Why It's Impossible To Win a Nuclear War

Check out the recipients of the 2022 Future of Life Award at futureoflife.org/future-of-li...
Nuclear war is a terrifying existential threat, but we shouldn't only fear the blasts because the ensuing smoke is the real killer.
LEARN MORE
**************
To learn more about this topic, start your googling with these keywords:
- Black carbon: groups of linked carbon atoms.
- Fallout: radioactive particles that are carried into the atmosphere after a nuclear explosion or accident and gradually fall back as dust or in precipitation.
- Jet stream: a narrow variable band of very strong predominantly westerly air currents encircling the globe several miles above the earth.
- Radiation: the emission of energy as electromagnetic waves or as moving subatomic particles, especially high-energy particles which cause ionization.
- Weapon yield: the amount of energy released when that particular nuclear weapon is detonated, usually expressed as a TNT equivalent.
SUPPORT MINUTEEARTH
**************************
If you like what we do, you can help us!:
- Become our patron: / minuteearth
- Share this video with your friends and family
- Leave us a comment (we read them!)
CREDITS
*********
Cameron Duke | Script Writer, Narrator and Director
Arcadi i Garcia Ruis | Illustration, Video Editing and Animation
Nathaniel Schroeder | Music
MinuteEarth is produced by Neptune Studios LLC
neptunestudios.info
OUR STAFF
************
Lizah van der Aart • Sarah Berman • Cameron Duke
Arcadi Garcia i Rius • David Goldenberg • Melissa Hayes
Alex Reich • Henry Reich • Peter Reich
Ever Salazar • Leonardo Souza • Kate Yoshida
OUR LINKS
************
Merch | dftba.com/minuteearth
MinuteEarth Explains Book | minuteearth.com/books
KZbin | / minuteearth
TikTok | / minuteearth
Twitter | / minuteearth
Instagram | / minute_earth
Facebook | / minuteearth
Website | minuteearth.com
Apple Podcasts| podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
REFERENCES
**************
“Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo.” Nasa.gov, NASA Earth Observatory, 15 June 2001,
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ima...
“Nuclear Tests--Databases and Other Material.” Johnstonsarchive.net, 2022, www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/tests/
“NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein.” Nuclearsecrecy.com, 2013, nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Robock, Alan. “Nuclear Winter.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 1, no. 3, 16 Apr. 2010, pp. 418-427, doi.org/10.1002/wcc.45
Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov. “Nuclear Winter Revisited with a Modern Climate Model and Current Nuclear Arsenals: Still Catastrophic Consequences.” J. Geophys. Res, vol. 112, doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008235
Dr. Brian Toon, Personal Communication.
Xia, Lili, et al. “Global Food Insecurity and Famine from Reduced Crop, Marine Fishery and Livestock Production due to Climate Disruption from Nuclear War Soot Injection.” Nature Food, vol. 3, no. 8, 15 Aug. 2022, pp. 586-596, doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00...

[@shawniscoolerthanyou]

Imagine you're just chilling with your friends having dinner, and then suddenly you're vaporized because one guy 1000 miles away said something another guy 2000 miles away didn't like.

[@Doggykh]

🤨

[@generaltom6850]

@@Doggykh What does that mean?

[@Doggykh]

@@generaltom6850 tbh I forgot

[@ricky.t.1658]

Wars don’t work that way

[@businessmanbrute2211]

Yeah wars don't work this way. But often times a few hundred people are enough to ruin the lives of millions of people.

[@techman2553]

My biggest fear about nuclear war is that I'll be too far away from it and have to go to work the next day.

[@somerandomuser5155]

Ah shit ..

[@nikthedrought]

@@alamba1165 bro was chiefin on that pack right after he survived

[@user-wh5se3cb2y]

I guess that's why people move into major cities. In case of nuclear bombing their death will be fast and painless

[@Tethloach1]

lol

[@Paul_Bedford]

Or you could be like the guy who was nuked twice.

[@KnightSlasher]

"Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.....well almost"

[@stevenlubick2689]

I noticed the ➡️ (Almost)⬅️🤔🤔

[@awesomeboss3634]

GOD DAMNIT, YOU GOT TO SAYING IT FIRST!

[@asgacc8789]

What reference is this

[@yes_and_so_what]

@@asgacc8789 fallout new Vegas

[@IgniKing]

You knew exactly what I was going to say!

[@viveladecadence]

Way to go, ending 2022 on a positive note, thanks MinuteEarth!

[@aaaaaattttttt5596]

Use another tsar bomba on a populated city & there we have the answer to end global warming 🧠🤫 And they say I'm a fool 😏😌

[@Somerandomduck_]

Imagine if a nuclear bomb went off 1 minute before New Years News flash it’s 12:03 and no a bomb did not go off maybe next year it will go of one minute before happy new years

[@yukonjack2891]

@@Somerandomduck_ only Bill Gates, wings of government and supermax prisoners will be around to bring in the new fear.

[@alex2005z]

​@@Somerandomduck_phineas, I know what we are going to be doing today

[@jaypaans3471]

And with a big bang!

[@jonathanfaber3291]

“Global temperatures drop by 16 degrees” Frostpunk players: hey I’ve seen this one! *the city must survive intensifies*

[@cweeperz7760]

It's sawdust time

[@solsystem1342]

Unfortunately, lighting a giant pyre in the center of the city is significantly less efficient for heating than in frostpunk. Realistically, without the ability to grow food anywhere other than bunkers stocked until the climate can recover would be a death sentence. Even if you could feed everyone sawdust.

[@royvirafayet6687]

I am taking this opportunity to brag that I completed 3 scenarios in the game in survival mode recently. It was really really tough. Also in the seedling ark scenario I managed to save every ark

[@Silver_Prussian]

Mate the storm is coming will we survive it ?

[@platinumchromee3191]

Mindustry players: hmm sure those 16 impulse reactors should be enough to power a big city

[@darkbrightnorth]

Is the start a reference to adventure time ice king and Marcy? Nice touch if so

[@hcn6708]

It definitely is, look at his hair

[@RAL3O7]

Rip Simon Petrikov

[@Friddle]

Yes

[@knoobiez]

It's pretty FUCKING obvious...

[@RandomYT05_01]

Definitely.

[@JAYFULFILMZ]

The scariest part about nuclear weapons is the fact that the scariest part about nuclear weapons isn’t even the destruction or blast from the nuclear weapon, it’s what happens after!

[@mollyhatty7180]

That is contradictory, logically speaking, but still is “correct”

[@aviholtz9056]

the Adventure Time reference at the beginning is fantastic

[@awesomeboss3634]

oh my god, it is an adventure time reference!

[@darkguardian011]

Someone else saw it and I came to the comments to find you!

[@kingnutt1348]

Simon!!

[@DoctorX17]

I knew I wasn't the only one who would notice!

[@reenabalasarangi9331]

Time?

[@galacticmechanic1]

you know if you talk about a man made form of global cooling, you really gotta mention why it's a bad idea to use it to counteract global warming.( assuming it is indeed a bad idea)

[@blackwing1362]

Because it is called climate change and not global warming for a reason. It is basically doing a lot more of what we are doing now, releasing butt tons of carbon into the air.

[@galacticmechanic1]

@@blackwing1362 yes it's called climate change, but the reality is the globe is getting warmer. so is releasing more carbon into the air the way we are doing now going to hit a tipping point and start cooling rather than heating? or is the nuclear winter caused by a different chemical composition that the stuff we are releasing now? my point is if you are going to say something could cool the planet it's worth spending a minute to address the issue.

[@solsystem1342]

Burning every major city in the world for 10 years of cooling isn't worth it. Not to mention, even if we did rebuilding would create way more CO2 right now because of all the concrete.

[@galacticmechanic1]

@@solsystem1342 well I wasn't talking about burning actual cities, just putting the equivalent chemicals into the atmosphere. still probably a bad idea, I just don't know how its a bad idea.

[@Truth4thetrue]

@@galacticmechanic1 There is indeed an idea of using sulfur dioxide to combat global warming As for the carbon, it isn't what causes global warming, it's the carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide isn't nearly as harmful, and soot has short lifespan in the atmosphere so its effects aren't as strong

[@Petteri82]

I feel like the mad (maybe evil) scientist question here is, what amount of steady nuclear exploding would neatly counteract the current trend of climate warming. And does it have to be cities?

[@comradelayla5635]

Take all the tires and Trash and put it inside the Mojave Desert do some very precise calculations blows up with a nuke boom you have sold global warming and got rid of a bunch of trash

[@twooey8232]

I'm sure there is no scenario here where this ends well, but I don't know the science behind it well enough. I'd suspect there are other ways to release black carbon, but I'm also reasonably sure that it wouldn't solve the problem, and for some reason, likely make it worse.

[@alexxiv14]

like the video alludes to Its not the bombs directly causing the the the winter it's what there hitting, materials in urban areas that release black smoke that ends up creating the black carbon smoke/soot which blocks light/heat from reaching the surface thus causing cooling, so yes citys or where those types of materials are abundant

[@ChoralAlchemist]

My little sister asked me this exact question and I genuinely don’t have a good answer. :/

[@beast_boy97]

The same question crossed my mind, but the thought of it is too horrifying to even consider.

[@TavoBuendia]

0:01 Wait, is that Simon Petrikov from Adventure time?!

[@LuizHenrique-zw5su]

Its not about winning, it's about sending a message.

[@raiden4695]

E essa mensagem é "foda-se, todo mundo vai morrer agora por minha culpa. É uma mensagem meio estúpida né não

[@LuizHenrique-zw5su]

@@raiden4695 mais dai eu te pergunto se a mensagem fosse para a Argentina

[@raiden4695]

@@LuizHenrique-zw5su pra que tacar uma bomba atômica na argentina, eles nem incomodam tanto, aí já seria desperdício

[@tempejkl]

"People do not want words - they want the sound of battle - the battle of destiny." ~ Gamal Abdel Nasser

[@thrakerzad5874]

nuclear tests usually occur in places where there is very little to burn in the first place.

[@Praisethesunson]

Except the live tests in Japan of course.

[@mappingshaman5280]

And those islands where the US blew up a bunch of peoples homes (though at least they weren't cartoonishly evil enough to not tell them first!)

[@simarkarmani4034]

@@mappingshaman5280 We are sorry, but we have to blow up your homes to test a weapon so destructive it would be pointless to use as everyone would be frozen.

[@simarkarmani4034]

I fixed your 69 likes issue.

[@tempejkl]

@@mappingshaman5280Huh. The USSR moved people away and compensated them during the nuclear testings. Although, since the Tsar Bomba was so big, it didn't stop people from Finland being affected, despite it being 500 or something miles away. They had to halve the Tsar Bomba's explosion in order to not do more damage.

[@Chris.Davies]

Thank you, most sincerely Mount Pinatubo. I was a ski instructor at Coronet Peak when it exploded - and the next three years were bumper snow years as a result. Come back Pinatubo! We need you again!

[@carrot0013]

“I don’t know [what weapons will be used in the Third World War]. But I can tell you what they’ll use in the Fourth-rocks.” -Albert Einstein

[@tomclanys]

*spears

[@NotKnafo]

bomb them back to the stone age

[@TheLPcollector]

@@tomclanys **sticks, and stones

[@TeddyKrimsony]

guns, they'll have the knowledge to make them

[@ikbintom]

I don't believe it was Big Alberto saying that

[@halfsine]

so fallout would be more accurate if there was snow everywhere?

[@andyfriederichsen]

The radiation from a thermonuclear detonation dies down rapidly within weeks, not years. There is still higher background radiation than normal that will result in higher cancer rates, but not nearly what you hear about in popular culture.

[@stocktonjoans]

*POP CULTURE LIED TO ME?!*

[@Youngstomata]

Source?

[@8is]

Very true. And another important detail is that the radiation radius is smaller than the fireball radius for strategic nukes (the high yield ones that would be used to bomb cities). The people directly affected by radiation would already be dead and the main problem radiation poses are increased rates of cancer and miscarriages.

[@josephburchanowski4636]

@@Youngstomata Look up the 7-10 rule of thumb. For conventional nukes, the radiation approximately decreases by a factor of 10 for every 7 fold increase in time. Compared to an hour after detonation, 7 hours later is 10 times less. 2 days later is 100 times less radiation. 14 weeks later is a 1000 times less radiation. If you have a decent basement or large building and 2 weeks worth of food and water, you can easily wait out the fallout.

[@TeddyKrimsony]

thermonuclear bombs use minimal amount of radioactive materials to initiate the fusion explosion compared with the old fissile explosions that are 100% radioactive

[@broncatdraws6476]

Hopefully the human race is smart enough to not end the world

[@jochenzimmermann5774]

unfortunately the human race isn't even smart enough to STOP trying to end the world. climate change makes conflict, including nuclear conflict (say between india and pakistan) more likely. and even without that, our current emissions are still in the category "trying to end the world".

[@sergeyzelenkov4588]

пастыри человечества достаточно коварны и кровожадны, чтобы сделать это. Им не нужно такое количество людей, которое есть сейчас

[@friedec3622]

No, nukes are not at the hand of human race It's at the hand of nation leaders And we know some of them are selfish and self-centered.

[@VexxThePrecursor07]

Could had sayed that sooner

[@PaintedDog]

We aren't....

[@mikip3242]

0:12 Hey mate, that's Puerta del Sol, in Madrid, Spain. I live there. Please don't drop the thing

[@Praisethesunson]

perdon amigo. The Russians already have the capital city of every nato nation targeted with a nuclear weapon.

[@terribleexampleofacat]

:)

[@MegaJani]

Dude smashed my heart in the first second, my man Simon

[@carmenrepucci]

Looks like it’s time for a video on why we aren’t intentionally aerosolizing carbon already!

[@sophiedowney1077]

Watch Kurzgesagt's video on solar geoengineering. It's a pretty balanced take on the subject.

[@RoseOnFire]

Because it would block sunlight, which is needed for life. It would also reduce air quality

[@52flyingbicycles]

Because there is a 100% chance we screw it up and make things worse

[@TheMegaxPlus]

Yes it's been thought of already. Nope, it's still a bad idea and only delays solving the problem. It could be used as a last resort thing

[@doc.squatch]

Spraying aerosols into the atmosphere would be risky Plus the climate has always experienced up and down changes, so don't worry about

[@katetoolate234]

Is that intended to be Simon and Marcy at the beginning there? I wasn't ready to remember all the feelings that episode of Adventure Time gave me today! How dare you invoke them, MinuteEarth! 😆

[@PiepProductions]

I heard somewhere the numbers on this were off. I think the original calculations back in the 70s and 80s overestimated the amount of ash released by the cities and thus exaggerated the death toll as a result. From what I heard a revised death toll would be between 300 million and 1 billion in a modern nuclear war and resultant winter, though I may be off.

[@joshuagrahm3607]

yeah, where the authors of the TTAPS paper had insufficient data they erred on overestimating the effects of this kind of conflict. There's a link to a NYT article about that on the wikipedia page for nuclear winter

[@toolbaggers]

What is not off is the belligerents. FU Russia and US with your endless wars of greed and conquest!!!!! You guys are the world's worst problem makers. Earth would be a better place if you guys disappeared (without WW3.)

[@kedrednael]

Newer papers from around 2016 still also predicted massive starvation due to too many freezing days.

[@josephburchanowski4636]

@@joshuagrahm3607 The newer papers still have insufficient data. And any study with Owen Toon as an author is going to be erred on overestimating the effects. Do note, we don't know how black the carbon from cities would burning would be; nor do we know if modern cities are even capable of forming firestorms.

[@megapussi]

Who would win: the 7 citations listed in the description of this video, or "I heard somewhere" 🤔

[@deconscious]

And they said there is no easy solution to global warming.

[@avicohen2k]

If anyone will save us from global warming its Putin!

[@AvangionQ]

I'm sure some ecofascist thought global dimming was a good idea.

[@kedrednael]

It is not possible to cancel global warming out with a one time nuclear war. The carbon sooth stays in the air for much shorter than the effects of CO2. So you get a cooling period of around a decade, but then the global warming will take the upper hand again. Maybe even exacerbated by the CO2 from the fires, and the destroyed ozone layer. The black sooth has decreased the albedo of earth, meaning it has heated up more. Maybe after a long time, this heated high atmosphere can also heat the ground extra? (just my idea) The fair solution is to nuke the worst polluting city, maybe one city per multiple years.

[@planespeaking]

Jim the glass half-full guy

[@fallendown8828]

This is so temporary that you need to regularly nuke tons of stuff to keep the ash flowing, not even volcanos can give enough ash to make a long term temperature change so what makes you think we can? But as the video said the temporary temperature fall would ruin crop yields and suck

[@SuLokify]

Worst of all, if nuclear war is possible, then given enough time it is statistically inevitable. This will eventually happen unless we find some way to make it not possible

[@SgtSupaman]

That requires an infinite amount of time to be true. Nuclear war will not be possible for an infinite amount of time, because, eventually, the Earth will be swallowed by the Sun.

[@jinyuliu2871]

Well paradoxically having fewer warheads increase the chance of nuclear war as some warmongering idiots on the other side might get the idea that they can win a nuclear war. On other other hand having more warheads increase the chance of accidents that may also lead to nuclear war. Thus to minimize the chance of nuclear war, ideally, a country should have just enough to maintain deterrence.

[@kosatochca]

@@jinyuliu2871 US Air Force has already made calculations: it’s around 350 for the US. So it’s not accidental that China has around the same. A few hundred warheads are enough for deterrent

[@friedec3622]

@@kosatochca 10k++ nuke warhead is overkill then.

[@jlight7346]

@@kosatochca Would you mind sharing your source? I find it unlikely that the number you provide is the total number of nuclear weapons the US thinks it needs. It sounds like a reasonable number of warheads for ballistic missiles, but that's definitely way too low if you're talking about the entire arsenal. We still need lots of bombs and cruise missiles to ensure that an enemy wouldn't be able to take a large number of our weapons out before they could fire. Bombs and cruise missiles tend to have much smaller explosive yields than warheads for ballistic missiles so more than one would need to be dropped on large targets.

[@herrgodfrey9563]

A few good things to note: Not all nuclear bombs would be dropped or launched, many would be intercepted and destroyed before reaching their targets and some would be duds and fail to detonate. The current estimates on a nuclear winter is 1-3 years with a very unlikely 10 years at the most extreme. Also, not everywhere would be affected the same way. The safest place I've been able to find is Chile or southernmost Argentina. All of this is speculation, though, because there are a lot of factors that we can't possibly predict. Wind currents, for example.

[@rowbot5555]

New Zealand is actually probably safer, it gets a more easy to live in climate and is so out of the way and non-threatening that sending nukes to it would be a waste of time, it also produces a LOT of food and is very stable, so it's government would probably survive.

[@tempejkl]

@@rowbot5555New Zealand is close to China, the Phillipines, South China Sea, Indonesia, and Australia. Practically dooming it. Argentina on the other hand, is a stable producer of many foods and has lots of arable land, and is far away from any major targets.

[@katetoolate234]

3:35 I can feel my stomach dropping looking at that graphic.😶

[@Multi1]

I love that the music is so happy.

[@lbg5340]

as a australian i see this as an absolute win

[@dragonfly4441]

This video was so terrifying, it gave me heartburn. Not even the pun at the end helped.

[@VKSgtSLaughter]

You and me both! 😱

[@mikkosaarinen3225]

I understand that nukes are really scary and that's kind of their point. For example Putin is "sabre rattling" to keep legitimacy high at home and to scare the general populace in Europe/US in hopes that they won't support backing Ukraine. He's talking big while at the same time making sure not to actually make any moves that would indicate the usage of nukes. For example when he's talking about moving nuclear capable weapons it doesn't actually mean anything for one simple reason. Basically all of Russias missiles for example are nuclear capable, it's not the missiles it's the warheads that can be installed that are special. But there's an even bigger reason why you can rest easy. Nukes aren't there to be used, they're a deterrence. Countries have very public nuclear doctrines where they outline the use cases for nukes. Simplified they are there to counter existential threats. In the case of Russia their nuclear use cases can be distilled to a) if they're nuked b) if someone tried to distrupt their ability to use their nukes c) if the sovereignty of Russia is threatened i.e. NATO tries to march on Moscow. The nuclear taboo is so strong that no nation will break it outside the most extreme circumstances. And even before that they will give very explicit warnings that tell the other side to back down. France even has a mininuke that's specifically designed to make it clear that they're super serious and the other side better back down and negotiate or they're doing the whole Armageddon thing. Further evidence of the strength of the taboo is that both nations and individuals have consistently not used nukes even when they could have. For example India had nukes before Pakistan and easily could have used them. But they didn't, because of the nuclear taboo. On an individual level if you want nightmare fuel read up on the two cases where singular Soviet officers prevent probable armageddons. TLDR Nuclear war would be very bad and the idea is super scary but the possibility of one actually breaking out is very small and everyone involved (even Putin if you concentrate on his actions instead of his words) is actively working to prevent one. So unless Biden starts suddenly talking about wanting to ride an Abrams all the way to Moscow you can sleep safe 😊

[@korakys]

I wouldn't worry about it, the science about this has been debunked thoroughly for decades.

[@popeo1973]

Like 15 nuke can start a ice age

[@TDOPB]

@@korakys Yep! If 1500 kt could start a -2 drop in temperatures, we should all have dropped like cattle from Tambora. And it only took us down 6 degrees, for like 6 years (I think that's the number, don't quote me) 60 megatons of explosive force, not to mention the amount of ash expelled probably being many times what a 60-megaton explosion could *ever* release.

[@elohceem4247]

Love the Simon and Marceline reference at the start of the video

[@Han_Solo6712]

Love the adventure time reference in the beginning.

[@joshuagrahm3607]

Iirc the studies you cite were informed largely by the TTAPS paper which intentionally erred on the side of overestimation. Recent studies that start with updated models and assumptions about weapon count and usage paint a much less devastating picture

[@vakusdrake3224]

Those studies on most people starving in a year also pretty egregiously underestimate the amount of food stores and how long they'd last (not taking into account that we'd probably shift to a less meat heavy diet in order to have *way* more grain to feed people).

[@8is]

Neil Halloran has a great video on that. The Nuclear Winter Theory is definitely not as clear cut as this video is making it out to be.

[@josephburchanowski4636]

I still find it bonkers that people trust any Nuclear winter study that Owen Toon is a part of after TTAPS paper was debunked.

[@mikkosaarinen3225]

Being that as it may, I think in this one case overestimation is a good thing. It's in all our best interest to have the idea of nuclear war be something no one thinks is even worth considering.

[@8is]

@@mikkosaarinen3225 I mean, nuclear winter or not. A nuclear war is still the most lose-lose situation possible and would result in complete and utter societal collapse. I guess though that if you actually believed that a nuclear winter would bring the extinction of humanity, you wouldn't prepare for it whatsoever. I don't believe that and if you don't, it might be worth considering making contingency plans to help the survivors just in case a nuclear war ever occurs, which is totally possible since it has accidentally almost happened multiple times. Neil Halloran doesn't bring up this idea in his video, but he also discusses other reasons for and against overestimating the danger of a nuclear winter.

[@tekuaniaakab2050]

Ah yes winter wonderland for the holiday spirit

[@teddyfurstman1997]

Glad we are learning about the effects of a terrible Nuclear War to prevent it from Happening. Thanks.

[@halicusnguyen8864]

The Adventure Time reference made my jaw drop...

[@Praisethesunson]

The flash from a nuclear weapon in Japan made my great cousin go blind.

[@luizotavio2116]

I loved the Simon and Marceline in the first frame of the video!

[@lapiswolf2780]

I didn't know those were supposed to be them.

[@jasony25]

I like the adventure time reference.

[@xaviercordova762]

Ironically the fact they are so powerful has stopped other wars because since they are so powerful no one wants to attack in fear of the nuclear bomb

[@dhawthorne1634]

Awwww, Simon and Marcie

[@NC-oy8hq]

If you are standing inside the blast radius , it most certainly will make you no longer living.

[@vice.nor.virtue]

Literally vaporised.

[@aaaaaattttttt5596]

Hmmmm you sure?.. you shouldn't spread fake & baseless rumours on this science channel

[@dariusurbanovic6797]

0:01 is that supposed to be Simon and Marceline?

[@noobboi1688]

Yes

[@tothgabor7188]

Thx!

[@PigeonFlare]

Dang, now I hate nuclear blasts!

[@karolinaj5045]

So nuclear war could potentially solve Global Warming... by reversing the problem

[@andyfriederichsen]

Wiping out millions of people is not a good thing, especially when the point of protecting the environment is to preserve the only planet we have to live on and thus keep ourselves from going extinct.

[@crowhaveninc.2103]

Global Warming could also lead to an ice-age. It actually speeds up global. At least, that's how I understand it. I'm just a lay person who tries to stay informed.

[@stocktonjoans]

pretty sure nukes have a large carbon footprint, both before _and_ after detonation

[@jsosianimations]

@@stocktonjoans yeah but bombing citys reduces their carbon footprint

[@thelibyanplzcomeback]

I love how the thumbnail references adventure time.

[@qdllc]

If it's any comfort, the projections are that IF there was a nuclear war, it would be a limited exchange, not everyone throwing everything they have at one time.

[@redlancelot2634]

This is a type of war where no one can win.

[@devil5cry]

The only winning move is not to play How about a nice game of chess?

[@Praisethesunson]

I know some deep sea tube worms that are quite excited about human civilization destroying itself(again).

[@kingol4801]

Depends on the definition of war and winning. If your win condition is simply destroying all enemies, you will win given enough success.

[@devil5cry]

@@kingol4801 by committing national suicide? Yeah sure But for what cost

[@AKU666]

Problem is that someone can think otherwise

[@terranova1330]

I've actually thought of a possible nuclear contingency. A series of massive, deep-drilled underground cities (they would have to be able to hold at least 200 people each, so that genetic variation still exists) which would grow food using UV lights, and probably be powered by either geo-thermal, nuclear (slightly risky), or wind power (would require surface maintenance)

[@azzy-551]

geothermal would be the best option honestly, wind power is way too unreliable. As for nuclear, it's not even the 'risk' of a nuclear accident but getting fuel would be difficult.

[@reaganharder1480]

I suspect wind would be entirely unfeasible. Nuke probably wouldn't be so bad as one might think, assuming these cities are put together by governments that have access to fisile elements, as it wouldn't take too much storage to have enough fuel for 50-100 years, during which time hopefully the surface would get back to livable conditions. Geothermal probably would make the most sense though, since i'm pretty sure the main drawback is having to drill way down, and since you're already drilling way down anyway

[@scotty3739]

city of ember much? lol

[@KevinJohnson-cv2no]

If we (The US) had just kept funneling funds into the SDI, we wouldn't have to worry about this anymore lol

[@Time_Rat]

@@KevinJohnson-cv2no Ueah they just put most of it into the Air force and the Navy

[@jaypaans3471]

LOL that disclaimer in the bottom right corner, at 2:06, is SO smart!

[@muffinfood9708]

we should test this hypothesis

[@Nagria2112]

i found a new argument for climate regulations in this video. 1,5°C climate goal seems so little to many. whats the diffrence between 3 and 1,5 - hard to show a normy. but if a iceage is 7°C colder then 1,5°C/year is GIANT

[@8is]

It's difficult to say anything precise about what a 1,5°C world would look like.

[@josephsalomone]

I mean 7C is huge. That means most Northern temperate climates are now freezing for 9 months of the year, and that isn't accounting for the major change in weather patterns that would occur as well, which would just make those Northern Climates even colder. 16C is ridiculous to think about. That would make most of the world's population live in perpetual winter. As summer highs would now match winter highs, and winter highs would now be that much colder. Most of the world would become permafrost. 3C is a catastrophic change in global temperature increase. 3C is realistically where we will end up, and that is nothing short of a catastrophe. Just search "Climate Tipping Points", so many get triggered at 3C. Possibly ones like the Thwaites Glacier are already triggered, which is an additional 2 feet of sea level rise, more than tripling current rise, all rather suddenly, in about a span of 5 years. And this isn't hard to imagine either. We are currently, at 1C, experiencing global droughts and global record-breaking heatwaves. We hit 50C here last year and became tied with death valley for the hottest place in North America, and was momentarily the hottest place on earth, and I live above the 45th parallel in a rainforest. This past year we saw both the Artic and Antarctic hit record-breaking temperatures, on the same day. Things are way out of wack, and we are hoping for a 2C change, or twice what we currently have, which is probably enough to fully melt all glaciers on the planet.

[@Nagria2112]

@@8is yes But If 7C is an iceage Then 1,5C is 21% of a iceage.

[@Nagria2112]

@@josephsalomone amazing comment. Thanks

[@davidrojas4687]

It means theres an event so vast and cold it drops global temperatures, and may distort some natural phenomena

[@xb70valkyriech]

Did the firebombing of cities during WW2 release significant black carbon into the stratosphere?

[@kedrednael]

According to some model by Alan Robock the firebombing in WW2 should have resulted in a temperature drop of 0.1-0.2 °C. It was a bit colder than you might expect in the years after the war, but it wasn't found to be significant in their study. So, maybe it happened.

[@xb70valkyriech]

@@kedrednael interesting, thanks for the info

[@Praisethesunson]

I believe the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden are the only two that resulted in firestorms that made it to the stratosphere. The answer to your question is yes but it definitely wasn't much compared to a full nuclear launch.

[@apriliahussna4561]

Gotta get started on that bunker

[@titan4125]

That relaxing guitar song fits so well with the theme

[@normalertyp5467]

FINALLY A SOLID SOLUTION FOR GLOBAL WARMING 😂😂😂

[@jasc4364]

I have a question. We know that a lot of the nuclear explosion's fireball gets lost ascending in the atmosphere. Is there a way to spread this fireball more efficiently on the earth surface? Like a force field or a counter nuclear explosion flattening the fireball on a much larger surface?

[@kedrednael]

When the shockwave of a nuclear bomb reflects against the ground you can see the effect a shockwave has on the fireball. It deforms a bit but not much. If you detonated another nuclear bomb above another one it would probably just make it rise faster since the column of air is heated even more. Why would you want to spread it more effectively :[

[@yagzkerimcnar7356]

Lad is minmaxing fucking nukes

[@ReCaptchaHeinz]

I immediately recognized the map of Madrid City at the beginning of the video... it's a weird honor that my city appears in a minute earth video ^^

[@eliscerebralrecyclingbin7812]

Cool thanks

[@ralmslb]

2:00 Global Warming resolved!!

[@hanchen267]

For reference: a 30 degrees Celsius hot day in nuclear winter gets cooled down to a pathetic, cold 14 degrees Celsius

[@lih3391]

Thats not all it does, if you know how connected global temperatures are with the climate and water, I hope thats not what you're implying

[@hanchen267]

I know how it works, I just don’t know how to explain it

[@Cuarentaydos]

Why is cold pathetic? :(

[@hanchen267]

With pathetic I mean weak With weak I mean it’s not strong, the temperature is weak

[@hanchen267]

Like I said, I don’t know how to explain it, I think I meant it as a metaphor

[@sheriffbutterball7824]

love the adventure time reference in the beginning lol

[@nerfgunguy4575]

I'm pretty sure factoring in the heat from the nuck in the global temperature average after a nuke is detonated would seem to increase the average by a lot

[@user-lx1is9cu6w]

_"y not nuke nuke winter?" - Albert Einstein_

[@TheNopster753]

The most famous Einstein quote

[@ultimoguerreiro82]

Live in central Brazil, average 30C temperatures around here. Maximum 46c, minimum 2C. I think many would survive down here. In an event of a global nuclear showdown, the world will be soccer and samba mutants.

[@ItIsTheLordWhoKeepsme]

Kkkkk

[@anirbanpatra3017]

Sooner or later,oil companies will propose this as a solution to Global Warming

[@Nothingbig1398]

I like the adventure time reference there

[@evanchapman9395]

Wow, I used to be all for nuclear war but now I've reconsidered.

[@melvinhotdogman6926]

@@ghostryydr Prob hating Russians in cold wars

[@MindLaboratory]

This comment is hilarious and underrated

[@theawecat27]

so glad you've reconsidered!

[@alex2005z]

I used to be against nuclear war but now I've redonsidered

[@kingol4801]

I mean, that is the only logical conclusion that one can unironically make. Only a pretense of a nigh-apocalyptic situation can bring an actual, meaningful, long-lasting change to the world. Our world, as we know it, would never become what it is right now if not for WW2. The society has became a lot less violent (in general) than throughout the entirety span of human history. Medicine and technology advanced rapidly because of the war. In many ways, any wide-scale war, nuclear or not, would lead to some positive externalities, ultimately. That is, of course, if some meaningful fraction humanity is capable of surviving that. So, in a somewhat dark utilitarian view, world may NEED nuclear war at some point to progress. Of course, it would be ideal if such extreme shakedown/reset is not necessary at all, and we can wake up tomorrow (or someday) to a beautiful, content, violence-free world. But what is ideal and what works best in practice are often different things. I can totally see some perfectly valid arguments as to “support the war”. Not to support or incite the war, but more so as to reflect on it auspiciously.

[@rodrigop9714]

0:30 If they nuke Madrid just like in the video my house is safe, yay :3

[@LHSMeleeClub]

Nice Adventure Time reference at the start of the video!

[@bartmannn6717]

Aaaah....I love the sound of total nuclear annihilation and death explained calmly, accompanied with nice, relaxing guitar music in the morning.

[@Luzbel809]

0:00 isn't this guy Simon Petrikov?

[@MossMothMyBeloved]

Looks like it!

[@doublemccreeper2701]

Perfect, now we can fix global warming ☺️ 2:09

[@Victor-sw4ne]

loved the commentary that people were looking into this type of proccess to help reduce global temperatures, but nuking cities is NOT the answer :)

[@QmiStudying]

Hey can you make a video about the impact of clothing and fashion to the environment?

[@cerosis]

We all gotta work hard to prevent these things

[@ragnkja]

Yeah.

[@deleted_handle]

Nope, I'm not.

[@gradientO]

Done 👍

[@MoonGlow22]

Can you explain how?

[@vasilisdouklias6992]

@@MoonGlow22 Any human intelligent enough to possess nukes should know that it is not advantageous to their longterm survival(evident by this video and many others) to use nukes or instigate a nuclear war. This argument breaks down if the human in possesion of nuclear weapons is mentally unstable, has lost the will to self preserve, or is about to die anyway and has nothing to lose. What we can do is not allow human leaders to joke around with nuclear threats, or even make serious threats. There are more extreme solutions I can think for dictators or any uncooperating human, but this is as much as I can say with my limited knowledge.

[@notmaireelneim]

I _hate_ it when the Earth warms up by 2 degrees. I _hate_ it when the Earth cools down by 2 degrees.

[@kevinfontanari]

Can the previous thumbnail be found somewhere? It was really cool (pun intended).

[@52flyingbicycles]

The best place to be during a nuclear war is ground zero

[@EricaCalman]

This is the infamous 'nuclear winter' that they used to talk about.

[@akka8588]

How so? Like was this the bleak scenario that was discussed during the times when nuclear Armageddon was fantasized a lot? Cause if so this was definitely before my time

[@KevinJohnson-cv2no]

And has since been debunked

[@Praisethesunson]

@@akka8588 yes.

[@Praisethesunson]

@@KevinJohnson-cv2no No it hasn't. The people who you think "debunked it" were working on claiming there is no link between second hand tobacco smoke and cancer before they fooled you about the impact of nuclear weapons.

[@linuxization4205]

And theres people who say "global warming" is the problem.

[@Manas-co8wl]

Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. - Robert Frost

[@pratulpan3737]

class 10th NCERT English book beehive

[@plygem6927]

Fire and Ice poem?

[@ShaneKnysh]

Unrelated to this video, but I'm subscribed with notifications but the videos dont show up in my feed.

[@alainpbat3903]

I see your Simon and marceline reference. Thanks for the post traumatic flashback to that show

[@DomikaClarke]

I was always worried that we Canadians would never be able to survive an ice age up in our Northern latitudes but we weren't included in the asterisk. Guess we're already acclimated enough from years of going to fetch the mail in our shorts and flannel coats.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

Canada go to -120°c in winter

[@hylacinerea970]

inuuk are built different, I saw a video of a dude field dressing a duck without any gloves on so he could get all up in there and he didn't seem to be hurting

[@Praisethesunson]

You just get to starve.

[@Wolf-od8yr]

​@@carkawalakhatulistiwaCorrect

[@omaryousifkamal4290]

Nope u cant Urban people can never survive the wild we are used too comfort. Only those who grow in a farm do.

[@rzu1474]

Hasn't this been debunked? Something about nukes not causing that bad fires cause the shockwave or something

[@kedrednael]

The shockwave could start extra fires in modern cities, because the resulting destruction leads to a lot of broken gas pipes etc.

[@rzu1474]

@@kedrednael Like any other bomb

[@josephburchanowski4636]

@@kedrednael It is well regarded that fires like the 1906 San Francisco fire would not occur in modern concrete jungles. So the assumption that a nuclear weapon would be able to produce such firestorms in modern cities is unfounded.

[@kedrednael]

@@rzu1474 Yes, though it is hard to drop millions of tons of bombs on a city. That power is contained in one nuclear bomb. The US sometimes did nuclear bomb effect research by just detonating a huge pile of TNT.

[@rzu1474]

@@kedrednael The US Did that a lot during WW2 Korea and Vietnam

[@Edmonton-of2ec]

*slowly growing ball of hot plasma in the distance* Oh yeah, that thousand degree bubble of really hot stuff? Not at all dangerous to human health, it’s the radiation you need to be worried about 😉

[@Celis.C]

It's simple. By definition, a war is a lose-lose situation. Therefore, there _are no winners._

[@jaca2899]

2:30 Can someone tell me what map projection this is??

[@alex2005z]

Isnt it in the top right corner? Or is the link to something else?

[@jaca2899]

@@alex2005z the top right corner does not say which map projection it is

[@jaca2899]

Stereographic projection. It's my favorite. Go look up old timey maps by googling "double hemisphere stereographic projection". It's a shame that they don't use this projection today as often.

[@jaca2899]

(continued) Hmm... actually, I'm not so sure that it's *exactly* stereographic, because the lines of latitude are supposed to appear as circular arcs, but here they don't appear as circular arcs. But it's very close to stereographic

[@jaca2899]

(continued) I just realized.... I'm replying to my own comment from months ago 😭😭

[@InfraSolart]

I thought this video was going to be about fallout. Actually, I feel like you didn't mention fallout at all, is it included in radiation deaths?

[@Praisethesunson]

I mean. The vast VAST majority of people who die from total nuclear war will starve to death. So yes, people will die of fallout. But they will the lucky ones.

[@Astrofrank]

​@@Praisethesunson Not really - death caused by radiation can be very "unpleasant" as well.

[@MysticX_X]

Video - Frames with Nuclear explosions and fear Bg music - Fun Jolly

[@lasttime500]

Funny thing is that even though the atmosphere will be loaded with black carbon, most of the sunlight will still pass through it which will still make the sky look bright like normal, just slightly dimmer if you observe closely. Just blocking 1% of sunlight away is enough for global average temperature to drop by 1°C

[@choty7066]

If you were the person in control of all of the us nuclear missiles and you detected a nuclear strike from russia or china (you know this with 100% accuracy) would you launch a counterstrike causing mutual destruction?

[@imza5535]

The US politicians definitely will. I mean they're the only ones that HAVE done it.

[@doc.squatch]

No

[@andyfriederichsen]

Yes.

[@Anankin12]

Recent studies actually found this would have very limited consequences not just on the temperature but also on everything else, as due to new data we know estimates were way off in how long smoke particles would remain in the atmosphere. That said I'd prefer people believed the nuclear winter legend and its pressure prevented their use, rather than people not being scared and using the nukes. Edit: lots of typos

[@santiagocardenas4661]

Post sources pls

[@tacticlol]

I think that nuclear winter always was a (justifiably) politically motivated theory. Science has authority and nuclear winter was a scientific sheen on the truth that we can really never use those weapons.

[@Seraphim262]

@breakfastallday Can you back your conspiracy theory with any evidence?

[@Goro_Maj1ma]

Recent studies my asshole.

[@robertalaverdov8147]

Ok let's disregard nuclear winter. How about the fact that 90% of the global food supply is dependent on fertilizers, pesticides, non pollinating seeds and farming equipment that originates primarily in the US, China, Europe, Russia and Japan. All of whom would become party to the chitshow. The advances stemming from the green revolution allowed the global population to reach 8 billion today. Without modern agriculture the global population would struggle to sustain 1.5-2 billion people. And here is the kicker, from what has been revealed with the declassified docs so far. We know that both sides would target each others agricultural production capacity. So yeah, death toll in the 4-6 billion. No nuclear winter required.

[@RicoGG]

the tsar bomb should not be used as your scale for a nuclear attack btw

[@friedec3622]

I hate countries who own nukes. They're not thinking about neutral countries who doesn't partake in the war. It's safe to assume whoever use nuke for war, they're the enemy of humanity.

[@Praisethesunson]

I mean yeah. North Korea is ironically the only nuclear power that doesn't have a historical track record of imperial expansion.

[@Stirling96]

0:52 It's one of the largest volcanoes in the Philippines and it caused a lot destruction.

[@RobBot00]

Hey, let me just start by saying I deeply trust and respect Minute Earth and its creators! I'm a bit confused by some of the conclusions in this video. There is a video by Neil Halloran that deeply explores the science used to determine the impacts of a nuclear war - specifically the concern about a nuclear winter. His conclusion is that there is little evidence to suggest that a nuclear winter would occur as a result of many (perhaps all existing) nuclear warheads being detonated. I've linked his video here, I'm curious how this interacts with the conclusions from this video?kzbin.info/www/bejne/gavTeqagnMajd80 DISCLAIMER: This not intended to be a pro-nuclear-war message! Nuclear war has incredibly negative impacts outside of the nuclear-winter result.

[@deionalexeigonzales]

The little drawing at the intro reminded me of ice king before he was ice king for adventure time

[@TheCoCoDOGGO]

nice adventure time reference

[@the4spaceconstantstetraqua886]

Try making a video about renewable energies and think of them like in the warm-blooded vs cold blooded video. Technically every energy is renewable, but some take way too long for practical use. The "most renewable" energy is solar, while the "least renewable" is nuclear. 3 metrics. Average kilowattage per hour you get per year, natural storage [wind stores it in the atmosphere], and natural depletion. [wind again, losing energy to friction with the surface]

[@8is]

Nuclear isn't renewable, but it is sustainable.

[@guystreamsstuff7841]

Coal isn't renewable either :P

[@Astrofrank]

​@@guystreamsstuff7841 Coal renews over geological time spans, but uranium and thorium on earth don't.

[@guystreamsstuff7841]

@@Astrofrank no, it isn't. For coal to appear, a lot of planetary factors need to come together. Those factors have only arisen during the carboniferous and permian periods, where 90% of coal comes from.

[@Astrofrank]

@@guystreamsstuff7841 Most lignite deposits are far younger (Paleogene, Miocene), and if we don't remove them, at least some of them might turn into black coal.