0632005 nuclear war · 2017. 3. 12. · 1. policy analysis: the social and economic effects of...

NUCLEAR WAR

SAHAGIAN PAKAR MAKLUMAT PERPUSTAKAAN NEGARA MALAYSIA

Contents:

1. Policy Analysis: The Social and Economic Effects of Nuclear War

2. Peace and Nuclear War

3. Project Gutenberg Etext of Worldwide Effects of Nuclear

4. The World of Nuclear Science: History of Exploring Radiation: Structure

5. The World of Nuclear Science: History of Discovery of Radioactive Elements

6. The World of Nuclear Science: History of Two Discoveries: X-ray and Radiation

7. The World of Nuclear Science: Issues of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Introduction

8. Russia sees high risk of Nuclear War

9. Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Stability and Nuclear Strategy in Pakistan

10. A review of the Physics of Large Urban Fire

11. Recent Assessments of the Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War

12. Cold War's End Leaves Danger of Nuclear War

13. Nuclear War Unthinkable?

14. The Effect on the Inhabitants of a City of the Explosion of a Nuclear Bomb

15. Agreement between the United States f America and the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics on the Prevention of Nuclear War

16. FAQ : Protection in a Nuclear War

Sources:

1. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa009es.htm1

2. http://www.ed.gov/database/ERIC-Digest/ed26413.htm1

3. http://nuketesting.enviroweb. org/nukeffect/nukwr 10. txt

4. http://library.thinkquest.org/1 004606/history/untrotogen.sctml ?tq skipl=letqtime=0612

5. http://www.dawn.com/2002/02/08/top6.htm

6. http://www.pngwash.org/september11/pakistan-nuclear.htm

7. http://www.robertscheer.com/l-natcolunim/99-co /041399.htm

8. http://www.ki4u.com/unthinkable.htm

9. http://www.geotcities.com/Area51/Vault/5862/Nuc1ear.html

10. http://www.state.gov/www/globallarms/treaties/preventl.html

11. http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/qI141.html

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR .. Page 1 of3

Policy Analysis No.9 April 21, 1982

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR

by Arthur M. Katz and Sima R. Osdoby Sima R. Osdoby is a graduate student in the Department of

Political Science, The Johns Hopkins University.

Executive Summary

Nuclear war evokes images of mass destruction and mutilation -- images so overwhelming that they normally represent the end, not the beginning, of a dialogue. Yet, the time seems ripe -- indeed, some would say critical -- to expand the nature and scope of the domestic dialogue about nuclear war. Based on its perception of a strategic nuclear imbal- ance, the administration has made a commitment to long-term expansion of U.S. strategic nuclear capabilities, including plans for a modified B-1 bomber, a version of the MX missile, and expansion of Trident submarine production. At the same time, growing public awareness and concern about nuclear proliferation and prospects for a nuclear war are manifested in the current wave of grassroots and congressional action calling for a nuclear weapons freeze and challenging federal crisis relocation plans. Unfortunately, saying that nuclear war is bad and is to be avoided is not enough.

There are significant difficulties in establishing and maintaining a dialogue about nuclear war that would enable policy-makers as well as citizens to analyze realistically the implications of our current and proposed policies, and seek to implement necessary changes. Those images of holocaust and unspeakable damage often close off debate. They are reinforced by the basic strategy of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. -- deterrence, or mutually assured destruction (MAD). The object of this strategy, pursued since the 1960s, is as it states, irrevocable destruction. MAD promises that even after a surprise attack (or first strike) both adversaries

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pailuves.html 6/13/02

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR .. Page 2 of3

would retain weapons sufficient to inflict totally unacceptable damage on the other. Therefore, an adversary would be

Arthur M. Katz is the author of Life After Nuclear War (1982, Ballinger and Co.), upon which this article is based. He also has served as consultant to the Joint Congressional Committee on Defense Production, for which he wrote Economic and Social Consequences of Nuclear Attacks on the United States (1974, Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Com-mittee ). deterred from initiating a nuclear war because of the cer- tainty of devastating retaliation. On the other hand, technological advances producing sophisticated weapons capable of increased accuracy and targeting flexibility have created a set of confusing and expanding hypothetical versions of "con-trollable" or "Iimited" nuclear war. We therefore have to determine the credibility of scenarios that claim to be capable of producing attacks with surgically precise accuracy, permitting nations to engage in a new type of subtle, benign nuclear exchange -- more an apparent extension of conventional warfare than a massive holocaust. In other words, "limited" nuclear war, at least in strategic planning terms, has crept into our vocabularies and has become "thinkable," i.e., potentially survivable. As unobtrusively, a companion strategy of "crisis relocation" -- massive evacuation occur- ban areas in advance of a threatened attack to reduce casualties -- also has become a focus of interest because of its proposed ability to support successful "war fighting. "

The range of scenarios -- from the horrifying to the arcane -- has not created a common ground for public discussion. This debate needs to be reconstructed in a manner that is comprehensible to the nation. Unfortunately, the type of information normally presented is for only limited use to the public, or even to policy-makers.

The issues are generally presented in tenus of comparative nuclear strength -- rarely in tenus of overall purpose, and especially, intended consequences. Thus, the discussion invariably focuses on relative numbers -- warheads and gross destructive power (megatonnage) -- and sometimes comparative technology, weapon accuracy, and survivability. While these gross measures of strength are legitimate and important aspects of the strategic debate, strategic decisions are essentially political decisions. As such, they should reflect not

http://www . cato. org/pubs/pas/panuves .html 6/13/02

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF J\TUCLEAR ., Page 3 of 3

only their proposed effects on an adversary's perception of national strength, but also a realistic understanding of whether these strategies will produce effects that are acceptable to the nation and its leaders.

The thesis of this paper is that the effects of nuclear war on a complex, technical/industrial society are not evaluated adequately in the development of strategic policies. If the full range of economic, social, and political effects, as well as casualty projections, of fighting various types of proposed nuclear war were to be examined realistically, our strategic goals and weapons requirements would change, in some cases significantly. To put it bluntly, the true damage of nuclear war to society has been greatly understated. This leads to certain basic questions:

-- How many weapons must survive a first strike to retain capacity sufficient to deliver a crippling counter- attack to an adversary?

-- Are weapons requirements for effective deterrence seriously overstated or misperceived?

-- Are "limited" nuclear war and its companion strategy, crisis relocation, thought to be viable nuclear strategies when they are not?

To try to answer these questions, we will look at what might happen to the United States or any other complex tech-nological/industrial society after each of two hypothetical attacks -- a "limited" or "counterforce" nuclear attack aimed at military targets and an "economic" or "countervalue" attack aimed at urban areas. The civil defense strategy of crisis relocation is also analyzed. While casualties and physical destruction will be the starting point, we will concentrate on the impact on the economic and political structures and social support mechanisms of the attacked society. While the study focuses on the U.S., there is ample reason to believe the U.S.S.R. or any other industrialized nation would suffer similar, if not worse, consequences from a nuclear attack.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa009es.html 6/13/02

12. ED264163 1985-11-00 Peace and Nuclear War. ERIC Digest .. Page 1 of6

ERIC Identifier: ED264163 Publication Date: 1985-11-00 Author: Zola, John - Zola, Jaye Source: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education Boulder CO.

Peace and Nuclear War. ERIC Digest No. 21.

THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT ACCESS ERIC 1-800-LET-ERIC

The increasing COnCelTI in the United States about nuclear weapons is paralleled by the interest of educators in providing peace and nuclear war education in the public schools. Numerous school districts, both small and large, are adopting specific resolutions mandating the inclusion of peace and nuclear-war related content in the K-12 program. As with any educational change movement, there is also a measure of controversy, in this case focused upon the appropriateness of teaching these topics in the public schools and whether such topics can be addressed in a non-biased and non-politicized fashion.

WHAT IS PEACE AND NUCLEAR WAR EDUCATION?

Nuclear war education focuses on content he ginning with the Manhattan Project and the first testing of a successful nuclear weapon. Included in a nuclear war unit would be such topics as the workings of nuclear weapons, historical information on the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, national security decision making since World War II, current developments in weapons technology, and efforts to achieve arms control.

Higher order thinking skills are emphasized in nuclear war education, including interpretation of data (rather than simple recall), inquiry, synthesis, and evaluation. The issues related to nuclear war weapons are too weighty to allow students to avoid in-depth investigation and careful thought.

Peace education is a broader field than nuclear war education. It also

http://www . ed. gov / databases/ERI C Digests/ ed264163 .html 6/13/02

ED264163 1985-11-00 Peace and Nuclear War. ERIC Digest.. Page 2 of 6

includes content such as the role of violence and aggression in human cultures; the nature of conflict and means of conflict resolution; obstacles to peaceful resolution of conflicts on personal, interpersonal, and intemational Ievels: the history of social change; the history and role of warfare; and peace makers throughout history.

Not exhaustive, this list illustrates the broad scope of a peace education program. Inherent in the study of peace is the formulation of a definition of the term "peace." Problem solving, conflict resolution, and other integrative skills are developed in a peace education program.

Additionally, peace education focuses on broadening students' understanding of opposing viewpoints. This is not for the purpose of countering those viewpoints; rather, it is to help students see the validity of opposing viewpoints and work to find an appropriate middle ground where mutual understanding can lead to new solutions to the issues at hand. Thus, the elimination of polarized thinking is an important goal of peace education.

WHY TEACH PEP,-CE AND NUCLEAR WAR EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

Any content area must work from a basic rationale if it is to have a place in the school curriculum. A rationale serves as a justification to the community for the teaching of a certain content or skill area. Peace and nuclear war education must have a clear rationale if they are to be accepted into the school program.

A credible rationale for peace and nuclear war education contains four basic themes. These are:

-- The general goals of education in American society that speak to the development of capable, thinking, competent young adults. Peace and nuclear war education are appropriate content for developing these abilities in students.

-- The relevancy of peace- and nuclear-war-related content in today's world. Nuclear weapons and national-security-related issues are of paramount interest to our society and to young people. No transient topic, peace and nuclear war form a core content that all citizens must understand. One place to begin that process is in the public schools.

-- The psychological concerns expressed in interviews with young people regarding nuclear 'war and hopes for the future. It appears that nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war hang like shadows over the young people of this nation. Openly addressing and confronting these fears with

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed264163.html 6/13/02

ED264163 1985-11-00 Peace and Nuclear War. ERlC Digest.. Page 3 of 6

information and appropiate pedagogy can help young people cope with these most natural concerns.

-- The preparation of young adults for participation in this nation's democratic institutions. Since the founding of the United States, the importance of an informed electorate has been the cornerstone of participatory democracy. Peace and nuclear war are issues that citizens must be competent to address as they make decisions in the choice of leaders and policy.

Overall, peace and nuclear war education seeks to transmit information on key issues of the day, develop skills and values for civic involvement, encourage a sense of global interdependence, and promote the notion that even problems of this magnitude can be successfully addressed by informed and concerned individuals.

WHA T ABOUT THE CONTROVERSIAL NATURE OF PEACE AND NUCLEAR WAR EDUCATION?

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of teaching peace and nuclear war education is the controversial nature of the topics. Society seems to agree that nuclear war is to be avoided, but there is no such agreement on the means to achieve this goal. Therein lies the controversy for peace and nuclear war educators.

Problems for teachers include reconciling individual political beliefs with the content to be addressed, finding non-biased materials, and anticipating reactions from parents and community members. In addition, the political environment now appears to encourage the avoidance of controversial issues in general in school, so extra caution is required to appropriately teach about peace and nuclear war. This being said, educators are nearly unanimous in the sentiment that schools must help students learn how to confront controversial issues in a thoughtful manner.

Basic guidelines for teaching about controversial issues are reflective of guidelines for all good education. The topic and materialmust be age-appropiate and appropriate for inclusion in the particular discipline. In the area of peace and nuclear war education, age appropriateness cannot be over-emphasized.

These topics are filled with frightening information, and it is not the place of the school to scare students. Teachers must take care to inform students, not indoctrinate them to one viewpoint or another. There must be balance in presentation of information and opinions, with a variety of perspectives being represented in a credible and honest fashion.

I

I _ http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERlCD.html 6/13/2007

ED264163 1985-11-00 Peace and Nuclear War. ERIC Digest.. Page 4 of 6 Numerous opportunities should be available for dialogue among students and with the teacher.

CONCLUDING CHALLENGES

Those interested in working with peace and nuclear war education need to consider the information described in this Digest and to reflect on the need for careful selection of materials and plans for implementing new curricula. The challenges for peace and nuclear war educators are many, including the following:

-- Those teaching peace and nuclear war education must familiarize themselves with both the content and processes necessary for credibly teaching this information and must take great care in selecting only age-appropriate lessons for their students.

--The controversial nature of peace and nuclear war education must be recognized, confronted and honestly addressed.

--Advocates of peace and nuclear war education need to work diligently, patiently, and cooperatively in bringing about the changes they seek.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Barber, Jacqueline, and others. NUCLEOGRAPHY: AN ANNOTATED GUIDE FOR PARENTS AND EDUCATORS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY, WAR, AND PEACE. Berkeley, CA: Nucleography, 1982. ED 247199.

Dane, Ernest B. NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE NUCLEAR AGE: BOOKLIST FOR LIBRARIES AND PUBLIC EDUCATION ABOUT THIS ISSUE. 1985. (Available from the author, #4 Jefferson Run Road, Great Falls, VA 22066.)

Dowling, John.

WAR PEACE FILM GUIDE. Chicago, IL: World Without War Publications, 1980. ED 198 048. "Education and the Threat of Nuclear War: A Special Issue." HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 54 (August 1984).

Jacobson, Willard, and others. "A Conceptual Framework for Teaching about Nuclear Weapons." SOCIAL EDUCATION 47 (NovemberDecember 1983):475-479.

Mayers, Teena. UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND ARMS CONTROL: A GUIDE TO THE ISSUES. Washington, DC: Arms Control Association, 1983. ED 250 216.

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed264163.htm1 6/13/02

ED264163 1985-11-00 Peace and Nuclear War. ERlC Digest .. Page 5 of6

NUCLEAR ARMS EDUCATION IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS. Muscatine, IA: The Stanley Foundation, 1985.

PERSPECTIVE: A TEACHING GUIDE TO CONCEPTS OF PEACE. Cambridge, MA: Educators for Social Responsibility, 1983. ED 240 023.

Shermis, S. Samuel. "Critieria for Selecting Controversial Curricula." INDIANA SOCIAL STUDIES QUARTERLY 36 (Autumn 1983):33-39.

Sloan, Douglas, ed. EDUCATION FOR PEACE AND DISARMAMENT: TOWARD A LIVING WORLD. New York: Teachers College Press, 1983.

Snow, Roberta. DECISION MAKING IN A NUCLEAR AGE. Cambridge, MA: Educators for Social Responsibility, 1983. ED 255 412.

Stanford, Barbara, editor. PEACE MAKING: A GUIDE TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION. New York: Bantam Books, 1976.

A STRATEGY FOR PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH. Boston, VA: American Security Council Foundation, 1984.

Totten, Sam. "A Nuclear Arms Race Unit for Classroom Teachers." SOCIAL EDUCATION 47 (November-December 1983):507-510.

Zola, John, and Reny Sieck. TEACHING ABOUT CONFLICT, NUCLEAR WAR, AND THE FUTURE. Denver, CO: University of Denver, Center for International Relations, 1984. ED 252 473.

This Digest was prepared for the ERIC Clearinghouse for Studies/Social Science Education, 1985.

This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under OERI contract. The opinions expressed in this report do not' necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the Department of Education.

Title: Peace and Nuclear War. ERIC Digest No. 21. Document Type: Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (lAPs) (071); Information Analyses--- ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); Descriptors: Controversial Issues (Course Content), Disarmament, Educational Needs, Elementary Secondary Education, Guidelines,

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed264163.html 6/13/02

_

ED264163 1985-11-00 Peace and Nuclear War. ERIC Digest .. Page 6 of6

Nuclear Warfare, Peace, Public Education, Social Studies, War Identifiers: ERIC Digests

[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERICDigests/ed264163.htm1 6/13/02

of23

**Project Gutenberg Etext of Worldwide Effects of Nuclear - Some Perspectives

Copyright laws are changing allover the world, be sure to the copyright laws for your country before posting these

Please take a look at the important information in this. We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keep electronic path open for the next readers. Do not remove

**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic T

**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since

*These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Dona

Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts further information is included below. We need your dona

Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War - - - Some Perspectives

by the u.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

October, 1996 [Etext #684J

**Project Gutenberg Etext of Worldwide Effects of Nuclear *****This file should be named nukwr10.txt or nukwr10.zip

Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, nukwr1 VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, nukwr1

We are now trying to release all our books one month in a of the official release dates, for time for better edit in

Please note: neither this list nor its contents are fina midnight of the last day of the month of any such announc The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated mon preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, c and editing by those who wish to do so. To be sure you h up to date first edition [xxxxxlOx.xxxJ please check file in the first week of the next month. Since our ftp progr a bug in it that scrambles the date [tried to fix and fai

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/nukeffct/nukwrlO.txt 6/13/02

of23

look at the file size will have to do, but we will try to new copy has at least one byte more or less.

Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)

We produce about two million dollars for each hour we wor fifty hours is one conservative estimate for how long it to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, co searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc projected audience is one hundred million readers. If ou per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we pro million dollars per hour this year as we release thirty-t files per month: or 400 more Etexts in 1996 for a total If these reach just 10% of the computerized population, t total should reach 80 billion Etexts.

The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillio Files by the December 31, 2001. [10,000 x 100,OOO,OOO=Tr This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million r which is only 10% of the present number of computer users should have at least twice as many computer users as that will require us reaching less than 5% of the users in 200

We need your donations more than ever!

All donations should be made to "Project Gutenberg/BU": tax deductible to the extent allowable by law. (BU = Bene University). (Subscriptions to our paper newsletter go t

For these and other matters, please mail to:

Project Gutenberg P. O. Box 2782 Champaign, IL 61825

When all other email fails try our Executive Director: Michael S. Hart

We would prefer to send you this information by email (Internet, Bitnet, Compuserve, ATTMAIL or MCImail) .

****** If you have an FTP program (or emulator), please FTP directly to the Project Gutenberg archives: [Mac u aers , do NOT point and click. . type]

http://nuketesting. enviroweb. org/nukeffct/nukwr 10. txt 6/13/02

of23

ftp uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu 'login: anonymous password: your@login cd etext/etext90 through /etext96 or cd etext/articles [get suggest gut for more informatio dir [to see files] get or mget [to get files. .set bin for zip files] GET INDEX?OO.GUT for a list of books and GET NEW GUT for general information and MGET GUT* for newsletters.

**Information prepared by the Project Gutenberg legal adv (Three Pages)

***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**STA Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: law They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not ou fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" state disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells yo you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to.

*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and acc this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can re a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the p you got it from. If you received this etext on a physica medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your req

ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tmetext, like most PROJECT GUTENB tm etexts, is a "public domain" work distributed by Profe Michael S. Hart through the Project Gutenberg Association Benedictine University (the "Project"). Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyr on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy a distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set f below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etex under thy Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/nukeffct/nukwrlO.txt 6/13/02 -

13.

Page 4 of23

To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public doma works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and a medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccura corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damage disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described be [lJ the Project (and any other party you may receive this etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, includi legal fees, and [2J YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE 0 UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONT INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUN OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if a you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within tha time to the person you received it from. If you received on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, such person may choose to alternatively give you a replac copy. If you received it electronically, such person may choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to receive it electronically.

THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHE WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO Y TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NO LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warrantie the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, an may have other legal rights.

INDEMNITY You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors, officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause


of23

[lJ distribution of this etext, [2J alteration, modificat or addition to the etext, or [3J any Defect.

DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm" You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, 0 er medium if you either delete this "Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenb or:

[lJ Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, t requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the etext or this "small print!" statement. You may how if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readab binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, including any form resulting from conversion by word cessing or hypertext software, but only so long as *EITHER*:

[*J The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, does *not* contain characters other than those intended by the author of the work, although ti (~), asterisk (*) and underline ( ) characters be used to convey punctuation intended by the author, and additional characters may be used t indicate hypertext links; OR

[*J The etext may be readily converted by the reade no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivale form by the program that displays the etext (as the case, for instance, with most word processo OR

[*J You provide, or agree to also provide on reques no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of t etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in E or other equivalent proprietary form) .

[2J Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of "Small Print!" statement.

[3J Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of net profits you derive calculated using the method y already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties payable to "Project Gutenberg Association / Benedict University" within the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were legally required to prepar yopr annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return.


of23

WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE T The Project gratefully accepts contributions in money, ti scanning machines, OCR software, public domain etexts, ro free copyright licenses, and every other sort of contribu you can think of. Money should be paid to "Project Guten Association / Benedictine University".

*END*THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.29.

Scanned by Gregory Walker, [email protected]. For an HT version of this document and additional public domain doc on nuclear history, visit Trinity Atomic Web Site: http://www.envirolink.org/issues/nuketesting/

WORLDWIDE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR - - - SOME PERSPECTIVES

U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1975.

CONTENTS

Foreword Introduction The Mechanics of Nuclear Explosions Radioactive Fallout

A. Local Fallout B.Worldwide Effects of Fallout

Alterati6ns of the Global Environment C. High Altitude Dust D. Ozone Some Conclusions

Note 1: Nuclear Weapons Yield Note 2: Nuclear Weapons Design Note 3: Radioactivity Note 4: Nuclear Half-Life Note 5: Oxygen, Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/nukeffct/nukwr 1 O.txt 6/13/02

of23

FOREWORD

Much research has been devoted to the effects of nuclear studies have been concerned for the most part with those consequences which would be suffered by a country that wa target of nuclear attack. Relatively few studies have ex worldwide, long term effects.

Realistic and responsible arms control policy calls for 0 about these wider effects and for making this knowledge a public. To learn more about them, the Arms Control and D (ACDA) has initiated a number of projects, including a Na Sciences study, requested in April 1974. The Academy's s Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations technical document of more than 200 pages, is now availab brief publication seeks to include its essential findings results of related studies of this Agency, and to provide background facts necessary for informed perspectives on t

New discoveries have been made, yet much uncertainty inev Our knowledge of nuclear warfare rests largely on theory fortunately untested by the usual processes of trial and paramount goal of statesmanship is that we should never 1 experience of nuclear war.

The uncertainties that remain are of such magnitude that must serve as a further deterrent to the use of nuclear w same time, knowledge, even fragmentary knowledge, of the nuclear weapons underlines the extreme difficulty that st of any nation would face in attempting to predict the res war. Uncertainty is one of the major conclusions in our haphazard and unpredicted derivation of many of our disco Moreover, it now appears that a massive attack with many nuclear detonations could cause such widespread and longenvironm~ntal damage that the aggressor cotintry might suf physiological, economic, and environmental effects even w response by the country attacked.

An effort has been made to present this paper in language require a scientific background on the part of the reader must deal in schematized processes, abstractions, and sta generalizations. Hence one supremely important perspecti supplied by the reader: the human perspective--the meanin physical/~tfects for individual human beings and for the

http://nuketesting. enviroweb. o rg/nukeffct/nukwr 10. txt 6/13/02

of23

civilized life.

Fred C. Ikle Director U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

INTRODUCTION

It has now been two decades since the introduction of the weapons into the military inventories of the great powers decade since the United States, Great Britain, and the So to test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. Today our und technology of thermonuclear weapons seems highly advanced knowledge of the physical and biological consequences of continuously evolving.

Only recently, new light was shed on the subject in a stu Control and Disarmament Agency had asked the NationalAca to undertake. Previous studies had tended to focus very radioactive fallout from a nuclear war; an important aspe study was its inquiry into all possible consequences, inc of large-scale nuclear detonations on the ozone layer whi life on earth from the sun's ultraviolet radiations. Ass detonation of 10,000 megatons--a large-scale but less tha "exchange," as one would say in the dehumanizing jargon 0 strategists--it was concluded that as much as 30-70 perce might be eliminated from the northern hemisphere (where a presumably take place) and as much as 20-40 percent from hemisphere. Recovery would probably take about 3-10 year Academy's study notes that long term global changes canno ruled out.

The reduced ozone concentrations would have a number of c outside the areas in which the detonations occurred. The notes, for example, that the resultant increase in ultrav "prompt incapacitating cases of sunburn in the temperate blindness in northern countries. "

Strange though it might seem, the increased ultraviolet r also be accompanied by a drop in the average temperature. change is open to question, but the largest changes would the higher latitudes, where crop production and ecologica sensitively dependent on the number of frost-free days an related to average temperature. The Academy's study conc changes due to nuclear war might decrease global surface

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/nukeffct/nukwrl. txt 6/13/02

of23

only negligible amounts or by as much as a few degrees. significance of this, the study mentioned that a cooling centigrade would eliminate commercial wheat growing in Ca

Thus, the possibility of a serious increase in ultraviole been added to widespread radioactive fallout as a fearsom the large-scale use of nuclear weapons. And it is likely reckon with still other complex and subtle processes, glo which could seriously threaten the health of distant popu event of an all-out nuclear war.

Up to now, many of the important discoveries about nuclea have been made not through deliberate scientific inquiry And as the following historical examples show, there has surprises.

"Castle/Bravo" was the largest nuclear weapon ever detona States. Before it was set off at Bikini on February 28, expected to explode with an energy equivalent of about 8 TNT. Actually, it produced almost twice that explosive p to 15 million tons of TNT.

If the power of the bomb was unexpected, so were the afte 6 hours after the explosion, a fine, sandy ash began to s Japanese fishing vessel Lucky Dragon, some 90 miles downw point, and Rongelap Atoll, 100 miles downwind. Though 40 from the proscribed test area, the vessel's crew and the heavy doses of radiation from the weapon's "fallout"--the and other debris sucked up in the fireball and made inten by the nuclear reaction. One radioactive isotope in the iodine-131, rapidly built up to serious concentration in of the victims, particularly young Rongelapese children.

More than any other event in the decade of testing large the atmosphere, Castle/Bravo's unexpected contamination 0 miles of the Pacific Ocean dramatically illustrated how I war could produce casualties on a colossal scale, far bey effects of blast and fire alone.

A number of other surprises were encountered during 30 ye weapons development. For example, what was probably man' modification of the global environment to date occurred i when a nuclear device was detonated 250 miles above Johns 1.4-megaton burst produced an artificial belt of charged in the earth's magnetic field. Though 98 percent of thes removed by natural processes after the first year, traces 6 or 7 years later. A number of satellites in low earth of the burst suffered severe electronic damage resulting

http://nuketesting.enviroweb . org/nukeffct/nukwr 10. txt 6/13/02

of23

and early failure. It became obvious that man now had th long term changes in his near-space environment.

Another unexpected effect of high-altitude bursts was the high-frequency radio communications. Disruption of the i reflects radio signals back to the earth) by nuclear burs Pacific has wiped out long-distance radio communications distances of up to 600 miles from the burst point.

Yet another surprise was the discovery that electromagnet havoc with electrical equipment itself, including some in that control the nuclear arms themselves.

Much of our knowledge was thus gained by chance--a fact w us with humility as we contemplate the remaining uncertai the certainties) about nuclear warfare. What we have lea nonetheless, to see more clearly. We know, for instance, earlier speculations about the after-effects of a global as far-fetched as they were horrifying--such as the idea worldwide accumulation of radioactive fallout would elimi the planet, or that it might produce a train of monstrous in all living things, making future life unrecognizable. accumulation of knowledge which enables us to rule out th possibilities also allows us to reexamine, with some scie other phenomena which could seriously affect the global e populations of participant and nonparticipant countries a

This paper is an attempt to set in perspective some of th effects of nuclear war on the global environment, with ern and peoples distant from the actual targets of the weapon

THE MECHANICS OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS

In nuclear explosions, about 90 percent of the energy is than one millionth of a second. Most of this is in the f and shock waves which produce the damage. It is this imm explosive power which could devastate the urban centers i war.

Compared with the immediate colossal destruction suffered the more subtle, longer term effects of the remaining 10 energy released by nuclear weapons might seem a matter of concern. But the dimensions of the initial catastrophe s overshadow the after-effects of a nuclear war. They would affecting nations remote from the fighting for many years

http://nuketesting.envlroweb.org/nukeffct/nukwr10.txt 6/13/02

Probably the most serious threat is cesium-137, a gamma e half-life of 30 years. It is a major source of radiation fallout, and since it parallels potassium chemistry, it i into the blood of animals and men and may be incorporated

Other hazards are strontium-90, an electron emitter with years, and iodine-131 with a half-life of only 8 days. S follows calcium chemistry, so that it is readily incorpor bones and teeth, particularly of young children who have cows consuming contaminated forage. Iodine-131 is a simi infants and children because of its concentration in the In addition, there is plutonium-239, frequently used in n A bone-seeker like strontium-90, it may also become lodge where its intense local radiation can cause cancer or oth Plutonium-239 decays through emission of an alpha particl and has a half-life of 24,000 years.

To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the exp weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years. Both are taken food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter.

Three types of radiation damage may occur: bodily damage and cancers of the thyroid, lung, breast, bone, and gastr tract); genetic damage (birth defects and constitutional diseases due to gonodal damage suffered by parents); and growth damage (primarily growth and mental retardation of and young children). Since heavy radiation doses of abou more (see "Radioactivity" note) are necessary to produce defects, these effects would probably be confined to area fallout in the nuclear combatant nations and would not be problem.

Page 11 of23

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/nukeffct/nukwrlO.txt

The nuclear fragments of heavy-element fission which are concern are those radioactive atoms (also called radionuc by emitting energetic electrons or gamma particles. (See note.) An important characteristic here is the rate of de measured in terms of "half-life"--the time required for original substance to decay--which ranges from days to th for the bomb-produced radionuclides of principal interest Half-Life" note.) Another factor which is critical in det hazard of radionuclides is the chemistry of the atoms. T whether they will be taken up by the body through respira cycle and incorporated into tissue. If this occurs, the damage from the destructive ionizing radiation (see "Radi is multiplied.

holocaust, because of the way nuclear explosions behave i and the radioactive products released by nuclear bursts.

When a weapon is detonated at the surface of the earth or the heat pulse vaporizes the bomb material, target, nearb underlying soil and rock, all of which become entrained i fast-rising fireball. As the fireball rises, it expands producing the distinctive mushroom cloud, signature of nu

The altitude reached by the cloud depends on the force of When yields are in the low-kiloton range, the cloud will lower atmosphere and its effects will be entirely local. exceed 30 kilotons, part of the cloud will punch into the which begins about 7 miles up. With yields of 2-5 megato virtually all of the cloud of radioactive debris and fine into the stratosphere. The heavier materials reaching th the stratosphere will soon settle out, as did the Castle/ Rongelap. But the lighter particles will penetrate high stratosphere, to altitudes of 12 miles and more, and rema months and even years. Stratospheric circulation and dif this material around the world.

RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT

Both the local and worldwide fallout hazards of nuclear e on a variety of interacting factors: weapon design, explo altitude and latitude of detonation, time of year, and 10 conditions.

All present nuclear weapon designs require the splitting like uranium and plutonium. The energy released in this many millions of times greater, pound for pound, than the chemical reactions. The smaller nuclear weapon, in the 1 may rely solely on the energy released by the fission pro first bombs which devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 19 yield nuclear weapons derive a substantial part of their from the fusion of heavy forms of hydrogen--deuterium and there is virtually no limitation on the volume of fusion weapon, and the materials are less costly than fissionabl fusion, "thermonuclear," or "hydrogen" bomb brought a rad the explosive power of weapons. However, the fission pro necessary to achieve the high temperatures and pressures the hydrogen fusion reactions. Thus, all nuclear detonat radioactive fragments of heavy elements fission, with the producing an additional radiation component from the fusi

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/nukeffct/nukwrl0.txt 6/13/02

-

Page 13 0f 23 A. Local Fallout

Most of the radiation hazard from nuclear bursts comes fr radionuclides external to the body; these are generally c locality downwind of the weapon burst point. This radiat from radioactive fission fragments with half-lives of sec months, and from soil and other materials in the vicinity radioactive by the intense neutron flux of the fission an reactions.

It has been estimated that a weapon with a fission yield TNT equivalent power (1 megaton) exploded at ground level miles-per-hour wind would produce fallout in an ellipse e of miles downwind from the burst point. At a distance of downwind, a lethal radiation dose (600 rads) would be acc person who did not find shelter within 25 minutes after t fallout began. At a distance of 40-45 miles, a person wo hours after the fallout began to find shelter. Considera radiation doses will make people seriously ill. Thus, th prospects of persons immediately downwind of the burst po unless they could be sheltered or evacuated.

It has been estimated that an attack on u.s. population c weapons of one-megaton fission yield would kill up to 20 population immediately through blast, heat, ground shock radiation effects (neutrons and gamma rays); an attack wi weapons would destroy immediately almost half the u.s. po figures do not include additional deaths from fires, lack attention, starvation, or the lethal fallout showering to downwind of the burst points of the weapons.

Most of the bomb-produced radionuclides decay rapidly. E blast radius of the exploding weapons there would be area the survivors could not enter because of radioactive cont long-lived radioactive isotopes like strontium-90 or cesi be concentrated through the food chain and incorporated i damage caused would be internal, with the injuriou~ effec many years. For the survivors of a nuclear war, this lin hazard could represent a grave threat for as long as 1 to attack.

B. Worldwide Effects of Fallout

Much of our knowledge of the production and distribution has been derived from the period of intensive nuclear test


of23 atmosphere during the 1950's and early 1960's. It is est than 500 megatons of nuclear yield were detonated in the 1945 and 1971, about half of this yield being produced by reaction. The peak occurred in 1961-62, when a total of detonated in the atmosphere by the United States and Sovi limited nuclear test ban treaty of 1963 ended atmospheric United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, but two maj non-signatories, France and China, continued nuclear test about 5 megatons annually. (France now conducts its nucle underground.)

A U.N. scientific committee has estimated that the cumula dose to the world's population up to the year 2000 as a r atmospheric testing through 1970 (cutoff date of the stud equivalent of 2 years' exposure to natural background rad earth's surface. For the bulk of the world's population, external radiation doses of natural origin amount to less rad annually. Thus nuclear testing to date does not appe severe radiation threat in global terms. But a nuclear w 100 times the total yield of all previous weapons tests c greater worldwide threat.

The biological effects of all forms of ionizing radiation calculated within broad ranges by the National Academy of on these calculations, fallout from the 500-plus megatons testing through 1970 will produce between 2 and 25 cases per million live births in the next generation. This mea and 50 persons per billion births in the post-testing gen genetic damage for each megaton of nuclear yield exploded uncertainty, it is possible to estimate that the inductio range from 75 to 300 cases per megaton for each billion p post-test generation.

If we apply these very rough yardsticks to a large-scale which 10,000 megatons of nuclear force are detonated, the world population of 5 billion appear enormous. Allowing about the dynamics of a possible nuclear war, radiation-i genetic damage together over 30 years are estimated to ra 30 milliDn for the world population as a ~hole. This WOll additional case for every 100 to 3,000 people or about 1/ 15 percent of the estimated peacetime cancer death rate i countries. As will be seen, moreover, there could be oth understood effects which would drastically increase suffe

ALTERATIONS OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/nukeffct/nukwr10.txt 6/13/02

of23

A nuclear war would involve such prodigious and concentra release of high temperature energy that it is necessary t variety of potential environmental effects.

It is true that the energy of nuclear weapons lS dwarfed phenomena. A large hurricane may have the power of a mil bombs. But the energy release of even the most severe we it occurs over wide areas, and the difference in temperat storm system and the surrounding atmosphere is relatively detonations are just the opposite--highly concentrated wi temperatures up to tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit are so different from natural processes, it is necessary potential for altering the environment in several context

A. High Altitude Dust

It has been estimated that a 10,OOO-megaton war with half exploding at ground level would tear up some 25 billion c rock and soil, injecting a substantial amount of fine dus into the stratosphere. This is roughly twice the volume blasted loose by the Indonesian volcano, Krakatoa, whose was the most powerful terrestrial event ever recorded. S world were noticeably reddened for several years after th eruption, indicating that large amounts of volcanic dust stratosphere.

Subsequent studies of large volcanic explosions, such as in 1963, have raised the possibility that large-scale inj into the stratosphere would reduce sunlight intensities a the surface, while increasing the absorption of heat in t atmosphere.

The resultant minor changes in temperature and sunlight c production. However, no catastrophic worldwide changes h volcanic explosions, so it is doubtful that the gross inj particulates into the stratosphere by a 10,OOO-megaton co itself, lead to major global climate changes.

B. Ozone

More worrisome is the possible effect of nuclear explosio stratosphere. Not until the 20th century was the unique role of ozone fully recognized. On the other hand, in co greater than I part per million in the air we breathe, oz major American city, Los Angeles, has established a proce

http://nuketesting. enviroweb.org/nukeffect/nukwar10. txt 6/13/02

of23

alerts and warnings. On the other hand, ozone is a critical feature of the stratosphere from the standpoint of maintaned earth.

The reason is that while oxygen and nitrogen in the upper atmosphere can block out solar ultraviolet photons with w than 2,420 angstroms (A), ozone is the only effective shi atmosphere against solar ultraviolet radiation between 2, wavelength. (See note 5.) Although ozone is extremely e filtering out solar ultraviolet in 2,500-3,000 A region 0 some does get through at the higher end of the spectrum. in the range of 2,800 to 3,200 A which cause sunburn, pre skin and produce skin cancers. As early as 1840, arctic attributed to solar ultraviolet; and we have since found ultraviolet radiation can inhibit photosynthesis in plant growth, damage bacteria, fungi, higher plants, insects an produce genetic alterations.

Despite the important role ozone plays in assuring a live at the earth's surface, the total quantity of ozone in th quite small, only about 3 parts per million. Furthermore durable or static constituent of the atmosphere. It is c destroyed, and recreated by natural processes, so that th present at any given time is a function of the equilibriu the creative and destructive chemical reactions and the s reaching the upper stratosphere.

The mechanism for the production of ozone is the absorpti molecules (02) of relatively short-wavelength ultraviolet oxygen molecule separates into two atoms of free oxygen, unite with other oxygen molecules on the surfaces of part atmosphere. It is this union which forms ozone, or 03. by the ozone-forming process is the reason for the curiou altitude of the temperature of the stratosphere (the base 36,000 feet above the earth's surface).

While the natural chemical reaction produces about 4,500 second in the stratosphere, this is offset by other natur reactions which break down the ozone. By far the most si nitric oxide (NO) which breaks ozone (03) into molecules. discovered only in the last few years in studies of the e problems which might be encountered if large fleets of su aircraft operate routinely in the lower stratosphere. Ac report by Dr. Harold S. Johnston, University of Californi prepared for the Department of Transportation's Climatic Assessment Program--it now appears that the NO reaction i responsible for 50 to 70 percent of the destruction of ozone


14.

Page 17 of23 the natural environment, there is a variety of means f f NO

and its transport into the stratosphere. Soil bact trous oxide (N20) which enters the lower atmosphere and into

the stratosphere, where it reacts with free oxygen ( molecules. Another mechanism for NO production in the 10 be lightning discharges, and while NO is quickly washed 0 atmosphere by rain, some of it may reach the stratosphere amounts of NO are produced directly in the stratosphere b the sun and interstellar sources.

It is because of this catalytic role which nitric oxide p destruction of ozone that it is important to consider the high-yield nuclear explosions on the ozone layer. The nu the air entrained within it are subjected to great heat, relatively rapid cooling. These conditions are ideal for tremendous amounts of NO from the air. It has been estim as 5,000 tons of nitric oxide is produced for each megato explosive power.

What would be the effects of nitric oxides driven into th an all-out nuclear war, involving the detonation of 10,00 explosive force in the northern hemisphere? According to National Academy of Sciences study, the nitric oxide prod weapons could reduce the ozone levels in the northern hem as 30 to 70 percent.

To begin with, a depleted ozone layer would reflect back surface less heat than would normally be the case, thus c temperature--perhaps enough to produce serious effects on Other changes, such as increased amounts of dust or diffe might subsequently reverse this drop in temperature--but it might increase it.

Probably more important, life on earth has largely evolve protective ozone shield and is presently adapted rather p amount of solar ultraviolet which does get through. To d against this low level of ultraviolet, evolved external s (feathers, fur,

cuticular waxes .on fruit), internal shiel pigment in human skin, flavenoids in plant tissue), avoid (plankton migration to greater depths in the daytime, sha desert iguanas) and, in almost all organisms but placenta elaborate mechanisms to repair photochemical damage.

It is possible, however, that a major increase in solar u overwhelm the defenses of some and perhaps many terrestri Both direct and indirect damage would then occur among th insects, plants, and other links in the ecosystems on whi well-being depends. This disruption, particularly if it

http.z/nuketesting.enviroweb.org/nukeffct/nukwr10.txt 6/13/02

15.

Page 18 of23

aftermath of a major war involving many other dislocation serious additional threat to the recovery of postwar soci Academy of Sciences report concludes that in 20 years the systems would have essentially recovered from the increase radiation~-though not necessarily from radioactivity or 0 areas close to the war zone. However, a delayed effect 0 ultraviolet radiation would be an estimated 3 to 30 perce skin cancer for 40 years in the Northern Hemisphere's mid

SOME CONCLUSIONS

We have considered the problems of large-scale nuclear war standpoint of the countries not under direct attack, and they might encounter in postwar recovery_ It is true that horror and tragedy of nuclear war would be visited on the subject to direct attack, who would doubtless have to cop perhaps insuperable obstacles in seeking to reestablish t societies. It is no less apparent, however, that other n those remote from the combat, could suffer heavily because global environment.

Finally, at least brief mention should be made of the glo resulting from disruption of economic activities and comm 1970, an increasing fraction of the human race has been 1 for self-sufficiency in food, and must rely on heavy impo disruption of agriculture and transportation in the grain manufacturing countries could thus prove disastrous to co food, farm machinery, and fertilizers--especially those w struggling with the threat of widespread starvation. Mor every economic area, from food and medicines to fuel and industries, the less-developed countries would find they the "undamaged" remainder of the developed world for trad the wake of a nuclear war the industrial powers directly themselves have to compete for resources with those count are described as "less-developed."

Similarly, the disruption of international communications cables, and even high frequency radio links--could be a m international recovery efforts.

In attempting to project the after-effects of a major nuc considered separately the various kinds of damage that co also quite possible, however, that interactions might tak these effects, so that one type of damage would couple wi produce new and unexpected hazards. For example, we can


of23

individually the consequences of heavy worldwide radiatio increased solar ultraviolet, but we do not know whether t together might significantly increase human, animal, or p susceptibility to disease. We can conclude that massive into the stratosphere, even greater in scale than Krakato itself to produce significant climatic and environmental cannot rule out interactions with other phenomena, such a which might produce utterly unexpected results.

We have come to realize that nuclear weapons can be as un they are deadly in their effects. Despite some 30 years study, there is still much that we do not know. This is when we consider the global effects of a large-scale nuclear threat.

Note 1: Nuclear Weapons Yield

The most widely used standard for measuring the power of "yield," expressed as the quantity of chemical explosive produce the same energy release. The first atomic weapon Hiroshima in 1945, had a yield of 13 kilotons; that is, t of 13,000 tons of TNT. (The largest conventional bomb dr II contained about 10 tons of TNT.)

Since Hiroshima, the yields or explosive power of nuclear vastly increased. The world's largest nuclear detonation by the Soviet Union, had a yield of 58 megatons--equivalent tons of TNT. A modern ballistic missile may carry warhead or more megatons.

Even the most violent wars of recent history have been re in terms of the total destructive power of the non-nuclear A single aircraft or ballistic missile today can carry a force surpassing that of all the non-nuclear bombs used i The number of nuclear bombs and missiles the superpowers into the thousands.

Note 2: Nuclear Weapons Design

Nuclear weapons depend on two fundamentally different typ reactions, each of which releases energy:

Fission, which involves the splitting of heavy elements (

I http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/nukeffct/nukwr10.txt 6/13/02

16.

Page 20 of23

fusion, which involves the combining of light elements (e

Fission requires that a minimum amount of material or "ore brought together in contact for the nuclear explosion to more efficient fission weapons tend to fall in the yield kilotons. Higher explosive yields become increasingly co impractical.

Nuclear fusion permits the design of weapons of virtually In fusion, according to nuclear theory, when the nuclei 0 hydrogen are joined, the mass of the fused nucleus is light original nuclear; the loss is expressed as energy. By the physicists had concluded that this was the process which and stars; but the nuclear fusion process remained only of interest until it was discovered that an atomic fission b as a "trigger" to produce, within one- or two-millionths intense pressure and temperature necessary to set off the

Fusion permits the design of weapons of almost limitless materials that are far less costly.

Note 3: Radioactivity

Most familiar natural elements like hydrogen, oxygen, gol stable, and enduring unless acted upon by outside forces. Elements can exist in unstable forms. The nuclear of these "isotopes," as they are called, are "uncomfortable" with mixture of nuclear particles comprising them, and they deal internal stress through the process of radioactive decay.

The three basic modes of radioactive decay are the emissi and gamma radiation:

Alpha--Unstable nuclei frequently emit alpha particles, a nuclei consisting of two protons and two neutrons. By far of the decay particles, it is also the slowest, rarely ex the velocity of light. As a result, its penetrating power can usually be stopped by a piece of paper. But if alpha plutonium are incorporated in the body, they pose a serious problem.

Beta--Another form of radioactive decay is the emission 0 or electron. The beta particle has only about one seven mass of the alpha particle, but its velocity is very much as eight-tenths the velocity of light. As a result, beta penetrate far more deeply into bodily tissue and external


----~-~----_._-

Page 21 of23

radiation represent a significantly greater threat than t alpha particles. Beta-emitting isotopes are as harmful a if taken up by the body.

Gamma--In some decay processes, the emission lS a photon all and traveling at the speed of light. Radio waves, vi radiant heat, and X-rays are all photons, differing only level each carries. The gamma ray is similar to the X-ra more penetrating (it can traverse several inches of concrete capable of doing great damage in the body.

Common to all three types of nuclear decay radiation is t ionize (i.e., unbalance electrically) the neutral atoms t pass, that is, give them a net electrical charge. The al carrying a positive electrical charge, pulls electrons fr through which it passes, while negatively charged beta pa electrons out of neutral atoms. If energetic betas pass to atomic nuclei, they can produce X-rays which themselves additional neutral atoms. Massless but energetic gamma r electrons out of neutral atoms in the same fashion as X-r ionized. A single particle of radiation can ionize hundred atoms in the tissue in multiple collisions before all its absorbed. This disrupts the chemical bonds for critical structures like the cytoplasm, which carries the cell's g and also produces chemical constituents which can cause the original ionizing radiation.

For convenience, a unit of radiation dose called the "rad adopted. It measures the amount of ionization produced p the particles from radioactive decay.

Note 4: Nuclear Half-Life

The concept of "half-life" lS basic to an understanding of decay of unstable nuclear.

Unlike physical "systems"--bacteria, animals, men and star isotopes do not individually have a predictable life span of forecasting when a single unstable nucleus will decay.

Nevertheless, it is possible to get around the random individual nucleus by dealing statistically with large number a particular radioactive isotope. In the case of thorium radioactive decay proceeds so slowly that 14 billion year before one-half of an initial quantity decayed to a more

http://nuketesting. enviroweb. org/nukeffct/nukwr 10. txt

6/13/02

of23

configuration. Thus the half-life of this isotope is 14 After the elapse of second half-life (another 14 billion one-fourth of the original quantity of thorium-232 would after the third half-life, and so on.

Most manmade radioactive isotopes have much shorter half from seconds or days up to thousands of years. Plutonium isotope) has a half-life of 24,000 years.

For the most common uranium isotope, U-238, the half-life years, about the age of the solar system. The much scarce isotope of uranium, U-235, has a half-life of 700 million that its present abundance is only about 1 percent of the when the solar system was born.

Note 5: Oxygen, Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation

Oxygen, vital to breathing creatures, constitutes about 2th earth's atmosphere. It occasionally occurs as a single a atmosphere at high temperature, but it usually combines with oxygen atom to form molecular oxygen (02). The oxygen in breathe consists primarily of this stable form.

Oxygen has also a third chemical form in which three oxygen together in a single molecule (03), called ozone. Though far more rare than 02, and principally confined to upper stratosphere, both molecular oxygen and ozone playa vita shielding the earth from harmful components of solar radiation.

Most harmful radiation is in the "ultraviolet" region of spectrum, invisible to the eye at short wavelengths (under angstrom unit--A--is an exceedingly short unit of lengtha centimeter, or about 4 billionths of an inch.) Unlike X photons are not "hard" enough to ionize atoms, but pack e break down the chemical bonds of molecules in living cell variety of biological and genetic abnormalities, including cancers.

Fortunately, because of the earth's atmosphere, only a trickle dangerous ultraviolet radiation actually reaches the earth sunlight reaches the top of the stratosphere, at about 30 almost all the radiation shorter than 1,900 A has been ab molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. Within the stratosphere molecular oxygen (02) absorbs the longer wavelengths of u 2,420 A. An ozone (03) is formed as a result of this abs.

http://nuketesting. enviroweb. org/nukeffct/nukwr10.txt 6/13/02

17. Page 23 of23

is this ozone then which absorbs almost all of the rem lengths up to about 3,000 A, so that almost all of the ration is cut off before it reaches the earth's surface

End of the Project Gutenberg Etext of Worldwide Effects

http://nuketesting. enviroweb. o rg/nukeffct/nukwr 10. txt 6/13/02

18. 19.

The World of Nuclear Science customise advanced search

g of the Nuclear age

ntroduction: Nuclear Science is a broad topic which has only about 100 years old. It covers Nuclear physics, the study of the structure of atoms and the interaction of particles and energies, to the use of radioactive material as an alternative energy.

QuickSearch:

[m advanced search

It is a wonderful and interesting topic which has inspired many great physicists. To trace our roots on our discovery of Nuclear Science we have to start with how elements were first discovered.

Atoms and Elements: The beginning In 1808, the English scientist John Dalton began to carefully study common chemical reactions. He synthesized what he had recorded and observed that chemicals could combine only in specific whole-number ratios. He found that:

• there was a certain minimum amount of any chemical that couldn't be broken

down any further.(Elements) • only a whole atom could combine with another atom, no partial atoms

Further, from his proportions he was able to find the relative weights of the elements and ranked them accordingly. As chemists continued to experiment with elements they noticed that certain elements shared similar properties with others. In the 1860's, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleyev created a table which arranged the lists of elements according to their properties. The arrangement of elements has become known has the periodic table because the chemical characteristics repeated periodically down the columns.

By the 1890's the theories of Dalton and Mendeleyev had provided a lot research but it did not explain much. Chemists in this time did not understand what made different atoms of different elements behave differently. Could different atoms be different in structure some how? Despite such questions, the achievements of 19th century physicists were impressive and provided enough explanatory value to give a notion that physics had come to an end. Instead, starting in 1895, a new mystery was unfolded, the discoveries of X-rays, nuclear radiation and atomic particles. This would revolutionize our understanding of nature at its deepest level.

Copyright © 2000 ThinkQuest Team C0046b6.Allrights reserved.

20.

advanced search

The World of Nuclear Science

customise advanced search

Exploring Radiation: Structure

The discovery of radioactive elements by Marie and Pierre Curie had shown something mysterious was going inside these atoms. What was going on they did not know. In some way, these radioactive elements must have a different structure to cause them to give off radiation. If atoms were tiny little balls that John Dalton had suggested earlier, how could its inner structure be revealed? These first answers would be given by a scientist named Ernest Rutherford, whose experiments would virtually create the Nuclear physics portion of Nuclear Science.

Ernest Rutherford

Rutherford began studying uranium radiation. From his experiments he found that there were two types of radiation given off when elements broke down, alpha radiation and beta radiation. Alpha radiation was readily absorbed while beta radiation and a penetration character. Studying the radiation of the element thorium, Rutherford found that as it broke down, it not only gave off alpha and beta particles but it also produced a mysterious gas later named radon.

Further Rutherford found that radioactive substances decayed into other elements. Atoms, far from being unchanging, could turn into another kind. Each radioactive substance had a half-life- a specific time it takes for half of the substance to decay and turn into another substance.

In 1911, Rutherford conducted an experiment where he bombarded a piece of gold foil with alpha radiation. Most of the particles passed through the foil suggesting that much of the foil was empty space. Some particles however, bounced back pointing out that there was the presence of solid matter. Rutherford created a type of gun which allowed alpha particles to be . shot in a beam. By running it .L- in the dark and shooting it against the foil, they could see tiny flashes when an alpha particle would hit rebound back. The alpha particles that bounced back must have hit something hard. Rutherford suggested that the atom consisted of a tiny center or nucleus.

In 1919, Rutherford discovered that when nitrogen gas was bombarded with alpha

particles, some hydrogen suddenly showed up. Rutherford suggested that the

----------------------------------------_._---

nuclear (plural of nucleus) of all atoms actually consisted of 'hydrogen- sized' particles, which he later named protons. This would be Rutherford's greatest work in exploring thestructure and make-up or radiation.

Copyright © 2000 ThinkQuest Team C004606. All rights reserved.

The VVorld of Nuclear Science site map customise aclvanc~d$~arch

QuickSearch:

L~". advanced search

Discovery of Radioactive Elements As you have learned, Bequerel gave insight to a new form of energy, radiation. His discovery inspired and excited many physcists at the time, one of them was a remarkable female named Marie Curie. After hearing about Bequerel's discovery she wondered if uranium was the only chemical that had this strange property of radiating or was there others. With her husband, Marie began what became their life long study of radioactivity. This new topic required diligent and dedicated work, Marie Curie wrote, "The subject seemed to us very attractive and all the more so because the question was entirely new and nothing yet had been written upon it."

Marie Curie

Marie soon discovered that a rare element called thorium also produced radiation. The work of the Curies had changed radiation from just a property of uranium to a general property that some atoms possessed. Marie created the term radioactivity to describe the phenomenon.

Further experiments that two uranium ores (unprocessed) were different in properties. She extracted all the uranium out of one of the ores called pitchblende but even after all the uranium had been extracted, the remaining product was four times more radioactive than the extracted uranium itself. She realized that the must be another undiscovered element in the remaining ore - even more radioactive than uranium.

After further grinding, sifting and applying chemicals, they separated out the radioactive material from the rest of the ore and found a compound of sulfur and bismuth. Ordinary bismuth wasn't radioactive so there must have been a substance mixed with it. Marie named the substance Polonium after her home country. Even further, the liquid left over after the bismuth and polonium had been filtered was still radioactive. The only known element in the liquid was barium which like bismuth was non radioactive. Just as bismuth had a chemical cousin, polonium, the barium, too, must have a radioactive cousin. Marie named the element Radium.

So far Marie had identified the two new materials through indirect means. She needed to convince the community that these substances were real and to do this she would need to isolate and purify enough so tests could be made. These tests would determine the different properties and weights of the new elements. The work of Marie and Pierre Curie had shown that radioactivity was a natural property. Two new elements, Polonium and Radium and had been discovered and added to the periodic table. But probably the most important achievement was the realization that radiation is an atomic property rather than a separate emanation.

Despite the giant leap forward scientists still did no much about the internal structure inside these atoms.This work was awaited for Ernest Rutherford ...

Copyright © 2000 ThinkQuest Team 0004606. All rightsreserved.

21. 22.

QuickSearch:

advanced search

The World of Nuclear Science customise advanced search

Two discoveries: X-rays and Radiation Nuclear radiation, a kind of energy more complicated than fire or electricity, seems to combine mystery with a sense of danger. Radiation can both heal and kill. From this website you will learn the theories and functioning of radiation but in this section the focus is on history. Radioactive substances have also been the cause of mass destruction and death. In August 1945, two atomic bombs destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands in instances. To physicists the study of radiation quickly led to an outpour of more questions and discoveries. German Physicist Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen discovered a form of energy that could pass through solid objects. He was unsure what this was and called it X-rays, X being the symbol for unknown. Almost immediately doctors began to use X rays to assist in seeing the insides of the body. Scientists began to study the effects of X rays on a variety of substances. One such experiment carried out in 1896 by Antoine Henri Becquerel discovered a second type of new rays known as 'Becqueral rays'.

Intrigued by Roentgen's recent discovery of X rays, Becquerel looked for X-rays in Uranium salts. But the unexpected happened, as it has on numerous other occasions in physics: Becquerel discovered that these salts emitted a new form of radiation. He found that the more uranium he used the more intense the rays were and concluded that the radiation came from Uranium.

Becquerel's Experiment You are probably familiar with phosphorescence in the form of glow- in- the- dark toys. You know that if you leave these toys in a dark place for a long enough time, they will stop glowing. These materials cannot produce light on their own, they store light from another source and emit it for a short period after exposure. Becquerel knew that uranium salts were phosphorescent and wondered if they were emitting X -rays.

On a day in March, Becquerel was going to carry out his experiment to find out if X- rays were present in Uranium. Unfortunately it was cloudy on that day and he couldn't use the sun which he needed in the experiment. He wrapped up his equipment, including photographic plates, and put them in his drawer. A few days later he took his equipment out again and to his surprise he had found that the photographic plates had darkened which meant that they had been exposed to an energy of some sort. From this Becqueral found that uranium had been emitting rays on their own. From there he discovered radiation.

Becqueral's apparatus

Copyright © 2000 ThinkQuest Team C004606. All rights reserved.

23. 24. 25.

The World of Nuclear Science

site map customise advanced search

OuickSearch: advanced search

':: "

-

~

"j

',. li,_,':\.. ..Jib 1l1JII!IIIIIIII- ___________________________________________________________________Illiiiiiiiiii _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _

uc ear Non-Proliferation Introduction Page Contents World War 1\ The Cold War Limitation of Nuclear Warfare

Section Contents Nuclear Non-proliferation Introduction The UN Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

Nuclear nonproliferation is the doctrine of nuclear weapons technology being confined to only those countries that already have it. The principle is that no country should share or export its nuclear weapons technology to any other country that does not already have that knowledge.

Ever since the United States dropped nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during World War II, there has been much tension relating to the possibility of a full- scale nuclear war. The entire world saw the devastation that the nuclear bombs used over Japan caused. Many scientists who worked on the US's Manhattan Project regretted ever having done so after seeing the destruction that their efforts could cause. Sir Mark Oliphant, an Australian scientist who recently died and was a member of the Manhattan Project, was one of those who remained totally committed to atomic energy being used for peaceful purposes, and said that he never should have taken part in the race to build the atomic bomb.

Immediately after the war, the United States effectively had a nuclear weapons monopoly, with no other country having the devices. However, through the United Nations, the United States still pushed for the limiting and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons for military purposes. In June 1946, representative of the United States Bernard Baruch, proposed to the United Nation's Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC) that nuclear weapons be abolished, controls be introduced over processing nuclear materials worldwide, information from science and technology pertaining to nuclear energy be shared globally, and safeguards be introduced to ensure that nuclear energy would be used only for peaceful purposes. The USSR, being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, opposed the plan because they said the UNAEC was dominated by the United States and Western European countries.

In 1949 the USSR detonated its first nuclear device, making possible a world-wide nuclear war. This essentially was the start of the Cold War.

The Cold War was one where no shots were actually fired. Rather, it was an intense struggle of political, ideological and economic sanctions between the United States and Russia, with their respective allies. There were threats of using nuclear force, and the height of the Cold War represented global tension that could have meant the end of human civilisation in the eyes of some people. '

An arms race between the United States and the USSR was triggered, with both

5SRR

attempting to build even more powerful thermonuclear weapons. Concerns were raised around the world about the possibility of full-scale nuclear war ending all life on Earth. In 1954 the USSR detonated its first thermonuclear bomb, signalling a shift in international arms controls towards disarmament and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons technology.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, beginning in 1960, was a result of the then USSR premier Nikita Khrushchev supplying Cuba with missles that would have put the East coast of the USA within range of attack from nuclear missiles. It is regarded by many people as the closest the world has ever got to nuclear war.

The Crisis escalated in 1962 when the US President John Kennedy threatened nuclear retalliation.

Public concerns about a "nuclear winter", one that would be caused by nuclear exchange between the world's superpowers led through three terms of US presidents throughout the 1980s. The US Department of Defense acknowledged the validity of the nuclear winter concept in 1986, but maintained its seemingly hard line stance in saying that those concerns would not affect its defence policies.

The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 by 11 countries as part of the International Geophysical Year to ensure that Antarctica would be used only for peaceful purposes. The signatory countries were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, USSR, United Kingdom and USA - all of whom had significant interests in parts of Antarctica. Amongst the articles in this Treaty was one that prohibited nuclear activity in Antarctica.

Article V

1. Any nuclear explosions in Antarctica and the disposal there of radioactive waste material shall be prohibited.

2.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was formed in 1957, and its purpose was to oversee the development of nuclear tecnology world-wide. It also sets nuclear safety standards and ensures that facilities under its supervision are to be used for peaceful purposes only.

In 1963 the US, USSR and UK signed a treaty not to test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, underwater, or in space, and in 1967 also signed a treaty to ban space from being used as a launching arena for weapons of any type. Also in 1967 a treaty was signed to ban nuclear weapons from Latin America.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1968 was one of the most important relating to the control of nuclear weapons. Signatories to this treaty endeavoured to make sure that nuclear weapons, technology or materials would not be transferred outside of the countries that already had them (China, USSR, US, UK and France). Over 170 countries permanently extended their committment to the treaty in May 1995.

The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) were negotiations between the United States and the USSR about their nuclear weapons. The first round of these talks culminated in May 1972 with both countries agreeing to limit the sizes of their nuclear weapons stocks. A second round of talks was held until 1979, however, the proposed treaty as a result of these talks was not ratified by the United States' Parliament.

United States president Ronald Reagan cancelled negotiations of a comprehensive test ban treaty in 1981. Around this time, there was much controversy over the United States' actions in placing ballistic missiles in its Western European allies' territory. There was much opposition against this both within and outside the United States.

Negotations resumed in 1985, and in December 1987, the USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed a treaty with US President Ronald Reagan to destroy all nuclear weapons with a range of 500 to 5500 kilometres, known as the INF treaty. These

26.

types of weapons were placed in Western Europe by the United States earlier that decade.

In July 1991, US President George Bush and USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to reduce their countries' nuclear weapons stockpiles by about 25% as part of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). The START" treaty signed later in January 1993 committed the countries to eliminating a further 75% of nuclear warheads, and total elimination of multiple-nuclear-warhead missiles.

(;o[lyright (g) 2000 ThinkOuest Team C004606. All rights reserved.

6/13/02

27.

types of weapons were placed in Western Europe by the United States earlier that decade.

In July 1991, US President George Bush and USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to reduce their countries' nuclear weapons stockpiles by about 25% as part of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). The START II treaty signed later in January 1993 committed the countries to eliminating a further 75% of nuclear warheads, and total elimination of multiple-nuclear-warhead missiles.

r~n",ri!1ht© 2000 ThinkQuest Team C004606. All rights reserved.

6/13/02

28.

/Russia sees high risk of nuclear war -DAWN - Top Stories; 0.. Page 1 of 3

I

08 February 2002 Friday 24 Ziqa'ad 1422

Russia sees high risk of nuclear war

By Our Correspondent

NEW DELHI, Feb 7: Russia on Thursday emphatically backed the American assessment that the risk of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan was very high today and counselled New Delhi not to consider it as an option while urging Islamabad also to quickly address India's worries over terrorism emanating from its soil. Responding to a question by Dawn after signing a major trade agreement in New Delhi, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov said he entirely agreed with the view expressed by the US Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet that the risk of a war between India and Pakistan was the highest ever since 1971. "I would not dispute the point raised by the CIA Director. It is a professional body and has its own means of making

http://www.dawn.con1l2002/02/08/top6.htrn 6/13/02

If Russia sees high risk of nuclear war -DAWN - Top Stories; 0.. Page 1 of 3 ,

08 February 2002 Friday 24 Ziqa'ad 1422

Russia sees high risk of nuclear war

By Our Correspondent

NEW DE

0632005 nuclear war · 2017. 3. 12. · 1. policy analysis: the social and economic effects of...

Documents