over an area of ​​1 million square kilometers, when in reality, the average annual area of ​​forest fires over the past 15 years worldwide has been 3,8–4 times larger than his model predicted.

After this, there is probably nothing more to add.

Comments

[Ravik]

Well, that's it. The go-ahead has been given, we can bomb... Who shall we start with?

[snow mountain]

Where do we start?

First, with the non-brothers

[Akuzenka]

If we start with their masters, then non-brothers will quickly become brothers. An article like "Nuclear war isn't scary" is pure slander, based on the "principle" of "Don't be afraid of a grenade—it's hand-held." Research will be presented as they are commissioned. A nuclear war hasn't started only because there will be no victors. Except, perhaps, the inhabitants of forests, jungles, and other uninteresting places.

[Alexey Lantukh]

The nuclear war did not start only because there would be no winners.

Not a nuclear war, just tactical nuclear strikes against the most important targets in Ukraine. That's all.

[Destiny]

Inspired by:
- Isn't it time, my friends, for us to take on William, you know, our Shakespeare?
- What? Let's go for it!

[Civil]

1. The "nuclear winter" calculation was presented by a group of academics from the USSR Academy of Sciences and confirmed by a group of American scientists. Further modeling was conducted on supercomputers in the 21st century. I trust Soviet scientists, not newly minted "academicians" with purchased positions and degrees.
2. Author, where did you put radiation contamination? Millions of corpses from strikes on urban areas?
3. Here is objective information about Russia from a small explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (compared to combat thermonuclear charges)
https://elementy.ru/nauchno-populyarnaya_biblioteka/435268/Sled_Chernobylya_v_agrolandshaftakh_Chernozemya_nezavisimaya_otsenka_30_let_spustya

P.S.... why do strange charlatans appear from somewhere during times of historical upheaval?

[Blacksmith 55]

I don't know about the academician. What kind of counterrevolutionary thoughts did he have? But both my grandfathers were repressed in 41. They weren't of noble blood, but... One was a teacher, the other a collective farmer.
Judging by the author's views, I can't be trusted either.
Through nuclear winter.
I just want to say: Let's try it!
But I still advise you not to take risks. Although my statements may not be trustworthy, who were my ancestors after all?

[Good Evil]

For a mathematician developing a mathematical model, the number one question is the adequacy of their model. Here, the discrepancy with reality is so great that one can only shrug. That's why I suspect intent.

It's hard to say why. But there's a hint. Father of Academician Moiseev — Nikolai Sergeevich Moiseyev, a private professor at Moscow University, was arrested in 1930 and died in Butyrka prison. His motherElena Nikolaevna Moiseyeva was the adopted daughter of Nikolai von Meck, a member of the nobility, a railroad magnate, head of the Moscow-Kazan Railway, and so on. After the revolution, she worked for the People's Commissariat of Railways. He was arrested in 1928 for sabotage and connections with the White Guards and executed in 1929. What an interesting biography of the family of this academician Moiseyev!

What a horror – 0,3 grams of soot per square meter.

Okay, let's leave Academician Moiseyev with his counter-revolutionary relatives.

Yes, it's vile! To trash a scientist and all his ancestors to prove him wrong – that's our way, that's propaganda!
This isn't the first reassuring article on this topic in recent days. Are they preparing us for something?

[Alexey Lantukh]

Are they preparing us for something?

Well, there won't be a third world war. The US won't fight for Europe and risk a nuclear strike. The worst that's possible is a nuclear war between Europe and Russia, and even that's unlikely. So, Ukraine might, if something happens, swallow a hundred or so tactical nuclear warheads and whine to the world about how unfortunate they are, and how they need money.

[gsev]

Quote: Civil

I trust Soviet scientists, not newly-minted "academicians" with purchased positions and academic degrees.

Verkhoturov's article contains no references to mathematical models alternative to Academician Moiseyev's. Neither those created by newly minted "academicians" nor outright fraudsters. A characteristic feature of a nuclear explosion is a column of hot air over an area of ​​several kilometers and a hot ground surface beneath the blast epicenter, where organic matter evaporates and sand melts into glass. As a result, the hot air rises rapidly, and its place is taken by cooler air flowing from the side toward the epicenter. The temperature gradient creates a vortex that lifts soot to great heights. Moreover, it is known that after the explosions in Semipalatinsk, radiation lifted by such a vortex settled in Japan and even reached New York, where radiation levels in the breast milk of American mothers exceeded the maximum permissible concentration by approximately five times during the peak of above-ground nuclear weapons testing. The author proposes simulating the effects of the explosion using the example of burning a sheet of paper. However, the height of soot in this experiment would be thousands of times less than in a nuclear explosion. In the 19th century, it was noted that any major battle using gunpowder ended in rain. That is, the burning of several tens of tons of black powder already led to a local cooling effect. Moscow is currently experiencing an unusually snowy winter, and spring will likely be late. Perhaps dust raised by shell explosions and fires after drone strikes is to blame. The winter of 1941-1943 was snowy and frosty. But the German air force used a significant number of aerial bombs in the summer and fall of 1941. Incidentally, even conventional weapons heavily poison the terrain when used. From 1914 to 1918, the front line in France was static for a long time, and for several years the war consisted of artillery bombardments of the enemy with conventional and chemical shells. Since then, many areas in France remain closed to economic activity. A century has not cleared the environment of heavy metal salts deposited there by fuses and chemical shells. Start a war out of a desire to ban the Russian language in Crimea and Melitopol? The actions of Starmer and Macron suggest they will provoke a thermonuclear war with Russia as early as March 2026, but there's a chance Trump will force them to abandon this ill-considered move or at least delay it for six months or a couple of years.

[Alexey Lantukh]

Moreover, it is known that after the explosions in Semipalatinsk, the radiation raised by such a vortex settled in Japan and even reached New York, where the radiation level in the breast milk of American mothers exceeded the maximum permissible concentration by approximately 5 times at the peak of ground-based nuclear weapons testing.

Total nonsense. If it's five times the maximum permissible concentration, then they have the Nevada nuclear test site nearby. Blame it all on the USSR.

[gsev]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

Total nonsense. If it's five times the maximum permissible concentration, then they have the Nevada nuclear test site nearby. Blame it all on the USSR.

The US detonated hydrogen bombs in the Pacific Ocean. The distance from Novaya Zemlya to New York is closer than from the Pacific atolls.

[gsev]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

Bullshit.

The distance from the Novaya Zemlya test site to New York is 6700 km, and from Bikini Atoll, 14,000 km. The large hydrogen bombs weren't detonated in Arizona.

[Alexey Lantukh]

From 1951 to 1992, 928 charges were tested at the Nevada Test Site, 828 of which were underground.
On May 25, 1953, the first ever nuclear artillery shell, Grable, was fired at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site as part of Operation Upshot-Knothole.
In the 1960s, mushroom clouds from the explosions were visible 160 miles in any direction, including Las Vegas, where tourists flocked to see them. Nuclear fallout fell primarily on St. George, Utah, which had a significant cancer rate.
On July 17, 1962, the "Little Feller I" explosion of Operation Sunbea was the last atmospheric detonation at a nuclear test site.
Underground testing continued until September 23, 1992; explosions short of critical mass continue to this day. Nevada.

This is from the enemy WIKI.
By the way, the explosion of a hydrogen bomb is cleaner than that of a pure uranium bomb, although it is very dangerous to be caught in the blast, but of course not in New York.

[gsev]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

By the way, the explosion of a hydrogen bomb is cleaner,

What kind of radiation does an underground explosion produce? Nuclear weapons tests were conducted underground to prevent radioactive contamination of the planet.

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

but of course not in New York.

After graduating from Stankin, I got a job at the Central Scientific Research Institute of the Defense Industry. My first job there was unloading railroad ties soaked in zinc salts. Afterward, I couldn't sleep for three days due to the pain, while the skin peeled off my palms. After that, I spent six months studying environmental issues. That's when I read that during the height of nuclear testing, radiation levels in the breast milk of American mothers in New York City exceeded the maximum permissible concentration by five times. This was the reason for the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty between the US and the USSR. From the Novaya Zemlya test site, radioactive clouds often drifted to the Urals, which were contaminated with radiation tens of times higher than New York City.

[Alexey Lantukh]

The radiation level in the breast milk of American mothers in New York exceeded the maximum permissible concentration by five times.

As they say: it depends on what you read and how accurate it was. Personally, I had a slight excess of the maximum permissible concentration for strontium-90 after a six-month assignment in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant area. It returned to normal after five or six years. So, I've been in the 30-kilometer zone, albeit briefly, and I lived and worked near it for quite a long time.
New York moms with milk are a blatant fake. As they say, "It was written on the fence."

[gsev]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

New York moms with milk are a blatant fake. As they say, "It was written on the fence."

There's the concept of a food chain. After the explosion, radioactive fallout fell on an oat field, oats were used to feed pigs, and New Yorkers ate pork chops and tuna caught in the fallout zone. You were forbidden from eating food grown in the Chernobyl zone. Furthermore, there were restrictions on food intake in the danger zone.

[Alexey Lantukh]

Traces of radioactive contamination can be detected over a long period of time using sensitive equipment, but they are generally below acceptable doses. As for the New York mothers, if they did occur, they were isolated incidents. Who knows where the mother came from, where she vacationed, or what she ate. Long ago, a man died of radiation in Kramatorsk. There was a radiation source in the wall of the apartment. All sorts of junk, including radioisotopes from X-rays, were concreted into the paneling.

[gsev]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

Traces of radioactive contamination can, of course, be detected over a long period of time using sensitive instruments, but as a rule, these are below permissible doses.

There are A-, B-, and gamma radiation. Military instruments primarily measure gamma radiation. However, a hydrogen bomb detonates and induces induced radiation in the area when elements irradiated by the explosion become radioactive isotopes. These isotopes enter plants and accumulate as a poison. If a chicken or pig eats a radioactive plant, the accumulated radiation level in its body will be higher than in the plant itself. And a person who ate radioactive wheat or pork will have higher levels. This phenomenon is so dangerous to humanity that long before détente, against the backdrop of the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US and USSR signed a treaty banning nuclear testing on land, in the atmosphere, at sea, and in near space. Even China and North Korea later began conducting all their tests underground.

[Inevitably]

They appear as a result of a decline in the level of education and, of course, in accordance with political orders...

[Asper_Daffy]

It's not that clear-cut, Vadim. And it's not the author of this article who is clearly manipulating the facts and bending them to fit a predetermined conclusion. It's the overall politicization of the topic and the scientific (in)scrupulousness of those involved.

Let me try to comment on your points and reason a little.

1.
You say you trust certain people. That's strange. You can believe in God (if you want), but everything else needs to be understood. It's another matter that it's impossible to be an expert in everything, and in matters you don't understand yourself, you can only trust (and not believe) the experts. But such trust vanishes as soon as that "expert" starts talking about something you understand and you catch them lying and/or being incompetent. Doubt immediately creeps in:

Yeah, he definitely lied about that and I can check it, so what reason do I have to trust him about something I can't check?

I personally knew Nikita Nikolaevich Moiseyev, and I don't have much confidence in his scientific integrity. He was more of a science bureaucrat than a scientist, and "political expediency" greatly outweighed the "scientific method" in his motivations. I won't go into that further; you can, for example, read this book of his; I hope it will also lessen your blind trust in him: https://www.phantastike.com/system_analysis/sotsializm_i_informatika/pdf/

2.
He didn't put it anywhere. This article is only about "nuclear winter." Other damaging factors of nuclear weapons (light radiation, shock waves, etc.) are not considered here in principle.

3.
What makes you think this information is objective? That it wasn't commissioned? I don't know the authors of this article or the detailed materials of their research. However, I do know the guys from Rosatom who were surveying the Chernobyl area around the same time. I was struck by the discrepancy between their official report and their personal accounts. According to the report, everything was much, immeasurably worse. I asked what was going on. The answer was simple and straightforward: the main goal of the report was to squeeze as much money out of the government as possible to continue the cleanup efforts.

Also on this same point, you write:

Quote: Civil

a small explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (compared to combat thermonuclear charges)

You're mistaken here. Power plants produce emissions that are much more persistent. They contain elements with enormous half-lives, capable of contaminating everything for millennia. In a nuclear warhead, they try to use rapidly decaying isotopes. This is understandable. A power plant needs to operate for a long time at low, controlled power, while a nuclear warhead needs to detonate, and, if possible, so that troops can be deployed within a couple of weeks. Do you see the difference? The military's ideal is the absence of radiation altogether, which is what they strive for (thermonuclear warheads are a clean bomb, etc.). Consider, for example, how little radiation contamination was left by the explosion of the most powerful bomb in history, the "Kuzkina Mater." So the contamination from a power plant is more long-lasting and nasty than that from a nuclear warhead.

Well, in general, I am not on the side of the author (he has plenty of distortions), but I wanted to show you that not everything is so clear-cut and warn you against blindly believing people only on the basis that they are “Soviet academics.”

[Civil]

I personally knew Nikita Nikolaevich Moiseyev and don't have much confidence in his scientific integrity. He was more of a science bureaucrat than a scientist, and "political expediency" greatly outweighed the "scientific method" in his motivations.

I didn’t even doubt that the most important person in the world would take credit for the discovery. group, but we are not only talking about our scientists; the theory has already been tested many times and run on supercomputers in the 21st century.

He didn't put it anywhere. This article is only about "nuclear winter." Other damaging factors of nuclear weapons (light radiation, shock waves, etc.) are not considered here in principle.

Concealing important facts to fit a desired conclusion is a form of lying. Therefore, the very premise of the article is a lie.

I was struck by the difference between their official report and their personal accounts. According to the report, everything was much/immeasurably worse.

There is objective data—you can study it yourself; the authors of the article cite it. You can't deny facts simply because you didn't personally participate in the measurements. Radiation isn't visible, but that doesn't mean it and its effects are absent. It's foolish to discuss nuclear readiness and its consequences while waving a saber.

Power plants produce emissions that are much more persistent. They contain elements with enormous half-lives, capable of contaminating everything for millennia. In warheads, however, they strive to use rapidly decaying isotopes.

I don't want to describe the consequences, but I'll say right away that nuclear power plants are priority targets for the enemy. So, calculate how much radiation will be emitted from the reactors on both sides.

but I wanted to show you that not everything is so clear-cut and to warn you against blindly believing people only on the basis that they are “Soviet academics.”

You probably assume there will be winners in a nuclear war? But for what purpose is it necessary to kill millions of people, contaminate continents with radiation, and destroy infrastructure (even without a nuclear winter)? For what purpose? Aside from the poisonous hatred of old women on the benches for young people who have a future, I unfortunately find no arguments.

[Asper_Daffy]

Your logic is interesting. Forgive me, but I just can't understand this part where you quoted me and responded to the quote:

Quote: Civil

Quote: Asper_Daffy

I wanted to show you that not everything is so clear-cut and warn you against blindly believing people just because they are "Soviet academics"

You probably assume that there will be winners in a nuclear war?

I can't understand the logical transition from my phrase to your response. I assume there simply isn't one.

[Civil]

Quote: Asper_Daffy

I can't understand the logical transition from my phrase to your response. I assume there simply isn't one.

Quite right. You concluded your arguments in this way, but I tried to bring your comment back to the point of the article I was commenting on. I presented my conclusion to your comment.

[Asper_Daffy]

Quote: Civil

Having stated my conclusion to your comment.

So you made a conclusion for me and attributed it to me? Well, that's your conclusion; I didn't make that conclusion or write that. So I see no point in commenting on it.

[Alexey Lantukh]

Power plants produce emissions that are much more persistent. They contain elements with enormous half-lives, capable of contaminating everything for millennia. In warheads, however, they strive to use rapidly decaying isotopes.

Respect to you. As a Chernobyl survivor who served six months near the zone after being drafted and even visited the zone with an accumulated dose of about 5-10 roentgens, I want to say that you are perhaps the only one who understands the extreme nastiness of the materials released from the destroyed reactor. Other "experts" lump together contamination from the destroyed reactor with the effects of a nuclear bomb explosion and scare everyone.
Regarding the various measurements within and outside the zone, isotope dispersion is very uneven and can be virtually nonexistent just a few meters from a highly radioactive source. Some of our "partisans" took advantage of this. They would remove their storage device and place it in a highly radioactive "tube" for a while. Naturally, when checked at a special clinic, the storage device would sometimes show a high level of accumulated radiation. The owner would be summoned for an examination, and it would turn out that their health, especially their blood condition, was normal, and they were facing trouble. But, initially, some managed to get demobilized early. So, anything could happen. Including falsifications and embezzlement of funds.

[alexoff]

The "nuclear winter" calculation was presented by a group of academics from the USSR Academy of Sciences and confirmed by a group of American scientists. Further modeling was conducted on supercomputers in the 21st century. I trust Soviet scientists, not newly minted "academicians" with purchased positions and degrees.

All such claims should be verified, not taken at face value. In the past, eminent scientists spoke of epicycles and treated wounds with bloodletting and pouring boiling oil on them.

Author, where did you put the radiation contamination? Millions of corpses from the air strikes on urban areas?

What kind of stupidity is this? Millions of corpses in cities hit by nukes are the target of nukes. If nukes didn't destroy cities with their populations, what the hell would they even need?

[barbos]

Why do strange charlatans appear from somewhere during times of historical upheaval?

Because this is their finest hour!

[Horn]

Don't confuse a nuclear explosion, in which the fission products (reactions) are short-lived, with a conventional thermal explosion with the release of radioactive material. Did radioactive materials react in Chernobyl?
And on the topic of the nuclear explosion: the population of Hiroshima (1,2 million people) and Nagasaki (0,5 million people) will give you a standing ovation.

[Evil eye]

What does radiation contamination have to do with this? Why lump everything together? We're talking specifically about "nuclear winter."
Although the damage from radiation is also greatly exaggerated.

[avdkrd]

Quote: Civil

1. The "nuclear winter" calculation was presented by a group of academics from the USSR Academy of Sciences and confirmed by a group of American scientists. Further modeling was conducted on supercomputers in the 21st century. I trust Soviet scientists, not newly minted "academicians" with purchased positions and degrees.
2. Author, where did you put radiation contamination? Millions of corpses from strikes on urban areas?
3. Here is objective information about Russia from a small explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (compared to combat thermonuclear charges)
https://elementy.ru/nauchno-populyarnaya_biblioteka/435268/Sled_Chernobylya_v_agrolandshaftakh_Chernozemya_nezavisimaya_otsenka_30_let_spustya

P.S.... why do strange charlatans appear from somewhere during times of historical upheaval?

Regarding Soviet and foreign scientists, everything is relatively clear. Such high-profile topics, especially in an international context, are accepted and confirmed unanimously only with the political will of the parties. With those arsenals, humanity would indeed have slipped into a loss of technology and living standards, but not into a nuclear winter.
Moreover, it would not have affected everyone anyway, and the least affected countries could have become world leaders.
Radiation contamination is also a very abstract concept. The greatest damage will be in the nuclear power plant zones where emissions are highest and long-lasting. Thermonuclear radiation isn't like sunbathing, but a week later, you can walk near the epicenter with minimal protective equipment. There will be problems, of course, but not fatal ones for humanity as a whole.
Current arsenals could roll Europe and America back to the 19th century, or more likely the early 20th. Unless something like Yellowstone is provoked, it would be very bad, but not fatal. If we imagine that all the current nuclear powers exchanged their entire nuclear stockpiles, we can roughly estimate how much each would suffer. Even then, there would be regions completely unaffected, although the humanitarian crisis would be dire. Some countries will return to civilization only decades later and with a completely different status. Others, which escaped attack entirely or retained their technological potential, could become leaders and new centers of power. There will be famine, there will be consequences from radiation, and overall, everything will be bleak. Europe, the United States, England, and we will all be in dire straits. China will have to engage in war, because if the Western coalition wins, it will be next. Then comes the question of preserving statehood, or reforming it, but not for everyone. England, France, and European countries may not survive this war as states. Russia and the United States may lose control of some territories. While the United States may experience defederalization, we could face even more dire problems, including with our friends in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and China. Nevertheless, even if all nuclear weapons possessors join the global war, India, Pakistan, and Africa will retain their manpower and, sooner or later, begin expansion.
I think something similar has already happened in real history, only in reverse. There are many breadcrumbs pointing to a global catastrophe in the past. Indian epic poetry very artistically describes similar events.
It's worth noting that all means of destruction, including chemical and biological weapons, will likely be used. In addition to the destroyed nuclear power plant units and man-made contamination, many areas will be rendered uninhabitable for centuries.
But this point of view is not quackery, just like the different approaches to the amount of soot from global fires.

[Civil]

You overdid it with artificial intelligence in your response and lumped together REN TV stories. You've been given a double penalty for attempting to do so. You've failed for the substance. Without the calculations done by Moiseyev's group, with their access to nuclear test data, and a clear mathematical refutation with figures and graphs, this is all just backroom chatter. That's what I'm talking about. So far, none have been found.

[Maikcg]

The Chernobyl accident is worse than a dirty bomb; it's embarrassing to even compare. But environmentally friendly warheads are a different matter, you have to understand.

[Karabin]

Where do we start?

If I were the residents of Voronezh and its surrounding areas, I would be careful.

[vadimN]

I have the same impression. This site isn't the only resource that scientifically proves that nuclear war is nothing to worry about... Hiroshima is still alive and well, even thriving, 50, 60, 70 years after the bomb. Still not convinced? So here are the calculations – they show that forest fires won't suffocate us! And the fact that large cities are periodically suffocated by much smaller forest fires is just a trivial matter... A detail, so to speak.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Professor Dmitry, you're right, there won't be a nuclear winter. There will be a nuclear autumn and famine. Moiseyev was counting this in the era before nuclear disarmament.

The volume of the Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 51,8 billion cubic kilometers. This can be easily divided to find that approximately 2,8 kg of soot is emitted per cubic kilometer of atmosphere. This can be calculated based on the Earth's area, 510,1 million square kilometers. This yields 294 kg of soot per square kilometer of area, or 0,294 grams per square meter of surface area. Anyone can conduct this experiment themselves. Take sheets of paper each 1 square meter in area, add 0,3 grams of soot, spray it over the paper, and see if the soot blocks the light.

Your calculations are brilliant, but you can't assume that. There are dozens of studies on this topic. You should read the one I linked to. They have atmospheric fire dispersion models and climate models. So, if I were you, I wouldn't neglect all of that. Unfortunately, it won't be forests that burn; it will be cities. And the nature of the fires there is completely different.

[Alexander Odintsov]

It follows that this amount of soot will cover the entire sky with black clouds, and all over the globe, since it is obvious that for such a large-scale extinction of people, the black sky must be everywhere and everywhere.

The author must first understand the subject. Soot will affect the transparency of the atmosphere. This will not cause a nuclear winter, but a cooling of several degrees. And crop yields will immediately decline. There have been events in human history that could be a "mirror" of apocalyptic possibilities. During the eruption of Mount Tambora on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa in 1815, approximately 150 megatons of soot were emitted. A significant amount of volcanic ash remained in the atmosphere at altitudes of up to 80 km for several years, causing intensely colored dawns. In Europe, the average temperature dropped by 1-2 degrees Celsius. For several years, frosts arrived as early as July and August, and the first snow fell in September. The consequences of this phenomenon, of course, were quite severe for agriculture, the level of which at that time was quite primitive by today's standards. During this period, Earth was already experiencing the so-called "Little Ice Age." Average annual temperatures from the 14th to the 19th centuries were lower than the millennium average. The volcano further exacerbated the situation. The Northern Hemisphere experienced climate change for several years. Ash ejected into the atmosphere triggered a volcanic winter. The ash didn't spread instantly through the atmosphere, so the volcanic winter only manifested itself in 1816. In March 1816, spring hadn't arrived in Europe. This is commonplace in Russia, but for our western neighbors, with their warming Gulf Stream and mild Mediterranean climate, it was a unique case. The situation didn't improve significantly in April and May. Torrential rains and powerful hail were added. And in the summer, snow fell in Europe and the United States. Daytime temperatures in July in New York dropped to 4 degrees Celsius (compared to 23-33 degrees Celsius in normal years). And at night, there were frosts. Ponds and rivers were covered with a layer of ice several centimeters thick. According to farmer Benjamin Harwood, frozen birds dropped dead en masse in the fields that summer. Farmers began shearing sheep, but realized that leaving them without wool during such a "summer" would be dangerous. Many sheep froze to death. Livestock began to be slaughtered, as it became clear that feeding the animals would be difficult. The harvest was several times smaller than usual. In May, the buds on the fruit trees died. In the United States, almost the entire corn crop froze. In 1817, grain prices jumped tenfold. Famine ensued, affecting not only the poor but even the middle class. Eating nettles, wild turnips, and hedgehogs became popular in America. Hay increased in price the least, but even its price increased astronomically – sixfold!

[wehr]

I wrote a comment about Tambora below.

Yes, I am for cold and hunger.
We will crack yeast, cricket protein and snack on winter, sugary pine and spruce needles.

[Alex 1970]

What's this? The nuclear baton isn't scary and the consequences are fine, let's hit it...
Well, well, well. It just seems like the phrase "the living will envy the dead" will become reality after all this.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Alexey 1970

It just seems like the phrase "the living will envy the dead" will become reality after all this.

Those in the vicinity of a nuclear explosion will undoubtedly feel its effects, depending on their distance. For everyone else, it will only be sensational news on the internet/TV/radio.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Puncher

For the rest, it will only be sensational news on the Internet/TV/radio.

I can only envy your optimism. The internet and TV will even outlive TMV, of course.
By the way, is the internet, presumably, distributed evenly across the planet, or does it still have key nodes in its web? Wouldn't locations with the highest concentration of servers be a priority target?

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Illanatol

The Internet and TV will even survive TMV, of course.

What's wrong? TV will work within range of the tower, but what's the problem? Radio will work too. Internet will depend on the availability of DNS servers nearby.

Quote: Illanatol

Won't locations with the highest concentration of servers be a priority target?

There are a dime a dozen root DNS servers; no one in their right mind would remove them because then there wouldn't be enough for the enemy's military.

[Illanatol]

Within the tower's radius = line-of-sight. That is, it's a very limited area. There will be problems with the relay satellites; they will try to destroy them. The same goes for the fiber optic cables that carry most of the traffic.
Root DNS aren't located in deserts, but rather in megacities, and the nuclear blast's EMP will turn them into rubble. Search engines, big data, neural networks, and so on also have their own dependencies. Neural networks are highly dependent on energy consumption, and this will also pose problems.
The destruction of Silicon Valley and a few similar "hubs" alone would have a significant impact on the functioning of the Internet. Or would the destruction of Google's headquarters and similar companies have no impact on operations overall? Unlikely.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Illanatol

Within the radius of the tower = within the line of sight.

We are not talking about countries participating in the conflict, but about neighbors or even those located thousands of kilometers away.

[Illanatol]

Do you know how many countries actually participated in World War I?
The domino effect will trigger, and the escalation will affect virtually everyone. So, perhaps only Zimbabwe will be able to watch from the sidelines. But we don't live in Zimbabwe, so we won't be watching Armageddon live on TV. We'll become participants in this spectacular show ourselves.

[Fan-fan]

Well, anyone who lives in taiga villages at least a hundred kilometers from the nearest city and not on the leeward side will survive.

[Russian_Ninja]

I'm just afraid that in a couple of weeks this "sensational news" will also resonate with the churning of the empty stomachs of those who weren't touched by it at the very beginning.

The most terrifying thing about weapons isn't just their destructive effect, but also the consequences of their use. And the consequences of a nuclear weapon would clearly be fatal—both for the population and for the state as a whole.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Russian_Ninja

the seething of the empty bellies of those whom it did not touch at the very beginning.

I had in mind the people of Brazil as an example...

[alexoff]

The only thing worse than the consequences of a nuclear weapon is its absence or non-use when the enemy has one. Then the enemy won't have any major problems, and we'll be in full swing.

[Russian_Ninja]

I agree, but this article gives me a persistent feeling of something along the lines of, "Let's go for it! We could even be the first ones to do it, preemptively. Nothing particularly scary will happen."

[alexoff]

In my opinion, this is what needs to happen. Comrades, judging by what our Western neighbors are saying, we can't avoid a blitz. They've completely lost their fear there and are openly discussing how they'll blitz us. We need to come up with a plan for how to blitz us so we can survive it, but they can't. According to calculations, the climate will change in such-and-such a way, which means we need to stockpile enough grain for such-and-such a period, prepare shelters, escape routes, medicine, training exercises, and so on.
But I think the West could be scared to death by the mass exodus of our top brass' families to Russia. And those who don't leave will have their parents immediately removed from their positions and forced into retirement. Without any verification of whether there will be a nuclear winter.

[Sergei Fonov]

I don't know what's scarier? When we strike, or when they strike us? And we'll respond with... , but maybe there'll be no one to respond? One thing is clear: when the center of gravity is unstable, the structure will inevitably collapse. The question is who will suffer more, and whether someone's ambitions were worth the result. Every war ends in peace, just as surely, and after every peace, another war is possible.

[Good Evil]

Quote: Puncher

Those in the vicinity of a nuclear explosion will undoubtedly feel its effects, depending on their distance. For everyone else, it will only be sensational news on the internet/TV/radio.

True, there will be no Internet, no radio, no TV, so - no sensations, everything is fine!

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Alexey 1970

"the living will envy the dead"

"They will die, and we will go to heaven!" - so-so prospect...

[Per se.]

Quote from Uncle Lee

"They will die, and we will go to heaven!"

Is it really possible to "get to heaven" without dying? One Chernobyl was enough, but what if there are ten, a hundred... The US, separated from us by an ocean, is a different matter. Across the ocean, it seems, our dear "partners" are planning to sit it out, playing good cop, while evil Europe becomes the new cannon fodder. Just in case they do "blow up," and instead of ruining and bleeding Russia dry, our henpecked "elite," forgetting about strategic nuclear forces, accepts the West's ultimatum.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Per se.

and without ruining and bleeding Russia dry, our henpecked "elite" will not accept the West's ultimatum

It almost happened in the 90s. Why wasn't it accepted then?

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Paranoid62

Why didn't you accept it then?

Something slowed me down... The instinct of self-preservation may...

[Paranoid62]

Quote from Uncle Lee

The instinct of self-preservation can...

Yeah, and now he's suddenly disappeared. Below is a detailed answer, check it out.

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Paranoid62

and now he suddenly disappeared

I hope it hasn't disappeared... The donkey loaded with gold is a cause for concern.

[Paranoid62]

Quote from Uncle Lee

A donkey loaded with gold raises concerns

Quote: Inspired

Good night, good night
I wish you to see a donkey and a goat,
A donkey until midnight, a goat until the morning,
Good night to you, sweet dreams

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Paranoid62

Good night to you, sweet dreams

Thanks for the wishes... Just no animals...

[Per se.]

Quote: Paranoid62

In the 90s it almost happened.

Because the key word is "almost." Many respected veterans were still alive, and the Soviet upbringing was still vividly remembered. Finally, what were the people promised? Democracy, a renewed Union, and there was no such thing as capitalism. What did we get instead? Instead of democracy, we got this very capitalism, where, after Chubais's predatory privatization, most of Russia's wealth ended up in the hands of the newly minted "masters of life." Most importantly, despite the destruction of thousands of factories, design bureaus, and research institutes, the main Soviet legacy—the nuclear missile potential—remained. Not a capitalism handed over to traitors, an "elite" independent of the West, or the selfish interests of the wealthy—the enemy of the US (the West), but the residual Soviet reserve of strength—in our case, the strategic nuclear forces. Wasn't this whole thing planned for the end, only to be abandoned, naturally, in the name of peace and humanism, bringing matters to a head? I'd like to be wrong and optimistic, but I'm only writing my opinion, not working on a specific topic.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Per se.

the main Soviet legacy remained, the nuclear missile potential

Hm. As far as I understand, by 2000 it wasn't in the best condition either.

Quote: Per se.

Wasn't it for this very reason that they started the whole thing for the final, to hand it over, naturally, in the name of peace and humanism?

I read about this back in 2007. The Marauder, Berkem Al-Atomi. It didn't come true, and it never will – events are unfolding in a completely different direction now.

Quote: Per se.

I only write my opinion, and I don't work on topics.

What a coincidence, me too. And I don't care whether the person trying to sabotage the pipeline is deluded or just earning their pay—objectively, these are people working against my country, and therefore against me, too. That's how it is.

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Paranoid62

It didn’t come true, and it won’t come true anymore - now the vector of development of events is completely different.

Let it be so!

[Per se.]

Quote: Paranoid62

working against my country, and therefore against me too.

Even if you're one of those who's appropriated the bulk of Russia's wealth, it's not just your country. "Rock the boat," the new idea, "rock the pipeline"... Wasn't it the same pipeline that led to the recognition of Poroshenko and the Bandera-led coup, and the failure to recognize Donbas in 2014? Not only did they pump raw materials to Russia's enemies, but they also paid around $1,3 billion a year for transit to the Nazi regime in Ukraine? It's important to understand that this money was used to buy flowers, not to pump money into the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
What you've gained under capitalism is your business, but don't confuse the personal with the national. My country, many might say, for whom Russia is their only homeland, and who have no vested interests in the concept of "mine," like dual or triple citizenship in the West.
Well, that's "something like that", and all the best.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Per se.

Even if you are one of those who have appropriated the bulk of Russia's wealth...

Getting personal. As expected, you have nothing to say.

No, I'm not one of those.

Quote: Per se.

My country, many can say, for whom Russia is the only homeland, and who have no selfish interests in the concept of "mine", dual or triple citizenship in the West

Well, that's exactly what happens to me.

Quote: Per se.

Well, that's "something like that", and all the best

Likewise. I'll be back to poke you with a stick - you hiss and gurgle so funny.

[Per se.]

Quote: Paranoid62

I'll be back to poke you with a stick - you hiss and gurgle so funny

Point your wand elsewhere. Demagoguery and rudeness are what you do when you "have nothing really to say." Well, it's not for nothing you chose that nickname... Goodbye network worker.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Per se.

Demagogy and rudeness are what you do when you have "nothing to say."

A funny self-portrait. You couldn't really respond to anything, you're frustrated, I understand... but I can't help... and I don't want to.

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Per se.

Is it really possible to "get to heaven" without dying?

Ugh, how rude! They'll die, and we'll go straight to heaven as little angels...
P.S. For some reason, there's no talk about hell! But whoever allowed this to happen is headed straight to hell!

[Was mammoth]

Quote: Per se.

Across the ocean, it looks like our dear "partners" are planning to sit it out...

In the early 90s, when we were really "friends," our military delegation was taken on a tour of the city. I don't remember which one. One of our generals was lost in thought at one point, and when asked, he replied that it was marked as the site of an air strike. And silence fell on the bus. I heard it on TV.

[papas-57]

What's this? The nuclear baton isn't scary and the consequences are fine, let's hit it.

[Taimen]

The nuclear winter lie was discussed after all the horror stories had been published. It was even said that even the simplest soot deposition on the ground wasn't taken into account. But everyone was silenced, and the nuclear weapons tide began to turn. It ended sadly with Gorbachev. And this is the first article confirming those distant, old stories. To understand this, you should have studied, not just sat through the Unified State Exam. It's no wonder this abomination is being abolished.

[Hole puncher]

The author forgot to mention the most important thing: the height to which combustion products are ejected, and how an urban/forest fire can be compared to a volcanic eruption. Everyone knows that large volcanic eruptions have had a significant impact on global temperatures. An example is the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, which left the planet without summer. Mount Tambora erupted nonstop for three months, creating an eruptive column that ejected 180 cubic kilometers of "tephra"—which isn't just soot from burnt wood—into the stratosphere. In total, Mount Tambora (by estimates, of course) ejected 140 trillion tons of volcanic material. The height of the "mushroom cloud" for a 1-meter-thick explosion is 20 kilometers, consisting primarily of smoke, and lasting no more than 10 minutes. These events, therefore, have completely different impacts. Thus, the "nuclear winter" theory is clearly untenable.

[paul3390]

What if we compare it to the epic Toba eruption 75 years ago? That one was much more powerful, but it also didn't seem to cause any significant deaths.

There's another aspect here: forests burn in an environmentally friendly manner, so to speak, but how much chemical waste will be released into the atmosphere during massive fires in modern cities? Given the current level of plastic and other waste?

[Hole puncher]

Quote: paul3390

With the current amount of all kinds of plastic, etc.?

Near any major city there are landfills where plastic (plastic bags, PET bottles, etc.) burns almost non-stop, and people somehow manage to survive... If you're lucky and have no problems with this, then type in "burning landfill" and you'll get a ton of news about something blazing so hard it's impossible not to notice.

[paul3390]

Come on – the scale is incomparable. A smoldering landfill and a total active fire engulfing the entire city.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: paul3390

active fire throughout the city

Try burning down Moscow, for example. It's not the wooden Moscow of 1812. Sure, there will be a fire at the epicenter, but what will happen next? It won't spread from one concrete block to another. And how many cities will get their own? Only those with vital strategic facilities like nuclear warhead storage facilities, mobile missile battalions, and SSBN bases... You can count them on your fingers.

[MBRSS]

Quote: Puncher

Near every major city there are landfills where plastic (packets, PET bottles, etc.) burns almost non-stop, and somehow people live...

You didn't take into account that in the event of war, cities, villages, forests, and landfills would burn SIMULTANEOUSLY. First, they would burn, and then, when there was a lack of oxygen, they would smolder. And there would be no one to put it out.

[gsev]

Quote: paul3390

And if we compare it with the epic eruption of Toba 75 thousand years ago?

On average, ice and snow remain year-round in Moscow for 80,000 years, and melt in the summer for 20,000 years, as they do now. The cause of these cycles is unclear. It's entirely possible that a century-long winter could begin even without a thermonuclear war.

[MBRSS]

Mount Tambora is located in the Southern Hemisphere.

In total, the Tambora volcano (according to estimates, of course) ejected 140 trillion tons of volcanic material.

99,99% of which landed in the water near the volcano, rather than floating in the air for months. And even so, Europe was left without a summer. Now imagine what would happen if the entire Northern Hemisphere burned. Gas wells would burn for a long time. Plus, with hundreds of "Chernobyl" disasters around the world, nuclear power plants would definitely burn.

[Same lech]

And if we explode atomic bombs at the moment of the greatest summer... when the temperature reaches plus 40 degrees.
In nature, there is a physical phenomenon called resonance... has anyone studied the interaction of an atomic explosion with climate swings?
If a series of nuclear explosions with abnormal temperatures is added to forty degrees of heat, won't climate stability and the balance of natural phenomena be thrown into disarray?
What if the glaciers of Antarctica and Pamir suddenly melt...what then?
There are so many variables in the equation that it will be impossible to predict anything with 100% certainty.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: The same LYOKHA

In nature, there is a physical phenomenon called resonance... has anyone studied the interaction of an atomic explosion with climate swings?

Resonance is about the same.
Well, like a shaking cock and a bridge.
And here is the effect of the planet's rotation around the sun.

Quote: The same LYOKHA

Will climate stability and the balance of natural phenomena go out of control?

All this nonsense about mega-warming is a new fabrication.
Around the First World War, the scientific community howled and wrung its hands, saying, "An ice age is coming!"

Once again, paleontologists are laughing wildly.
On the scale of hundreds of thousands of years, it was both much warmer and much colder.

Quote: The same LYOKHA

What if the glaciers of Antarctica and Pamir suddenly melt...what then?

And then what?
Actually, nothing.
They have melted more than once already.
And if I were you, I would worry about the Ural glaciers and our other glaciers in the mountains.
They feed OUR rivers. Sure, you could install a nuclear reactor and freeze the glacier, but that's more of a Soviet approach.

[Belisarius]

I can't say anything about Mr. Moiseyev's White Guard past, but the Soviet military-political leadership was well aware that the nuclear winter theory was a myth. It was pure politics; these ideas were first planted in the West to create opposition to their weapons programs and ease the tensions of the Cold War, and then, during the preparation and implementation of perestroika, they were used domestically to justify disarmament. So, overall, the author is absolutely right, albeit a bit emotional.
Regarding the article the author is responding to, the author (like all proponents of nuclear apocalypse) has approached the issue methodologically incorrectly. They simply count warheads and assume they will be launched at large cities.
In reality, we need to build a realistic model here, for example, Model 1: the US, England, and France attack Russia. Next, we calculate what force (warheads) is needed to destroy Russia's nuclear arsenal. For example, the 13th Missile Division in Dombrovsky, how many warheads are needed to reliably destroy all silos? And so on for all priority targets, including launchers, strategic submarine bases, strategic airfields, early warning radars, the Mayak nuclear weapons plant, TNW storage bases, and command centers (all located far from major cities except Moscow). Then we calculate the expected force that would fly in response to US territory, including the possibility that all our launchers are destroyed, or that some of our missiles have already been fired. And so on. Then, Option 2: Russia attacks the US and its allies first, and here everything follows the same methodology.
To do this correctly, you need precise information about where everything is, what its condition is, and what the damage potential is. This is all top secret information. Therefore, someone without it can only conduct such an analysis within a kilometer or so.
I tried to do some amateur calculations, and it seemed to me that NATO's current nuclear potential was barely sufficient to destroy military targets within Russia alone (taking into account the need to preserve warheads for China), and ours was completely insufficient to destroy similar targets within NATO. There was also no prospect of the annihilation of humanity, a nuclear winter, spring, or summer.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: Belisarius

I tried to do some amateur calculations, and it seemed to me that NATO's current nuclear potential was barely sufficient to destroy military targets within Russia alone (taking into account the need to preserve warheads for China), and ours was completely insufficient to destroy similar targets within NATO. There was also no prospect of the annihilation of humanity, a nuclear winter, spring, or summer.

Anything related to nuclear weapons is portrayed as the end of the world for political reasons. But the problem is, you can scare your own people. Scaring the West like in the 70s and 80s won't work—there's no longer that fanatical peace movement. It's now about ecology and gay politics. The former is somehow connected to the use of nuclear weapons, but...
And hopes for the end of Europe in a nuclear conflict are very optimistic - without strategic nuclear weapons (which will be saved for other purposes) and centralized storage of tactical ones, a lack of carriers...
Europe will be badly damaged if anything happens - but Hiroshima and Nagasaki are wonderful cities with millions of people...
But we boldly deny that “all is lost” and rush to the other extreme.

[Belisarius]

Quote from tsvetahaki

But we boldly deny that “all is lost” and rush to the other extreme.

Our Russian way of thinking is doom and gloom. Even here, in the comments, it's clear—if the author or anyone else writes that nuclear winter and apocalypse are myths, it immediately leads to the conclusion that they're claiming nuclear weapons are paper tigers. But that's completely untrue. Nuclear weapons are terrifying; their mass use would cause enormous casualties, and the consequences for countries subjected to such bombardment would be dire. This is the basis of the balance of fear; the balance of gains and losses in such a war would be unfavorable; you won't be able to achieve a peace better than the pre-war one, even if you formally win the nuclear war. But the destruction of all humanity, a nuclear winter, or even the complete annihilation of the population of one country will not happen.
P.S. The situation can only change if you're confident that you can destroy almost all of the enemy's warheads in your first strike, and your missile defense will intercept the rest. But I hope we haven't reached that point yet...

Quote from tsvetahaki

And hopes for the end of Europe in a nuclear conflict are very optimistic - without strategic nuclear weapons (which will be saved for other purposes) and centralized storage of tactical ones, a lack of carriers...

I understand you're evaluating the option of first attacks only on European countries (excluding the US) using tactical nuclear weapons. Again, this requires careful and dispassionate calculations (leaving aside the political absurdity of such an option for now). The average person, again, doesn't have the data for this. At first glance, this seems completely unworkable—there are many targets, few missiles, and the likelihood of a retaliatory strike from submarines is 100% (and in that case, they would precisely target cities).

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: Belisarius

As I understand it, you are assessing the option of first attacks only on the territory of European countries (without the USA) using tactical nuclear weapons.

In fact, I think the gradual integration option is more likely (despite its, let's call it, "non-optimalness").
A nuclear strike is not only a military operation, but, most importantly, a political one. And here, Microsoft is on both sides.
And who's in more of a mess? Usually, we are. But the West is catching up.
Therefore, I think there is a high chance of random strikes, demonstrative ones, waiting - maybe they will finally get scared...

[Mussasi]

Well, it's long been known about a "nuclear winter" in the USSR, and talk of it was only when the Soviet Union had a stockpile of 29000 warheads (or something like that) on each side. Now, at best, they'll wipe out a couple of cities with a population of over a million, and everyone will rush off to sign peace treaties. At worst, Western civilization will be destroyed and set back 300 years, which, of course, will make everyone else on Earth happy!

[Good Evil]

Quote: Mussashi

Now, at best, they will wipe out a couple of cities with a population of over a million and everyone will quickly rush to conclude peace treaties.

Your words are a godsend! But I'm afraid they won't stop there! We're going to heaven, and they'll die—that's what they said...

[gsev]

Quote: Belisarius

About Mr. Moiseyev's White Guard past

From Academician Moiseyev's anti-Soviet past. He conducted ski training for Soviet special forces during the Finnish War. During the Great Patriotic War, he was deputy regiment commander for aviation armament. In difficult situations, he flew as an aerial gunner on an Il-2 to test the aircraft's armament. His plane was shot down twice. Until 1948, he taught officers and generals at command personnel retraining courses. He was discharged from the Air Force with the rank of approximately captain. From 1948 onward, he taught specialized courses to students at the Moscow Higher Technical School.

Quote: Belisarius

And ours was not at all sufficient to defeat similar targets in NATO.

100 nuclear warheads at French nuclear power plants is equivalent to approximately 80 Chernobyls in Western Europe. Moiseyev also conducted mathematical analyses for the military-industrial complex. In his book, he describes how he modeled the Peloponnesian War and the confrontation between China, the USSR, and the United States for global dominance. His prediction, described in "Mathematics Conducts an Experiment," is coming true during the Second World War before our very eyes, 20 years after Moiseyev's death. All of Putin's attempts to establish cooperation, first with the West, then with India and China, are bogged down by these countries' desire to eliminate Russia as a competitor. In the modeling conducted with Moiseyev's participation, everything was roughly as it is now. Russia, with an average population, average science, and a large territory, is subject to the expansion of countries with strong science and large populations. Both countries intuitively form an alliance against it.

[Belisarius]

Quote: gsev

From the anti-Soviet past of Academician Moiseev.

One doesn't interfere with the other in the least. The main traitor, Mr. Yakovlev, actually fought at the front. But I agree that the author's passage about Mr. Moiseyev's parents' White Guard past was completely unnecessary.

Quote: gsev

100 nuclear warheads at nuclear power plants in France is about 80 Chernobyls in Western Europe.

Sturgeon production needs to be curtailed. France has 18 nuclear power plants. Incidentally, Chernobyl (essentially a super-powerful dirty bomb) demonstrated nature's astonishing capacity for self-purification, proving once again the old adage that constant human economic activity (especially under capitalism) is far more terrifying than any nuclear bomb.
But overall, your point is correct. A strike on a French nuclear power plant would have catastrophic consequences. However, here again, we need to calculate how many missiles would be required to reliably destroy a nuclear power plant. The problem is that we have few of them, but many targets. If we simulate a first strike by Russia against the West, then definitely not. There are plenty of other targets. If there's a retaliatory strike, yes, it's possible, but only if France becomes the priority target, which is unlikely.

All of Putin's attempts to establish cooperation first with the West, then with India and China, are bogged down by these countries' desire to eliminate Russia as a competitor.

This is your geopolitical vision. But it has nothing to do with modeling the consequences of nuclear weapons. They're simply about different things. And there are no analogies between the Peloponnesian War, the Second World War, and a global nuclear conflict.

[gsev]

Quote: Belisarius

This is your geopolitical vision.

This is the result of mathematical games conducted under the supervision of Academician Moiseyev, involving a model of three countries: one with advanced science and technology but limited human and natural resources; another with a country rich in natural resources but limited human resources and average science; and a third with abundant human resources, weak technology and science, and limited resources. The resource-rich country becomes the victim of aggression, against which the country with strong industry and abundant human resources unites. The collapse of the USSR and attempts to improve relations with the United States, India, and China are apparently a consequence of an analysis of the results of this game and the desire to avoid a two-front war against China and the United States. The United States, represented by Obama, Biden, and Trump, has not abandoned its desire to completely destroy the Russian state and even wants to destroy the Russian language and Orthodoxy. Therefore, Russia is seeking to establish relations with India, China, and North Korea. But this is incredibly difficult and costly. China and especially India, taking advantage of Russia's difficulties, simply want to economically deprive the peoples of Russia, much like the United States and Europe.

[MBRSS]

Belisarius You'd have to be a fool to target only enemy bases in a preemptive strike. Because by the time they arrive, the silos will already be empty. Therefore, large cities (and there aren't many of them in Russia) will definitely be hit, and nuclear power plants will be targeted. Small towns and villages, however, will die out on their own without energy supplies, albeit not immediately.

[Belisarius]

Quote: MBRBS

Belisarius would have to be a fool to attack only the enemy's bases in a preemptive strike.

No only on enemy bases, and first of all The enemy's bases. Politicians making decisions aren't suicidal; on the contrary, they want to live long and happily. The goal of war isn't to kill everyone and commit genocide, but to achieve a more favorable peace by eliminating the enemy's armed forces.
Therefore, the priority targets in a nuclear war are the enemy's nuclear weapons and key military-political command and control facilities (ideally, if the enemy can be decapitated, there's no need to strike anywhere else). So, for example, if a missile strikes Moscow, yes, it will definitely hit—there are command and control facilities and media there. If it strikes the Moscow region, many things will, but if it strikes Leningrad, no. There's simply no need for that.
But you can't speculate here; you need to base your analysis on the actual, concrete situation and balance of power. For example, if you have a large number of nuclear weapons (as in the 70s and 80s), you'll have more than enough to cover all your military and economic targets. If you only have a few nuclear weapons and plan to strike first, then you'll primarily target military targets (and it's better to destroy them with conventional weapons).
If you're planning only retaliatory actions, then focus more on the enemy's cities and economic centers. If you have very few nuclear weapons (like North Korea), then focus only on large cities, nuclear power plants, etc.

Quote: MBRBS

Because by the time the missile arrives, the mines will already be empty.

Unfortunately, this is a myth. In an ideal world, of course, it would be, but not in the real world. In the real world, for example, during a strategic air defense, the enemy can easily strike nuclear deterrent facilities, without any problems for themselves, and these strikes are often detected upon arrival.

[Fan-fan]

Thanks for the insightful thoughts; I was getting depressed after reading the comments. How can you be so far removed from common sense? How can you so blindly believe in nonsense like Nuclear Winter, how can you believe in horror stories like everyone so enthusiastically believed in the Khibiny Mountains? The level of education and critical thinking is extremely low; people are completely incapable of analyzing information.
Living in the USSR, I was taught how to survive a nuclear explosion; schools and universities were full of explanatory posters on the topic. Now in Russia there isn't a single similar poster, and everyone talks only about death after a nuclear war. What happened to people?

[Nikolay Malyugin]

Proponents of a "nuclear winter" assume that smoke from fires will envelop the Earth's atmosphere, causing a sharp cooling. This has already happened, when the simultaneous eruptions of several volcanoes led to winter on Earth. Pollution of the atmosphere with smoke from industrial plants and warehouses will only worsen the situation on the planet.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Nikolay Malyugin

Smoke from the fires will envelop the Earth's atmosphere, causing a sharp drop in temperature. This has happened before, when the eruption of several volcanoes simultaneously led to winter on Earth.

You're equating smoke and volcanic material, but that's incorrect. Smoke is more of an aerosol of ash and soot, while volcanic material is a dense cloud of hot rock particles. In other words, in the former case, it's the result of the oxidation of organic matter, while in the latter, it's the result of heated inorganic compounds.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

While I was reading, the Ministry of Emergency Situations checked the warning loudspeakers.
Atmospheric.

By the way, for some reason it’s the swearing speakers and not that spinning howl.
It seems they were dug out and if anything happens there will just be a recording.
Even the soundtrack to the apocalypse isn't the same anymore...

[the same doctor]

A simultaneous fire over a large area leads to oxygen deficiency in the fire zone and increased soot formation. A forest fire, on the other hand, burns in a narrow strip, allowing sufficient air to reach the fire.

Secondly, a nuclear winter isn't necessary for extinction. It's enough to disrupt supply chains and leave cities without supplies. This isn't Africa. People will die out, just like in the siege of Leningrad.
.
Ukraine cannot be left in limbo. We need to hammer away at energy and logistics, forcing them to capitulate.
But on March 22, it could all have ended. The energy blockade of Europe and the lack of peace...

[MBRSS]

Quote: also a doctor

Ukraine can't be left in limbo. We need to strengthen energy and logistics,

That's right, that's the only right way. You don't even have to attack, but you definitely have to destroy as much logistics and energy as possible!
But there's a suspicion that there's a deal to "not finish the job." Otherwise, how can one explain the non-increasing number of drones and missiles in a single attack, while their production is growing (as we're assured). Why aren't there attacks with 1000-2000 Geraniums and missiles in a single salvo, but only 500? That's the question.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: MBRBS

How can one explain the non-increasing number of drones and missiles in one raid, while their production is growing?

Forming a reserve. The SVO is a rehearsal; the real war (if it ever happens) won't be with Ukraine.

Quote: AI Overview

In 2025–2026, the Russian Federation will continue the large-scale formation of new divisions, including motorized rifle, airborne, and marine divisions, as part of the reorganization of the Russian Armed Forces to strengthen the counter-NATO response and continue combat operations in Ukraine. Key changes include the reestablishment of the 55th Marine Division of the Pacific Fleet, the creation of the 103rd and 104th Airborne Divisions, and the deployment of new motorized rifle divisions within the Southern Military District.

Key directions and formations (as of the beginning of 2026):

Marines: It is planned to deploy divisions based on brigades. The 55th Guards Marine Division of the Pacific Fleet (based on the 155th Brigade) and the 120th Marine Division of the Baltic Fleet (based on the 336th Brigade).

Airborne Troops (VDV): Formation of the 103rd Airborne Assault Division and development of the 104th Division.

Ground Forces (Southern Military District): Strengthening the 3rd and 51st combined arms armies, as well as the formation of the 68th and 71st motorized rifle divisions and artillery units.

Structural changes: Creation of the Moscow and Leningrad military districts

[Dart2027]

Okay, let's leave Academician Moiseyev with his counter-revolutionary relatives.

It's unlikely to be a family matter. A wide range of people have spoken about this, so it's more likely to be some kind of orders from above.

[Cap.nemo58rus]

What difference does it make, in the grand scheme of things, whether this winter happens or not? We have more than enough other factors... If there's a big mess, most of us won't care about the winter. Because half of us will already be in heaven, and the rest will simply die.

[Foggy Dew]

It's strange. When I was studying, the sources of emissions of various opaque materials into the upper atmosphere—not just soot but also dust—were the explosions themselves, which actually threw tons of dust very high. And with the mass use of nuclear weapons, the temperature throughout the globe would drop, the question is by how much. Volcanic eruptions have repeatedly caused temperature fluctuations, but this one would involve more serious emissions. About three moderate explosions are equivalent to one powerful eruption. Another thing is that the temperature drop is usually just a few degrees, and crop yields will drop, which, given the total reduction in food supply, is not a problem at all. So, it's just a matter of time, but for a different reason. And yes, dust clouds settle fairly quickly. Soot and dust aren't like methane, which would allow them to fly high. A rough analogy would be pouring mercury into a jar of water and shaking it. Well, in your troposphere and mesosphere, the molar mass of the gas mixture is the same 29, soot particles in the air, in comparison, have the density of mercury in water)))

[MBRSS]

Foggy Dew Keep in mind that volcanic emissions are heavy (ash consists of metal salts) and settle quickly, unlike light soot.
Yes, the number of people to eat will decrease, but those who remain will still have to find food somehow. And these people will be injured. Most of the city dwellers won't be able to leave at all and will die in the cities.

[Foggy Dew]

You're a bit... not quite right. The ash in both places is roughly the same. In a nuclear explosion, very little is converted into polycyclic matter (soot), all organic matter is released at the moment of ts-o-2, the temperature is very high, and the main emission is through the mushroom cloud—that is, the suction of charred soil, which is all those same metal salts, mainly aluminum and iron (clay, for example, is an aluminosilicate, and is red because of the iron), but also anything else that comes across—is sucked into the epicenter of the explosion. That's how the mushroom cloud forms—all the oxygen has burned (forming oxides), and the thin air—that's where air and dust from below, which has been well-cooked, are sucked in. So, it's pretty much the same thing. Volcanoes have a peculiarity: when they erupt, they also spit out various gases - sulfur oxides, hydrogen halides, which is why acid rain occurs, well, that's also better than radioactive rain... Plus methane-CO, but these are, on the contrary, greenhouse gases)))
Everything needs to be calculated there, but as a rough estimate, there will be clouds, a drop in temperature, but again, that's not the main thing. At most, there will be a minor ice age, like in the Middle Ages, and even that's a matter of opinion.
And yes, not for long, precisely because it's not the soot that's flying. However, soot is too heavy to fly high.

[MBRSS]

Foggy Dew I think a cooling of 3-4 degrees Celsius on average annually would be enough for modern humans to experience famine. An ice age wouldn't necessarily be necessary; a nuclear autumn and a disruption of logistics would be enough. Even the Eskimos and Chukchi couldn't live without fuel supplies—they've forgotten how.

[Foggy Dew]

Yeah, right, the main losses will come from damaged infrastructure, primarily logistics. A cooling of 2 or even 5 degrees above the annual average, for about 5 years or longer, is highly unlikely, unless a chain reaction of increased albedo due to increased snow cover, which reflects heat back, is triggered. Even Moldovans wouldn't die out of grief over their grapes not ripening.
But the oil industry will immediately come to a standstill, the hydroelectric power plants will most likely be destroyed, and there is no talk of nuclear power plants, so transporting something somewhere - that will be the problem.
And so... 2000 warheads have already been detonated around the world. Nuclear winter is nowhere in sight. Of course, if they detonated another 2,000 in a day or two, there would be an effect. But it would be far from the fairy tales of an icy planet.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Foggy Dew

Of course, if you take another dose of the same amount in a day or two, there will be an effect. But it will be far removed from the fairy tales about an icy planet.

Hmm. We've all had a few stimulants in our lives, and by and large, it hasn't led to any major problems. But if you took a comparable dose all at once, you'd have a nuclear winter. It's an analogy, nothing more.

[Foggy Dew]

No matter what they talk about, it will still lead to women!
The thing is, there's a concept called "geological time." It's characterized by the fact that geological processes, including climate change, proceed very slowly, and from this perspective, it doesn't matter whether 2000 charges were detonated in a day or 50 years. The ball hasn't even begun to process the addition of those 2000 explosions.
We've just been looking at the local effect, what it will give immediately after the explosions, but the delayed effect is a completely separate topic and not connected to the previous one.
And yes, let's not forget—there's a catch. The concept of a nuclear winter has one huge vulnerability. Firstly, a cloud blocking sunlight won't reflect all the light back. The light will actually heat the cloud, like a heater circling the Earth, like a hot water bottle. Secondly, it won't allow the Earth to cool down, reflecting its own radiation back to Earth. So, the question remains: instead of a nuclear winter, could we be heading for a nuclear summer?
You've probably heard the saying: if it's a clear, cloudless day in winter, it'll be freezing tomorrow? It's called radiation cooling. A short sunny day, when the influx of energy from the surface exceeds the outflow, is followed by a long winter night, when the Earth glows and releases heat into space. The net debit is negative. And if it's covered by clouds, it's supposedly warming. This is due to the difference in the transmission of different wavelengths of the Earth's K and OT radiation.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Foggy Dew

... geological processes, well, and including climatic...

Hm. Are climate processes really that slow?

Okay. My job was to come up with an analogy. Whether I like it or not is none of my business.

[Foggy Dew]

Of course, they're slow. The Aral Sea has already dried up, and the mesoclimate hasn't changed yet. For example. And the Gulf Stream, which warms ALL of Europe, slowed by a third in 2024—no effect at all. And here we're talking about the macroclimate; a year or two won't make a difference there.

[Gomunkul]

To understand the potential consequences of using WMD, we need to look at the recollections of eyewitnesses who witnessed the testing of such weapons. The author of the article mentions soot, but doesn't mention the dust that rises into the atmosphere after the explosion. Dust could be the cause of that nuclear winter.

On August 12, 1953, at 7:30 a.m. local time (4:30 a.m. Moscow time), the Soviet Union successfully tested the RDS-6s hydrogen bomb for the first time at a test site near Semipalatinsk (Kazakh SSR).
The dust cloud rose to a height of up to 8 km. The peak of the mushroom cloud reached a height of 12 km, and the diameter of the dust cloud column was approximately 6 km. For those observing the explosion from the west, day turned to night. Thousands of tons of dust rose into the air. The cloud slowly receded beyond the horizon. Airplanes observed the cloud, including those scrambled to collect samples," recalled Vladimir Komelkov, a physicist and participant in the atomic project, one of the explosion's eyewitnesses.

[alovrov]

It can't. The vast majority of explosions will be airborne, as opposed to ground-based ones with the RDS-6.

[Umpteenth]

They won't be bombing forests. The author apparently hasn't seen any city fires. + They have slightly different release heights.

[gsev]

Quote: Enny

They won't be bombing the forests. The author apparently hasn't seen any fires in the city.

There's even more flammable material in the city than in the forest. And no one will try to put out fires after a nuclear strike, especially under radioactive contamination. And anyone who tries will die of radiation sickness.

[AdAstra]

"Fedya! This is wild!" (c) "" "" "" "" "" "

[Andrey VOV]

So it won't just be forests that burn, author, how will you account for that? Thousands of chemical plants, oil, gas, fuel storage facilities, nuclear power plants, collapsed dams and the flooding of vast areas and territories, and so on.

[Was mammoth]

"Flash on the left!" The author probably hasn't heard such a command. Not scared.
There's some rumbling about a nuclear war that's not all that terrible. And there won't be a nuclear winter, and the destruction won't be all that catastrophic... How the Earth will respond—nobody knows. For some reason, only one factor was chosen. It's not worth testing, after all.
P.S. There's a theory (calculated by scientists) that the alternation of global warming and cooling is linked to the natural water cycle over the oceans, without any cataclysms. Cloud accumulation due to evaporation leads to blocking the sun... Cooling. Precipitation...
So, one can consider nuclear war as a fight against global warming.
PSI: Are we ready for nuclear war? Not the state, not the army, but the people.

[seamen2]

*Not the state, not the army, but the people.*

And people...well, here's an example. Ukrainian drones are flying. The Ministry of Emergency Situations is thoughtfully sending out SMS alerts. They contain recommendations:
Move away from the windows and take shelter in the back of the building. They suggest going to the bathroom or the hallway, I presume. The caring Ministry of Emergency Situations is silent about bomb shelters.
There aren't any. Then we read the news—so many citizens were injured in another drone strike. That's the answer.
P.S. I saw a sign on the underground parking door in the courtyard of an elite residential complex, saying it was a shelter. But not everyone lives in elite residential complexes... It's basically just a parking lot, and I don't think it even has proper public transportation.

[Was mammoth]

Quote from seamen2

And the people...

Our "Maybe".
What about the state? Is there at least a food reserve like in the USSR? Bomb shelters—they used to be built en masse.

[seamen2]

*Ah, the state?*

And the government shows us on TV some kind of strategic reserve storage facility, where there is a supply of food and medicine for EVERY citizen.
But we are shown a lot of things on TV, and usually life is very different from what TV shows us.
It's possible that this storage facility exists, but how and by whom will citizens' access to this manna from heaven be organized after...

*Bomb shelters - they used to be built en masse*.

There used to be a lot of them, but now there are only a few of us there. I can tell by the bomb shelter near the KFL location. It's a serious structure, but the doors are wide open, so it's clear it's been abandoned for a long time. Otherwise, yes, they were built on factory grounds, and they owned them. But where are those factories now? The structures themselves seem to have survived, but their functionality is questionable.

[Was mammoth]

Quote from seamen2

They were built on the territory of factories and they were their property.

Factories, schools, public institutions... All had bomb shelters or nearby. The "mushroom" ventilation ducts here and there still stand as a testament to those years. I disagree with one thing: they were the property and care of the state. These days, the main thing is to have a white sheet. And perhaps it will pass!

[Foggy Dew]

Holy shit, I worked as a tallyman back in the 90s, so I can tell you where all the shelters are. They're wholesale warehouses, and they've been around for a long time.
https://bunker-garant.ru/posts/karta-bomboubezhishch
Here are only the addresses of houses, apparently with shelters for one house.

[Vadim S]

It's long been proven that most science and history are based on erroneous theories. From the banal—slaves built the pyramids—to Darwin's theory of evolution. And how much has been said about how scientists still can't fully understand the nature of electricity, despite the many achievements, prizes, and medals they've won in this field? All these physics and other laws, simply invented by humans, don't apply when it comes to nature, insects, and no one can explain them.

[LuZappa]

What's the conclusion? The whole "nuclear winter" theory is a banal scam by people who don't know how to count and compare.

It's high time to bang!

[LuZappa]

Quote: Puncher

Those who are in the area of ​​a nuclear explosion will undoubtedly feel its effects, depending on how far away they are.

It seems to me that for a normal explosion the situation is similar, maybe the distance is a little less.

Long-term observations by specialists confirm that the projectile always hits the epicenter of the explosion...

[Raccoon-slut]

Well, what of it? Nothing but forests can burn. We're surrounded by forests, and there are no rubber or plastic products in the cities. And there are no cities, just forests. And no chemical plants. And there are no establishments with a "biohazard" sign. We can go wild!

[Alexander X]

Why not also take into account the fact that they'll hit the enemy's nuclear power plants? And the contamination from a damaged reactor would be far worse than from the bomb itself. And even without a nuclear winter, there would be an Armagenda disaster when several such nuclear power plants are destroyed by explosions.

[Dmitry Ivanov_8]

Will the nuclear power plant's reactor explode from a nearby detonation of a special warhead? It's more likely that the reactor hall will simply be buried under the building's debris. Yes, it's dangerous in the long term. But it won't detonate "right here and now."

[MBRSS]

Dmitry Ivanov_8 Why nearby? It will hit the nuclear power plant with sufficient accuracy to ensure long-term radioactive contamination of the area.

[Fan-fan]

The main reason for the strike on the nuclear power plant was not radioactive contamination of the area, but the destruction of an extremely expensive and very useful facility for the enemy...

[gsev]

Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8

Will the nuclear power plant reactor explode from a nearby detonated special warhead?

Fukushima. The reactor exploded due to damage to the safety equipment that shut down the cooling system. Overheating, explosion, and radioactive contamination. And the cause was simply extreme weather conditions.

[Vladislav Markov_2]

That's the point, so no one will count.

[SergeySmirnov3663]

So, maybe we can have a drink!
The whole world is in ruin!
After all, the most dangerous thing, radiation, is not scary to the author of the article.

[Dmitry Ivanov_8]

Comrades, you're forgetting one thing. When was the study done? There's significantly more plastic and other flammable materials in cities now than there were in the 60s. Cars, for example. House finishing (and the houses themselves were built using dendro-fecal technology).

[MBRSS]

There are also megatons of plastic in landfills, and PVC is very unhealthy when burned. When all this crap starts smoking, all over the world at the same time, the oxygen will burn out.
So it's not just about soot.

[Fan-fan]

megatons of plastic in landfills

So, that's it, the Americans are going to use nuclear weapons on landfills? So what, it's an important target, and maybe they'll notice a pile of old tires somewhere and fire them too, to create more smoke.

[Dmitry Ivanov_8]

Quote from seamen2

*Ah, the state?*
*Bomb shelters - they used to be built en masse*.

Berezniki. Lomonosova St., 102. Hospital. I can easily walk to the clinic from the inpatient department 300 meters away through the underground passage (it's used). It's underground (it's cold, and there are rats running around). Same thing with the second clinical hospital in Perm. They even preserved the airtight door (a piece of steel weighing several tons) in the basement :). It's used. No need to exaggerate.

[Was mammoth]

Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8

There's no need to escalate.

"Germodver" - the remains of the Soviet Civil Defense.
I'm not exaggerating.
Britain and France are preparing to transfer nuclear weapons to Ukraine, the SVR reported.
https://ria.ru/20260224/svr-2076341369.html
The State Duma will appeal to the British and French parliaments regarding nuclear weapons for Kyiv.
https://rg.ru/2026/02/25/gosduma-obratitsia-k-parlamentam-britanii-i-francii-po-iadernomu-oruzhiiu-dlia-kieva.html?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fyandex.ru%2F
Red line?
And he could summon ambassadors and designate targets in France and Great Britain in the event of the transfer of even a "dirty" bomb to the Nazis of Ukraine.

[Scientist]

Something about VO has started to go downhill, publishing such "analysts".
First, what does the academician's "non-proletarian" origins have to do with this? That's Zhvanetsky's take on it: what kind of opinion could someone with such a nose have?
Second. Having initially lambasted the academician for his calculations, the author himself presents completely biased calculations. For example, he divides the mass of soot by the entire (!) volume of the atmosphere. But who said it would be distributed evenly throughout the entire atmosphere? Not to mention that, for objectivity, we need to take into account (even if Moiseyev didn't) that not only forests but also cities will burn. And then we can calculate how much soot will be released, for example, from the burning of oil depots and oil fields, plastics factories, and so on. And then there are such trivialities as changes in atmospheric circulation, and so on.

[Fan-fan]

History needs to be studied. Hiroshima burned because it was built of wood. But Nagasaki didn't burn because it was made of stone and concrete. Also, the author didn't take into account rainfall, which would clear some of the soot from the air.

[MBRSS]

The author of this article should be sent to the woods for a year, without a phone, visits to Pyaterochka, or any food supplies. We'll see how he sings. And that's without any nuclear winter, even with summer.
My point is that a long winter wouldn't be necessary for modern humanity to become extinct; a nuclear fall or spring would be sufficient. Given the necessary disruption to nutrition, coupled with lower (higher) temperatures, only small land animals would survive, and even then, it's not a given that they'll be mammals.

[Fan-fan]

Of course, without coffee and hot donuts, humanity would die out. But how do people live in taiga villages now?

[gsev]

[quote] After the revolution, he worked in the People's Commissariat of Railways, arrested in 1928 for sabotage and ties to the White Guards, and executed in 1929. What a fascinating biography of the family of this academician, Moiseyev! [quote][/quote] The von Meck family was at the forefront of the development of railway communication in Russia. Before they began organizing railway construction, transportation problems were mounting in Russia. Sevastopol was abandoned due to poor supplies. During the Crimean War, iron from the Nizhny Novgorod fair took a year to be delivered to the Nikolaev or Kiev arsenals. Bread in the Pskov region cost 10 rubles per 200 kg. It was more profitable to import grain from Europe to the northern regions of Russia than to transport it from the south of Russia, where it cost, for example, 1 ruble 20 kopecks per 200 kg in the Oryol region. Russia exported grain through Odessa at prices below the world average and purchased it from Europe for St. Petersburg and the Baltics at above-world prices. Coal delivery from England took a week and cost 12 kopecks per pood, while from southern Russia it took six months and sometimes cost a ruble per pood. The emphasis on water transport proved unjustified. By the end of the reign of Nicholas I, rivers were rapidly drying up in European Russia. Von Meck and his associates effectively prevented Russia from degenerating to the level of Turkey or Persia in 1920. Public-private partnerships and Western investment were effectively applied during construction. In Putin's Russia, public-private partnerships and foreign investment are used in a practically sabotage manner, leading to the ruin of either the private sector or the state. The fact that von Meck wasn't used as a major leader but was executed by the NKVD suggests that the organization's leadership was heavily infiltrated by enemies of the people, saboteurs, and simply fools. It's no wonder that in the USSR, before Khrushchev came to power, secret service leaders were regularly executed. The execution of Yezhov, Yagoda, Beria, Abakumov, and Ryumin was a necessary element of Stalin's model of governance.

[Vavilov_A]

The author apparently dug a bunker at his dacha and is proposing to go ahead and detonate it—there won't be a nuclear winter, there's nothing to fear. What happens to the others who haven't dug bunkers is of little concern to the author. In fact, it was precisely the fear of nuclear war and its consequences that saved us in 1983 (we were itching to go ahead then, too) and has saved us ever since.
What Academician Moiseyev's theory has to do with the collapse of the USSR is even more unclear. The USSR collapsed due to serious economic problems, an ideological crisis, and the decisions of a section of the Soviet elite who wanted the easy life.

[Alexander Bezfamilnuy]

I'm not going to confirm or deny the contents of the article. These are my thoughts.
I don't believe in a nuclear winter. I don't think everything that's been accumulated will be used at once. For that to happen, conflicts would have to reach an unprecedented level of intensity and antagonism.
Will there be many casualties? Definitely.
And this doesn’t even take into account direct losses from nuclear strikes, residual radiation, etc.
The greatest losses will come from the destruction of chains of command, logistics, and life support systems (electricity, water, sewage, food, and healthcare). Plus, there will be an immediate outbreak of banditry and anarchy in the event of sufficiently massive (not targeted) strikes. This will be especially devastating in large cities. And the losses from all of this will be colossal.
Have you ever seen fights in grocery lines? I have. During perestroika. And yet, there was certainly no real danger to these masses. A herd is a herd.
In parentheses, I will note that it was precisely with perestroika that I personally lost respect for the broad masses.
Even in the case of mild nuclear destruction, panic will do a lot to the herds, which will very quickly lose their human appearance.
Therefore, even a limited nuclear war is scary. Very scary.
But whether we will be able to avoid it is the question...

[Pavel57]

The article is incomplete. It should have included statistics on volcanic emissions that actually caused various ice ages in Europe and Russia.

[alovrov]

The counterrevolutionary academic—that's absolutely brilliant! But the issue isn't him, it's the people who commissioned all this late-Soviet research on the consequences of nuclear war. The party establishment needed to seriously frighten the enslaved population to justify peaceful coexistence and détente. It's better to intimidate through smart scientists, who are always and everywhere ready to create a theory for any grant from a client. Well, the academic did just what they asked for. The same thing is being done about ozone holes, carbon neutrality, COVID, and so on.
The academic fraternity is inexorably becoming such a semi-respectable bunch that they'll punch you in the face just for appearing in public. I'd be the first to punch an academic for his clown-like nuclear winter theory. And the people who commissioned it—against the wall.

[BAI]

I've written this before. Again:
In 1815, the Tondra volcano erupted. Its power was equivalent to the entire nuclear potential accumulated by humanity to date.
And?
Who remembers this eruption? How did it destroy human civilization?
The eruption of Vesuvius is better known thanks to Pompeii, although its power was negligible.
What we need to worry about is not climate change, but the fact that without electricity all the mega-humans will die out.

[Fan-fan]

That's right – without water, electricity, and heat, there's nothing to do in the cities. People have to flee to the villages and hamlets.

[Maks1995]

IMHO, has the Kremlin given the go-ahead for a new wave of scare tactics?
The Internet and yellow Internet media are overflowing with articles about nuclear weapons and dirt bombs, and their possible uses.
The previous 6-8 waves of scaremongering and bullshit ended in a fizzle, unpunished. So the conclusion: lying is allowed. Lying is necessary.

As for the rest, the internet is full of stories and references from scientists that eruptions lead to cooling. Strong ones lead to severe cooling. Historically, people have allegedly suffered greatly from this.
There was a major recent event somewhere near America-England, when even air flights were banned, and they announced a drop in temperature of several degrees.

So, according to new data, the cooling effect will be weaker than previously thought. It's a fact of life. It's possible.
Still, life is like that – some people made billions in profits in 24-25. It's basically paradise. Others are dying or will die. Look at your friends and relatives.
Nothing can be changed, unfortunately.

[Glagol1]

Let me remind the author about volcanic super-eruptions. Just recently, in 1816, there was a "year without a summer." The cause was the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia, followed by a famine in Europe. The same happened in 1817. Countless people perished. Even though the volcano was 10 km from Europe, it was still covered. The phenomenon of "nuclear winter" has long been proven, including with the use of supercomputers. We can't know for sure how exactly it will affect (winds, typhoons, monsoons, etc.), but the Northern Hemisphere will be the first to be affected. It's possible that Antarctica, New Zealand, and the southernmost part of Argentina will be the least affected (hello, the Malvinas Islands!). So don't dream of bright sunshine after the apocalypse. It won't be there for 90% of the world's population, and for a long time...

[wehr]

Oh, great! I have just the right argument for hand-to-hand combat.

Tambora, you say, proves the effect of "nuclear winter"?
Thus, according to geologists, Tambora ejected approximately 130-150 cubic kilometers of tephra, or compacted volcanic ash and tuff, into the atmosphere. Tephra has a density of 1370 kg/m3.
In total, 150 cubic km is 150 billion cubic meters or 205,5 trillion kg of tephra.
Divided by the area of ​​the Earth, we get 402941 kg for each square kilometer of the Earth's surface, or 0,4 kg for each square meter. 400 grams per 1 square meter of the Earth's surface!
If we do the same for the volume of the atmosphere, we get 3967 kg for every cubic km of atmosphere.

In total, the emission of solid matter from the Tambora volcano per 1 square meter of the Earth's surface was:
- 25,1 times more than in the model of Academician Moiseev;
- 1333 times more than in the second model.

The conclusion is the same: linking Tambor to the "nuclear winter" is a banal deception of those who do not know how to count and compare.

[Fan-fan]

You write to them, explain, but they still believe in nuclear winter, just like ancient people believed in gods and other miracles.

[wehr]

But you can immediately see who is who.
The simplest test for broken brains.

[Glagol1]

Your calculations are incorrect. They're based on false principles. Volcanic ejecta include light fragments. They disperse quickly. But a nuclear bombing would release everything into the air, including chemicals.

[Alexander Odintsov]

In total, 150 cubic km is 150 billion cubic meters or 205,5 trillion kg of tephra.
Divide by the area of ​​the Earth, and you get 402941 kg for every square kilometer of the Earth's surface, or 0,4 kg for every square meter. 400 grams per 1 square meter of the Earth's surface!
If we do the same for the volume of the atmosphere, we get 3967 kg for every cubic km of atmosphere.

Dear Dmitry, do you have a physics degree? That's not true. Soot alters the optical properties of the atmosphere, and sunlight is absorbed. After Tambora, Earth was already experiencing what's known as the Little Ice Age. Average annual temperatures from the 14th to 19th centuries were lower than the millennial average. The volcano, however, made the situation even worse.
The Northern Hemisphere experienced a climate change for several years. The release of ash into the atmosphere triggered a volcanic winter. The ash didn't spread through the atmosphere immediately, so the volcanic winter didn't manifest until 1816.
In March 1816, spring never arrived in Europe. This was commonplace in Russia, but for our western neighbors, with their warm Gulf Stream and mild Mediterranean climate, it was a unique occurrence.
The situation didn't improve significantly in April and May. Torrential rains and heavy hail were added. And in the summer, snow fell in Europe and the US.
During the day in July, temperatures in New York dropped to 4 degrees Celsius (compared to 23-33 degrees Celsius in normal years). And at night, there were frosts. Ponds and rivers were covered with a layer of ice several centimeters thick.
According to farmer Benjamin Harwood, frozen birds dropped dead en masse in the fields that summer. Farmers began shearing their sheep, but realized it would be dangerous to leave them without wool during such a "summer." Many sheep froze to death. They began slaughtering the livestock, as it became clear that feeding them would be difficult.
The harvest was several times smaller than usual. In May, the buds on the fruit trees died. In the US, almost the entire corn crop froze.
In 1817, grain prices soared tenfold. A famine began, affecting not only the poor but even the middle class.
In America, eating nettles, wild turnips, and hedgehogs has become popular. Hay has seen the smallest price increase, but even that has seen an astronomical increase in price—sixfold!

[wehr]

So, does one need a physics education to believe that a pinch of soot per square meter can completely block out the Sun?
Such "physical education" leading to such an absurd belief is not education, but real stupefaction and dullness.

[Alexander Odintsov]

Dear Dmitry, a physics education is necessary to correctly evaluate information. All the best. Study physics.

[wehr]

How can a pinch of soot per square meter block the sun?

[Alexander Odintsov]

It's very simple, due to the decrease in atmospheric permeability. And locally, the soot content will be higher than if we consider it as a complete suspension. Read about Tamboruu, it was a real effect. Even when there were large fires in Canada, you should look, there were also arguments in favor of a nuclear autumn. You're right, of course, there won't be a winter.

[wehr]

I lived through the fires of 2010, and I don't remember any "fall/winter" at all. It was a very hot year.

What's there to read? Can't you, with your "physical dullness," see the difference between 15,3 grams of soot and 400 grams of volcanic ash per square meter?

Perhaps I am wrong in considering you a reasonable person.

[Yuliy]

then we will live :) and live well

[Totor5]

What was the number of nuclear charges then and what is the number now?

[bug120560]

The article is, to put it mildly, pure nonsense. Author, are you even vaguely familiar with the scenarios for the consequences of using nuclear weapons by American astronomer Carl Sagan or the conclusions of Soviet physicist Vladimir Alexandrov, which no one has been able to refute to this day?

[alovrov]

These physicists and astronomers were asked to describe the consequences in the right way. If asked to describe them differently, they'll write about the undeniable benefits of nuclear war. So there's nothing to refute—modern scientists' dependence on grants from their clients eliminates the need to prove anything.

[Yuri_K_Msk]

The possibility of a "nuclear winter" can be debated endlessly; it's impossible to test. But a "financial winter" will definitely come, finances will collapse, and gigantic dollar bubbles will burst. Hard money will disappear! Fort Knox will be stormed. Work will lose its meaning—it's only for a scrap of food. And there's no need to fear a nuclear winter—humans will survive it; they're resilient—after all, they didn't die out in Europe during the Ice Age.

[KrolikZanuda]

I don't see a problem with subtracting 5 billion from the 7 billion. As long as it's an unnecessary 5 billion. White people need to come to an agreement among themselves, not divide up stupid Ukraine.

[bug120560]

KrolikZanuda, which category do you place yourself in, the unnecessary 5 or the remaining ones?

[Inevitably]

Quote: Paranoid62

Quote: MBRBS

How can one explain the non-increasing number of drones and missiles in one raid, while their production is growing?

Forming a reserve. The SVO is a rehearsal; the real war (if it ever happens) won't be with Ukraine.

Quote: AI Overview

In 2025–2026, the Russian Federation will continue the large-scale formation of new divisions, including motorized rifle, airborne, and marine divisions, as part of the reorganization of the Russian Armed Forces to strengthen the counter-NATO response and continue combat operations in Ukraine. Key changes include the reestablishment of the 55th Marine Division of the Pacific Fleet, the creation of the 103rd and 104th Airborne Divisions, and the deployment of new motorized rifle divisions within the Southern Military District.

Key directions and formations (as of the beginning of 2026):

Marines: It is planned to deploy divisions based on brigades. The 55th Guards Marine Division of the Pacific Fleet (based on the 155th Brigade) and the 120th Marine Division of the Baltic Fleet (based on the 336th Brigade).

Airborne Troops (VDV): Formation of the 103rd Airborne Assault Division and development of the 104th Division.

Ground Forces (Southern Military District): Strengthening the 3rd and 51st combined arms armies, as well as the formation of the 68th and 71st motorized rifle divisions and artillery units.

Structural changes: Creation of the Moscow and Leningrad military districts

Good rehearsal!
And we won’t be left without pants and other things?!

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Inevitable

And we won’t be left without pants and other things?!

We are not.

[Inevitably]

I'm happy for "you," and thank you for comforting and even inspiring me. It's true that I don't understand the basis for such astonishing optimism, but that (apparently) doesn't matter...

[Inevitably]

Quote: Paranoid62

Quote: MBRBS

How can one explain the non-increasing number of drones and missiles in one raid, while their production is growing?

Forming a reserve. The SVO is a rehearsal; the real war (if it ever happens) won't be with Ukraine.

Quote: AI Overview

In 2025–2026, the Russian Federation will continue the large-scale formation of new divisions, including motorized rifle, airborne, and marine divisions, as part of the reorganization of the Russian Armed Forces to strengthen the counter-NATO response and continue combat operations in Ukraine. Key changes include the reestablishment of the 55th Marine Division of the Pacific Fleet, the creation of the 103rd and 104th Airborne Divisions, and the deployment of new motorized rifle divisions within the Southern Military District.

Key directions and formations (as of the beginning of 2026):

Marines: It is planned to deploy divisions based on brigades. The 55th Guards Marine Division of the Pacific Fleet (based on the 155th Brigade) and the 120th Marine Division of the Baltic Fleet (based on the 336th Brigade).

Airborne Troops (VDV): Formation of the 103rd Airborne Assault Division and development of the 104th Division.

Ground Forces (Southern Military District): Strengthening the 3rd and 51st combined arms armies, as well as the formation of the 68th and 71st motorized rifle divisions and artillery units.

Structural changes: Creation of the Moscow and Leningrad military districts

Good rehearsal!
And we won’t be left without pants and other things?!

[VTOL Helicopter]

In the history of the planet, there was a cataclysm from a volcanic eruption that led to an ice age about 8 years ago—that is, when mammoths chewing grass suddenly found themselves in permafrost. There was another year without summer under Tsar Godunov, after which the Turmoil began—also because of a volcano. Therefore, nuclear weapons should be compared to volcanoes and not to a sheet of paper.

[Nzn]

A very interesting article.... Are they advertising to us here not the harm, but almost the benefit of nuclear strikes?

[Green tea]

In the end, no actual transparency calculations or experiments were provided. The most important omission in this theory was that the model assumed a zero settling velocity for this soot, which is not the case.

But all this is nothing compared to the radioactive contamination of the area, including radiation from the exploded nuclear power plants (you don't think anyone will launch a single missile at a nuclear power plant, do you?). And this will have long-term consequences for centuries.

[Forever so]

It's even funnier here: for some reason, everyone thinks the planet is a frozen mass of matter, and all the people and industry have a temperature of 0 degrees Celsius. However, the Earth radiates heat into space. So, if the sky is covered with ash clouds, the planet will begin to warm up. And most importantly, we live on the plate of a capacitor, and if the sky is filled with soot, powerful electrical breakdowns will occur throughout the atmosphere, dry and wet thunderstorms that will deposit all this ash in a matter of months. But radiation can pollute the entire planet without causing any fires. But we are not academics; we have no regalia or titles.

[Russian_Ninja]

So, it turns out that sunlight doesn’t warm the Earth?
We are talking about the surface of the Earth, not about magma or the core.