Nuclear Extinction Debunked By The Numbers?

I'm sure pretty much everybody has heard of how the world's nuclear powers hold enough nukes to destroy life on earth (insert random number here) times over.

Is there any truth to this? The whole nuclear winter scenario that was so commonly accepted in the past is now being contested by many in the field as being an outdated theory.

But I was pondering the numbers. Worldwide, there have been over 2,000 nukes detonated for testing reasons. As it stands right now, the world's nuclear powers combined hold roughly 20,000 nukes TOTAL, with only about 5,000 or so of those actually being active.

Assuming a world-wide nuclear war happened RIGHT NOW, and every country shot off everything they have, I honestly don't see how this would be a extinction level event, or even close to it. If every single nuke was made active, and fired, obviously the destruction and radiation dangers would be raised quite a bit, but I still don't see it being an ELE.

With over 2,000 nukes already gone off, the world is still standing, and really not all that changed aside from a few areas you wouldn't want to stay too long at. Double that plus a little more for the current active stockpile, and I don't think it would be anything close to an apocalypse scenario like so many people seem to think.

I think we could set back civilization a few centuries, kill off a large portion of the population, and make some of the remaining very ill, but honestly I don't believe that we hold anywhere near the power to cause the extinction of humans, let alone all life on earth.

What are your opinions? Agree, disagree? Something I didn't take into account? Thanks for taking a look.

Do you have a source for the amount of weapons that have been set off? I think 2000 is a little high...actually, a lot high...but that is just my initial guess...

EDIT...actually, to my surprise, it has been over 2000...hmmm...

en.wikipedia.org...:Nuclear_use_locations_world_map.PNG

www.youtube.com...


2053 to be exact.

I'll post back in a second with a source to back that up, all of this is based on memory of previous nuke-related research so I didn't have anything on hand. Sorry about that.

Most of those were tests away from humans and they weren't all simultaneous.
Let me just remind you that 2 cities were wiped off the face of the earth, and those were considerably weaker than what we have now.

Now just imagine our bombs today, multiple times more powerful.
Imagine 5,000 cities just vanishing from the face of the earth in a single day.
Imagine all that dust and ash just flying into the atmosphere.
All the forests that would catch fire

You underestimate the power of man.
We inadvertently wipe out entire species going by our normal business.

reply to post by James1982


You were right...I found it...

I think it would be the end of life as we know it...of course, their would be survivors...but, I would not want to be one of them...anyway, I think it is just a matter of time...we are too stupid and cannot get it through our thick skulls that land and oil and gold are not worth fighting for...

there are nukes out there that could be dropped on scotland and melt the face of big ben in london, so nothing would be left in the entire british isles. an entire people, poof gone. no, i don't think humans would survive the kind of bombs out there in super power land

Well, apparently I have a search engine redirecting virus, I can't get on any websites but anti-virus and mortgage application

While a YT video isn't really a source I still appreciate the previous poster for throwing that up there. The 2,000+ number is correct.

I also realize many of today's nukes are more powerful than those of old, but there is still a large portion of the US and Russia's stockpiles that are old nukes.

As for the two that were dropped on Japan during WWII, yes this proves that a nuclear blast will wipe out a pretty good area. But minimal when we compare this to the total land occupied by humans across the globe.

Make no mistake, I'm not saying a total nuclear war wouldn't destroy the world as we know it, but cause the extinction of humans, or all life in general? I seriously doubt it.

reply to post by James1982


right click this and save to desktop and run it.
it's the eset online scanner.
download.eset.com...

reply to post by James1982

With over 2,000 nukes already gone off, the world is still standing, and really not all that changed aside from a few areas you wouldn't want to stay too long at. Double that plus a little more for the current active stockpile, and I don't think it would be anything close to an apocalypse scenario like so many people seem to think.

This thread could be interesting but your initial post ruins it all by the premises you make.

The test nukes were not all atmospheric, that is a major difference and most of them were all below the medium capability that intercontinental missile could would carry. So the number is almost irrelevant in those terms.

The Earth is still standing but is not well by all the tests, for instance since there are a lot of Australians on ATS ask around about the impact that the test made by the UK/US there had. (Or search the WEB there are good studies on the impact short term and long term). Heck you could even learn a bit more about the effect the Nevada tests had on the US (but would have more trouble finding a impartial study on that).

As for the apocalyptic scenario it is all relative, to one in the receiving end it would be, for that nation too, imagine that the 911 was a dirty bomb, if simple contamination due to the building collapse is already having the impact it has imagine the devastation and the time it would take to make the affected zone habitable and the effect to its surroundings. And that would be significantly localized.

Cool man, thanks for the help. I had thought I was rid of this virus, until I tried to do a Google search and get redirected. Sneaky sneaky!

The most powerful nuke (that's known) is the Russian Tsar bomb, which once you get past a few hundred miles from ground zero, would still cause damage, but not completely destroy everything in its path. Even if there were a couple of these used, their effect is still minimal on a global scale of complete destruction.

I just want to repeat again, as so there is no confusion, my main point is that the human species would survive, and go on, as would other life on earth even in the event of a full scale nuclear war. Whether or not you would actually want to live in that world is a different story, but there are millions of people living in conditions right now that most would probably rather die than live in.

I tend to agree with you. It would likely be the end of modern civilization, but would not result in the extinction of humanity. The target list alone is massive: there are almost 4,000 towns and cities with populations over 2,500 just in the United States. But those aren't even the priorities. The first targets would be military in nature, with the attacks intended to cripple the ability of the opposition to counterattack. Missile silos, radar stations, communications facilities, airbases, naval bases, among others. As with the larger cities, many of these would also likely be targeted multiple times.

Simply put, there aren't enough weapons. Many smaller communities would be certain to survive the initial attack. South America might not even get hit at all. Radiation exposure would be a problem, obviously, but prevailing wind patterns would likely spare many areas during the initial weeks following the attack. Those that made it through the first month or two would stand a decent chance of surviving for the long-term, though, their long-term cancer risk would certainly be much higher than it is now.

Originally posted by undo
there are nukes out there that could be dropped on scotland and melt the face of big ben in london, so nothing would be left in the entire british isles. an entire people, poof gone. no, i don't think humans would survive the kind of bombs out there in super power land

That isn't true to be honest. The largest ever nuke was / is the Tsar Bomb developed by the Soviet Union. Only one was tested and had a yield of 50 Megatonnes, although it has the potential to be a 100 MT bomb. It is also one of the most efficient bombs ever created (in terms of energy yield). On testing, it was found that people upto 100 km away (62 miles) would suffer 3rd degree burns. Window panes were damaged / broken upto 900km away (560 miles). The most remarkable thing about this test is that it released around 1/3 of the 1883 Krakatoa eruption!

These days, this is the sort of nuke dealt with by the START treaty. All the nuke powers are happy to cut back / eliminate all long and medium range nukes (the big bombs like Tsar). This is because it leaves them free to develop small scale tactical nuclear weapons (which are not to be eliminated under any existing treaties or negotiations).

Originally posted by undo
there are nukes out there that could be dropped on scotland and melt the face of big ben in london, so nothing would be left in the entire british isles. an entire people, poof gone. no, i don't think humans would survive the kind of bombs out there in super power land

Please please please provide a link that backs-up this ridiculous claim.

Scotland to London is approx 550 miles, the melting point of Opal Glass (which is what Big Ben's face is made of is 2300oC). Please point me in the direction of information pertaining to a bomb that can generate a temperature of 2300oC that's detonated over 500 miles away...

reply to post by jrmcleod


No data available as there isn't one in existence. However, at that distance a Tsar bomb may break a few window panes at Big Ben and give the rest of us a bloody big headache!

Originally posted by 0Mark
www.youtube.com...


2053 to be exact.

I like the style of the video.

Of course, it didn't include Israeli, South African or North Korean nuclear testing. Also it's pretty hard to record modern testing when it's done underground.

I doubt it would immediately wipe out mankind, there would of course be many survivors.

I think it's the long term survival that would be in doubt, cancers, birth defects and not just in us but in our food sources, animals and fish mutations.

I would imagine given 100 years or so we'd be a very minimal population if any at all.

Yes, you are correct. There would be no nuclear winter, and as long as you are out of the blast radius, and then out of the fallout area of a nuke going off, you will be fine.

If all those nukes hit their targets, there would be a massive amount of death, but it would not be an ELE.

Originally posted by downtown436
Yes, you are correct. There would be no nuclear winter, and as long as you are out of the blast radius, and then out of the fallout area of a nuke going off, you will be fine.

If all those nukes hit their targets, there would be a massive amount of death, but it would not be an ELE.

massive amount of death? that's not cool.