[Lewis Thomson (OP)]

Listener Julia has sent in this radiation rattler to the Naked Scientists for the next QotW.

"Did all the nuclear bomb tests in the 60s exacerbate global warming?"

What do you think? Leave your answers in the comments below...

[alancalverd]

Not significantly. The energy released in an average  thunderstorm is equivalent to that of a 20 kiloton nuclear weapon. There are around 2000 thunderstorms in progress at any time, probably 15,000,000 per year, and that's just a small fraction of the daily energy exchange.

Around 2000 nuclear weapons have been exploded in the atmosphere, mostly in the 20 - 100 kt range. Politicians are insignificant in the realm of atmospheric physics, and nobody else has any use for nuclear explosions.

Of course if we allow politics to get out of hand, there is a possibility of a significant "exchange" of nuclear explosives in a short time, leading to a circulating cloud of dust and ash that will eliminate civilised life in the northern hemisphere.

No other species puts its worst members in charge.

[Deecart]

Not significantly. The energy released in an average  thunderstorm is equivalent to that of a 20 kiloton nuclear weapon. There are around 2000 thunderstorms in progress at any time, probably 15,000,000 per year, and that's just a small fraction of the daily energy exchange.

I almost used myself the example of the thunderstorms, but it is not consistent.
Because the thunderstorms take energy from the macroscopic world, so there is some equality (almost) between what they take and what they give (i like this simple way to explain null match).
At the opposite, nuclear weapons uses microscopic energy directly from the matter.
So yes, there is some energy added to the macroscopic world.

Is this amount tremendous ?
I dont think so.
Compared to the volcanoes (heat coming from the inner core of the earth) or the sun (heat coming from the fusion of the star), like you say, there is no comparison.

Yes, atomic bomb tests added some energy to the world.
No, this energy is negligible.

But dont be fooled.
If some atomic bomb would be released around the world, the effect (of some of the bombs exploding near soil) would not be their "heat" but the dust going in suspension into the atmosphere (and stratophere).
This would lead, not to some increase of heat, but to some loss of the energy coming from the sun.
So the incoming of some ice age.

Perhaps doing so (using some few atomic bombs near the soil) could stop climate heat change ?
I let the answer to the specialists.

[alancalverd]

Around 2000 nuclear weapons have been exploded in the atmosphere, mostly between 1945 and 1963, with no noticeable effect on climate, because the dust settles fairly quickly from a desert explosion.

The idea of "nuclear winter" depends on the incineration of significant amounts of organic material (houses, trees, people) to create a persistent high-level cloud of microscopic particles, in a short period (World War III will last about 2 hours). This will drift eastward and interrupt  sunlight  over Europe and Russia for long enough to  severely disrupt agriculture but it is likely that the west coast of North America will be relatively unaffected. We can reasonably assume that California will be uninhabitable but what passes for civilisation in the USA may survive in the contiguous northwestern states and parts of Canada (Alaska will have been a major target zone),at least until it rains.

[JenniferZigler]

So, did I get it right? Can the American continent survive a potential nuclear war if it is on the European continent?

[Bored chemist]

So, did I get it right? Can the American continent survive a potential nuclear war if it is on the European continent?

The continents will survive.
Life might not.

[alancalverd]

More to the point, American society can certainly survive a nuclear war, as can Russian society, because the population density is very low and services are decentralised (more so in the USA), though the electricity grids are vulnerable. The disappearance of Manhattan would be of little practical consequence to residents of Wyoming. The absence of a central clearing bank won't destroy the local water supply or the work of the sheriff's office, and even the electricity grid can be isolated and restored locally in a matter of weeks. Refugees will disperse over a huge area with little impact on the receiving institutions (if they are not shot by those unwilling to accommodate them) and the walking wounded will die before they reach the next state. States and counties are largely self-governing and at any time roughly half would be perfectly happy to see the current central legislature collapse.

The post-exchange situation in Russia could be somewhat different but again distances are very large and although strategic policy is pretty rigidly enforced from the centre, regional government is necessarily capable of maintaining order and services in the short term.

This is quite a different scenario from, say, a megaton explosion over Birmingham, when a million refugees will seek to disperse to Oxford and Manchester and everyone will blame central government for its failure to prevent the catastrophe or organise a rescue operation - the collapse of British society would be fairly instantaneous.

[evan_au]

Can the American continent survive a potential nuclear war if it is on the European continent?

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is a defence pact between Europe and North America.

If there is a nuclear war in Europe, the USA will be automatically drawn into it (and not just by the global circulation of the fallout).
- A trigger for the current Russian invasion of Ukraine was the threat that Ukraine might become a member of NATO, effectively allowing nuclear missiles on the Russian border.
- Perhaps a negotiated resolution may be to allow Ukraine to join the European Union (a trade pact), but not NATO (a military pact)? Effectively the Ukraine would become a buffer state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
Of course, the French think the rest of the world has NATO backwards, and calls it OTAN (Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord). But it has a nice symmetry to it...

[JenniferZigler]

Thanks guys, pretty clear!

[JenniferZigler]

Can the American continent survive a potential nuclear war if it is on the European continent?

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is a defence pact between Europe and North America.

If there is a nuclear war in Europe, the USA will be automatically drawn into it (and not just by the global circulation of the fallout).
- A trigger for the current Russian invasion of Ukraine was the threat that Ukraine might become a member of NATO, effectively allowing nuclear missiles on the Russian border.
- Perhaps a negotiated resolution may be to allow Ukraine to join the European Union (a trade pact), but not NATO (a military pact)? Effectively the Ukraine would become a buffer state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO [nofollow]
Of course, the French think the rest of the world has NATO backwards, and calls it OTAN (Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord). But it has a nice symmetry to it...

However
why was the Russian Federation scared if Ukraine's accession to NATO or the European Union does not mean that someone would attack Russia. What's the point

[alancalverd]

"The Russian Federation" does not have a nervous system and cannot be scared of anything. Vladimir Putin, like most politicians, relies on the presence of an enemy in order to justify his salary and divert attention from the corruption and incompetence of his administration. As with Bush, Thatcher, Hitler and Blair, if there is no actual threat, you have to invent one.

When a politician says "we" he means "you", and when he claims to be making decisions in the national interest, he is acting principally in his own interest. The people who benefit from wars are not those who fight them, but those who invent them. At best, a soldier will lose a year or two of family life and business, at worst, his life. But a politician stands to gain re-election at best, and retire with a generous pension at worst.   

[Zer0]

And to sum it up...

Nobody Wins in War, there is a Loser & a Bigger Loser.

P.S. - But in a Nuclear War, there shall be None left.
🤞

[William Hardy]

They will definitely. Plus there will be no globe left to cause warming. I mean it would be pointless to focus on global warming in such a situation.