Effects of nuclear war on the environment and human health


There can be no doubt that a nuclear war would have a significant negative effect on the environment. Despite everyday headlines expressing concern for people' and nations' safety, nothing has been addressed about the effects of climate change. Science and technology historian Paul N. Edwards discusses the impacts of nuclear war on Earth itself and how they would influence mankind in Part Two of our series on the aftereffects of nuclear war.


What are we not discussing in the nuclear conversation that we ought to?


The climatic implications of nuclear war are a topic that is not discussed sufficiently.


The armament reductions during that time were significantly influenced by the "nuclear winter" idea of the mid-1980s. However, this aspect of nuclear war has been obscured since the fall of the Soviet Union and the reduction of the nuclear stockpiles of the United States and Russia. That is not ideal. Climate experts like Alan Robock (Rutgers) reexamined the nuclear winter scenario in the middle of the 2000s. This time, they made use of considerably better and more accurate climate models than those that were available 20 years prior. Additionally, they examined any potential consequences of smaller nuclear exchanges.


The result: an exchange involving just 50 nuclear weapons — the kind of thing we might see in an India-Pakistan war, for example — could loft 5 billion pounds of smoke, soot and dust well into the stratosphere. That’s enough to cool the entire globe by around 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.25 degrees Celsius) – about where we were during the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. Growing seasons might be cut short enough to cause serious food shortages.




The last time a nuclear bomb was deployed in combat was more than 70 years ago. What would happen to the environment and how would that affect people's health today?


To my understanding, rather than altering nuclear weapons' impact on the environment or on people's health, the majority of technological advancements since the 1950s have concentrated on making nuclear bombs smaller, lighter, and more accurate delivery systems. Some arsenals now contain so-called "battlefield" weapons with lower explosive yields, but it's highly improbable that any nuclear exchange between two states would only involve these smaller, less devastating bombs.


Cities may collapse under larger bombs. Within the blast radius, which can extend up to 10 miles, the majority, if not all, individuals would perish quickly. Those that did survive would eventually regret doing so because the majority would pass away from terrible tumours or serious burns. Radioactive fallout from these weapons’ debris clouds would reach the stratosphere, where it would travel worldwide, potentially polluting crops and cattle as well as inflicting radiation sickness and cancer directly. The fallout from this disaster would eventually lead to genetic abnormalities in plants, animals, and people, just as it did in the area around the Chernobyl nuclear accident.


Massive fires would also be started by nuclear explosions. Highly poisonous smoke would be produced by burning industrial buildings, gas and oil fields, refineries, chemical plants, and industrial facilities. Large areas would be consumed by forest fires. More property would be lost due to these effects, and more people would die.