If mount Pinatubo couldn't do it there's no chance in hades a pitiful few gigatonnes of nukes will.Breakable wrote:then you are discounting the nuclear winter[...]
Breakable wrote:[...]supply problems[...]
Sure, but much of the world is not seriously affected and absent too much government intervention will do quite alright.
See 9/11 for a perfect example of iatrogenic government response. The attack cost millions of dollars and did billions of dollars worth of damages. Not content with letting al qaeda have a 1000 to one lever, the US government decides to launch a trillion dollar scale response giving Al qaeda a million to one leverage instead.
Fall-out has two components. It has the immediate component which comes down in a plume immediately down-wind and makes a small area lethal for weeks. It also has a global component which takes months to years to reach ground level and occurs mostly at the same lattitude. 1000 atmospheric nuclear tests could not even increase the background radiation by 1%. If the LNT hypothesis is true for such tiny doses we are talking about some fraction of a percent increase in cancer risk for areas affected only by the global fall-out.Breakable wrote:[...]and radiation poisoning.
It would be very hard to tell if there was any increase in cancer risk at all from global nuclear fall out considering it is not even possible to measure a statistically significant change in cancer risk in areas of naturally high background radiation like Ramsar or Kerala. Parts of Ramsar have over 100 times world average background radiation.