Hi everyone, welcome back!
In my previous post, I shared the commonly perceived environmental impacts of Nuclear Warfare – radiation and mass biodiversifical devastation. While they are undeniably severe, I must admit that I was never too concerned over Nuclear Warfare, as I too perceived these localised impacts to be the crux of the matter, resulting in the belief that potential foreign nuclear wars would not directly threaten Singapore or myself. I also acknowledge being geographically privileged as another ground for my indifference. Singapore has good foreign relations and advantageous defence ties with major powers in the world, such as US, China, UK and Germany. Hence, the thought of Singapore being a target of nuclear obliteration never really crossed my mind either.
So, are locations far from nuclear blast parameters spared from the environmental impacts of Nuclear Warfare? How about nations with little risk of Nuclear War? Let’s find out…
The answer is a resounding NO – the catastrophic ramifications of nuclear war absolutely do not discriminate. I was most shocked to learn that detonating only 0.03% of the world’s nuclear arms would be sufficient to effect an aftermath comparable to the Cretaceous-Paleogene (dinosaur) extinction event.
As mentioned in the video above, the most devastating and notable environmental consequence of nuclear warfare would be Nuclear Winter.
Interactive Infographic: Right-click on yellow phrases & pictures for references/more information
Another global repercussion of nuclear warfare would be ozone depletion, at an unparalleled rate. A regional nuclear war in the northern subtropics would result in a predicted overall diminution of 20% of stratospheric ozone globally, up to 45% in the midlatitudes and 70% in polar latitudes. This effect is projected to endure for at least 5 years, and the ozone layer is only expected to recover after a decade. Moreover, these calculations are only based on the detonation of 100 bombs the size of the Little Boy (as used in Hiroshima), not accounting for the other 99.3% of global nuclear arsenal and technological advancements in the last 75 years that definitely enabled the development of more potent weaponry. Increased UV radiation, due to ozone cover loss, can result in dire environmental consequences on the fronts of human health, climate change, terrestrial and marine ecosystems and air quality, as covered in Dr Coleman’s lecture “Atmospheric Impacts”.
Without a doubt, the theoretical environmental impacts of Nuclear Warfare are cataclysmic and extensive – on both spatial and temporal scales. But politically, is everything under control? Should we be concerned?
Definitely, in fact, we deserve to be scared. Despite the 55,000 decline in global nuclear stock under the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the last 40 odd years, current political tensions have proven to be ever more precarious and volatile – so much so that Perry predicts “an even chance” of nuclear war in the next 10 years. Moreover, the possibility of further nuclear proliferation is on the cards, as illustrated in this video.
Researching on Nuclear Warfare was incredibly eye-opening and sobering, and jolted me from a state of nimbyism and ignorance to total concern. How about you?
This quote below concludes my exploration on Nuclear Warfare and the Environment. Next, I will be delving into the environmental impacts of Agricultural Warfare, stay tuned…
“Nuclear weapons are the greatest environmental danger to the planet from humans, not global warming or ozone depletion”
~Alan Robock, Renowned Climatologist
Infographic created by me on Canva, Image Source: Pixabay and http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/
bangwenhan
October 9, 2020 — 9:35 pm
Hi Kelly
Really insightful blog, especially the part about Nuclear Winter. I have always related nuclear to radiation, but never would I have believed that nuclear bombs can create such a devastating repercussion with respect to climate. This brings me to share a piece of news that I read recently.
According to (https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-wants-to-nuke-mars-plans-t-shirts-2019-8#:~:text=Musk%20believes%20that%20by%20hitting,quick%20version%20of%20climate%20change.), Elon Musk is planning to bombard Mars with nukes to melt polar ice caps and release sequestered carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, creating an artificial greenhouse effect that makes it inhabitable for humans. Isn’t it unbelievable that mankind has gone to such an extent with the potential of nuclear bombs? I was dumbfounded when I read this news. Do you think nuclear bomb could be put to better use (such as in this case of Elon Musk’s vision), instead of the negative portrayal by media and sources?
Kelly
October 13, 2020 — 7:49 pm
Hi Wen Han, thanks for dropping by!
The idea of using nukes to make Mars a liveable habitat for us humans is out of the world (pun intended!) – I too am flabbergasted by it. To be very honest, I really don’t know how to feel about this. Given the current state of our planet, and how close it is to undergoing cataclysmic and irreversible change, I definitely agree that repurposing nuclear bombs as such can undoubtedly benefit the future of mankind. However, I’m not too sure about the ethics of this. Apart from the possible adverse impacts to earth, the martian environment and potential martian lifeforms, I question whether it would be selfish of us to colonise another planet after destroying our own…
Other less sinister ways of how nuclear bombs can be harnessed are using them to protect the earth from astroids, in space exploration, perforation to create harbours and natural gas and oil extraction. However, they come with many caveats, such as encouraging the dependence on fossil fuels and the localised release of radiation and contamination.
Cheers,
Kelly
See Toh Ee Kin
October 11, 2020 — 1:00 am
Hi Kelly,
As always, your blog post is an interesting read. I think most of us would think that nuclear war is a thing of the past due to the end of the cold war. It is sobering to know that it remains a distinct possibility.
On that note, I’m not entirely sure if Singapore will never be a target of a nuclear attack. As you’ve pointed out, we have significant ties with various nuclear superpowers who use our facilities from time to time. Does this make us a potential target? While the USN’s aircraft carriers that call into Singapore do not carry nuclear weapons, they could be renuclearised in the foreseeable future (https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/02/nuclear-weapons-at-sea/). Historically, Singapore is no stranger to nuclear weapons too. There is significant evidence that RAF Tengah (now Tengah Air Base) once stored nuclear weapons as part of the UK’s nuclear deterrent (https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-26-Seminar-the-RAF-and-Nuclear-Weapons-1960-98.pdf).
How do you think denuclearisation can be completed though? A core reason why we haven’t had a nuclear war is due to Mutually Assured Destruction. Would it be possible that every single nuclear power chooses to denuclearise at exactly the same time, and for this denuclearisation process to be confirmed? During the cold war observers from the Soviet Union were sent to America and vice versa, but we do have quite a few more nuclear actors nowadays.
The concept of nuclear winter may also affect public perception of climate change. I remember reading annecdotal evidence on the interwebs (sadly I can’t find the source anymore) that the sudden shift over worrying about nuclear winter to that of global warming was a tad jarring to the author. Some may also consider invoking a nuclear winter as a geoengineering method to combat global warming. What do you think?
Yee Ching
October 13, 2020 — 4:10 pm
Hi both
Just riding on Ee Kin’s comment to share some thoughts about his last point on nuclear winter and global warming. I wonder if the author shared about why the shift was jarring? And whose worry are they referring to? The public’s? Governments’? Scientific community’s?
Interesting that you brought up the relationship between nuclear winter and global warming – it overlaps with a book (‘Merchants of Doubt’) I’m currently reading, so I thought I would share a little about it. Besides the fact that if a Nuclear Winter would to happen, it will pose serious harm to our environment, the book proposes that the debate around nuclear winter and climate change in America were very much tied to the political agendas of scientists in the community. The misuse of science in the furthering of the political agendas of a small group of scientists then proceeded to shape decades of American policymaking.
Theories about climate change and nuclear winter has been around for at least half a century, with a large majority of scientific community endorsing these theories – even many of the scientists who took part in the creation of the nuclear bomb turned their backs on it when the theory of nuclear winter was founded. So why are there still debates about whether they are “real”? The book breaks it down this way: Science, or rather, the practitioners of science, are never objective. Interestingly, the groups of scientists that argued against and for the validity of climate change and the nuclear winter consisted of almost the same people. The group against, comprised a small number of extreme conservatives who advocated for weapons supremacy and were very pro-capitalist / anti-communist (these sentiments were in response to the political tensions between USA and the Soviet Union back during the Cold War). These extreme views inspired a widening schism in political views between the 2 groups of scientists.
So why did the small group of scientists attempt to discredit climate change and nuclear winter – if either theories hold water, and if the public knew that they held water, public opinion will be very against the then administration’s pursuit of nuclear arms and free-market capitalism. Which were in complete opposition against their own political beliefs.
TLDR, I suggest that a common theme running through debates surrounding nuclear winter and climate change besides the fact that both proposes wide-spread jeopardy on the environment and all living creatures on Earth, is that their implications are also very much political in their ability to shape political practice, and are deeply tied to social notions of nationalism.
See Toh Ee Kin
October 18, 2020 — 7:19 pm
if I remember correctly with regards to the annectdote, the sudden change of narrative from “the earth will become cold and inhospitable” to “global warming is the biggest challenge” was jarring. I guess this narrative was brought up by both the scientific community and the government, as well as other green groups.
Hmm, that’s quite interesting for the scientists. Perhaps they saw Communism as more of an existential threat to their way of lives than either nuclear winter or global warming, which would have affected their priorities and actions?
I wonder if our view of global warming as the existential threat of our generation could blinker our views to other threats and what future generations (if there are any) would think looking back. I guess this is what might be going on for people who advocate against geoengineering as a way to combate global warming.
Rachel
October 19, 2020 — 12:35 am
Hi Kelly,
I love reading your blog, it’s always super interesting. And the infographic you made is really engaging and educational! I honestly did not know that nuclear war results in ozone depletion and it was really cool to learn about it from your blog. Thanks for sharing!
Rachel
Kelly
October 19, 2020 — 12:39 am
Hi Rachel, thank you for your kind words! I really enjoy reading your blog too! (-: