Hi Wharf Rat; Re: "We can test the theory. I'd suggest starting with 25 nukes, strategically placed so as to burn forests without killing people. Once the dust and smoke settles, we can try 50. If we get to 100 and things are OK, they are prolly wrong.";
Forests burn all the time. They put massive amounts of soot into the air and the geologists use these to get clues on past climate.
Supposed to be the biggest fire in US written history burnt a region the size of Connecticut on August 20th and 21st of 1910. No climate change:
en.wikipedia.org
It all gets back to the weather. The whole nuclear winter idea requires the creation of firestorms. They're not that easy to make. During the 2nd world war a few were started but they did not spread beyond the region where incendiaries were dropped. That's because they create winds that blow towards the center of the fire (and not towards new land). These are gale force winds, fire can't go against them. Fire goes up instead of out. Same would apply to nuclear fires over forests.
Experts suggest that modern US cities are not susceptible to firestorms. See wikipedia (links are old, you'll have to use google fu to find the some of the source articles):
Unlike the highly combustible WWII cities that firestormed from conventional and nuclear weapons, fire experts suggest that due to the nature of modern U.S. city design and construction, a firestorm is unlikely to occur after a nuclear detonation. [14] The explanation for this is that highrise buildings do not lend themselves to the formation of firestorms due to the baffle effect of the structures, [13] nor are firestorms likely in areas where modern buildings have totally collapsed, with Hiroshima as an exception due to the nature of the densely packed "flimsy" wooden construction in the city in 1945. [36] [37] There is also a sizable difference between the fuel loading of WWII cities that firestormed, including Hiroshima, and that of modern cities, where the quantity of combustibles per square meter in the fire area in the latter is below the necessary requirement for a firestorm to form (40 kg/m²). [38] [39] Therefore, firestorms are not to be expected in modern US or Canadian cities, following a nuclear detonation, nor are they to be likely in modern European cities.
Similarly, one reason for the lack of success in creating a true firestorm in the bombing of Berlin in World War II was that the building density, or builtupness factor in Berlin was too low to support easy fire spread from building to building. Another reason was that much of the building construction was newer and better than in most of the old German city centers. Modern building practices in the Berlin of WWII led to more effective firewalls and fire resistant construction. Mass firestorms never proved to be possible in Berlin. No matter how heavy the raid or what kinds of firebombs were dropped, no true firestorm ever developed. [41]
en.wikipedia.org
The less modern 2nd and 3rd world cities would burn nicely but they don't have enough money to pay for the number of nukes needed to sufficiently smite their brothers.
Re: "Foolish little boy.";
This doesn't bother me at all. I see it as a signal that you don't have logic on your side. I hope that the thread police will take my opinion into account and not ban you over it.
-- Carl |
