Nuclear war. Nuclear war and its consequences How a nuclear war could end

To answer this question, we must first understand what such a war might look like. Currently there are 9 states in the world that have nuclear weapon and, accordingly, the ability to wage a nuclear war. These are five official nuclear states: Russia, the USA, China, Britain, France - and four unofficial ones (which have not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) - India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea.

Next, we need to understand under what conditions states are ready to use their nuclear weapons. Since nuclear weapons have only been used in war once, seventy years ago, one can assume that the threshold for their use is quite high. Nuclear war can lead to catastrophic consequences for individual country, and on a global scale, this understanding has led to a virtual "taboo" on the use of nuclear weapons or even the threat of their use.

For example, according to its military doctrine, Russia can only use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction - chemical or biological - against it or its allies, or in the event of a conventional attack on Russia when itself is at risk. existence of the state. Other nuclear powers follow similar approaches.

This is confirmed by historical examples. Nuclear states have repeatedly fought wars with non-nuclear ones, as in the case of the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War or the 1982 Falklands War between Britain and Argentina. Nuclear weapons were not used. According to some evidence, during the first stage of the War doomsday Israel considered using nuclear weapons in 1973, but Israeli victories on the battlefield eliminated such a need. As for a full-scale war between two nuclear states, this has never happened in history, largely due to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.

Thus, we can conclude that the risk of a planned nuclear war is quite low today.

At the same time, it is still impossible to exclude a sharp unplanned escalation of tension between nuclear states to the level when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons (the best illustration of this is the Cuban Missile Crisis) or human or technical error (for example, the failure of the USSR missile attack warning system on September 26, 1983 ). To prevent the first option, there are special communication lines (for example, Russia - USA, Pakistan - India). The largest nuclear weapons states also say their nuclear weapons are aimed at uninhabited areas, reducing the risks of an accidental launch.

To summarize, I would like to say that the risk of nuclear war in modern world very low, but as long as nuclear weapons are in service, it is not zero.

I had a dream... not everything in it was a dream.

The bright sun went out - and the stars

Wandered without a goal, without rays

In eternal space; icy land

She rushed blindly in the moonless air.

The hour of morning came and went,

But he did not bring the day with him...

Darkness, George Byron

According to the theory of the demographer of the romantic era, T. Malthus, the birth rate of any kind increases in geometric progression, while the food supply grows only in arithmetic progression, that is, much more slowly. War is one of the natural and most likely means of controlling the birth rate and the size of humanity.

Today the planet is already overpopulated - 6.8 billion people live on it, and almost a billion of them are constantly hungry. Wars happen regularly, they are still going on, and even in states close to Europe, such as, for example, in neighboring, heavily overpopulated and poor Ukraine.

But there are no global wars affecting all of humanity, especially with the use of weapons of mass destruction. This is too dangerous and governments are refraining as best they can from such conflicts. But, known for almost half a century, humorous in some ways, and in many ways correct law Murphy says that if something can happen, it will happen. Moreover, events will follow the worst-case scenario for us. It turns out that nuclear war may happen one day.

Humanity has already avoided a nuclear apocalypse several times in a row. Today, when there are already a lot of countries with the technology to create atomic (hydrogen, neutron) bombs and the means of delivering them and humanity, it would seem, should be a thousand times more careful, an acute international political crisis is developing again, associated with the already mentioned war in Ukraine, which may ultimately lead, if not to an apocalypse, then to a local nuclear conflict.

I personally have no doubt that if Ukrainian strategists had a “nuclear button” at hand, they would not be slow to use it. Remember Yulia Tymoshenko’s phrase that Russians “must be shot with nuclear weapons” or the words of the former Minister of Defense of Ukraine, Valeriy Geletey, who, in one of his interviews, suggested that during the storming of Lugansk airport “Russian troops” (which, of course, he , did not see) fired nuclear mines from a 2S4 “Tulpan” self-propelled mortar.

But the former prime minister, like former minister defense - the elite of Ukrainian society. If others were in their place, they wouldn’t even argue. At the same time, the words “thrown into the world” about nuclear weapons look like an attempt to seek protection and... help from the West with an “adequate response”?

In this regard, it is worth recalling previous situations that almost ended in fatal consequences for humanity.

Operation Trojan

The first nuclear attack on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was planned and carried out by the United States of America. At the same time, in 1945, a secret directive from the Joint Military Planning Committee on preparations for the atomic bombing appeared. major cities on the territory of the USSR. They were supposed to drop 196! atomic bombs.

When the USSR nevertheless managed to steal and create its own technology for the production of nuclear weapons, the United States developed the “Trojan” plan, which envisaged an attack on the USSR on New Year, January 1, 1950. The nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union was then much more modest than the American one, and Washington hawks were almost sure of victory. So, it is quite likely that the USSR could have already become a testing ground for full-scale testing of American bombs. But the Americans calculated in time that they would lose half of their bombers, and the plan would not be fully implemented. This is what held them back then. By the way, there is an opinion that the world was saved by one of the first supercomputers in the world, ENIAK, which was used by the Pentagon in calculating the results of the operation.

And later, in 1961, after testing the Tsar Bomba AN 602 in the USSR, the United States abandoned the idea of preventive nuclear strike.

Khrushchev, Kennedy and the art of diplomacy

For the second time, the world came to the brink of destruction as a result of Cuban missile crisis, in October 1962. Then, in response to the deployment of medium-range missiles in Turkey, the USSR installed R-12 tactical nuclear missiles in Cuba. The United States, in response, organized a naval blockade of Cuba and began preparations for an invasion of the island.

Only thanks to the magnificent art of diplomacy shown by both sides of the conflict, war was avoided. But the USSR then had practically no chance against the US military machine. If we talk only about missiles, then the country had 75 ballistic missiles ready for launch - not reliable enough, requiring lengthy pre-launch preparation. Moreover, only 25 missiles could take off at the same time. The United States already had 700 ballistic missiles. In terms of other weapons, the forces were also unequal, including missile defense.

Are the forces equal?

Now Russia has a serious nuclear potential, which is sufficient to deter any aggression. According to a military expert and former head of Israeli intelligence services, even in the event of a local exchange of nuclear strikes, the damage to the United States would be unbearable. That is why a direct war between the two largest owners of nuclear weapons - Russia and the United States - has been postponed for now.

Local conflicts are a completely different matter. Today, many countries with developing economies, such as Pakistan and India, have already joined the “nuclear” club. Got my bomb North Korea, is preparing to join the “nuclear club” and Orthodox Iran.

That is why there is a danger that a local conflict will break out somewhere, which will draw the largest nuclear powers into its orbit. And now - expect trouble.

And, of course, you can use conventional weapons. The United States, for example, is ready to fight today with non-nuclear weapons, but only with high-precision weapons. According to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, the United States has been working on the concept of a lightning-fast “global strike” for more than ten years. It provides for “a strike with non-nuclear weapons on any point on the planet within one hour.” “According to the results of a war game held at the Pentagon at the end of last year, with the help of 3.5-4 thousand units of high-precision weapons, the United States can destroy the enemy’s main infrastructure facilities in 6 hours and deprive him of the ability to resist.”

If such a strike is struck against Russia, the main targets will be the strategic nuclear deterrent forces. “According to existing in the USA expert assessments“As a result of such a strike, 80 to 90 percent of our nuclear potential could be destroyed,” the Deputy Prime Minister said.

However, Russia, of course, will respond with a nuclear strike...

If war happens...

Thousands of fiction and research books have been written and hundreds of films have been made on the topic of the post-nuclear apocalypse. Directors and writers see the apocalypse differently, but they are unanimous in one thing - people, in their opinion, will be able to survive on earth. But the plot requires such an interpretation. What will it really be like?

There are several theories today about what a post-nuclear world will be like. According to a study by American scientists Owen, Robock and Turco, who tried to simulate a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, 6.6 million tons of soot would be released into the atmosphere. This will lead to a decrease in the average temperature on Earth by 1.25 degrees Celsius. Radioactive fallout will fall all over the world for some time, causing people to die and become seriously ill even in prosperous countries far from the conflict.

About a billion people will die from radioactive contamination and lack of medical care, and as a result of a decrease in global crop yields (due to early post-nuclear frosts, lower temperatures and reduced precipitation), the number of hungry people on the planet will increase by another one and a half billion (today there are 850 million hungry on the planet of people). Food prices around the world will rise significantly. Scientists call this scenario a “nuclear autumn.” But these, as they say, are still “flowers”.

Option one

A number of scientists believe that if Russia and the United States “clash” in a nuclear conflict, a nuclear winter will begin, humanity may perish, and the existence of higher forms of life on our planet will be impossible. Such conclusions, at one time, were independently reached by scientists V.V. Alexandrov and G.S. Stenchikov in 1983, in the USSR and the team of Carl Sagan from Cornwell University in the USA.

Thousands nuclear explosions will raise hundreds of millions of tons of earth, dust and soot from fires into the air. Cities will die from fire tornadoes that will start fires. They say that the height of such a tornado can reach five kilometers, it pulls into itself everything it comes across and does not end until everything around it burns to the ground.

Fine dust from tornadoes will fall into the troposphere, and since there is no convection there, the dust will “hang” for years, blocking out sunlight. Sun. Dusk will fall on the earth. In the middle of summer, even in the tropics there will be frosts. The ground will freeze several meters deep and the rains will stop. Due to the temperature difference between the slowly cooling water in the ocean and the heated land, unprecedented storms will begin.

But, according to the authors of the hypothesis, there will be, in general, no one to feel and see all this. No one will see a nuclear spring. Plants, animals and insects that did not die from the explosions will be burned by radiation, the rest will die out from lack of food and water. The surface of unfrozen rivers, seas, and after some time, slowly cooling oceans will be littered with terribly stinking fish and dead marine animals, even plankton will die.

All food chains will be broken. Perhaps some lower forms of life will remain on the planet - protozoa, moss, lichens. But the higher ones - including, by the way, rats and cockroaches - will die.

Theory two - alternative

It is presented in detail in the article by I. Ibduragimov “On the inconsistency of the concept of “nuclear night” and “nuclear winter” due to fires after a nuclear defeat.”

The main postulate that attracts attention is that hundreds of nuclear tests have already been carried out, which did not produce a cumulative effect, did not create fire tornadoes and did not throw thousands of tons of dust into the atmosphere. Moreover, explosions of the largest volcanoes on the planet, the power of which was many times greater than the power of any nuclear devices created by man. And the dust did not cover the atmosphere, although its emissions were monstrous. The earth's atmosphere is too large to be completely polluted even by a nuclear war.

A situation similar to the one that, according to the authors of the hypothesis, causes fire tornadoes in cities, also arises as a result of large-scale forest fires, when millions of square kilometers of forest burn simultaneously. But there are no tornadoes observed there, and the emission of soot as a result of such fires is tens of times less than calculated by the creators of the “nuclear winter” theory. Why? The combustible mass is distributed over a large area, rather than concentrated in one place. It will be approximately the same in cities, where flammable substances are sorted on shelves in different places throughout apartments and buildings. In this case, up to 20% of all combustible materials are burned - and no more. There is not enough energy for more, even the biggest fire. This means there may not be fire tornadoes that will fill the troposphere with dust.

Even if a firestorm does form, there will be a powerful flow of air into the turbulence zone, combustion efficiency will increase and... there will be much less soot. Not to mention the fact that at the epicenters of a nuclear explosion and at a certain distance from them, almost everything will burn out, without any soot.

Now - about radiation. Of course, radioactive contamination is extremely dangerous and fatal for humans. And this terrible threat will not go away. But still, people even now manage to survive in conditions of increased background radiation, for example, in the Chernobyl zone, where I myself have been. In the summer, if, of course, you do not know about the infection, any traveler will be shocked by the beauty of the untouched nature of these places. In the zone there is raging vegetation, many animals, and reservoirs teeming with fish. So, at least, the flora and fauna there definitely haven’t disappeared anywhere - they have adapted.

It turns out that, in principle, there may not be a nuclear winter at all? Quite. There is a hypothesis that the “nuclear winter” studies conducted and popularized in the eighties of the last century were inspired by US and USSR intelligence services in order to delay a nuclear war and (or) stimulate disarmament and keep the conflicting parties from increasing the production of nuclear weapons. The technology for such manipulations is called “Overton Windows” and is a Western development, which also leads to certain thoughts.

And a real “nuclear war” may be a difficult and inevitable episode in the development of mankind, but by no means fatal. It, like the consequences of the “nuclear winter,” can be survived in places unaffected by the attacks or, for example, in the corresponding bunkers.

Survive in a bunker

Modern research (more precisely, field tests) indicates that as a result of nuclear explosions, only those underground shelters that are less than a hundred meters from the epicenters will be immediately crushed by a seismic wave.

Therefore, in well-equipped underground concrete bunkers, quite a lot of people can survive for a long time. a large number of people - maybe even thousands. Even if at first they have nowhere to go, if it is impossible to stay outside due to dust and radioactive contamination, they can hold out in such a shelter for up to a decade (and the nuclear winter is unlikely to last longer).

According to writer Dmitry Glukhovsky, people will be able to survive even somewhere in the metro and underground communications. Although this is a very controversial statement. The tunnels exist thanks to the developed infrastructure for their repair and maintenance. Even if a terrorist attack or disaster occurs, for the metro it is a tragedy with casualties and destruction. And without supervision, after a while, the subway tunnels will begin to deteriorate and collapse on their own... Fuel reserves in non-specialized underground structures will not last long. If there is ventilation with anti-radiation filters, this is, of course, good, but without repairs it will not last long either. In short, this scenario needs careful testing by “mythbusters” Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage.

The only problem that can arise in the confined space of a bunker or subway tunnel is social relationships. There will be nowhere to escape from the bunker, therefore, the strongest person there may well become the leader there - for example, the head of security or the senior duty officer. And he will force everyone else to obey him by force and threats. And he will create a nightmare worse than what will happen above. For example, he will create a harem of the wives and daughters of elderly politicians trying to wait out the nuclear nightmare. Someone living underground may not be able to stand it, go crazy, or break loose and kill someone or everyone who is in the bunker. This is especially likely if there is social inequality between different groups of people.

Perhaps this assumption may seem like mocking satire to the reader, but unfortunately, it is quite real.

It is not obvious how reliable the connection between such a bunker and the survivors outside will be. The well-known Alexander Zinoviev hinted at this social paradox in his book “Parabellum”.

Better - peace...

Of course, it is best if we avoid the horrors of nuclear war. Even without this nightmare, the life of humanity is difficult and full of dangers. Still, it’s better to remember what might happen one day...

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

MINISTRY OF CULTURE SARATOV REGION.

STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF SECONDARY VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

"SARATOV ART SCHOOL NAMED AFTER A.P. BOGOLYUBOV: (technical school)"

Topic: Nuclear war and its consequences

Completed by a student

groups 1d3:

Myslina M.

Checked:

Chernykh R.I.

Saratov, 2011

Introduction

1. Consequences for marine and estuarine ecosystems.

1.1 Vulnerability of open ocean ecosystems to possible climate disturbances.

1.2 Vulnerability of coastal ocean ecosystems to possible climate disturbances.

2. Possible consequences for freshwater ecosystems.

2.1 Vulnerability of continental water ecosystems to possible climate disturbances

Conclusion

Introduction

In our time, nuclear war poses the most serious threat to environment. The simultaneous action of such factors as a decrease in temperature and illumination, a decrease in the level of precipitation, ionizing radiation, an increase in the level of UV radiation, as well as the entry into the environment of various toxic products will lead to a sharp disruption of biological communities and to a long-term decrease in their ability to recovery.

There are three possible global effects of a global nuclear conflict. The first of them is “nuclear winter” and “nuclear night”, when the temperature across the globe will sharply drop by tens of degrees, and the illumination will be less than on a moonless night. Life on Earth will be cut off from its main energy source - sunlight. The second consequence is Nuclear pollution planet as a result of the destruction of nuclear power plants and radioactive waste storage facilities. And finally, the third factor is global hunger. Years of nuclear war will lead to a sharp decline in agricultural crops.

The very nature of the impact of a large-scale nuclear war on the environment is such that, no matter how and when it begins, the end result is the same - a global biosphere catastrophe.

In the mid-70s, humanity finally began to understand that possible consequences global exchange of nuclear strikes may exceed any expectations. Despite the fact that the focus continued to be on the well-studied direct damaging factors of ground and air nuclear explosions, i.e. shock wave, thermal radiation and radioactive fallout, scientists began to consider the possibility of global environmental effects.

Multiple nuclear explosions will result in thermal radiation and local radioactive fallout. Indirect consequences, such as the destruction of communications, energy distribution systems and public institutions, can also be very serious. And while the danger of such a tragedy for humanity remains, any desire to reduce or ignore the catastrophic impact of nuclear war on the biosphere will do the worst possible service to the future of earthly civilization.

1. Pconsequences for marine and estuarine ecosystems

1.1 Vulnerability of open ocean ecosystems to potential climate disturbances

This chapter examines the effects of nuclear war on pelagic and benthic ecosystems. The former consist of plankton and larger floating animals. Oceanic phytoplankton provide about 90% of all ocean primary production. The limiting factors for it are light and nutrients; in order for photosynthesis to proceed sufficiently intensively, both of these factors must be simultaneously present in the same place and in the appropriate quantity (Fig. 1.2.1).

The deep pelagic ecosystem is completely heterotrophic and depends on the influx of food from outside, mostly in the form of settling plankton and particles from near-surface pelagic ecosystems. Deep pelagic communities include diverse populations of animals, including colonial protozoans, predatory crustaceans, and larger vertebrates. Benthic communities are also heterotrophic and cover continental shelf and the bottom of the oceans at great depths. They consist of bacteria and animals living on the surface or in the thickness of the bottom silt, and in the shelf zone also of extensive algal complexes that provide food for numerous herbivorous organisms and associated predators.

The first important point regarding the possible impact of nuclear war on open ocean ecosystems is high degree their “buffering” in relation to temperature changes. Although it seems possible that the sea surface could cool by 1-2 C during prolonged climatic disturbances caused by nuclear war, a more significant thermal response of the open ocean is not expected. Laboratory experiments show that phytoplankton will continue to grow even with such a decrease in temperature (Fig. 1.2.2). Only in those places where the behavior of animals is finely adapted to environmental temperatures can certain changes occur. Thus, no direct influence of temperature shifts on either benthic or pelagic open ocean communities can be assumed. However, indirect impacts are possible, mediated by changes in ocean currents and the depth and stability of the thermocline.

As for illumination, it can significantly affect the primary production of pelagic ecosystems. Phytoplankton is found to depths where insolation is 1-10% of the level at the sea surface. If it is reduced by 95% or more over a period of several weeks, the growth of most algae species will stop because the amount of radiant energy they receive will not reach the compensation point (i.e. the level at which photosynthetic fixation of carbon dioxide is just sufficient to compensate for its loss plant organism when breathing. With a 95% reduction in illumination of the sea surface, the light compensation point, which normally corresponds to the lower boundary of the euphotic zone, would move almost close to the water/air boundary

If in the pelagic zones of the Northern Hemisphere the biomass of phytoplankton is severely depleted due to an acute drop in insolation, a reduction in the number of zooplankton feeding on it, as well as juvenile fish consuming zooplankton, is possible. But toothless whales, which feed on phyto- and zooplankton, will apparently not suffer from mass extinction if plankton populations recover within a few months. If planktonic food is lost for a long enough time, fish may die. In open ocean ecosystems, zooplankton are more likely to tend to starve to extinction, largely due to lower phytoplankton population densities.

A possible chronic decrease in illumination by 5-20% and air temperature by 1 C is unlikely to have a significant impact on pelagic ecosystems. nuclear war ecosystem climate

On the other hand, indirect effects caused by shifts in the general circulation of ocean waters can significantly disrupt the spatial distribution of upwelling zones and, consequently, high productivity. Disruptions to ocean currents can last for quite a long time, affecting fisheries for years or even decades.

For benthic ecosystems significantly removed from continents, the consequences of climate disturbances will be minimal. The impact here will be limited to indirect effects associated with changes in the productivity of pelagic ecosystems.

1. 2 Uvulnerability of coastal ocean ecosystems to possible climate disturbances

Pelagic and benthic communities closer to the continents differ from open ocean ecosystems in their interactions with nearby land. Pelagic organisms here are more influenced by the supply of nutrients, sediment and other material from terrestrial systems and are therefore generally more productive.

From the point of view of the possible consequences of a nuclear war, coastal pelagic ecosystems are also affected by a decrease in illumination and other factors similar to those already noted for the open ocean. Additionally, near coasts, these ecosystems may experience greater temperature changes due to shallow waters and the influence of freshwater runoff. Coastal communities are more affected by storms and, as a result, increased sedimentation and mixing. Incoming precipitation can exacerbate the insolation problem.

Under normal winter conditions, coastal production appears to be sufficient and accumulates most rapidly under low light conditions. If phytoplankton could adapt to the unusual timing of “apparent” winter, primary production would not undergo significant changes. Thus, it is possible that coastal ecosystems are more resilient to stresses associated with climate change than pelagic open ocean communities.

Ecosystems off the coast of the tropics are much more sensitive to decreases in both light and temperature. The thermal range of existence of aquatic communities here is generally twice as narrow as in temperate regions. For example, coral reefs are ecosystems whose distribution is limited to the warmest parts of the ocean, where the water does not cool below 20 C, and the depths generally do not exceed 50 m. Coral reefs suffer even at temperatures of about 15 C. In addition, corals are very sensitive to elevated levels of ultraviolet B radiation. It is possible that the effects of nuclear war-induced climate disturbances on coral reefs will be among the most widespread and severe for marine ecosystems. Likewise, shallow-water communities of tropical seagrass should be affected by colder temperatures. Coastal areas such as beaches, mudflats and salt marshes experience much more profound impacts than other oceanic ecosystems. This applies especially to falling temperatures. The effects of temperature drops will depend on the season, location, salinity and tide heights. The death of organisms living on the surface of the bottom will occur. Fish populations in coastal waters that do not normally experience low temperatures will be greatly reduced by even short-term cold snaps. Another important consideration is that the eggs and larvae of many commercial fish species live near the surface of the water and thus will be particularly adversely affected by temperature, ultraviolet B radiation, toxic substances and other factors.

2. Potential implications for freshwater ecosystems

2.1 Vulnerability of continental water ecosystems to possible climate disturbances

Freshwater bodies of water are divided into stagnant (i.e., ponds and lakes) and flowing (i.e., rivers and streams). Overall, reductions in temperature and precipitation will lead to a rapid reduction in the amount of liquid water stored in rivers and lakes. Changes in groundwater will be much slower and much less pronounced.

The characteristics of lakes are determined by their size, nutrient influx, bottom substrate, underlying rocks, precipitation and many other parameters. A key factor in the responses of freshwater ecosystems to climate disturbances is the expected decrease in temperature, followed by a decrease in insolation. The smoothing of temperature fluctuations is especially pronounced in large fresh water bodies. However, their ecosystems, unlike those of the open ocean, are expected to suffer from temperature changes possible after a nuclear war.

The establishment of negative temperatures for a long period can cause the formation of a thick layer of ice on the surface of reservoirs. A layer of ice on a shallow lake can cover a significant portion of its volume.

Russian experts have collected statistical data on lake sizes, including information on the surface area of reservoirs and their total volume. It should be noted that the vast majority of lakes, i.e. the most common and accessible to humans, belongs to the category of the smallest. Reservoirs in this category will be most susceptible to freezing to a significant depth.

One of the main works on assessing the possible consequences of war on lake ecosystems is considered to be a study by Ponomarev and his colleagues, prepared within the framework of the SCOPE-ENUUOR project. This study used a simulation model developed at the St. Petersburg Research Computing Center of the Academy of Sciences to assess the dynamics of lake ecosystems and their species, the relationships between lakes and their watersheds, and the impact of industrial development on lakes. Three biotic components are considered (phytoplankton, zooplankton and detritus), associated with such concepts as nitrogen, phosphorus, bottom sediments, dissolved oxygen, air temperature, insolation and radiation. In different versions of the analysis, the beginning of the disturbance (nuclear war) occurred either in February or in July.

The consequences of climate change are more severe and long-lasting. Returning temperature and light to normal levels would occur in this scenario just in time for the normal onset of winter.

If climatic disturbances caused by nuclear war occur in winter where lake water is normally close to freezing, they will lead to an increase in ice thickness.

In shallow lakes, freezing to the bottom is possible, leading to the death of most living organisms. If acute winter climate disturbances affect freshwater ecosystems that do not normally freeze, the biological consequences are expected to be quite serious. Chronic climatic disturbances starting in the spring or the lingering effects of a winter nuclear war can delay the melting of ice.

When frost sets in at the end of spring (and for southern lakes - at any time of the year), the living components of ecosystems will most likely die out completely under the direct influence of a drop in temperature and light. However, if frost hits in the summer, the effects are likely to be less devastating since many of the most vulnerable stages of life cycles will have already passed. The extent of the consequences will be determined by the duration of the cold weather. The duration of exposure will have a particularly strong impact next spring.

Climatic disturbances in the fall will have the least impact on northern freshwater ecosystems, since by this time living organisms will have already passed through all reproductive stages. Invertebrates, phytoplankton and decomposers, even if their numbers have been significantly reduced, will recover as soon as climatic conditions will return to normal. However, residual effects may continue to affect the functioning of the ecosystem as a whole for a long time, and the possibility of some irreversible processes cannot be ruled out.

Zconclusion

The possible global environmental consequences of nuclear war have been the focus of a number of researchers in the four decades since the first atomic bombings of Japan.

After analyzing the data provided on the sensitivity of ecosystems to post-war environmental disturbances, a number of completely obvious conclusions arise:

Natural ecosystems are vulnerable to extreme climate disturbances, and in different ways depending on the type of ecosystem, its geographical location and the time of year when disturbances will occur.

As a result of the synergism of factors and the spread of their influence from one element of ecosystems to another, larger shifts occur than could be expected with the isolated action of disturbances. Thus, increased intensity of ultraviolet B radiation, air pollution and radiation do not cause catastrophic consequences when acting separately, however, when occurring simultaneously, these factors can be detrimental to sensitive ecosystems due to their synergy.

Fires that are a direct consequence of a major nuclear exchange can cover large areas.

The restoration of ecosystems after the climatic stresses of the acute phase following a large-scale nuclear war will depend on the degree of adaptation to natural disturbances. In some types of ecosystems, initial damage can be very large and recovery extremely slow, with complete recovery to the original undisturbed state generally unlikely. Anthropogenic influence can slow down the process of ecological restoration.

Local radioactive fallout can have a very significant impact on ecosystems.

Extreme temperature fluctuations even on fairly short periods capable of causing extreme damage

Marine ecosystems are most vulnerable to prolonged low light levels.

Characterizing biological responses to global stress requires the development of the next generation of ecosystem models and the creation of extensive databases for individual components of ecosystems and for ecosystems as a whole subjected to various experimental disturbances. It has been a long time since there have been serious experimental attempts to describe the effects of nuclear war on biological systems. This environmental problem has now become the most important that humanity has ever faced.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Doctrines of nuclear war

Even a limited nuclear conflict, however, carries the danger of radioactive contamination of vast areas and escalation into a general conflict involving several states possessing nuclear weapons. By analogy with the theory of nuclear winter, we can say that a limited nuclear war, if it occurs, will lead to the “nuclear autumn” effect - long-term negative environmental consequences within a certain region.

From Hiroshima to Semipalatinsk

For several years after World War II, the United States built a strategic force based on the use of B-36 Peacemaker bombers, capable of striking any potential enemy from air bases on American soil. The possibility of a nuclear strike on the territory of the United States itself was considered purely hypothetical, since no other country in the world possessed nuclear weapons at that time. The main concern of American strategists was the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of a “crazy general” who could decide to strike the USSR without proper orders (this plot has been used in many films and spy novels). To calm public fears, US nuclear weapons were placed under the control of an independent agency, the US Atomic Energy Commission. It was assumed that in the event of war, the bombers of the US Strategic Air Command would be transferred to the bases of the Commission on atomic energy, where aerial bombs will be loaded onto them. The whole process was supposed to take several days.

For several years, there was euphoria and confidence in the invincibility of the United States among many representatives of US military circles. There was general agreement that the threat of a nuclear strike by the United States should deter any potential aggressor. At the same time, the possibility of placing the US Atomic Energy Commission's arsenal under international control or limiting its size was discussed.

In subsequent years, the spread of nuclear weapons across the planet continued. Great Britain tested its bomb, and France tested it. Western European nuclear arsenals, however, have always been insignificant compared to the nuclear weapons stockpiles of the superpowers, and it was the nuclear weapons of the United States and the Soviet Union that posed the greatest problem for the world throughout the second half of the 20th century.

At the end of the 1940s and at the very beginning of the 1950s. In the United States, plans to launch atomic strikes on the USSR were discussed. It was planned to drop about 300 atomic bombs on Soviet targets over the course of several months. But at that time the United States did not have technical means for such an operation. Firstly, atomic bombs with a yield of 18-20 kilotons technically could not destroy the Soviet military potential. Secondly, the American atomic arsenal was too small: according to various estimates, between 1947 and 1950. it ranged from only 12 to 100 warheads. In such conditions, the armored forces of the USSR could quickly occupy the territory Western Europe, Asia Minor and the Middle East, which would make further “atomic raids” on Soviet territory impossible. After the creation of Soviet atomic weapons in 1949-1951. Washington feared that in the event of war, the USSR would quickly seize the territory of Alaska and create bases for “atomic raids” on American cities.

Massive retribution

Although the USSR now also had nuclear capabilities, the United States was in the lead both in the number of charges and in the number of bombers. In any conflict, the United States could easily bomb the USSR, while the USSR would have difficulty responding to this attack.

The transition to large-scale use of jet fighter-interceptors somewhat changed this situation in favor of the USSR, reducing the potential effectiveness of American bomber aircraft. In 1949, Curtis LeMay, the new commander of the US Strategic Air Command, signed a program for the complete transition of bomber aviation to jet propulsion. In the early 1950s, the B-47 and B-52 bombers began to enter service.

In response to the numerical increase in Soviet bomber aircraft in the 1950s, the United States created a fairly strong layered air defense system around large cities, involving the use of interceptor aircraft, anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. But the focus was still on the construction of a huge armada of nuclear bombers, which were destined to crush the defensive lines of the USSR - since it was considered impossible to provide effective and reliable defense of such a vast territory.

This approach was firmly rooted in US strategic plans - it was believed that there was no cause for special concern until strategic US forces are more powerful than the overall potential of the Soviet Armed Forces. Moreover, according to American strategists, the Soviet economy, destroyed during the war, was unlikely to be capable of creating an adequate counterforce potential.

However, the USSR quickly created its own strategic aviation and tested the R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile in 1957, capable of reaching US territory. Since 1959, the Soviet Union began serial production of ICBMs (in 1958, the United States also tested its first Atlas ICBM). Since the mid-1950s, the United States began to realize that in the event of a nuclear war, the USSR would be able to retaliate with an equivalent strike on American cities. Therefore, since the late 1950s, military experts have recognized that a victorious all-out nuclear war with the USSR has become impossible.

Flexible response

Realistic intimidation

Main article: Realistic intimidation

Realistic intimidation is a strategic military concept of the United States and NATO, adopted in the early 1970s in the development of the strategy of “flexible response” in the context of the existing parity of forces in nuclear weapons with the USSR. Based on qualitative superiority in forces, partnership (increasing the number of allies) and negotiations. Provides for military deterrence of the enemy through the threat of using nuclear and other highly effective types of weapons, including reconnaissance and strike systems, a gradual increase in the scale and intensity of military operations, conducting various types wars and conflicts depending on the specific situation.

"Flight time"

In the mid-1970s. first in the USA and then in the USSR, laser, infrared and television missile guidance systems were created, which made it possible to significantly (according to some estimates - up to 30 meters) increase their accuracy. This revived ideas about the possibility of victory in a “limited nuclear war” based on gains in flight time. At the same time, individually targetable multiple warheads were developed for intercontinental ballistic missiles, which increased the risk of a counterforce strike against enemy nuclear forces.

Strategic Defense Initiative

Discussions around SDI in the context of the Euromissile controversy contributed to the growing fear of a nuclear war. The danger of the outbreak of a limited nuclear conflict decreased sharply after Perestroika began in the USSR.

Counterproliferation

After finishing " cold war“The American concept of counterproliferation has become a new concept of limited nuclear war. It was first voiced in December by US Secretary of Defense Less Espin. According to this theory, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is in crisis and it is impossible to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction through diplomacy. In critical cases, the United States should launch disarming strikes against the nuclear facilities of “dangerous regimes.” In November, America adopted Presidential Directive No. 60, in which armed forces The United States was tasked with being ready to strike at facilities for the production and storage of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. In the city, the counterproliferation strategy became part of the US National Security Strategy. Currently, the counterproliferation strategy includes 5 options:

“Buying out” a nuclear program from a potentially dangerous state;
Establishing control over nuclear facilities of “problem” (from the US point of view) countries;
Partial recognition of the nuclear status of the violator in exchange for its compliance with certain agreements;
Force threats;
Impact on the largest uranium mining companies and countries supplying uranium raw materials.

In any case, the United States reserves the right to use force, which is fraught with the outbreak of a military conflict. As part of the counter-proliferation strategy in America, the possibility of destroying nuclear facilities of countries such as Iran and North Korea is being discussed. In critical cases, the possibility of taking control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is being considered. Plans are being discussed to create new types of nuclear weapons - clean thermonuclear weapons or bunker-busting warheads (small nuclear weapons that release small amounts of radioactive fallout). It is expected that it will be used to destroy facilities for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.

The first time the United States planned to launch missile and bomb attacks on North Korean nuclear facilities was in 1994 (“the first nuclear alarm” on the Korean Peninsula). At the beginning of the year, reports appeared that the United States and Israel were ready to launch similar strikes on Iran in order to destroy the construction site nuclear power plant in Bushehr. In winter and spring, the United States again talked about the possibility of destroying the DPRK's nuclear facilities (a "second nuclear alarm" on the Korean Peninsula). In and years In America, the plan for Operation Bite was discussed - attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. In and years The Americans were negotiating with Pakistan to establish control over its nuclear facilities.

From an environmental point of view, the defeat of nuclear facilities will differ little from the effect of a limited nuclear war due to the increased release of radioactive substances into the atmosphere. Most likely, it will lead to a nuclear autumn effect.

In works of culture

"Doctor Strangelove" (1964 film)
"The Next Day" (1983, TV movie)
"Threads" (1984, TV movie)
“Letters from a Dead Man” (1986, feature film)
"On the Last Shore" (2000, TV movie)
"Swan's Song" (by Robert McCammon)
“Inhabited Island” (Strugatsky brothers). A film of the same name was made based on the novel in 2008.
Fallout game series.

Notes

International agreements

Literature

Arbatov A. G. Military-strategic parity and US policy. - M.: Politizdat, 1984.
Nuclear deterrence and non-proliferation. / Ed. A. Arbatov and V. Dvorkin. - M.: Moscow Carnegie Center, 2005. - 82 p.
Bogaturov A. D. Great powers in the Pacific. History and theory of international relations in East Asia after World War II (1945-1995). - M.: Envelope - MONF, 1997.
Gordievsky O. N., Christopher E. KGB. A History of Foreign Policy Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev. - M.: Nota Bene, 1992. - 768 p.
Kokoshin A. A., Veselov V. A., Liss A. V. Containment in the Second Nuclear Age. - M.: Institute of International Security Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001.
Kokoshin A. A. Nuclear conflicts in the 21st century. - M.: Media Press, 2003. - 144 p. - ISBN 5-901003-08-X
Rogov S. M. The Soviet Union and the USA: searching for a balance of interests. - M.: International relationships, 1989. - 342 p.
Fenenko A. V. Theory and practice of counterproliferation in US foreign policy strategy. - M.: LKI, 2007. - 248 p. -