Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:30:17 UTC No. 16554220

it can't come soon enough

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:33:32 UTC No. 16554224

>>16554188
Good enough for the Sauropods.
Good enough for us.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:49:26 UTC No. 16554239

>>16554188
Patrolling the Mojave makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:22:36 UTC No. 16554377

>>16554188
Can't be disproven when it hasn't been tried yet.
To me it's silly to think that a large scale nuclear exchange wouldn't put huge amounts of soot in the atmosphere, or that the soot somehow wouldn't do anything

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:24:39 UTC No. 16554380

>>16554377
Except for the fact that we *did* test hundreds of nuclear weapons, found out how much dust they put in the atmosphere, and found that even using the entire arsenel would put around 1% of the dust of volcanic eruptions which only had small climate effects.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:26:59 UTC No. 16554384

>>16554377
>t huge amounts of soot in the atmosphere,
wow like 1 ton of soot?

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:27:28 UTC No. 16554385

>>16554380
Most of them tested over the ocean or in the middle of empty deserts, not blowing up cities or forests

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:29:08 UTC No. 16554388

>>16554385
and deserts are different from cities and forests in terms of dust emission because?

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:31:29 UTC No. 16554390

>>16554388
You can't set a desert on fire

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:53:33 UTC No. 16554421

>>16554390
nigga, the temperatures involved turn sand into glass. At this extreme it doesn't matter if it's a desert or a lush jungle.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:58:19 UTC No. 16554431

>>16554385
>I can push it to TWO percent! HA!

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:14:12 UTC No. 16554453

>>16554421
It's thought that most nuclear blasts in a real exchange would be airburst high above cities, not wasting a huge portion of their energy on digging a big hole in the ground.
So yes it would be a concern that massive areas are being burned

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:24:10 UTC No. 16554465

>>16554453
>t massive areas are being burned
wow just a wildfire. Imagine if million of trees burned, its unimaginable

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:25:10 UTC No. 16554469

New York City is less than 300 square miles.
Right now alone, the forest fires so far IN THE WINTER have burned more than five times that.
How much are we pretending that is affecting earth's temperature?
And how many New York Cities are we pretending there are on earth?
Because it seems like there would need to be at least 1000 such cities burning down to even make a small blip in the climate.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:34:15 UTC No. 16554491

>>16554188
not even in the top ten of problems resulting from full scale nuclear war. popularized by famous jew pothead astronomer carl sagan and you have to assume 100% of nuclear arsenal is detonated at ground level (likelihood of this is 0) before you even start to begin imagining nuclear winter scenarios.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 02:35:54 UTC No. 16554675

Fake and gay

Also the nuclear stockpile is in shitty condition

Also ballistic missiles are countered by various stuff they wont release to the public.

The future is hypersonics and DEWs.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 03:25:55 UTC No. 16555895

>>16554188
>What is /sci/'s position on nuclear winter?
Real and true. Volcanic winter exists. When krakatoa erupted in the 1880s there was a 2 degree drop in temps worldwide. Seems insignificant, but that can really fuck things up. If the assumption is that nuclear winter would follow global nuclear warfare, then its not wrong to think the effects of thousands of nukes detonating worldwide would be the equivalent of one volcano in the south pacific.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 03:34:21 UTC No. 16555903

fake

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 03:59:04 UTC No. 16555915

>>16555895
>When krakatoa erupted in the 1880s
>the effects of thousands of nukes detonating worldwide would be the equivalent
I don't think most nukes would be detonated in a way that ejects great plumes of volcanic ash

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 05:04:16 UTC No. 16555971

>>16555915
I never said they would be. The cumulative effect would probably be similar thoughsoever

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 05:57:03 UTC No. 16555987

the kuwait oil fires caused a drop of temperatures of 2 degrees in the local region and it all corrected as soon as the fires were put out. Turns out common smoke from a fire cant rise to the stratosphere

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 06:15:52 UTC No. 16555993

>>16554188
ted postol gave a detailed explanation about the difference between conventional and nuclear explosions and how many large nuclear explosions will result in many firestorms and atmospheric affects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UGsBLDwhHg