Can the life on Earth continue as it is now, if an all out nuclear war was waged between 2 or more nations?

Question

From what I've read the atmosphere and waters would become so radio active that life could no longer exist as it is today. In other words are world becomes much closer to doomsday as more countries acquire nuclear weapons.

Most of us are aware of the testing of nuclears that has been done above and below the ground. These test ignitions were very small when compared to the megaton nuclear bombs in storage.

Answer 1

If the world had an all out war of Nuclear weapons, a large percentage of the population would be killed in the blasts or die off due to radiation. Those people who would have made it under the ground and fully protected from the leaks of radiation would have had to remain underground for a period of 1 year before coming out to the open sky's. By that time they would be fairly safe for short periods outside. Society could reform and start colonizing again and having children would be very important to starting up the population again. We would survive but at a terrible cost to civilization.

Answer 2

The answer is "YES". This is not to imply that things would be screwed up and very different for a long enough time to become 'normal', but life would go on. People, plants and animals will survive. If you are prepared to survive, you can too. As for your point that the 'world becomes much closer to doomsday as more countries acquire nuclear weapons,' I can't help but agree. On the other hand, 'Nuclear Weapons' is a contradiction: there is no such thing and there hasn't been since the USSR detonated their first one. What use is a weapon that can't be used? No country that has Nuclear Weapons could ever use them. Even if Iran builds one, once they test it and the world confirms the test was Nuclear, (unlike the North Korean test) the game would be up. They will have literally painted themselves into a corner. They will have built a stairway with no landing at the top....

Answer 3

Yes it could.

The most comprehensive study ever done on the after effects of nuclear war was done back in the 1980's.

It was based on the fact that 10,000 nuclear weapoins would be used in the war.

Well considering, that the US and Russia signed a treaty in 2003, to reduce the stockpile of nuclear warheads to just 2,200 in each country.

In any future all out nuclear war, the amount of nuclear weapons used, would be under 1,000 total, or 10 times less than the study predicted.

The study calculated that there would be a global winter, that would last approx 3 years before clearing.

Thats is reduced sun light due to particulate matter in the atmosphere and a decrease in global temperatues of 3 or 4 degrees.

But it would only last for 3 years.

Now with a 10 times reduction in nuclear weapons, the effects would be markably less on a global scale.

. To many people forget, that 742 above ground nuclear test have been done since 1944.

The stock piles of nuclear weapons and more importantly, launch vechicles capable of launching nuclear weapons, has decreased considerably over the last 25 years.

Answer 4

lets get a clear understanding about the difference of conventional and thermo-nuclear war.in a conventional sense, the human race survives. in a thermo nuclear exchange, even the country that drops or fires off the icbm recieves so much heat that the majority of the human's body's explode from the 3,800 degrees and the ocean waters begin to boil, there is no night time either, as fast as all theice is melted, the faster it is steamed away, every city and suburb is on fire, around the world, even the oxygen levels are depleated at ground surface and below, the fires continue to re-ignite over and over as any fuel source is available, everyone dies

Answer 5

Personally, I believe that the heads of the modern world use ICBMs and other such devices as "power tools". They really just "flash" them around and say hey YOU may have 20 but I have 21!
But in your scenario the first objects of interest would be major populated area's, if for nothing more than to inflict a kind of Psychological warfare on the enemy. But if continuing the world would in my opinion still continue. because i really do not think 2 countries would destroy every one.

For Example If Iran and North Korea were randomly nuke each other, even with global winds carring radioactively treated substance's, I really dont think it would effect northern Canada, or southern Africa, or Brazil.

Answer 6

There has been over 500 above ground nuclear tests and 1000's of underground tests. We are still drinking the water :)

Answer 7

I really doubt any country would actually use an all out nuclear strike even it they have the capability because everyone knows what the global impact would be. I'm more concerned with smaller attackes that would level a city or something like that.

Answer 8

The US and Russia using nukes at each other would be livable in the US, I think, since Russia would only attack military targets. If you got into a shelter that prevented radition from getting in, you could come out in about a month to a month and a half and be able to survive.

Answer 9

Depends on WHICH two countries

If it was (God forbid) India and Pakistan then IMO nobody outside the region would even notice. In the region itself it would be a hell hole

The main damage from nukes is the heat and the blast- they have a localised effect. The radiation is relatively minor and unlikely to be noticeable even 500 kilometres away.

World's a big place. Sure we could destroy it, but we're not that crazy.

Yet.

I hope.

Answer 10

The short answer is obviously no ... for all the reasons listed. On the plus side, the bible promises that the world was made to "stand to times indefinate - even forever". Humans cannot survive on an irradiated planet therefore the creator will step in and stop it before we render our planet uninhabitable.