In June of this year, representatives of 122 states voted at the UN headquarters in New York to adopt a treaty banning nuclear weapons, which should enter into force after fifty countries ratify it. The first article of this peace document reads:
Experts supporting the document remind that even a regional nuclear war can lead to a global humanitarian and environmental disaster. Their arguments sound convincing and alarming against the backdrop of the sharply aggravated rhetoric of the nuclear powers - US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. In March of this year, American analyst and nuclear weapons specialist Matthias Eken published his calculations in The Conversation magazine, and we present his assessments of the consequences of a nuclear war on the website.
India VS Pakistan
The most studied option is the exchange of nuclear strikes between India and Pakistan, 50 on each side, with explosions mainly over cities; experts believe that this is how a nuclear war between states with a total of 220 nuclear warheads could look like. In this scenario, 20 million people will die in the first week of the war - directly during the explosions, as well as from the fires and radiation caused by them. This in itself is terrible; The First World War claimed fewer lives. But the destructive effect of atomic bombs will not end there: fires ignited by nuclear explosions will raise clouds of soot and smoke; radioactive particles will enter the stratosphere.
The nuclear winter, in turn, will affect agriculture. Corn yields in the United States (the world leader in its production) will fall by 12% in the first 10 years of cold snap, rice in China will decline by 17%, winter wheat - by 31%.
Today, the world's grain reserves are sufficient to supply global demand for 100 days. After these reserves are depleted, a nuclear winter after the Indo-Pakistani nuclear conflict threatens with starvation for almost a third of the world's population - two billion people.
Promotional video:
USA VS DPRK
Another scenario is a nuclear exchange between North Korea and the United States. The nuclear arsenal, according to political analysts, is small, so the total power of the explosions will be less than in the Indo-Pakistani version, but will still lead to many deaths. In addition, such a scenario threatens with further confrontation of nuclear powers in other regions of the planet.
Russia VS USA
The worst possible scenario is a US nuclear war with Russia. Most of the nuclear warheads of both countries are 10-50 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. If both states use strategic nuclear weapons (designed to defeat non-combat targets - cities and enemy infrastructure), about 150 tons of soot will enter the atmosphere, and the average temperature at the surface will drop by 8 ° C. Under these conditions, agriculture around the world will suffer catastrophe, and most of humanity will be left without food.
All described scenarios, Eken believes, are unlikely, and everyone - especially politicians and the media - should avoid apocalyptic scenarios and alarmist rhetoric. The analyst recalls that by 2017, people had already detonated more than 2,000 nuclear bombs of various capacities, and corn, rice and wheat will be born as if nothing had happened. But this does not mean that one can give up on the most unlikely scenarios of a nuclear war: nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles have five members of the club of nuclear powers - Great Britain, China, Russia, the United States and France, in addition - India, North Korea and Pakistan; it is assumed that the nuclear bomb was developed by the Israeli military, Iran's nuclear program raises questions. It is better to remember the possible consequences of the use of nuclear weapons than to forget about them.
