What do you think the climate effects from one nuclear bomb would be?

Question

Encarta has a report from a team of sicentists.
Besides the blast and radiation damage from individual bombs, a large-scale nuclear exchange between nations could conceivably have a catastrophic global effect on climate. This possibility, proposed in a paper published by an international group of scientists in December 1983, has come to be known as the “nuclear winter” theory. According to these scientists, the explosion of not even one-half of the combined number of warheads in the United States and Russia would throw enormous quantities of dust and smoke into the atmosphere. The amount could be sufficient to block off sunlight for several months, particularly in the northern hemisphere, destroying plant life and creating a subfreezing climate until the dust dispersed. The ozone layer might also be affected, permitting further damage as a result of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. Were the results sufficiently prolonged, they could spell the virtual end of human civilization.

Answer 1

The likelihood is infinitesimally small and all nations have significantly reduced the number of warheads they have in recent years.

Modern nuclear weapons are totally different to the early ones. Whilst a lot of nuclear weapons used might just cause nuclear winter the chances of it happening are highly unlikely.

But to put it in perspective consider natures power.

On 29 August 2005, hurricane Katrina was rumbling towards New Orleans, a seismic hum more than 1,000 times the strength of the average volcanic tremor was felt nearly 3000 kilometres away in southern California. Its source was the hurricane itself.
Seismic surface waves, which travel through the Earth's crust, were detected 30 hours before the hurricane made landfall, while body waves, which bounce down into the mantle, arrived some 18 hours later. "The body waves had travelled down to 1100 kilometres inside the Earth,"

That had more power and effect than probably twenty or more nuclear weapons being used!!

It is climate Change we need to worry about more!

Answer 2

the first result will be an E.M.P. which will accurate away knock out virtually each and every digital gadget interior many miles. different consequences matter somewhat on the position the bomb is detonated, an air burst or a floor-element burst. An air burst will kick up a lot less floor debris and throw it into the ambience than a floor burst, yet both way, there'll be a radioactive cloud which will circle the Earth for a era of months or years. how briskly the cloud travels relies upon totally on the wind % and route. If it takes position close to the jet stream this is going to commute faster than if the jet stream is thousands of miles away. If distinct bombs were detonated, the outcomes must be more suitable.

Answer 3

I remember the Nuclear Winter theory. Personally, I don't believe it is possible to say exactly what would happen, because we don't really know how large a bomb would be used, but the likelihood of JUST ONE atom bomb is not great: once they start tossing them, they are unlikely to stop while anyone is left alive -- or at least anyone who can do more than devolve to cavemen.

No, folks, we can't even count on something as minor as nuclear winter. The more likely scenario would be total destruction. Let's not go there, OK?

Answer 4

One nuclear bomb would not have very much effect except in the immediate vicinity of the blast and not on the whole world. Several nuclear blasts would really put a
damper on the whole world for 10s of thousands of Years
making the end of the world immediate.

Answer 5

Not much...there've been dozens over the last few decades... the most recent ones were done by the French.

Answer 6

There have already been several nuclear blasts - most change is local so far.