Home Page
I recently spoke with Dr. O. B. Toon, one of the members of the TTAPS group,
who co-authored the famous 1983 and 1990 studies on nuclear winter (which
appeared in the journal Science). My purpose was to seek his perspective on
the subject of nuclear winter, and to ask if he would be interested in
pursuing further research on the subject.
Despite continued (and largely successful) efforts by those with vested
interests in the nuclear arms industry to ridicule the idea of nuclear
winter, Dr. Toon believes that no valid scientific research has been done to
discredit the TTAPS studies. The 1990 TTAPS report in Science (Vol. 247,
pp. 166-176), summarized the extensive research done during the 1980šs (none
has been done since), and showed that , "The basic physics of nuclear winter
has been reaffirmed through several authoritative international technical
assessments and numerous individual scientific investigations". Those who
believe the government propaganda that the ideas of nuclear winter were
'overstated' need to read this article.
I have been told by some that nuclear winter is no longer 'relevant' to the
current nuclear discussion.
I would point out that the TTAPS studies found that a Class III nuclear
winter could be created simply by exploding 100 megatons of nuclear weapons
in 100 large cities. Even under the most optimistic arms reduction
scenarios, we will still have the capacity to accomplish such a suicidal act
in a matter of a few minutes.
Nuclear winter means that launching a 'successful' first strike with nuclear
weapons is suicide. This finding is what so frightened the military
establishments in the 1980šs, because it clearly showed the insanity of the
nuclear arms race and gave the lie to the idea that nuclear weapons somehow
'protect' us.
In 1990, Sagan and Turco stated that, "The industrial, urban, and petroleum
targets are characterized by combustible materials highly concentrated at
relatively few sites; this is why global nuclear winter may be generated
with only a few hundred detonations or less." (page 201 of A Path No Man
Thought)
Nuclear winter creates the conditions of an ice age in the continental
interiors in a matter of a few days. When the clouds finally disperse, the
ozone levels would be so depleted that sunlight would be blinding and deadly
to any survivors (stratospheric ozone depletion was found by subsequent
research to be worse that originally anticipated by the first TTAPS study).
Can you think of a better argument for the abolition of nuclear weapons?
This is why I asked Dr. Toon to consider participating in an updated study
on nuclear winter. I suggested that the computer modeling now being done by
Dr. Mathew McKinzie at the Natural Resources Defense Council could be used
as the basis for the proposed study. Dr. McKinziešs models show the blast,
thermal and radioactive effects of the various attack options of the current
U.S. SIOP. Yet nuclear winter is not being looked at as part of the weapons
effects, which I think is unfortunate, because it leaves the Hemispheric
component out of the equation.
I would ask that the research done during the 1980šs on nuclear winter be reexamined.
I think we have made a mistake to forget the warnings of Sagan, et. al
Sincerely, Steven Starr
You would think that the destruction of the Northern Hemisphere should
be a topic that humanity might want to talk about. Yet, for the last ten years,
the subject of nuclear winter has been virtually absent from public discussion.
The end of the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, and a highly
publicized attempt to discredit the 'theory' of nuclear winter by groups
with a vested interest in preserving nuclear weapons: these events led to a
decade of silence on the subject of nuclear winter. It is imperative that
this silence be broken.
More than ten years have passed since the last extensive investigations on
nuclear winter were conducted (during the period 1983 - 1989). The
composition of American and Russian nuclear arsenals has changed
significantly since the 1980's studies, with substantial reductions
occurring both in the numbers and yields of strategic weapons. Yet no one
has asked: Is nuclear winter still a likely outcome should existing or
projected nuclear arsenals be detonated in a major nuclear war?
This is a question that the nuclear priesthood does not want discussed.
Why? Because an answer in the affirmative will completely undermine the
legitimacy of maintaining thousands of nuclear weapons on high-alert status.
However, the extensive scientific studies of the 1980šs leave little doubt:
nuclear winter is a likely outcome of any nuclear war.
Perhaps the most important finding of the 1980šs studies was that ". . .
only a few hundred nuclear detonations, or less, seem sufficient to bring
about at least a nominal nuclear winter. Only 100 small warheads devoted
to petroleum refining and storage facilities would suffice. Indeed, with
something like a hundred downtowns burning, or the same number of petroleum
facilities, even a substantial nuclear winter seems possible." (from 'A Path
No Man Thought', page 203, by Carl Sagan and Richard Turco, 1990, Random
House)
The 1983 TTAPS nuclear winter study (from 'Case 14') examined the effects
of one thousand 100 kiloton warheads exploded over 100 large cities,
creating a 'Class III' nuclear winter. Consider that U.S. Trident subs alone
now carry more than three thousand 100 kiloton warheads, which are aimed at
'urban industrial' targets in Russia (targeting and warhead information from
the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan./Feb. 2000, p, 53).
This is a description of a Class III "Nominal" nuclear winter (taken from
pages 194-195 of 'A Path No Man Thought'): "It carries in its wake significant
cooling and darkening, drought, massive quantities of pyrotoxins
generated, widespread radioactive fallout, and other atmospheric
perturbations. Average land temperature drops would be about 10 degrees C.
At noon, the Sun would have about one-third its usual brightness. Months
later, sunlight would return to more than its usual intensity, enhanced in
the ultraviolet by depletion of the high-altitude ozone layer.
Collapse of agriculture, and famine, could be widespread. Within the
warring nations, these effects might generate casualties approaching those
from the prompt effects of the war. Crop failure--from lowered temperatures,
failure of the monsoons, and other causes--are expected in many noncombatant
nations in the first growing season following the conflict. The most likely
such failures would be in India, China, some African nations, and perhaps
Japan. Worldwide, as many as 1 to 2 billion people could be placed in
jeopardy of starvation."
The 1983 TTAPS study was followed by the ISCUšs Scientific Committee on
Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) study, which involved hundreds of
scientists from more than a dozen countries working over three years.
Meetings were held in Australia, Canada, China, England, France, India,
Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the
U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., and Venezuela.
This is a quote from the 1985 SCOPE document, 'Environmental Consequences
of Nuclear War'. . . "The total loss of human agricultural and societal
support systems would result in the loss of almost all humans on Earth,
essentially equally among combatant and non-combatant countries alike. . . .
this vulnerability is an aspect not currently a part of the understanding
of nuclear war; not only are the major combatant countries in danger, but
virtually the entire human population is being held hostage to the large
scale use of nuclear weapons . . ." A review of the SCOPE assessment done
by the U.S. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy confirmed
these findings, and actually stated that the SCOPE analysis had been too conservative.
Even under the proposed START III treaty, the United States and Russia
will indefinitely keep 3000 to 5000 nuclear warheads on launch-ready status.
Should even a fraction of these weapons be exploded over large cities or
petroleum refineries, it appears that they would be fully capable of
destroying the Northern Hemisphere.
Efforts are now being made to promote the creation of an updated study on
nuclear winter. Major advances in computer modeling and in the atmospheric
sciences have taken place during the last decade. These advances can be
utilized in conjunction with current information on nuclear weaponry to
demonstrate the enormous threat to the biosphere posed by global nuclear arsenals.
If you are interested in participating in this effort, you may contact me
by mail or email. If you are a member of any group which might also be
interested in promoting an updated nuclear winter study, let them know about this project.
Steven Starr
9030 County Road 389
New Bloomfield, MO 65063
email: shadesahoy@socket.net
http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/nuclearwinter.html
Nuclear Winter
In a study made by the World Health Organization, they found that a
nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could kill one billion people
outright. In addition, it could produce a Nuclear Winter that would probably
kill an additional one billion people. It is possible that more than two
billion people, one-third of all the humans on Earth would be destroyed
almost immediately in the aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. The rest
of humanity would be reduced to prolonged agony and barbarism. These
findings are from a study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel
laureate in physiology and medicine) nearly 20 years ago. (1)
Subsequent studies have had similar findings. Professor Alan Robock says,
"Everything from purely mathematical models to forest fire studies shows
that even a small nuclear war would devastate the earth." (2)
Rich Small's work, financed by the Defense Nuclear Agency, suggests that
burning cities would produce a particularly troublesome variety of smoke.
The smoke of forest fires is bad enough. But the industrial targets of
cities are likely to produce a rolling, black smoke, a denser shield
against > incoming sunlight. (3)
Nuclear explosions can produce heat intensities of 3,000 to 4,000 degrees
Centigrade at ground zero. Nuclear explosions can also lift an enormous
quantity of fine soil particles into the atmosphere, creating more than
l00,000 tons of fine, dense, radioactive dust for every megaton exploded on
the surface. (4) The late Dr. Carl Sagan said the super heating of vast
quantities of atmospheric dust and soot will cover both hemispheres. (5)
For those who survive a nuclear attack, it would mean living on a cold, dark,
chaotic, radioactive planet.
A nuclear warhead is far more destructive than is generally realized.
For example, just one average size U.S. strategic 250 Kt nuclear warhead has
an explosive force equal to 250,000 tons of dynamite or 50,000 World War II
type bombers each carrying 5 tons of bombs. The truck bombs that terrorists
exploded at the New York World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City each had an
explosive force equal to about 5 tons of dynamite. (6)
Accidental Nuclear War
The U.S. and Russia each have more than 2,000 strategic nuclear warheads
set for hair-trigger release. If launched they could be delivered to targets
around the world in 30 minutes. They would have an explosive force equal to
l00,000 Hiroshima size bombs. (7) Russia and the U.S. have more than 90
percent of the nuclear weapons in the world. The more automated and shorter
the decision process becomes the greater is the possibility of missiles
being launched to false warnings.
The U.S. is trying to decide whether to build an anti-missile star wars
defense or not. In order for an anti-ballistic missile to hit another
missile traveling at incredible speed that can come from many different
directions, it would be necessary to have a very complex computerized system.
President Reagan's Defense Secretary, Casper Weinberger, said that since
an anti-missile defense would require decisions within seconds, completely
autonomous computer control is a foregone conclusion. There would be no time
for screening out false alarms and a decision to launch would have to be
automated---there would be no time for White House approval. (8)
A highly automated defense system that has no time for determining whether
a warning is false or not is highly likely to launch to a false warning.
There are always false warnings. For example, during 1981, 1982 and 1983
there were 186, 218 and 255 false alarms, respectively, in the U.S.
strategic warning system. (9)
There have been at least three times in the last 20 years that the U.S.
and Russia almost launched to false warnings. Fortunately there was enough
time to determine that the warnings were false before decision time ran out.
In 1979, a U.S. training tape showing a massive attack was accidentally played.
In 1983, a Soviet satellite mistakenly signaled the launch of a U.S. missile.
In 1995, Russia almost launched its missiles because of a Norwegian rocket
studying the northern lights. (l0)
If the U.S. builds an anti-missile defense it appears certain that
missiles would be launched to false warnings because no time is available
for determining whether a warning is false or not.
Preventive Action Needed
Plans to build an anti-missile defense need to be carefully researched
as to how it could increase the danger of an accidental nuclear war. As the
research progresses, the findings need to be widely discussed in the news
media. The more widely and clearly the danger is made known the more
concerned the public should be for agreements to greatly reduce and
eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons from the world.
As humanity's safety becomes more and more dependent upon technology, the
technological dangers need to be guarded against. Technical errors in one
system may trigger errors in others. When researching missile defense
dangers the following types of factors need to be included in the
assessments, e.g. Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)), "Dead Hand" control of
missiles, High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), Hazards of
Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO). Russia's blind spots in its
satellite warning system also need to be included in this research.
The U.S. and Russia are in a position where either can destroy humanity
in a flash and yet there appears to be little recognition of this peril
hanging over the world. Only 71 out of 435 U.S. congressional representatives
signed a motion calling for nuclear weapons to be taken off of hair-trigger
alert. (11)
The U.S. Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999. (12)
Queen Noor al Hussein, of Jordan, said "The sheer folly of trying to
defend a nation by destroying all life on the planet must be apparent to
anyone capable of rational thought." (13) There is a need to greatly
increase public awareness of the danger in order to provide broad, long-term
understanding and support for arms agreements ridding the world of nuclear weapons.
Reference and Notes
Home Page