An important thing to consider in this debate lies in the very definition of a nuclear war “small”. Nuclear weapons are amongst the most destructive in the world, so the concept of ‘small’ must be examined. For example, if a small number of nuclear bombs were to be detonated, the effects on the atmosphere may be underestimated and the effects of the whole on global warming could occur. Indeed, a number of studies have suggested that even a very small nuclear exchange could have damaging consequences to the world’s climate.
To better understand these potential consequences, it is worth looking at the theoretical implications of a small global nuclear war. According to experts from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the initial blasts and firestorms of a small-scale nuclear exchange would generate large clouds of black dust, known as ‘nuclear smoke’. These clouds of smoke would absorb the sun’s heat, preventing it from reaching the Earth and leading to a decrease in surface temperatures. This could potentially lead to a nuclear winter and a cooling period of months to years in length. During this period temperatures could drop to levels that might be incompatible with many forms of plant and animal life, leading to a global famine. This could have grave consequences for humans, leading to mass migration, economic chaos and even the destruction of crops.
The effects of this cooling period could also have an impact on global sea levels, as glaciers and ice-sheets would expand and weaken coastal regions, displacing millions of people living on the coast. Furthermore, since water is a greenhouse gas, the cooling period of ‘nuclear winter’ would also lead to a decrease in water vapour, resulting in further warming and climate change. In short, a small nuclear conflict has the potential to unleash a chain of events that may prove devastating to human society.
In defence of the argument that a small nuclear war does not lead to global warming, it is important to point out that there are many uncertainties concerning the issue. Firstly, experts cannot agree on the exact number of warheads that would need to be detonated to release enough smoke to create a “nuclear winter”. Secondly, the effects of smoke on the climate and the environment are too complex to be accurately modelled. Finally, we must consider the “nuclear deterrent” effect, which suggests that the fear of nuclear retaliation should act as a deterrent to prevent any potential war.
That said, the scientific consensus remains that global warming is a real threat and that a small-scale nuclear war would only add to the dangers. In light of this, it is crucial that governments, both national and international, put policies in place that recognize the threat of global warming and prevent any reckless and potentially destructive actions. The consequences of such a conflict could be devastating and have unforeseen consequences for humanity and the planet.
Ultimately, this debate must be resolved with caution. Science-based evidence must be carefully analysed, both in terms of the effects of a nuclear war on global warming and the uncertainties that remain. It is our responsibility to make sure that we understand the implications of a small nuclear war on our planet, and take steps to ensure that it does not happen.
