In the Cuban missile crisis a soviet submarine was under attack by American surface warships. The captain and political officer believed war had began and wanted to launch nuclear torpedoes in response, but the boats XO wasn't certain and wanted to confirm, he refused to give launch authorisation. One mans doubt stopped nuclear war.
What's sad is that the latest music video gets millions of views in a few hours and this video got 29,000 views in 6 years I'm watching on 22,7,2020 so you see how many sheep are in the world, ww3 will happen because few people have the time for a video like this
The field tests of the concept of "nuclear winter" took place during the forest fires of 2007-2012, especially strongly in 2010, when about 12 million hectares or 120 thousand square kilometers were burned, that is, 12% of the scale adopted for the model of "nuclear winter". This is not to be dismissed, because if the effect had taken place, it would have manifested itself.The most interesting thing is that the calculations of soot formation in these fires were carried out, published in the journal "Meteorology and Hydrology", No. 7 for 2015. The result was overturning. Soot actually formed 2.5 grams per square meter of forest fire. Over the entire area of the fires, about 300 thousand tons of soot were formed, which is easy to translate into an estimated million square kilometers - 2.5 million tons, which is 1,600 times less than in the "nuclear winter" model. And this is in the best conditions of a dry and hot summer, when rain did not extinguish the fires, and extinguishing could not cope with the fire.
as I mentioned on several other Nuke Winter scenarios would these Blasts prevent regular weather Patterns from forming and if so I can see this happening but not ONE movie or talk has touched on Nukes dropped during a Hurricane or Tornado. if a huge Hurricane was happening when a Bomb fell wouldn't that area have most of fallout disrupted in hours not Months or a Tornado in one area would distribute this smoke in a very short time. not to mention windstorms all over the world. just a thought!!
The field tests of the concept of "nuclear winter" took place during the forest fires of 2007-2012, especially strongly in 2010, when about 12 million hectares or 120 thousand square kilometers were burned, that is, 12% of the scale adopted for the model of "nuclear winter". This is not to be dismissed, because if the effect had taken place, it would have manifested itself.The most interesting thing is that the calculations of soot formation in these fires were carried out, published in the journal "Meteorology and Hydrology", No. 7 for 2015. The result was overturning. Soot actually formed 2.5 grams per square meter of forest fire. Over the entire area of the fires, about 300 thousand tons of soot were formed, which is easy to translate into an estimated million square kilometers - 2.5 million tons, which is 1,600 times less than in the "nuclear winter" model. And this is in the best conditions of a dry and hot summer, when rain did not extinguish the fires, and extinguishing could not cope with the fire.
Well yes and no. As far i understand it. Everthing in de epicenter, in a radius from ground zero would be vaporised. But beyond this, there will be a radius where the flash of light would be so intense that every flamebale thing would not be vaporised but combust spontanus. Catch on fire because of light. So no shockwave or fireball. And because of this you can not exclude the fires. No matter the size of the weapon. Hope this explains it a bit.
@@benjacobs1622 Yes, but my thinking is that targets will be hit by multiple warheads, perhaps spread about the area enough that, for example, a city might be totally obliterated with very little combustible material remaining. Farther away, you might get forest fires or grass fires, but plants in some places would be more burnable than others because of how dry or moist the area happens to be. I'm thinking there might be less flammable material in these outlying areas than in the cities, which would reduce the amount of smoke released into the atmosphere. Also in these outlying areas, there would be people who had viable rural property to protect and they would try to fight the spread of the fires. Are these possibilities factored into the models? (Of course, the modelers might not want to produce a less scary model, for understandable reasons.)
the duration of the nuclear winter is actually irrelevant; as the soot and dust will eventually fall back making diminishing effect on the climate as a whole in the next 5-10 yrs. The problem is how much do the temperatures drop in the first year and how much of our crops survive that hit. after all; if half the population is dead after the first year due to starvation; there will be plenty of food for the survivors if next year crops yields 10-30%less food than before. (because you will need to feed way less ppl)
but food supplies can be made to last a year or 2 at least in most places possibly reading this, so it's possible a LOT could survive that initial year, but then have no reserves
@@squamish4244 The field tests of the concept of "nuclear winter" took place during the forest fires of 2007-2012, especially strongly in 2010, when about 12 million hectares or 120 thousand square kilometers were burned, that is, 12% of the scale adopted for the model of "nuclear winter". This is not to be dismissed, because if the effect had taken place, it would have manifested itself.The most interesting thing is that the calculations of soot formation in these fires were carried out, published in the journal "Meteorology and Hydrology", No. 7 for 2015. The result was overturning. Soot actually formed 2.5 grams per square meter of forest fire. Over the entire area of the fires, about 300 thousand tons of soot were formed, which is easy to translate into an estimated million square kilometers - 2.5 million tons, which is 1,600 times less than in the "nuclear winter" model. And this is in the best conditions of a dry and hot summer, when rain did not extinguish the fires, and extinguishing could not cope with the fire.
@@user-cb4dggbhd Is there a paper on this? From the nuclear winter people that is. They responded to why the huge Persian Gulf oil fires of 1991 didn't result in nuclear winter. Why are you responding to me, anyway? My understanding is that the stratosphere-punching effect only comes from firestorms, which can only start over cities. It has been argued than since cities today are no longer made of wood, firestorms won't happen. I wouldn't want to model that firsthand, however. The fact that massive forest fires don't generate stratospheric soot should be a tiny piece of good news as they become more common due to global warming.
+Aravind C 100 Hiroshima-sized explosions (15 kt) would be enough, according to the models. I don't know about models done with modern, 500 kt - 1mt nukes that are standard in ICBMs.
+Jebediah Kerman The models (correctly) assume that the nukes would be detonated over cities, causing massive fires that would send particulate matter into the stratosphere. The Tsar Bomba was detonated over tundra and no fires were started. Castle Bravo and every other nuclear test were similarly carried out in island, desert, or underground or underwater locales where fires would obviously not start. Fallout still spread worldwide in some cases and Castle Bravo caused fatal health problems for people living 75 miles away.
@@LAGG3R nuclear test were done over the span of 40 plus years in "strategic" locations, where fires would not happen as the result of the test. 500 test world wide in total would not create a nuclear winter, nor would it create enough soot at one time. There's a huge difference between have all out world nuclear exchange in a matter of days with all the fires, than having nuclear test in 40 plus years. Besides, many of those test were in fact done underwater which doesn't even create soot or ash in the air. Even if a nuclear war didn't create a climate disaster, guaranteed all the fires from it would. We don't live in the woods, cities are industrialized, catching those on fire would indeed create havoc and fires would burn for weeks if not months.
Donkey's will start the war most likely and the world has at least ? Donkey's anyway , its unfair to the Donkey - men are more likely Alphamen and when one with some issues or disabilites goes to office , then what ? when he interact with other "donkeys " . How much are mistakes more likely when the world is stressed by a donkeyman . .a lot.
Tao Forte Sure and lets assume those weapons vanish tommorow... who will start another conventional war in a minute and where? Unless all major superpowers significantly scale down their conventional militaries- Russia, USA, China, India... I would rather keep the nukes.
@@Paerigos Well, given what's happening in Ukraine, it wouldn't be far-fetched to assume that WW3 with NATO+allies vs Russia+China+allies would be underway right now without nukes... In an ideal, perfect humanity, nukes would be superflous, unfortunately, humanity is far from perfect...
particle clouds in the upper atmosphere? Well, use the airplanes to "spray" the upper atmosphere with something that binds those particles and make them drop on earth as rain. Yes, there will be radiated parts... but at least the "nuclear" wihter would be shorter....
The ozone layer would be destroyed, unfiltered ultraviolet radiation would play havoc with global livestock and aquaculture, and the drop in temperatures would destroy crops at an unprecedented rate. So, no - no easy solutions.
Sorry denialists, this is just as real a possibility as it was when it was first publicized in the 1980s. The only good thing that can be said is that the temperature wouldn't plummet to extreme subzero temperatures, but there would still be a 'nuclear autumn' of temperatures a few degrees above freezing for years, which would produce the same catastrophic results as predicted here as crop failures would be just as bad as in the previous scenario.
It was disappointing to see him, in his zeal to make his case for eliminating nuclear weapons, finish an otherwise accurate and informative talk on nuclear winter by trying to bolster it with questionable denials that nuclear weapons have any benefits or have done anything positive. For example, he claims Japan surrendered in WWII because the Soviet Union entered the war not because of the atomic bombings, which he dismissed as just two more cities destroyed. History clearly shows that it was Emperor Hirohito who stepped in, overruled the rest of the Japanese leadership and forced surrender. In his own words he did this because "The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives". The Soviet invasion likely played a role in surrender, but the nuclear bombings played at least as large a role. Apparently a much larger role in the mind of the person who decided to surrender. Similarly, the risk of nuclear war very likely played a significant role in the Long Peace since 1945, especially in the lack of direct great power conflicts. Stating a list of conflicts in which the nuclear power was never under an existential threat as proof of lack of a deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is specious. Show us the cases in which a nuclear power faced a direct existential threat from a nation with the capacity to destroy it with or without nuclear weapons. Not one where some islands with a few sheep herders on them were seized from a nuclear power half a world away. The nuclear power facing no threat to anything besides its ego. Both Argentina and the U.K. knew that nuclear weapons would never be used over the Falklands. Documents from both the U.S. and the former Soviet Union available after the collapse of the Soviet Union showed that concern over nuclear war restrained both nations from direct conflict in several potential points of conflict. . Even the knowledge of how devastating such a war would be itself has played a role in averting nuclear war, for example the Soviet XO who wouldn't agree to launch in the Cuban missile crisis. It is not that nuclear weapons have no benefits or have not done anything positive that is true, but rather that the ongoing risks outweigh the ongoing benefits. Particularly the risk of having so many such weapons on hair trigger 'launch on warning' status. Since even one mistake or misinterpretation has the capacity for annihilation. We have had too many close calls, and have done little to prevent future close calls; we cannot depend on being lucky forever. Hastily finishing with a questionable list of myths, some of which were clearly not myths, did not help his case.
Nuclear winter is total bs. Look at the testing. The US and Soviet released hundreds of megatons per annum, for decades. Not even a blip on the Global climate and a current background radiation which is 0.2 % higher because of the testing. It will require the entire arsenal and thousands of warheads to change the climate but it won't be like this Muppet claims. Science doesn't work the way you want it to .. 🤫
I think we should go back to who has the better tank and rifle
They're still doing that - measuring the size of their -dicks- rifles and tanks even though they will never be used if a war ever got this big lol
nah i liked those knives better
In the Cuban missile crisis a soviet submarine was under attack by American surface warships. The captain and political officer believed war had began and wanted to launch nuclear torpedoes in response, but the boats XO wasn't certain and wanted to confirm, he refused to give launch authorisation. One mans doubt stopped nuclear war.
What's sad is that the latest music video gets millions of views in a few hours and this video got 29,000 views in 6 years I'm watching on 22,7,2020 so you see how many sheep are in the world, ww3 will happen because few people have the time for a video like this
Really true!
I very much appreciate his rationality in the case about Iran and Nuclear weapons ... you can't sit in a bar and tell poeple not to drink alcohol.
We don’t want to be be fearful, but be informed😊
The field tests of the concept of "nuclear winter" took place during the forest fires of 2007-2012, especially strongly in 2010, when about 12 million hectares or 120 thousand square kilometers were burned, that is, 12% of the scale adopted for the model of "nuclear winter". This is not to be dismissed, because if the effect had taken place, it would have manifested itself.The most interesting thing is that the calculations of soot formation in these fires were carried out, published in the journal "Meteorology and Hydrology", No. 7 for 2015. The result was overturning. Soot actually formed 2.5 grams per square meter of forest fire. Over the entire area of the fires, about 300 thousand tons of soot were formed, which is easy to translate into an estimated million square kilometers - 2.5 million tons, which is 1,600 times less than in the "nuclear winter" model. And this is in the best conditions of a dry and hot summer, when rain did not extinguish the fires, and extinguishing could not cope with the fire.
The counter to this is that nuclear weapons carry the soot above the clouds, so rain cannot scavenge it.
😂 abolish nukes is like USA giving up guns and beers. 😂
This should be shown in the face of PUTIN now!
as I mentioned on several other Nuke Winter scenarios would these Blasts prevent regular weather Patterns from forming and if so I can see this happening but not ONE movie or talk has touched on Nukes dropped during a Hurricane or Tornado. if a huge Hurricane was happening when a Bomb fell wouldn't that area have most of fallout disrupted in hours not Months or a Tornado in one area would distribute this smoke in a very short time. not to mention windstorms all over the world. just a thought!!
The field tests of the concept of "nuclear winter" took place during the forest fires of 2007-2012, especially strongly in 2010, when about 12 million hectares or 120 thousand square kilometers were burned, that is, 12% of the scale adopted for the model of "nuclear winter". This is not to be dismissed, because if the effect had taken place, it would have manifested itself.The most interesting thing is that the calculations of soot formation in these fires were carried out, published in the journal "Meteorology and Hydrology", No. 7 for 2015. The result was overturning. Soot actually formed 2.5 grams per square meter of forest fire. Over the entire area of the fires, about 300 thousand tons of soot were formed, which is easy to translate into an estimated million square kilometers - 2.5 million tons, which is 1,600 times less than in the "nuclear winter" model. And this is in the best conditions of a dry and hot summer, when rain did not extinguish the fires, and extinguishing could not cope with the fire.
Fortunately, world leaders are very rational people.
😂
@@oryanneto I meant moral
Would it be possible to vaporize your targets so completely that there would be very little burnable material remaining?
Well yes and no. As far i understand it. Everthing in de epicenter, in a radius from ground zero would be vaporised. But beyond this, there will be a radius where the flash of light would be so intense that every flamebale thing would not be vaporised but combust spontanus. Catch on fire because of light. So no shockwave or fireball. And because of this you can not exclude the fires. No matter the size of the weapon. Hope this explains it a bit.
@@benjacobs1622 Yes, but my thinking is that targets will be hit by multiple warheads, perhaps spread about the area enough that, for example, a city might be totally obliterated with very little combustible material remaining. Farther away, you might get forest fires or grass fires, but plants in some places would be more burnable than others because of how dry or moist the area happens to be. I'm thinking there might be less flammable material in these outlying areas than in the cities, which would reduce the amount of smoke released into the atmosphere. Also in these outlying areas, there would be people who had viable rural property to protect and they would try to fight the spread of the fires. Are these possibilities factored into the models? (Of course, the modelers might not want to produce a less scary model, for understandable reasons.)
How long would a nuclear winter last though?
Several years.
the duration of the nuclear winter is actually irrelevant; as the soot and dust will eventually fall back making diminishing effect on the climate as a whole in the next 5-10 yrs.
The problem is how much do the temperatures drop in the first year and how much of our crops survive that hit.
after all; if half the population is dead after the first year due to starvation; there will be plenty of food for the survivors if next year crops yields 10-30%less food than before. (because you will need to feed way less ppl)
but food supplies can be made to last a year or 2 at least in most places possibly reading this, so it's possible a LOT could survive that initial year, but then have no reserves
@@squamish4244 The field tests of the concept of "nuclear winter" took place during the forest fires of 2007-2012, especially strongly in 2010, when about 12 million hectares or 120 thousand square kilometers were burned, that is, 12% of the scale adopted for the model of "nuclear winter". This is not to be dismissed, because if the effect had taken place, it would have manifested itself.The most interesting thing is that the calculations of soot formation in these fires were carried out, published in the journal "Meteorology and Hydrology", No. 7 for 2015. The result was overturning. Soot actually formed 2.5 grams per square meter of forest fire. Over the entire area of the fires, about 300 thousand tons of soot were formed, which is easy to translate into an estimated million square kilometers - 2.5 million tons, which is 1,600 times less than in the "nuclear winter" model. And this is in the best conditions of a dry and hot summer, when rain did not extinguish the fires, and extinguishing could not cope with the fire.
@@user-cb4dggbhd Is there a paper on this? From the nuclear winter people that is.
They responded to why the huge Persian Gulf oil fires of 1991 didn't result in nuclear winter.
Why are you responding to me, anyway?
My understanding is that the stratosphere-punching effect only comes from firestorms, which can only start over cities. It has been argued than since cities today are no longer made of wood, firestorms won't happen. I wouldn't want to model that firsthand, however.
The fact that massive forest fires don't generate stratospheric soot should be a tiny piece of good news as they become more common due to global warming.
What's the minimum number of nuclear explosions or weapons required for nuclear winter...
+Aravind C 100 Hiroshima-sized explosions (15 kt) would be enough, according to the models. I don't know about models done with modern, 500 kt - 1mt nukes that are standard in ICBMs.
+valinor100 Well, the Soviets detonated a 50,000 kt nuke in 1961, where's my nuclear winter?
+Jebediah Kerman
The models (correctly) assume that the nukes would be detonated over cities, causing massive fires that would send particulate matter into the stratosphere. The Tsar Bomba was detonated over tundra and no fires were started. Castle Bravo and every other nuclear test were similarly carried out in island, desert, or underground or underwater locales where fires would obviously not start. Fallout still spread worldwide in some cases and Castle Bravo caused fatal health problems for people living 75 miles away.
Jebediah Kerman snow doesnt burn.
@@LAGG3R nuclear test were done over the span of 40 plus years in "strategic" locations, where fires would not happen as the result of the test. 500 test world wide in total would not create a nuclear winter, nor would it create enough soot at one time. There's a huge difference between have all out world nuclear exchange in a matter of days with all the fires, than having nuclear test in 40 plus years. Besides, many of those test were in fact done underwater which doesn't even create soot or ash in the air. Even if a nuclear war didn't create a climate disaster, guaranteed all the fires from it would. We don't live in the woods, cities are industrialized, catching those on fire would indeed create havoc and fires would burn for weeks if not months.
If anyone has to start this, it must be America itself.
Donkey's will start the war most likely and the world has at least ? Donkey's anyway , its unfair to the Donkey - men are more likely Alphamen and when one with some issues or disabilites goes to office , then what ? when he interact with other "donkeys " . How much are mistakes more likely when the world is stressed by a donkeyman . .a lot.
Tao Forte Sure and lets assume those weapons vanish tommorow... who will start another conventional war in a minute and where?
Unless all major superpowers significantly scale down their conventional militaries- Russia, USA, China, India... I would rather keep the nukes.
@@Paerigos Well, given what's happening in Ukraine, it wouldn't be far-fetched to assume that WW3 with NATO+allies vs Russia+China+allies would be underway right now without nukes... In an ideal, perfect humanity, nukes would be superflous, unfortunately, humanity is far from perfect...
particle clouds in the upper atmosphere? Well, use the airplanes to "spray" the upper atmosphere with something that binds those particles and make them drop on earth as rain. Yes, there will be radiated parts... but at least the "nuclear" wihter would be shorter....
The ozone layer would be destroyed, unfiltered ultraviolet radiation would play havoc with global livestock and aquaculture, and the drop in temperatures would destroy crops at an unprecedented rate.
So, no - no easy solutions.
Thankfully airborne solids also know as aerosols, not the kind in your hairspray, actually make rain and snow. So it's not all bad.
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
Sorry denialists, this is just as real a possibility as it was when it was first publicized in the 1980s. The only good thing that can be said is that the temperature wouldn't plummet to extreme subzero temperatures, but there would still be a 'nuclear autumn' of temperatures a few degrees above freezing for years, which would produce the same catastrophic results as predicted here as crop failures would be just as bad as in the previous scenario.
Meanwhile in 2022 : Putin threatens nuclear war after he invades Ukraine because of course he does.
One incendiary bombing of Tokyo killed 400,000 people - more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki together.
very informative, but is it just me or does he sound exactly like Ben Carson??
No.
Did he account for the all nukes that the Russians lost after the USSR fell?
He doesn't need to; India and Pakistan have plenty.
It was disappointing to see him, in his zeal to make his case for eliminating nuclear weapons, finish an otherwise accurate and informative talk on nuclear winter by trying to bolster it with questionable denials that nuclear weapons have any benefits or have done anything positive. For example, he claims Japan surrendered in WWII because the Soviet Union entered the war not because of the atomic bombings, which he dismissed as just two more cities destroyed. History clearly shows that it was Emperor Hirohito who stepped in, overruled the rest of the Japanese leadership and forced surrender. In his own words he did this because "The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives". The Soviet invasion likely played a role in surrender, but the nuclear bombings played at least as large a role. Apparently a much larger role in the mind of the person who decided to surrender.
Similarly, the risk of nuclear war very likely played a significant role in the Long Peace since 1945, especially in the lack of direct great power conflicts. Stating a list of conflicts in which the nuclear power was never under an existential threat as proof of lack of a deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is specious. Show us the cases in which a nuclear power faced a direct existential threat from a nation with the capacity to destroy it with or without nuclear weapons. Not one where some islands with a few sheep herders on them were seized from a nuclear power half a world away. The nuclear power facing no threat to anything besides its ego. Both Argentina and the U.K. knew that nuclear weapons would never be used over the Falklands. Documents from both the U.S. and the former Soviet Union available after the collapse of the Soviet Union showed that concern over nuclear war restrained both nations from direct conflict in several potential points of conflict. . Even the knowledge of how devastating such a war would be itself has played a role in averting nuclear war, for example the Soviet XO who wouldn't agree to launch in the Cuban missile crisis.
It is not that nuclear weapons have no benefits or have not done anything positive that is true, but rather that the ongoing risks outweigh the ongoing benefits. Particularly the risk of having so many such weapons on hair trigger 'launch on warning' status. Since even one mistake or misinterpretation has the capacity for annihilation. We have had too many close calls, and have done little to prevent future close calls; we cannot depend on being lucky forever. Hastily finishing with a questionable list of myths, some of which were clearly not myths, did not help his case.
Nuclear winter is total bs. Look at the testing. The US and Soviet released hundreds of megatons per annum, for decades. Not even a blip on the Global climate and a current background radiation which is 0.2 % higher because of the testing. It will require the entire arsenal and thousands of warheads to change the climate but it won't be like this Muppet claims. Science doesn't work the way you want it to .. 🤫
No Risk of Nukes as lo,g as Putins 5 children are alive !!!
As EMERGEBCY - Please
force the sweet Moldovians in NATO TOMORROW Please
Why u gotta say china and rice in a sentence man.....
LMAO!!! We Asians love rich though. The longest I've gone without rice is 2 weeks!
hmm so it would affect people in 3rd world countries mostly? Dotn really sound so bad.