The magic solution or pure folly?

Question

Nuclear winter is defined as a long period of darkness and extreme cold that scientists predict would follow a full-scale nuclear war; a layer of dust and smoke in the atmosphere would cover the earth and block the rays of the sun; most living organisms would perish

A full scale-scale nuclear war would include hundreds if not thousands of nuclear explosions. With controlled nuclear explosions it must be possible to create controlled 'dust clouds' that could lower the temperature by as much as you like. Deserts would be the obvious place to detonate these explosions creating massive amounts of dust whilst minimizing evacuation of people in the target zone. If timed right you should be able to aim the dust storm with the wind blowing it over an ocean or uninhabited area.

Answer 1

Pure Folly.

Answer 2

The concept is a feasible one and is something that mimics nature. Following a major volcanic eruption there is a lot of particulate matter ejected into the atmosphere which blocks out sunlight. The last major eruption occured in 1991 when Mount Pinatubo erupted, for the next few years average global temperatures fell. The biggest volcanic eruption in recent history occured in 1815 when Mount Tambora erupted, the following year became known as 'the year without a summer'.

Less dramatic schemes are being considered that have the same effect but without the drawbacks associated with nuclear expolosions. One scheme involves injecting sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, this is the gas that volcanoes produce which is effective at blocking sunlight. One drawback is that no-one can say for certain what the long term effects of this will be, it could do more harm than good.

A safer option is to 'manufacture clouds'. The process that is being proposed is to have a fleet of self propelled vessels sailing the seas and oceans. These would spray sea water under pressure into the atmosphere. The salt crystals will form the nucleus around which the vapourised sea water would condense to form a water droplet - the building blocks of clouds.

The specific clouds would be marine stratocumulii, high clouds over the oceans that are more reflective than other types of cloud. The advantage to this system is that the clouds are over the oceans and the system can be scaled up or down, turned on or off and moved around as needs be.

Creating a nuclear winter would have a temporary effect which to acheive would require the regular detonation of multiple devices. In time there would be a massive radiation build up that would be dispersed around the world.

Answer 3

this would be another complicated expirement that could lead to further disaster:

dust clouds would block the action of greenhouse gases and lower the temperature of water so that oceans could uptake more CO2, however it would also inhibit photosynthesis which uptakes CO2 and would cause food shortage. So, you better be damn sure the idea would work before trying it. More than likely it is simply too risky.

and this isn't even consodering radiation. Remember that radioactive fallout from desert explosions in the 50's and 60's is still increasing cancer risks in areas thousands of miles away. Dust clouds can travel thousands of miles as well.

This is a catch-22, any solution involving blocking sunlight will lead to huge problems, even if the sun is only blocked over the desert or oceans.

Answer 4

The cure would be worse than the disease.
I have actually heard some scientist suggest that. But even he knew it was not really an acceptable idea. It might work, but then again it might not. It might go too far and cause an ice age. It COULD be done without creating radioactive fallout, if done correctly, but most people would never believe that so it is politically impossible for that reason alone. And who knows what other unexpected effects it could have.

Answer 5

Nice thought, however Plutonium has a half life of 24,100 years, therefore you would have to keep away from that fall out dust for a considerable period, by which time all vegetation would be either dead or poisoned and water unfit to drink.

Always remember - What goes up- must come down.

Answer 6

Ummm, I wouldn't be a big supporter of spreading radioactive contamination around the world. If you want to use up the worlds nuclear weapons you could always use the warheads to set off the supervolcano under Yellowstone Park. Then you could use all the rockets, which would have been used to deliver those bombs, to send up the big umbrella into space.

Answer 7

There are lots of other ways to produce large dust clouds that do not involve the use of radioactives.

Why do you want to increase pollution?

Folly.
Innovative, "outside the box" thought but folly none the less.

Answer 8

pure folly once again. if anything the dust cloud would destroy our atmosphere (ozone included) and once the dust cloud was gone, we'd heat up to be as hot as a kettle. IE not a good idea AT ALLLL.

Answer 9

Dont mess with stuff you dont understand. This goes for climate as well. Let the earth's natural regulating mechanisms handle things. When you get government involved with something, it will only get worse.

Answer 10

Carl Sagan came up with that one. This idea passed peer review because no one wanted to argue against Carl.

This was disproved long ago, showing that bad ideas never die off.