Nuclear warfare
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Nuclear War" and "Nuclear strike" redirect here. For other uses, see Nuclear War (disambiguation).
The
mushroom cloud over Hiroshima following the detonation of the Little
Boy nuclear bomb on 6 August 1945. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki remain the first and only wartime uses of nuclear weapons in
history.
Part of a series on
War
(outline)
History
PrehistoricAncientPost-classical
CastlesEarly modern Military revolutionPike and shotNapoleonic
warfareLate modern Industrial warfareFourth-gen warfare
Military
OrganizationCommand and controlDefense ministryArmyNavyAir forceMarinesCoast guardSpace forceReservesRanks
Specialties:StaffEngineersIntelReconMedicalPoliceDivingPilot
Land units:InfantryArmor CavalryArtillerySpecial forcesSignal corps
Naval units:WarshipsSubmarinesAircraft carriersLanding craftAuxiliary ships
Air units:FightersBombersCommandClose air supportElectronic-warfareReconnaissance
Combat systems:Fire-control systemFire-control radarDirector (military)Combat information centerSonarRadar
Historical:Ship gun fire-controlGun data computerTorpedo data computer
Development:Basic trainingMilitary manoeuvrersCombat training
Battlespace
Aerospace AerialAirborneSpace
Land Cold-regionDesertFortificationJungleMountainUrbanSubterranean Tunnel
Sea AmphibiousBlueBrownGreenSurfaceUnderwater Seabed
CyberInformation
Weapons
Air
defenceArmorArtilleryBarrageBiologicalCamouflageCavalry HorsesAir
cavalryChemicalCombined armsConventionalCyberDenialDisinformationDrone /
RobotElectromagneticInfantryLoiteringMissileMusicNuclearPsychologicalRadiologicalSubmarineUnconventional
Tactics
List of military tactics
AerialAirlift
Air
assaultAirbridgeAirdropAnti-aircraftAnti-subAnti-tankBattleCavalryChargeCQCCounterattackCounterinsurgencyConvoyDefeat
in detailFoxholeDroneEnvelopmentFormationGuerrillaNavalRapid
dominanceEncirclementInvestment SiegeSwarmScreenTactical objectiveTarget
saturationTrenchWithdrawal
Operational
Military
operation SpecialOperations researchBlitzkriegExpeditionaryDeep
operationManeuverOperational manoeuvre groupRaidCovertStay-behind
Strategy
List of military strategies and concepts
Military
campaignAnti-accessAttritionCommerce
raidingCounter-offensiveCulminatingDefence in depthFabianEmpty
fortMosaicDeceptionDefensiveDepthGoalNuclearNavalOffensiveScorched earth
Grand strategy
AsymmetricBlockadeBroken-backedClassCold
warColonialConquestContainmentDivide and conquerEconomicEndemicFleet in
beingIrregularLiberationLimitedNetwork-centricNew
generationPerpetualPoliticalPrincelyProxyReligiousResourceStrategicSuccessionTechnologyTheaterTotal
warWorld war
Administrative
BranchPolicyStaffTrainingServiceSociology
Organization
Area
of responsibilityChain of commandCommand and controlDoctrineOrder of
battlePrinciples of warEconomy of
forceMedicineEngineersIntelligenceRanksTechnology and equipment
Personnel
RecruitmentConscriptionMobilizationTrainingSpecialismSoldierMoraleVolunteerWomenChildrenTransgenderHarassmentConscientious
objectorCounter-recruitment
Logistics
HistoryWar economyArms industryMaterielSupply-chain managementMilitary–industrial complexBase MOBFOBOutpost
Science
Power projectionLoss-of-strength gradientLanchester's laws Force multiplicationMorale
Law
OccupationArmisticeCeasefireCourt-martialDesertionGeneva
ConventionsGeneva ProtocolIslamic rulesJusticeLawful / Unlawful
combatantPerfidyRegular / IrregularJewish laws on warRules of
engagementMartial lawWar crimeWar treason
Theory
Air
supremacyAppeasementCommand of the seaDeterrence theoryFull-spectrum
dominanceOvermatchUnrestricted warfareJust war theoryPrinciples of
warPhilosophy of warSecurity dilemma Tripwire forceWargaming
SimulationExercisesCombat effectivenessCenter of gravity
Non-warfare
Arms
controlCounter-insurgencyDeterrenceDisaster responseGrey-zoneGunboat
diplomacyHumanitarian aidLaw enforcementLow-intensity conflictMilitary
engineeringPeacekeeping PeacebuildingPeace through strengthShow of force
Culture
Awards
and decorationsBattle cryWarriorWar filmMilitary science fictionWar
novelAnti-war movementFoot drillWar songUniformWargameMilitarization /
MilitarismCamp follower
Books
Seven Military Classics The Art of WarDe re militariStrategemata
Related
Women
in warWar resisterWar studiesHorses in warfareWartime sexual
violenceFifth columnMercenaryPrivateerPrivate military company
Lists
BattlesMilitary occupationsMilitary termsOperationsSiegesWar crimesWarsWeaponsWriters
vte
Nuclear weapons
Photograph of a mock-up of the Little Boy nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in August 1945.
Background
Nuclear explosionHistoryWarfareDesignTestingDeliveryYield
EffectsWorkersEthics
ArsenalsTarget selectionArms raceBlackmailEspionageProliferationDisarmamentTerrorismUmbrellaOppositionWinter
Nuclear-armed states
NPT recognized
United StatesRussiaUnited KingdomFranceChina
Others
IndiaIsrael (undeclared)PakistanNorth Korea
Former
South AfricaBelarus KazakhstanUkraine
vte
Weapons of mass destruction
By type
BiologicalChemicalNuclearRadiological
By country
AlbaniaAlgeriaArgentinaAustraliaBrazilBulgariaCanadaChinaEgyptFranceGermanyIndiaIranIraqIsraelItalyJapanKazakhstanLibyaMexicoMyanmarNetherlandsNorth
KoreaPakistanPhilippinesPolandRhodesiaRomaniaRussia (Soviet Union)Saudi
ArabiaSouth AfricaSouth
KoreaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanUkraineUnited KingdomUnited
StatesYugoslavia
Proliferation
ChemicalNuclearMissiles
Treaties
List of treaties (treaty parties)
Category
vte
Nuclear
warfare, also known as atomic warfare, is a military conflict or
prepared political strategy that deploys nuclear weaponry. Nuclear
weapons are weapons of mass destruction; in contrast to conventional
warfare, nuclear warfare can produce destruction in a much shorter time
and can have a long-lasting radiological result. A major nuclear
exchange would likely have long-term effects, primarily from the fallout
released, and could also lead to secondary effects, such as "nuclear
winter",[1][2][3][4][5][6] nuclear famine, and societal
collapse.[7][8][9] A global thermonuclear war with Cold War-era
stockpiles, or even with the current smaller stockpiles, may lead to
various scenarios including human extinction.[10]
To
date, the only use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict occurred in
1945 with the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On
August 6, 1945, a uranium gun-type device (code name "Little Boy") was
detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on
August 9, a plutonium implosion-type device (code name "Fat Man") was
detonated over the Japanese city of Nagasaki. Together, these two
bombings resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 people and
contributed to the surrender of Japan, which occurred before any further
nuclear weapons could be deployed. These events remain the only two
times nuclear weapons were deployed in warfare.
After
World War II, nuclear weapons were also developed by the Soviet Union
(1949), the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and the People's
Republic of China (1964), which contributed to the state of conflict and
extreme tension that became known as the Cold War. In 1974, India, and
in 1998, Pakistan, two countries that were openly hostile toward each
other, developed nuclear weapons. Israel (1960s) and North Korea (2006)
are also thought to have developed stocks of nuclear weapons, though it
is not known how many. The Israeli government has never admitted nor
denied having nuclear weapons, although it is known to have constructed
the reactor and reprocessing plant necessary for building nuclear
weapons.[11] South Africa also manufactured several complete nuclear
weapons in the 1980s, but subsequently became the first country to
voluntarily destroy their domestically made weapons stocks and abandon
further production (1990s).[12][13] Nuclear weapons have been detonated
on over 2,000 occasions for testing purposes and demonstrations.[14][15]
After
the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the resultant end of
the Cold War, the threat of a major nuclear war between the two nuclear
superpowers was generally thought to have declined.[16] Since then,
concern over nuclear weapons has shifted to the prevention of localized
nuclear conflicts resulting from nuclear proliferation, and the threat
of nuclear terrorism. However, the threat of nuclear war is considered
to have resurged after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, particularly
with regard to Russian threats to use nuclear weapons during the
invasion.[17][18]
Since
1947, the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has
visualized how close the world is to a nuclear war. The Doomsday Clock
reached high points in 1953, when the Clock was set to two minutes until
midnight after the U.S. and the Soviet Union began testing hydrogen
bombs, and in 2018, following the failure of world leaders to address
tensions relating to nuclear weapons and climate change issues.[19]
Since 2023, the Clock has been set at 90 seconds to midnight, the
closest it has ever been.[20] The most recent advance of the Clock's
time setting was largely attributed to the risk of nuclear escalation
that arose from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[21]
Types of nuclear warfare
Nuclear
warfare scenarios are usually divided into two groups, each with
different effects and potentially fought with different types of nuclear
armaments.
The
first, a limited nuclear war[22] (sometimes attack or exchange), refers
to the controlled use of nuclear weapons, whereby the implicit threat
exists that a nation can still escalate their use of nuclear weapons.
For example, using a small number of nuclear weapons against strictly
military targets could be escalated through increasing the number of
weapons used, or escalated through the selection of different targets.
Limited attacks are thought to be a more credible response against
attacks that do not justify all-out retaliation, such as an enemy's
limited use of nuclear weapons.[23]
The
second, a full-scale nuclear war, could consist of large numbers of
nuclear weapons used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including
military, economic, and civilian targets. Such an attack would almost
certainly destroy the entire economic, social, and military
infrastructure of the target nation, and would likely have a devastating
effect on Earth's biosphere.[7][24]
Some
Cold War strategists such as Henry Kissinger[25] argued that a limited
nuclear war could be possible between two heavily armed superpowers
(such as the United States and the Soviet Union). Some predict, however,
that a limited war could potentially "escalate" into a full-scale
nuclear war. Others[who?] have called limited nuclear war "global
nuclear holocaust in slow motion", arguing that—once such a war took
place—others would be sure to follow over a period of decades,
effectively rendering the planet uninhabitable in the same way that a
"full-scale nuclear war" between superpowers would, only taking a much
longer (and arguably more agonizing) path to the same result.
Even
the most optimistic predictions of the effects of a major nuclear
exchange foresee the death of many millions of victims within a very
short period of time. Such predictions usually include the breakdown of
government, professional, and commercial institutions, vital to the
continuation of civilization. The resulting loss of vital affordances
(food, water and electricity production and distribution, medical and
information services, etc.) would account for millions more deaths. More
pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could
potentially bring about the human extinction, or at least its near
extinction, with only a relatively small number of survivors (mainly in
remote areas) and a reduced quality of life and life expectancy for
centuries afterward. However, such predictions, assuming total war with
nuclear arsenals at Cold War highs, have not been without criticism.[4]
Such a horrific catastrophe as global nuclear warfare would almost
certainly cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, its
ecosystems, and the global climate.[5]
A
study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union
in December 2006 asserted that a small-scale regional nuclear war could
produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt
the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict
scenario in which two opposing nations in the subtropics each used 50
Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (c. 15 kiloton each) on major population
centers, the researchers predicted fatalities ranging from 2.6 million
to 16.7 million per country. The authors of the study estimated that as
much as five million tons of soot could be released, producing a cooling
of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia
(including most of the grain-growing regions). The cooling would last
for years and could be "catastrophic", according to the researchers.[26]
Either
a limited or full-scale nuclear exchange could occur during an
accidental nuclear war, in which the use of nuclear weapons is triggered
unintentionally. Postulated triggers for this scenario have included
malfunctioning early warning devices and/or targeting computers,
deliberate malfeasance by rogue military commanders, consequences of an
accidental straying of warplanes into enemy airspace, reactions to
unannounced missile tests during tense diplomatic periods, reactions to
military exercises, mistranslated or miscommunicated messages, and
others.
A
number of these scenarios actually occurred during the Cold War, though
none resulted in the use of nuclear weapons.[27] Many such scenarios
have been depicted in popular culture, such as in the 1959 film On the
Beach, the 1962 novel Fail-Safe, the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove or: How I
Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, the 1983 film WarGames, and
the 1984 film Threads.
Sub-strategic use
See also: Nuclear bunker buster and Edward Teller § Decision to drop the bombs
The
above examples envisage nuclear warfare at a strategic level, i.e.,
total war. However, nuclear powers have the ability to undertake more
limited engagements.
"Sub-strategic
use" includes the use of either "low-yield" tactical nuclear weapons,
or of variable yield strategic nuclear weapons in a very limited role,
as compared to exchanges of larger-yield strategic nuclear weapons over
major population centers. This was described by the UK Parliamentary
Defence Select Committee as "the launch of one or a limited number of
missiles against an adversary as a means of conveying a political
message, warning or demonstration of resolve".[28] It is believed that
all current nuclear weapons states possess tactical nuclear weapons,
with the exception of the United Kingdom, which decommissioned its
tactical warheads in 1998. However, the UK does possess scalable-yield
strategic warheads, and this technology tends to blur the difference
between "strategic", "sub-strategic", and "tactical" use or weapons.
American, French and British nuclear submarines are believed to carry at
least some missiles with dial-a-yield warheads for this purpose,
potentially allowing a strike as low as one kiloton (or less) against a
single target. Only the People's Republic of China and the Republic of
India have declarative, unqualified, unconditional "no first use"
nuclear weapons policies. India and Pakistan maintain only a credible
minimum deterrence.
Commodore
Tim Hare, former Director of Nuclear Policy at the British Ministry of
Defence, has described "sub-strategic use" as offering the Government
"an extra option in the escalatory process before it goes for an all-out
strategic strike which would deliver unacceptable damage".[29] However,
this sub-strategic capacity has been criticized as potentially
increasing the "acceptability" of using nuclear weapons. Combined with
the trend in the reduction in the worldwide nuclear arsenal as of 2007
is the warhead miniaturization and modernization of the remaining
strategic weapons that is presently occurring in all the declared
nuclear weapon states, into more "usable" configurations. The Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute suggests that this is creating a
culture where use of these weapons is more acceptable and therefore is
increasing the risk of war, as these modern weapons do not possess the
same psychological deterrent value as the large Cold-War era,
multi-megaton warheads.[30]
In
many ways, this present change in the balance of terror can be seen as
the complete embracement of the switch from the 1950s Eisenhower
doctrine of "massive retaliation"[31] to one of "flexible response",
which has been growing in importance in the US nuclear war fighting
plan/SIOP every decade since.
For
example, the United States adopted a policy in 1996 of allowing the
targeting of its nuclear weapons at non-state actors ("terrorists")
armed with weapons of mass destruction.[32]
Another
dimension to the tactical use of nuclear weapons is that of such
weapons deployed at sea for use against surface and submarine vessels.
Until 1992, vessels of the United States Navy (and their aircraft)
deployed various such weapons as bombs, rockets (guided and unguided),
torpedoes, and depth charges. Such tactical naval nuclear weapons were
considered more acceptable to use early in a conflict because there
would be few civilian casualties. It was feared by many planners that
such use would probably quickly have escalated into a large-scale
nuclear war.[33] This situation was particularly exacerbated by the fact
that such weapons at sea were not constrained by the safeguards
provided by the Permissive Action Link attached to U.S. Air Force and
Army nuclear weapons. It is unknown if the navies of the other nuclear
powers yet today deploy tactical nuclear weapons at sea.
The
2018 US Nuclear Posture Review emphasised the need for the US to have
sub-strategic nuclear weapons as additional layers for its nuclear
deterrence.[34]
Nuclear terrorism
Main articles: Nuclear terrorism and Nuclear blackmail
Nuclear
terrorism by non-state organizations or actors (even individuals) is a
largely unknown and understudied factor in nuclear deterrence thinking,
as states possessing nuclear weapons are susceptible to retaliation in
kind, while sub- or trans-state actors may be less so. The collapse of
the Soviet Union has given rise to the possibility that former Soviet
nuclear weapons might become available on the black market (so-called
'loose nukes').
A
number of other concerns have been expressed about the security of
nuclear weapons in newer nuclear powers with relatively less stable
governments, such as Pakistan, but in each case, the fears have been
addressed to some extent by statements and evidence provided by those
nations, as well as cooperative programs between nations. Worry remains,
however, in many circles that a relative decrease in the security of
nuclear weapons has emerged in recent years, and that terrorists or
others may attempt to exert control over (or use) nuclear weapons,
militarily applicable technology, or nuclear materials and fuel.
Another
possible nuclear terrorism threat are devices designed to disperse
radioactive materials over a large area using conventional explosives,
called dirty bombs. The detonation of a "dirty bomb" would not cause a
nuclear explosion, nor would it release enough radiation to kill or
injure a large number of people. However, it could cause severe
disruption and require potentially very costly decontamination
procedures and increased spending on security measures.[35]
Radioactive
materials can also be used for targeted assassinations. For example,
the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko was described by medical
professionals, as "an ominous landmark: the beginning of an era of
nuclear terrorism."[36][37][38][39]
Alternative conflict resolution
Main article: Conflict resolution
Alternatives
to nuclear warfare include nuclear deterrence,[40] nuclear disarmament
and Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
History
Main articles: History of nuclear weapons and Timeline of nuclear weapons development
1940s
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Main article: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Mushroom
cloud from the atomic explosion over Nagasaki rising 18,000 m (59,000
ft) into the air on the morning of August 9, 1945.
During
the final stages of World War II in 1945, the United States conducted
atomic raids on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first
on August 6, 1945, and the second on August 9, 1945. These two events
were the only times nuclear weapons have been used in combat.[41]
For
six months before the atomic bombings, the U.S. 20th Air Force under
General Curtis LeMay executed low-level incendiary raids against
Japanese cities. The most destructive air raid to occur during the
process was not the nuclear attacks, but the Operation Meetinghouse raid
on Tokyo. On the night of March 9–10, 1945, Operation Meetinghouse
commenced and 334 Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers took off to raid,
with 279 of them dropping 1,665 tons of incendiaries and explosives on
Tokyo. The bombing was meant to burn wooden buildings and indeed the
bombing caused fire that created a 50 m/s wind, which is comparable to
tornadoes. Each bomber carried 6 tons of bombs. A total of 381,300
bombs, which amount to 1,783 tons of bombs, were used in the bombing.
Within a few hours of the raid, it had killed an estimated 100,000
people and destroyed 41 km2 (16 sq mi) of the city and 267,000 buildings
in a single night — the deadliest bombing raid in military aviation
history other than the atomic raids on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.[42][43][44][45] By early August 1945, an estimated 450,000
people had died as the U.S. had intensely firebombed a total of 67
Japanese cities.
In
late June 1945, as the U.S. wrapped up the two-and-a-half-month Battle
of Okinawa (which cost the lives of 260,000 people, including 150,000
civilians),[46][47] it was faced with the prospect of invading the
Japanese home islands in an operation codenamed Operation Downfall.
Based on the U.S. casualties from the preceding island-hopping
campaigns, American commanders estimated that between 50,000 and 500,000
U.S. troops would die and at least 600,000–1,000,000 others would be
injured while invading the Japanese home islands. The U.S. manufacture
of 500,000 Purple Hearts from the anticipated high level of casualties
during the U.S. invasion of Japan gave a demonstration of how deadly and
costly it would be. President Harry S. Truman realized he could not
afford such a horrendous casualty rate, especially since over 400,000
American combatants had already died fighting in both the European and
the Pacific theaters of the war.[48]
On
July 26, 1945, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Republic
of China issued a Potsdam Declaration that called for the unconditional
surrender of Japan. It stated that if Japan did not surrender, it would
face "prompt and utter destruction".[49][50] The Japanese government
ignored this ultimatum, sending a message that they were not going to
surrender. In response to the rejection, President Truman authorized the
dropping of the atomic bombs. At the time of its use, there were only
two atomic bombs available, and despite the fact that more were in
production back in mainland U.S., the third bomb wouldn't be available
for combat until September.[51][52]
A photograph of Sumiteru Taniguchi's back injuries taken in January 1946 by a U.S. Marine photographer
Hypocenter of Atomic bomb in Nagasaki
On
August 6, 1945, the uranium-type nuclear weapon codenamed "Little Boy"
was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima with an energy of
about 15 kilotons of TNT (63,000 gigajoules), destroying nearly 50,000
buildings (including the headquarters of the 2nd General Army and Fifth
Division) and killing approximately 70,000 people, including 20,000
Japanese combatants and 20,000 Korean slave laborers.[53][54] Three days
later, on August 9, a plutonium-type nuclear weapon codenamed "Fat Man"
was used against the Japanese city of Nagasaki, with the explosion
equivalent to about 20 kilotons of TNT (84,000 gigajoules), destroying
60% of the city and killing approximately 35,000 people, including
23,200–28,200 Japanese munitions workers, 2,000 Korean slave laborers,
and 150 Japanese combatants.[55] The industrial damage in Nagasaki was
high, partly owing to the inadvertent targeting of the industrial zone,
leaving 68–80 percent of the non-dock industrial production
destroyed.[56] The U.S., despite not having a third device ready to be
dropped, gave Japan one last warning that there would be another bombing
if they did not surrender, and the target would be Tokyo.
Six
days after the detonation over Nagasaki, Japan announced its surrender
to the Allied Powers on August 15, 1945, signing the Instrument of
Surrender on September 2, 1945, officially ending the Pacific War and,
therefore, World War II, as Germany had already signed its Instrument of
Surrender on May 8, 1945, ending the war in Europe. The two atomic
bombings led, in part, to post-war Japan's adopting of the Three
Non-Nuclear Principles, which forbade the nation from developing nuclear
armaments.[57]
Immediately after the Japan bombings
After
the successful Trinity nuclear test July 16, 1945, which was the very
first nuclear detonation, the Manhattan project lead manager J. Robert
Oppenheimer recalled:
We
knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few
people cried, and most people were silent. I remembered the line from
the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the
prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his
multiarmed form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of
worlds." I suppose we all thought that one way or another.
— J. Robert Oppenheimer, The Decision To Drop The Bomb[58]
J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Immediately
after the atomic bombings of Japan, the status of atomic weapons in
international and military relations was unclear. Presumably, the United
States hoped atomic weapons could offset the Soviet Union's larger
conventional ground forces in Eastern Europe, and possibly be used to
pressure Soviet leader Joseph Stalin into making concessions. Under
Stalin, the Soviet Union pursued its own atomic capabilities through a
combination of scientific research and espionage directed against the
American program. The Soviets believed that the Americans, with their
limited nuclear arsenal, were unlikely to engage in any new world wars,
while the Americans were not confident they could prevent a Soviet
takeover of Europe, despite their atomic advantage.
Within
the United States, the authority to produce and develop nuclear weapons
was removed from military control and put instead under the civilian
control of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. This decision
reflected an understanding that nuclear weapons had unique risks and
benefits that were separate from other military technology known at the
time.
Convair B-36 bomber.
For
several years after World War II, the United States developed and
maintained a strategic force based on the Convair B-36 bomber that would
be able to attack any potential enemy from bomber bases in the United
States. It deployed atomic bombs around the world for potential use in
conflicts. Over a period of a few years, many in the American defense
community became increasingly convinced of the invincibility of the
United States to a nuclear attack. Indeed, it became generally believed
that the threat of nuclear war would deter any strike against the United
States.
Many
proposals were suggested to put all American nuclear weapons under
international control (by the newly formed United Nations, for example)
as an effort to deter both their usage and a nuclear arms race. However,
no terms could be arrived at that would be agreed upon by both the
United States and the Soviet Union.[59][citation needed]
American and Soviet/Russian nuclear stockpiles.
On
August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon at
Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan (see also Soviet atomic bomb project).
Scientists in the United States from the Manhattan Project had warned
that, in time, the Soviet Union would certainly develop nuclear
capabilities of its own. Nevertheless, the effect upon military thinking
and planning in the United States was dramatic, primarily because
American military strategists had not anticipated the Soviets would
"catch up" so soon. However, at this time, they had not discovered that
the Soviets had conducted significant nuclear espionage of the project
from spies at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the most significant of
which was done by the theoretical physicist Klaus Fuchs.[citation
needed] The first Soviet bomb was more or less a deliberate copy of the
Fat Man plutonium device. In the same year the first US-Soviet nuclear
war plan was penned in the US with Operation Dropshot.
With
the monopoly over nuclear technology broken, worldwide nuclear
proliferation accelerated. The United Kingdom tested its first
independent atomic bomb in 1952, followed by France developing its first
atomic bomb in 1960 and then China developing its first atomic bomb in
1964. While much smaller than the arsenals of the United States and the
Soviet Union, Western Europe's nuclear reserves were nevertheless a
significant factor in strategic planning during the Cold War. A
top-secret White paper, compiled by the Royal Air Force and produced for
the British Government in 1959, estimated that British V bombers
carrying nuclear weapons were capable of destroying key cities and
military targets in the Soviet Union, with an estimated 16 million
deaths in the Soviet Union (half of whom were estimated to be killed on
impact and the rest fatally injured) before bomber aircraft from the
U.S. Strategic Air Command reached their targets.
1950s
Although
the Soviet Union had nuclear weapon capabilities at the beginning of
the Cold War, the United States still had an advantage in terms of
bombers and weapons. In any exchange of hostilities, the United States
would have been capable of bombing the Soviet Union, whereas the Soviet
Union would have more difficulty carrying out the reverse mission.
The
widespread introduction of jet-powered interceptor aircraft upset this
imbalance somewhat by reducing the effectiveness of the American bomber
fleet. In 1949 Curtis LeMay was placed in command of the Strategic Air
Command and instituted a program to update the bomber fleet to one that
was all-jet. During the early 1950s the B-47 Stratojet and B-52
Stratofortress were introduced, providing the ability to bomb the Soviet
Union more easily. Before the development of a capable strategic
missile force in the Soviet Union, much of the war-fighting doctrine
held by western nations revolved around using a large number of smaller
nuclear weapons in a tactical role. It is debatable whether such use
could be considered "limited" however because it was believed that the
United States would use its own strategic weapons (mainly bombers at the
time) should the Soviet Union deploy any kind of nuclear weapon against
civilian targets. Douglas MacArthur, an American general, was fired by
President Harry Truman, partially because he persistently requested
permission to use his own discretion in deciding whether to utilize
atomic weapons on the People's Republic of China in 1951 during the
Korean War.[60] Mao Zedong, China's communist leader, gave the
impression that he would welcome a nuclear war with the capitalists
because it would annihilate what he viewed as their imperialist
system.[61][62]
Let
us imagine how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7
billion people in the world, and a third could be lost. If it is a
little higher it could be half ... I say that if the worst came to the
worst and one-half dies, there will still be one-half left, but
imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would
become socialist. After a few years there would be 2.7 billion people
again.
— Mao Zedong, 1957[63]
The
U.S. and USSR conducted hundreds of nuclear tests, including the Desert
Rock exercises at the Nevada Test Site, USA, pictured above during the
Korean War to familiarize their soldiers with conducting operations and
counter-measures around nuclear detonations, as the Korean War
threatened to expand.
The
concept of a "Fortress North America" emerged during the Second World
War and persisted into the Cold War to refer to the option of defending
Canada and the United States against their enemies if the rest of the
world were lost to them. This option was rejected with the formation of
NATO and the decision to permanently station troops in Europe.
In
the summer of 1951, Project Vista started, in which project analysts
such as Robert F. Christy looked at how to defend Western Europe from a
Soviet invasion. The emerging development of tactical nuclear weapons
was looked upon as a means to give Western forces a qualitative
advantage over the Soviet numerical supremacy in conventional
weapons.[64]
Several
scares about the increasing ability of the Soviet Union's strategic
bomber forces surfaced during the 1950s. The defensive response by the
United States was to deploy a fairly strong "layered defense" consisting
of interceptor aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles, like the Nike, and
guns, like the M51 Skysweeper, near larger cities. However, this was a
small response compared to the construction of a huge fleet of nuclear
bombers. The principal nuclear strategy was to massively penetrate the
Soviet Union. Because such a large area could not be defended against
this overwhelming attack in any credible way, the Soviet Union would
lose any exchange.
This
logic became ingrained in American nuclear doctrine and persisted for
much of the duration of the Cold War. As long as the strategic American
nuclear forces could overwhelm their Soviet counterparts, a Soviet
pre-emptive strike could be averted. Moreover, the Soviet Union could
not afford to build any reasonable counterforce, as the economic output
of the United States was far larger than that of the Soviets, and they
would be unable to achieve "nuclear parity".
Soviet
nuclear doctrine, however, did not match American nuclear
doctrine.[65][66] Soviet military planners assumed they could win a
nuclear war.[65][67][68] Therefore, they expected a large-scale nuclear
exchange, followed by a "conventional war" which itself would involve
heavy use of tactical nuclear weapons. American doctrine rather assumed
that Soviet doctrine was similar, with the mutual in mutually assured
destruction necessarily requiring that the other side see things in much
the same way, rather than believing—as the Soviets did—that they could
fight a large-scale, "combined nuclear and conventional" war.
In
accordance with their doctrine, the Soviet Union conducted large-scale
military exercises to explore the possibility of defensive and offensive
warfare during a nuclear war. The exercise, under the code name of
"Snowball", involved the detonation of a nuclear bomb about twice as
powerful as that which fell on Nagasaki and an army of approximately
45,000 soldiers on maneuvers through the hypocenter immediately after
the blast.[69] The exercise was conducted on September 14, 1954, under
command of Marshal Georgy Zhukov to the north of Totskoye village in
Orenburg Oblast, Russia.
A
revolution in nuclear strategic thought occurred with the introduction
of the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which the Soviet Union
first successfully tested in August 1957. In order to deliver a warhead
to a target, a missile was much faster and more cost-effective than a
bomber, and enjoyed a higher survivability due to the enormous
difficulty of interception of the ICBMs (due to their high altitude and
extreme speed). The Soviet Union could now afford to achieve nuclear
parity with the United States in raw numbers, although for a time, they
appeared to have chosen not to.
Photos
of Soviet missile sites set off a wave of panic in the U.S. military,
something the launch of Sputnik would do for the American public a few
months later. Politicians, notably then-U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy
suggested that a "missile gap" existed between the Soviet Union and the
United States. The US military gave missile development programs the
highest national priority, and several spy aircraft and reconnaissance
satellites were designed and deployed to observe Soviet progress.
Early
ICBMs and bombers were relatively inaccurate, which led to the concept
of countervalue strikes — attacks directly on the enemy population,
which would theoretically lead to a collapse of the enemy's will to
fight. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union invested in extensive
protected civilian infrastructure, such as large "nuclear-proof" bunkers
and non-perishable food stores. By comparison, smaller scale civil
defense programs were instituted in the United States starting in the
1950s, where schools and other public buildings had basements stocked
with non-perishable food supplies, canned water, first aid, and
dosimeter and Geiger counter radiation-measuring devices. Many of the
locations were given "fallout shelter" designation signs. CONELRAD radio
information systems were adopted, whereby the commercial radio sector
(later supplemented by the National Emergency Alarm Repeaters) would
broadcast on two AM radio frequencies in the event of a Civil Defense
(CD) emergency. These two frequencies, 640 and 1240 kHz, were marked
with small CD triangles on the tuning dial of radios of the period, as
can still be seen on 1950s-vintage radios on online auction sites and
museums. A few backyard fallout shelters were built by private
individuals.
Henry
Kissinger's view on tactical nuclear war in his controversial 1957 book
Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy was that any nuclear weapon exploded
in air burst mode that was below 500 kilotons in yield and thus
averting serious fallout, may be more decisive and less costly in human
lives than a protracted conventional war.
A
list of targets made by the United States was released sometime during
December 2015 by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
The language used to describe targets is "designated ground zeros". The
list was released after a request was made during 2006 by William Burr
who belongs to a research group at George Washington University, and
belongs to a previously top-secret 800-page document. The list is
entitled "Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959" and was produced
by U.S. Strategic Air Command during the year 1956.[70]
1960s
More
than 100 US-built missiles having the capability to strike Moscow with
nuclear warheads were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961
RF-101 Voodoo reconnaissance photograph of the MRBM launch site in San Cristóbal, Cuba (1962)
In
1960, the United States developed its first Single Integrated
Operational Plan, a range of targeting options, and described launch
procedures and target sets against which nuclear weapons would be
launched, variants of which were in use from 1961 to 2003. That year
also saw the start of the Missile Defense Alarm System, an American
system of 12 early-warning satellites that provided limited notice of
Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile launches between 1960 and
1966. The Ballistic Missile Early Warning System was completed in 1964.
The
most powerful atomic bomb ever made, the Tsar Bomba, was tested by the
Soviets on October 30, 1961. It was 50 megatons, or equal to 50 million
tons of regular explosives.[71] A complex and worrisome situation
developed in 1962, in what is called the Cuban Missile Crisis. The
Soviet Union placed medium-range ballistic missiles 90 miles (140 km)
from the United States, possibly as a direct response to American
Jupiter missiles placed in Turkey. After intense negotiations, the
Soviets ended up removing the missiles from Cuba and decided to
institute a massive weapons-building program of their own. In exchange,
the United States dismantled its launch sites in Turkey, although this
was done secretly and not publicly revealed for over two decades. First
Secretary Nikita Khrushchev did not even reveal this part of the
agreement when he came under fire by political opponents for mishandling
the crisis. Communication delays during the crisis led to the
establishment of the Moscow–Washington hotline to allow reliable, direct
communications between the two nuclear powers.
By
the late 1960s, the number of ICBMs and warheads was so high on both
sides that it was believed that both the United States and the Soviet
Union were capable of completely destroying the infrastructure and a
large proportion of the population of the other country. Thus, by some
western game theorists, a balance of power system known as mutually
assured destruction (or MAD) came into being. It was thought that no
full-scale exchange between the powers would result in an outright
winner, with at best one side emerging the pyrrhic victor. Thus both
sides were deterred from risking the initiation of a direct
confrontation, instead being forced to engage in lower-intensity proxy
wars.
During
this decade the People's Republic of China began to build subterranean
infrastructure such as the Underground Project 131 following the
Sino-Soviet split.
One
drawback of the MAD doctrine was the possibility of a nuclear war
occurring without either side intentionally striking first. Early
Warning Systems (EWS) were notoriously error-prone. For example, on 78
occasions in 1979 alone, a "missile display conference" was called to
evaluate detections that were "potentially threatening to the North
American continent". Some of these were trivial errors and were spotted
quickly, but several went to more serious levels. On September 26, 1983,
Stanislav Petrov received convincing indications of an American first
strike launch against the Soviet Union, but positively identified the
warning as a false alarm. Though it is unclear what role Petrov's
actions played in preventing a nuclear war during this incident, he has
been honored by the United Nations for his actions.
Similar
incidents happened many times in the United States, due to failed
computer chips,[72] misidentifications of large flights of geese, test
programs, and bureaucratic failures to notify early warning military
personnel of legitimate launches of test or weather missiles. For many
years, the U.S. Air Force's strategic bombers were kept airborne on a
daily rotating basis "around the clock" (see Operation Chrome Dome),
until the number and severity of accidents, the 1968 Thule Air Base B-52
crash in particular,[73] persuaded policymakers it was not worthwhile.
1970s
Israel
responded to the Arab Yom Kippur War attack on 6 October 1973 by
assembling 13 nuclear weapons in a tunnel under the Negev desert when
Syrian tanks were sweeping in across the Golan Heights. On 8 October
1973, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized Defense Minister
Moshe Dayan to activate the 13 Israeli nuclear warheads and distribute
them to Israeli air force units, with the intent that they be used if
Israel began to be overrun.[74]
On
24 October 1973, as US President Richard Nixon was preoccupied with the
Watergate scandal, Henry Kissinger ordered a DEFCON-3 alert[dubious –
discuss] preparing American B-52 nuclear bombers for war. Intelligence
reports indicated that the USSR was preparing to defend Egypt in its Yom
Kippur War with Israel. It had become apparent that if Israel had
dropped nuclear weapons on Egypt or Syria, as it prepared to do, then
the USSR would have retaliated against Israel, with the US then
committed to providing Israeli assistance, possibly escalating to a
general nuclear war.[75]
By
the late 1970s, people in both the United States and the Soviet Union,
along with the rest of the world, had been living with the concept of
mutual assured destruction (MAD) for about a decade, and it became
deeply ingrained into the psyche and popular culture of those
countries.[76]
On
May 18, 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test in the Pokhran
test range. The name of the operation was Smiling Buddha, and India
termed the test as a "peaceful nuclear explosion."
The
Soviet Duga early warning over-the-horizon radar system was made
operational in 1976. The extremely powerful radio transmissions needed
for such a system led to much disruption of civilian shortwave
broadcasts, earning it the nickname "Russian Woodpecker".
The
idea that any nuclear conflict would eventually escalate was a
challenge for military strategists. This challenge was particularly
severe for the United States and its NATO allies. It was believed (until
the 1970s) that a Soviet tank offensive into Western Europe would
quickly overwhelm NATO conventional forces, leading to the necessity of
the West escalating to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, one of which
was the W-70.
This
strategy had one major (and possibly critical) flaw, which was soon
realized by military analysts but highly underplayed by the U.S.
military: conventional NATO forces in the European theatre of war were
far outnumbered by similar Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces, and it was
assumed that in case of a major Soviet attack (commonly envisioned as
the "Red tanks rolling towards the North Sea" scenario) that NATO—in the
face of quick conventional defeat—would soon have no other choice but
to resort to tactical nuclear strikes against these forces. Most
analysts agreed that once the first nuclear exchange had occurred,
escalation to global nuclear war would likely become inevitable. The
Warsaw Pact's vision of an atomic war between NATO and Warsaw Pact
forces was simulated in the top-secret exercise Seven Days to the River
Rhine in 1979. The British government exercised their vision of a Soviet
nuclear attack with Square Leg in early 1980.
Large
hardened nuclear weapon storage areas were built across European
countries in anticipation of local US and European forces falling back
as the conventional NATO defense from the Soviet Union, named REFORGER,
was believed to only be capable of stalling the Soviets for a short
time.
1980s
Montage of the launch of a Trident C4 SLBM and the paths of its reentry vehicles.
FEMA-estimated
primary counterforce targets for Soviet ICBMs in 1990. The resulting
fall-out is indicated with the darkest considered as lethal to lesser
fall-out yellow zones.[77][failed verification]
In
the late 1970s and, particularly, during the early 1980s under U.S.
President Ronald Reagan, the United States renewed its commitment to a
more powerful military, which required a large increase in spending on
U.S. military programs. These programs, which were originally part of
the defense budget of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, included spending on
conventional and nuclear weapons systems. Under Reagan, defensive
systems like the Strategic Defense Initiative were emphasized as well.
Another
major shift in nuclear doctrine was the development and the improvement
of the submarine-launched, nuclear-armed, ballistic missile, or SLBM.
It was hailed by many military theorists as a weapon that would make
nuclear war less likely. SLBMs—which can move with "stealth" (greatly
lessened detectability) virtually anywhere in the world—give a nation a
"second strike" capability (i.e., after absorbing a "first strike").
Before the advent of the SLBM, thinkers feared that a nation might be
tempted to initiate a first strike if it felt confident that such a
strike would incapacitate the nuclear arsenal of its enemy, making
retaliation impossible. With the advent of SLBMs, no nation could be
certain that a first strike would incapacitate its enemy's entire
nuclear arsenal. To the contrary, it would have to fear a near-certain
retaliatory second strike from SLBMs. Thus, a first strike was a much
less feasible (or desirable) option, and a deliberately initiated
nuclear war was thought to be less likely to start.
However,
it was soon realized that submarines could approach enemy coastlines
undetected and decrease the warning time (the time between detection of
the missile launch and the impact of the missile) from as much as half
an hour to possibly under three minutes. This effect was especially
significant to the United States, Britain and China, whose capitals of
Washington D.C., London, and Beijing all lay within 100 miles (160 km)
of their coasts. Moscow was much more secure from this type of threat,
due to its considerable distance from the sea. This greatly increased
the credibility of a "surprise first strike" by one faction and
(theoretically) made it possible to knock out or disrupt the chain of
command of a target nation before any counterstrike could be ordered
(known as a "decapitation strike"). It strengthened the notion that a
nuclear war could possibly be "won", resulting not only in greatly
increased tensions and increasing calls for fail-deadly control systems,
but also in a dramatic increase in military spending. The submarines
and their missile systems were very expensive, and one fully equipped
nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed missile submarine could cost more than
the entire GNP of a developing country.[78] It was also calculated,
however, that the greatest cost came in the development of both sea- and
land-based anti-submarine defenses and in improving and strengthening
the "chain of command", and as a result, military spending skyrocketed.
South
Africa developed a nuclear weapon capability during the 1970s and early
1980s. It was operational for a brief period before being dismantled in
the early 1990s.[79]
According
to the 1980 United Nations report General and Complete Disarmament:
Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons: Report of the Secretary-General,
it was estimated that there were a total of about 40,000 nuclear
warheads in existence at that time, with a potential combined explosive
yield of approximately 13,000 megatons. By comparison, the largest
volcanic eruption in recorded history when the volcano Mount Tambora
erupted in 1815—turning 1816 into the Year Without A Summer due to the
levels of global dimming sulfate aerosols and ash expelled—it exploded
with a force of roughly 33 billion tons of TNT or 33,000 megatons of TNT
this is about 2.2 million Hiroshima Bombs,[80] and ejected 175 km3 (42
cu mi) of mostly rock/tephra,[81] that included 120 million tonnes of
sulfur dioxide as an upper estimate.[82] A larger eruption,
approximately 74,000 years ago, in Mount Toba produced 2,800 km3 (670 cu
mi) of tephra, forming lake Toba,[83] and produced an estimated 6,000
million tonnes (6.6×109 short tons) of sulfur dioxide.[84][85] The
explosive energy of the eruption may have been as high as equivalent to
20,000,000 megatons (Mt) of TNT,[86][better source needed] while the
asteroid created Chicxulub impact, that is connected with the extinction
of the dinosaurs corresponds to at least 70,000,000 Mt of energy, which
is roughly 7000 times the maximum arsenal of the US and Soviet
Union.[86]
Protest against the deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe, Bonn, West Germany, 1981
However,
comparisons with supervolcanoes are more misleading than helpful due to
the different aerosols released, the likely air burst fuzing height of
nuclear weapons and the globally scattered location of these potential
nuclear detonations all being in contrast to the singular and
subterranean nature of a supervolcanic eruption.[3] Moreover, assuming
the entire world stockpile of weapons were grouped together, it would be
difficult, due to the nuclear fratricide effect, to ensure the
individual weapons would go off all at once. Nonetheless, many people
believe that a full-scale nuclear war would result, through the nuclear
winter effect, in the human extinction, though not all analysts agree on
the assumptions that underpin these nuclear winter models.[4]
On
26 September 1983, a Soviet early warning station under the command of
Stanislav Petrov falsely detected 5 inbound intercontinental ballistic
missiles from the US. Petrov correctly assessed the situation as a false
alarm, and hence did not report his finding to his superiors. It is
quite possible that his actions prevented "World War III", as the Soviet
policy at that time was immediate nuclear response upon discovering
inbound ballistic missiles.[87]
The
world came unusually close to nuclear war in November 1983 when the
Soviet Union thought that the NATO military exercise Able Archer 83 was a
ruse or "cover-up" to begin a nuclear first strike. The Soviets
responded by raising readiness and preparing their nuclear arsenal for
immediate use. Soviet fears of an attack ceased once the exercise
concluded without incident.
Post-Cold War
See also: Second Cold War
Although
the dissolution of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War in 1991 and
greatly reduced the political tensions between the United States and the
Russian Federation, the Soviet Union's formal successor state, both
countries remained in a "nuclear stand-off" due to the continuing
presence of a very large number of deliverable nuclear warheads on both
sides. Additionally, the end of the Cold War led the United States to
become increasingly concerned with the development of nuclear technology
by other nations outside of the former Soviet Union. In 1995, a branch
of the U.S. Strategic Command produced an outline of forward-thinking
strategies in the document "Essentials of Post–Cold War Deterrence".
In
1995, a Black Brant sounding rocket launched from the Andøya Space
Center caused a high alert in Russia, known as the Norwegian Rocket
Incident. The Russians thought it might be a nuclear missile launched
from an American submarine.[88][89]
In
1996, a Russian continuity of government facility, Kosvinsky Mountain,
which is believed to be a counterpart to the US Cheyenne Mountain
Complex, was completed.[90] It was designed to resist US
earth-penetrating nuclear warheads,[90] and is believed to host the
Russian Strategic Rocket Forces alternate command post, a post for the
general staff built to compensate for the vulnerability of older Soviet
era command posts in the Moscow region. In spite of this, the primary
command posts for the Strategic Rocket Forces remains Kuntsevo in Moscow
and the secondary is the Kosvinsky Mountain in the Ural
Mountains.[citation needed] The timing of the Kosvinsky facilities
completion date is regarded as one explanation for U.S. interest in a
new nuclear "bunker buster" Earth-penetrating warhead and the
declaration of the deployment of the B-61 mod 11 in 1997; Kosvinsky is
protected by about 1000 feet of granite.[citation needed]
UN vote on adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on 7 July 2017
Yes
No
Did not vote
As
a consequence of the September 11 attacks, American forces immediately
increased their readiness to the highest level in 28 years, closing the
blast doors of the NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center for the
first time due to a non-exercise event. But unlike similar increases
during the Cold War, Russia immediately decided to stand down a large
military exercise in the Arctic region, in order to minimize the risk of
incidents, rather than following suit.[91]
The
former chair of the United Nations disarmament committee stated that
there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready
for deployment and another 14,000 in storage, with the U.S. having
nearly 7,000 ready for use and 3,000 in storage, and Russia having about
8,500 ready for use and 11,000 in storage. In addition, China is
thought to possess about 400 nuclear weapons, Britain about 200, France
about 350, India about 80–100, and Pakistan 100–110. North Korea is
confirmed as having nuclear weapons, though it is not known how many,
with most estimates between 1 and 10. Israel is also widely believed to
possess usable nuclear weapons. NATO has stationed about 480 American
nuclear weapons in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Turkey,
and several other nations are thought to be in pursuit of an arsenal of
their own.[92]
Pakistan's
nuclear policy was significantly affected by the 1965 war with
India.[93] The 1971 war and India's nuclear program played a role in
Pakistan's decision to go nuclear.[94] India and Pakistan both decided
not to participate in the NPT.[95] Pakistan's nuclear policy became
fixated on India because India refused to join the Non-proliferation
Treaty and remained open to nuclear weapons.[96] Impetus by Indian
actions spurred Pakistan's nuclear research.[97] After nuclear weapons
construction was started by President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's command, the
chair of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Usmani quit in
objection.[98] The 1999 war between Pakistan and India occurred after
both acquired nuclear weapons.[99] It is believed by some that nuclear
weapons are the reason a big war has not broken out in the
subcontinent.[100] India and Pakistan still have a risk of nuclear
conflict on the issue of war over Kashmir. Nuclear capability
deliverable by sea were claimed by Pakistan in 2012.[101] The aim was to
achieve a "minimum credible deterrence".[102] Pakistan's nuclear
program culminated in the tests at Chagai.[103] One of the aims of
Pakistan's programs is fending off potential annexation and maintaining
independence.[104]
A
key development in nuclear warfare throughout the 2000s and early 2010s
is the proliferation of nuclear weapons to the developing world, with
India and Pakistan both publicly testing several nuclear devices, and
North Korea conducting an underground nuclear test on October 9, 2006.
The U.S. Geological Survey measured a 4.2 magnitude earthquake in the
area where the North Korean test is said to have occurred. A further
test was announced by the North Korean government on May 25, 2009.[105]
Iran, meanwhile, has embarked on a nuclear program which, while
officially for civilian purposes, has come under close scrutiny by the
United Nations and many individual states.
Recent
studies undertaken by the CIA cite the enduring India-Pakistan conflict
as the one "flash point" most likely to escalate into a nuclear war.
During the Kargil War in 1999, Pakistan came close to using its nuclear
weapons in case the conventional military situation underwent further
deterioration.[106] Pakistan's foreign minister had even warned that it
would "use any weapon in our arsenal", hinting at a nuclear strike
against India.[107] The statement was condemned by the international
community, with Pakistan denying it later on. This conflict remains the
only war (of any sort) between two declared nuclear powers. The
2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoff again stoked fears of nuclear war
between the two countries. Despite these very serious and relatively
recent threats, relations between India and Pakistan have been improving
somewhat over the last few years. However, with the November 26, 2008
Mumbai terror attacks, tensions again worsened.
External image
image
icon A geopolitical example of nuclear strike plan of ROC Army in
Kinmen history. Effective Radius: 10 km; Pop.: 1.06 million
Large
stockpile with global range (dark blue), smaller stockpile with global
range (medium blue), small stockpile with regional range (light blue).
Another
potential geopolitical issue that is considered particularly worrisome
by military analysts is a possible conflict between the United States
and the People's Republic of China over Taiwan. Although economic forces
are thought to have reduced the possibility of a military conflict,
there remains concern about the increasing military buildup of China
(China is rapidly increasing its naval capacity), and that any move
toward Taiwan independence could potentially spin out of control.
Israel
is thought to possess somewhere between one hundred and four hundred
nuclear warheads. It has been asserted that the Dolphin-class submarines
which Israel received from Germany have been adapted to carry
nuclear-armed Popeye cruise missiles, so as to give Israel a second
strike capability.[108] Israel has been involved in wars with its
neighbors in the Middle East (and with other "non-state actors" in
Lebanon and Palestine) on numerous prior occasions, and its small
geographic size and population could mean that, in the event of future
wars, the Israel Defense Forces might have very little time to react to
an invasion or other major threat. Such a situation could escalate to
nuclear warfare very quickly in some scenarios.
On
March 7, 2013, North Korea threatened the United States with a
pre-emptive nuclear strike.[109] On April 9, North Korea urged
foreigners to leave South Korea, stating that both countries were on the
verge of nuclear war.[110] On April 12, North Korea stated that a
nuclear war was unavoidable. The country declared Japan as its first
target.[111]
In
2014, when Russia-United States and Russia-NATO relations worsened over
the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Russian state-owned television channel
Russia 1 stated that "Russia is the only country in the world that is
really capable of turning the USA into radioactive ash."[112] U.S.
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter considered proposing deployment of
ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively
destroy Russian weapons.[113]
In
August 2017, North Korea warned that it might launch mid-range
ballistic missiles into waters within 18 to 24 miles (29 to 39 km) of
Guam, following an exchange of threats between the governments of North
Korea and the United States.[114][115] Escalating tensions between North
Korea and the United States, including threats by both countries that
they could use nuclear weapons against one another, prompted a
heightened state of readiness in Hawaii. The perceived ballistic missile
threat broadcast all over Hawaii on 13 January 2018 was a false missile
alarm.[116][117]
In
October 2018, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev commented that
U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is
"not the work of a great mind" and that "a new arms race has been
announced".[118][119]
In early 2019, more than 90% of world's 13,865 nuclear weapons were owned by Russia and the United States.[120][121]
In
2019, Vladimir Putin warned that Russia would deploy nuclear missiles
in Europe if the United States deployed intermediate-range nuclear
missiles there. Journalist Dmitry Kiselyov listed the targets in the
United States, which includes The Pentagon, Camp David, Fort Ritchie,
McClellan Air Force Base, and Jim Creek Naval Radio Station. Kremlin
spokesperson Dmitry Peskov denies the existence of the target
list.[122][123]
On
February 24, 2022, in a televised address preceding the start of
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir
Putin stated that Russia "is today one of the most powerful nuclear
powers in the world... No one should have any doubts that a direct
attack on our country will lead to defeat and dire consequences for any
potential aggressor." Later in the same speech, Putin stated: "Now a few
important, very important words for those who may be tempted to
intervene in ongoing events. Whoever tries to hinder us, and even more
so to create threats for our country, for our people, should know that
Russia's response will be immediate and will lead you to such
consequences that you have never experienced in your history."[124][125]
On February 27, 2022, Putin publicly put his nuclear forces on alert,
stating that NATO powers had made "aggressive statements".[126] On April
14, The New York Times reported comments by CIA director William Burns,
who said "potential desperation" could lead President Putin to order
the use of tactical nuclear weapons.[127] On September 21, 2022, days
before declaring the annexation of additional parts of Ukraine, Putin
claimed in a national television address that high NATO officials had
made statements about the possibility of "using nuclear weapons of mass
destruction against Russia", and stated "if the territorial integrity of
our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our
disposal to protect Russia and our people... It's not a bluff." NBC News
characterized Putin's statements as a "thinly veiled" threat that Putin
was willing to risk nuclear conflict if necessary to win the war with
Ukraine.[128] Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information
Project at the Federation of American Scientists, stated that "if you
start detonating nuclear weapons in the [battlefield] you potentially
get radioactive fallout that you can't control — it could rain over your
own troops as well, so it might not be an advantage to do that in the
field."[129]
According
to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August
2022,[130] a full-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would
kill 360 million people directly, with a further 5 billion people dying
from starvation. More than 2 billion people would die from a
smaller-scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan.[131][132]
Survival
See also: Nuclear famine, Nuclear War Survival Skills, and Civil defense
The
predictions of the effects of a major countervalue nuclear exchange
include millions of city dweller deaths within a short period of time.
Some 1980s predictions had gone further and argued that a full-scale
nuclear war could eventually bring about human extinction.[7] Such
predictions, sometimes but not always based on total war with nuclear
arsenals at Cold War highs, received contemporary criticism.[4] On the
other hand, some 1980s governmental predictions, such as FEMA's CRP-2B
and NATO's Carte Blanche, have received criticism from groups such as
the Federation of American Scientists for being overly optimistic.
CRP-2B, for instance, infamously predicted that 80% of Americans would
survive a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, a figure that
neglected nuclear war's impacts on healthcare infrastructure, the food
supply, and the ecosystem and assumed that all major cities could be
successfully evacuated within 3–5 days.[133] A number of Cold War
publications advocated preparations that could purportedly enable a
large proportion of civilians to survive even a total nuclear war. Among
the most famous of these is Nuclear War Survival Skills.[134]
To
avoid injury and death from a nuclear weapon's heat flash and blast
effects, the two most far-ranging prompt effects of nuclear weapons,
schoolchildren were taught to duck and cover by the early Cold War film
of the same name. Such advice is once again being given in case of
nuclear terrorist attacks.[135]
Prussian
blue, or "Radiogardase", is stockpiled in the US, along with potassium
iodide and DPTA, as pharmaceuticals useful in treating internal exposure
to harmful radioisotopes in fallout.[136]
Publications
on adapting to a changing diet and supplying nutritional food sources
following a nuclear war, with particular focus on agricultural
radioecology, include Nutrition in the postattack environment by the
RAND corporation.[137]
The
British government developed a public alert system for use during a
nuclear attack with the expectation of a four-minute warning before
detonation. The United States expected a warning time of anywhere from
half an hour (for land-based missiles) to less than three minutes (for
submarine-based weapons). Many countries maintain plans for continuity
of government following a nuclear attack or similar disasters. These
range from a designated survivor, intended to ensure the survival of
some form of government leadership, to the Soviet Dead Hand system,
which allows for retaliation even if all Soviet leadership were
destroyed. Nuclear submarines are given letters of last resort: orders
on what action to take in the event that an enemy nuclear strike has
destroyed the government.
A
number of other countries around the world have taken significant
efforts to maximize their survival prospects in the event of large
calamities, both natural and manmade. For example, metro stations in
Pyongyang, North Korea, were constructed 110 metres (360 ft) below
ground, and were designed to serve as nuclear shelters in the event of
war, with each station entrance built with thick steel blast
doors.[138][139] An example of privately funded fallout shelters is the
Ark Two Shelter in Ontario, Canada, and autonomous shelters have been
constructed with an emphasis on post-war networking and
reconstruction.[140] In Switzerland, the majority of homes have an
underground blast and fallout shelter. The country has an overcapacity
of such shelters and can accommodate slightly more than the nation's
population size.[141][142]
While
the nuclear fallout shelters described above are the ideal long-term
protection methods against dangerous radiation exposure in the event of a
nuclear catastrophe, it is also necessary to have mobile protection
equipment for medical and security personnel to safely assist in
containment, evacuation, and many other necessary public safety
objectives which ensue as a result of nuclear detonation. There are many
basic shielding strategies used to protect against the deposition of
radioactive material from external radiation environments. Respirators
that protect against internal deposition are used to prevent the
inhalation and ingestion of radioactive material and dermal protective
equipment which is used to protect against the deposition of material on
external structures like skin, hair, and clothing. While these
protection strategies do slightly reduce the exposure, they provide
almost no protection from externally penetrating gamma radiation, which
is the cause of acute radiation syndrome and can be extremely lethal in
high dosages. Naturally, shielding the entire body from high-energy
gamma radiation is optimal, but the required mass to provide adequate
attenuation makes functional movement nearly impossible.
Recent
scientific studies have shown the feasibility of partial body shielding
as a viable protection strategy against externally penetrating gamma
radiation. The concept is based in providing sufficient attenuation to
only the most radio-sensitive organs and tissues in efforts to defer the
onset of acute radiation syndrome, the most immediate threat to humans
from high doses of gamma radiation. Acute radiation syndrome is a result
of irreversible bone marrow damage from high-energy radiation exposure.
Due to the regenerative property of hematopoietic stem cells found in
bone marrow, it is only necessary to protect enough bone marrow to
repopulate the exposed areas of the body with the shielded supply.
Because 50% of the body's supply of bone marrow is stored in the pelvic
region which is also in close proximity to other radio-sensitive organs
in the abdomen, the lower torso is a logical choice as the primary
target for protection.[143]
In fiction
Main article: List of nuclear holocaust fiction
See also: Nuclear weapons in fiction, film, and theater and apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction
Nuclear warfare and weapons are staple elements of speculative fiction.
See also
Air Force Global Strike Command
Basic Encyclopedia
Broken-backed war theory
Global catastrophic risk
International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe
List of CBRN warfare forces
List of states with nuclear weapons
Mount Yamantau
Nuclear blackout
Nuclear briefcase
Nuclear weapons and the United States
Nuclear weapons debate
People's Liberation Army Rocket Force
Prevention of nuclear catastrophe
Transition to war
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear technology portal
References
7
Possible Toxic Environments Following a Nuclear War – The Medical
Implications of Nuclear War 1985 – The National Academies Press. 1986.
doi:10.17226/940. ISBN 978-0-309-07866-5. PMID 25032468.
"nuclear winter". Encyclopædia Britannica. August 2023.
Martin, Brian (December 1982). "The global health effects of nuclear war". Current Affairs Bulletin. 59 (7).
"Critique of Nuclear Extinction – Brian Martin 1982".
"The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War"
"Long-term
worldwide effects of multiple nuclear-weapons detonations. Assembly of
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council,1975".
Ehrlich,
P. R.; Harte, J.; Harwell, M. A.; Raven, P. H.; Sagan, C.; Woodwell, G.
M.; Berry, J.; Ayensu, E. S.; Ehrlich, A. H.; Eisner, T.; Gould, S. J.;
Grover, H. D.; Herrera, R.; May, R. M.; Mayr, E.; McKay, C. P.; Mooney,
H. A.; Myers, N.; Pimentel, D. & Teal, J. M. (1983). "Long-term
biological consequences of nuclear war". Science. 222 (4630): 1293–1300.
Bibcode:1983Sci...222.1293E. doi:10.1126/science.6658451. PMID 6658451.
"Overview of the Doomsday Clock". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
The Nuclear Winter: The World After Nuclear War, Sagan, Carl et al., Sidgwick & Jackson, 1985
Tonn,
Bruce & MacGregor, Donald (2009). "A singular chain of events".
Futures. 41 (10): 706–714. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.07.009. S2CID
144553194.
Hersh, Seymour (1991). The Samson Option. Random House. p. 130. ISBN 0-394-57006-5.
Albright, David. "South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Program". MIT.edu.
"South Africa: Why Countries Acquire and Abandon Nuclear Bombs". World101. 27 July 2023.
""1945–1998" by Isao Hashimoto". Archived from the original on 2018-07-06. Retrieved 2015-03-16.
"The Nuclear Testing Tally | Arms Control Association". .
Denemark,
Robert A. (14 August 2018). "Nuclear War in the Rivalry Phase of the
World-System". Journal of World-Systems Research. 24 (2): 349.
doi:10.5195/jwsr.2018.749. S2CID 158444919.
Sanger,
David E.; Troianovski, Anton; Barnes, Julian E. (2022-10-01). "In
Washington, Putin's Nuclear Threats Stir Growing Alarm". The New York
Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-10-02.
"Could the war in Ukraine go nuclear?". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2022-10-02.
Koran, Laura (January 25, 2018). "'Doomsday clock' ticks closer to apocalyptic midnight". CNN.
Weise,
Elizabeth (2023-01-24). "Doomsday Clock 2023 time says the world is
closer than ever to global catastrophe". USA Today. Retrieved
2023-01-24.
Spinazze,
Gayle (2023-01-24). "PRESS RELEASE: Doomsday Clock set at 90 seconds to
midnight". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved 2023-01-24.
N.N.
Sokov (2015). Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike
"de-escalation". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Archived from the
original on 2020-06-09. Retrieved 2015-12-28.
Ash
Carter; John Steinbruner; Charles Zraket, eds. (1987). Managing Nuclear
Operations. Washington DC: Brookings Institution. pp. 123–125. ISBN
0-8157-1314-2.
Grover,
Herbert D.; Harwell, Mark A. (1985-10-01). "Biological Effects of
Nuclear War II: Impact on the Biosphere". BioScience. 35 (9): 576–583.
doi:10.2307/1309966. ISSN 0006-3568. JSTOR 1309966.
"Henry Kissinger: The Mike Wallace Interview". Archived from the original on 2020-04-03. Retrieved 2010-11-24.
"ScienceDaily – Regional Nuclear War Could Devastate Global Climate".
Alan F. Philips, 20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War Archived 2007-10-12 at the Wayback Machine.
UK
Parliament, House of Commons, "Select Committee on Defence, Eighth
Report", [1], 20 June 2006. Fetched from URL on 23 December 2012.
"House of Commons - Defence - Eighth Report".
Ritter, Karl (June 12, 2007). "Study: World powers risk atomic war". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 2022-03-07.
Jones,
Matthew (2008). "Targeting China: U.S. Nuclear Planning and 'Massive
Retaliation' in East Asia, 1953–1955". Journal of Cold War Studies. 10
(4): 37–65. doi:10.1162/jcws.2008.10.4.37. S2CID 57564482.
Daniel
Plesch; Stephen Young (1998), "Senseless policy", Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, 54 (6), Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science,
Inc.: 4, Bibcode:1998BuAtS..54f...4P, doi:10.1080/00963402.1998.11456892
"Declassified:
Nuclear Weapons at Sea, Conclusions and Recommendations". Federation of
American Scientists. Retrieved 2016-04-19.
"2018 Nuclear Posture Review". US Defense Department. Retrieved 2018-06-26.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (May 2007). "Backgrounder on Dirty Bombs". Retrieved 2010-04-26.
"Ushering in the era of nuclear terrorism", by Patterson, Andrew J. MD, PhD, Critical Care Medicine, v. 35, pp. 953–954, 2007.
"Beyond
the Dirty Bomb: Re-thinking Radiological Terror", by James M. Acton; M.
Brooke Rogers; Peter D. Zimmerman, DOI: 10.1080/00396330701564760,
Survival, Volume 49, Issue 3 September 2007, pages 151–168
"The Litvinenko File: The Life and Death of a Russian Spy", by Martin Sixsmith, True Crime, 2007 ISBN 0-312-37668-5, page 14.
Radiological Terrorism: “Soft Killers” by Morten Bremer Mærli, Bellona Foundation
Hoey,
Fintan (6 June 2016). "Japan and Extended Nuclear Deterrence: Security
and Non-proliferation". Journal of Strategic Studies. 39 (4): 484–501.
doi:10.1080/01402390.2016.1168010. ISSN 0140-2390.
Hakim, Joy (1995). A History of Us: War, Peace and all that Jazz. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509514-6.
"1945
Tokyo Firebombing Left Legacy of Terror, Pain". Common Dreams. Archived
from the original on 2015-01-03. Retrieved 2014-12-08.
"March 9, 1945: Burning the Heart Out of the Enemy". Wired. Condé Nast Digital. 9 March 2011. Retrieved June 8, 2014.
Wolk (2010), p. 125
"Firebombing of Tokyo".
"Japan's
Battle of Okinawa, March–June 1945". Command and General Staff College.
Archived from the original on February 14, 2009. Retrieved 2016-12-13.
Ways of Forgetting, Ways of Remembering: Japan in the Modern World. New Press. February 4, 2014. p. 273.
"United
States Dept. of the Army, Army Battle Casualties and Non-Battle Deaths
in World War II". Archived from the original on
2010-05-12. Retrieved 2011-06-15.
"Potsdam
Declaration: Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender Issued,
at Potsdam, July 26, 1945". National Science Digital Library.
"Milestones:
1937–1945 / The Potsdam Conference, 1945". United States Department of
State, Office of the Historian. Archived from the original on
2013-10-29.
Newman, Robert P. (1995). Truman and the Hiroshima Cult. MSU Press. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-87013-940-6.
"The
Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II, A Collection of Primary
Sources" (PDF). National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No.
162. George Washington University. August 13, 1945. Archived (PDF) from
the original on 2022-10-09.
Adams,
S. & Crawford, A.. 2000. World War II. First edition. Printed in
association with the Imperial War Museum. Eyewitness Books series. New
York, Doring Kindersley Limited
Alan Axelrod (May 6, 2008). The Real History of World War II: A New Look at the Past. Sterling. p. 350. ISBN 9781402740909.
Nuke-Rebuke:
Writers & Artists Against Nuclear Energy & Weapons (The
Contemporary anthology series). The Spirit That Moves Us Press. May 1,
1984. pp. 22–29.
Robert Hull (October 11, 2011). Welcome To Planet Earth – 2050 – Population Zero. AuthorHouse. p. 215. ISBN 978-1-4634-2604-0.
Koizumi,
Junichiro (August 6, 2005). "Address by Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi at the Hiroshima Memorial Service for the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Ceremony". Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. Retrieved
Nov 28, 2007.
Pontin, Jason (November–December 2007). "Oppenheimer's Ghost". Technology Review.
United, Nations. "International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons". United Nations. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
"Nuclear Chronology 1945–1959". Archived from the original on October 15, 2008.
"Instant Wisdom: Beyond the Little Red Book". TIME. September 20, 1976.
Robert Service. Comrades!: A History of World Communism. Harvard University Press, 2007. p. 321. ISBN 0-674-02530-X
Dikötter,
Frank. Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating
Catastrophe, 1958–62. Walker & Company, 2010. p.13. ISBN
0-8027-7768-6
"Project
Vista, Caltech, and the dilemmas of Lee DuBridge" (PDF). Archived from
the original (PDF) on 2017-09-03. Retrieved 2014-10-07.
"Military
Planning for European Theatre Conflict During the Cold War" (PDF).
Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-02. Retrieved 2011-10-24.
"Nuclear Strategy differences in Soviet and American thinking". Archived from the original on 2017-01-26. Retrieved 2012-06-07.
Why the Soviet Union thinks it can fight and win a Nuclear War, Richard Pipes, Professor of History Harvard University 1977
"Candid Interviews with Former Soviet Officials Reveal U.S. Strategic Intelligence Failure Over Decades". nsarchive2.gwu.edu.
Viktor Suvorov, Shadow of Victory (Тень победы), Donetsk, 2003, ISBN 966-696-022-2, pages 353–375.
S. Shane – 1950s U.S. Nuclear Target List Offers Chilling Insight, The New York Times, Retrieved 2015-12-23
Broad,
William J. (2021-10-30). "When the Soviets Set Off the Biggest Nuclear
Bomb, J.F.K. Didn't Flinch". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
Retrieved 2021-12-17.
June
80: Faulty Computer Chip Archived 2013-12-26 at the Wayback Machine, 20
Mishaps that Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War, by Alan F.
Phillips, M.D., January 1998, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
"The Cold War's Missing Atom Bombs". Der Spiegel. 14 November 2008.
Seymour M. Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (Random House, 1991) p. 225.
Nuclear Weapons in the Cold War, Bernard Brodie
"The
threats of nuclear warfare as depicted in the popular culture of the
1960s | Britannica". . Retrieved 2024-06-14.
"Continental
US Fallout Pattern for Prevailing Winds (FEMA-196/September 1990)".
University of Notre Dame. Archived from the original on March 15, 2011.
"The Cost of Submarines". Fast Attacks and Boomers. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
Liberman,
Peter (2001). "The Rise and Fall of the South African Bomb".
International Security. 26 (2): 45–86. doi:10.1162/016228801753191132.
JSTOR 3092122. S2CID 57562545.
"Tambora 1815: Just How Big Was the Eruption?".
Stothers,
Richard B. (1984). "The Great Tambora Eruption in 1815 and Its
Aftermath". Science. 224 (4654): 1191–1198. Bibcode:1984Sci...224.1191S.
doi:10.1126/science.224.4654.1191. PMID 17819476. S2CID 23649251.
Oppenheimer,
Clive (2003). "Climatic, environmental and human consequences of the
largest known historic eruption: Tambora volcano (Indonesia) 1815".
Progress in Physical Geography. 27 (2): 230–259.
Bibcode:2003PrPG...27..230O. doi:10.1191/0309133303pp379ra. S2CID
131663534.
"Supersized eruptions are all the rage!". USGS. April 28, 2005.
Robock,
A.; C.M. Ammann; L. Oman; D. Shindell; S. Levis; G. Stenchikov (2009).
"Did the Toba volcanic eruption of ~74k BP produce widespread
glaciation?". Journal of Geophysical Research. 114 (D10): D10107.
Bibcode:2009JGRD..11410107R. doi:10.1029/2008JD011652.
Huang,
C.Y.; Zhao, M.X.; Wang, C.C.; Wei, G.J. (2001). "Cooling of the South
China Sea by the Toba Eruption and correlation with other climate
proxies ~71,000 years ago". Geophysical Research Letters. 28 (20):
3915–3918. Bibcode:2001GeoRL..28.3915H. doi:10.1029/2000GL006113.
"Lecture 18 — Notre Dame OpenCourseWare". Archived from the original on October 10, 2014. Retrieved September 23, 2014.
Long, Tony (26 September 2007). "The Man Who Saved the World by Doing ... Nothing". Wired.
Forden, Geoffrey (November 6, 2001). "False Alarms in the Nuclear Age". NOVA. Public Broadcasting System.
Pry,
Peter (1999). "Black Brant XII". War scare: Russia and America on the
nuclear brink. New York: Praeger. pp. 214–227. ISBN 0-275-96643-7.
"WINDOW
ON HEARTLAND Geopolitical notes on Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and
Central Asia". Archived from the original on April 24, 2013.
"Context
of '(After 11:15 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Russian President Putin
Speaks with President Bush'". Archived from the original on February 15,
2013. Retrieved April 28, 2013.
London Free Press – Disarmament expert warns of nuclear threat Non functioning link
Bhumitra
Chakma (2004). Strategic Dynamics and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation in
South Asia: A Historical Analysis. Peter Lang. p. 133. ISBN
978-3-03910-382-9.
Chakma, Bhumitra (12 October 2012), Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons, Routledge, p. 156, ISBN 978-1-134-13254-6
Chakma 2012, p. 16
Zafar Khan (17 July 2014). Pakistan's Nuclear Policy: A Minimum Credible Deterrence. Routledge. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-317-67601-0.
Jacques
E. C. Hymans (16 February 2012). Achieving Nuclear Ambitions:
Scientists, Politicians, and Proliferation. Cambridge University Press.
p. 244. ISBN 978-0-521-76700-2.
Chakma 2012, p. 139
Chakma,
Dr Bhumitra (28 April 2013), The Politics of Nuclear Weapons in South
Asia, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., p. 213, ISBN 978-1-4094-7641-2
Chakma, Bhumitra (17 December 2014), South Asia's Nuclear Security, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 978-1-317-58688-3
Shaun Gregory (23 October 2015). Democratic Transition and Security in Pakistan. Routledge. p. 250. ISBN 978-1-317-55011-2.
Chakma 2014, p. –
Chakma 2013, p. 234
Chakma 2012, p. 140
"BBC NEWS – Asia-Pacific – N Korea faces new UN resolution". 26 May 2009.
"Pakistan 'prepared nuclear strike'". BBC News. 16 May 2002.
"Pakistan May Use Any Weapon," The News, Islamabad, May 31, 1999
Plushnick-Masti,
Ramit (25 August 2006). "Israel buys 2 nuclear-capable submarines from
Germany". The Boston Globe. Associated Press.
"North Korea threatens nuclear strike, U.N. expands sanctions". Reuters. 2013-03-07. Retrieved 2013-05-07.
"North Korea urges foreigners to leave South Korea". CBC. 2013-04-09. Retrieved 2013-05-07.
Meredith,
Charlotte (2013-04-12). "North Korea states 'nuclear war is
unavoidable' as it declares first target will be Japan". Express.
Retrieved 2013-05-07.
Kelly, Lidia (16 March 2014). "Russia can turn US to radioactive ash - Kremlin-backed journalist". Reuters.
"US could potential deploy missiles in Europe to deter Russia". Deutsche Welle. June 5, 2015.
Horton,
Alex (August 9, 2017). "Why North Korea threatened Guam, the tiny U.S.
territory with big military power". The Washington Post.
Daniels,
Jeff (August 10, 2017). "North Korea's missile threat to Guam crafted
for 'maximum drama,' says former CIA analyst". CNBC News. Retrieved
August 11, 2017.
Fisher, Max (January 14, 2018). "Hawaii False Alarm Hints at Thin Line Between Mishap and Nuclear War". The New York Times.
"False alert of missile attack sparks panic in Hawaii". Los Angeles Times. January 13, 2018.
Ellyatt, Holly (22 October 2018). "Gorbachev says Trump's nuclear treaty withdrawal 'not the work of a great mind'". CNBC.
Swanson, Ian (27 October 2018). "Trump stokes debate about new Cold War arms race". The Hill.
Reichmann, Kelsey (16 June 2019). "Here's how many nuclear warheads exist, and which countries own them". Defense News.
"Global
Nuclear Arsenal Declines, But Future Cuts Uncertain Amid U.S.-Russia
Tensions". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 17 June 2019.
Osborn, Andrew (25 February 2019). "After Putin's warning, Russian TV lists nuclear targets in U.S." Reuters.
"Kremlin clarifies Putin never directly declared intention to aim missiles at US". TASS. 25 February 2019.
"Defiant Putin goes to war in Ukraine with a warning for U.S., NATO". NBC News. 24 February 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
"Full text: Putin's declaration of war on Ukraine". . 24 February 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
"Putin
puts nuclear deterrent forces on 'high alert' amid spiraling tensions
over Ukraine". NBC News. 27 February 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
Sanger,
David E.; Barnes, Julian E. (14 April 2022). "C.I.A. Director Airs
Concern That Putin Might Turn to Nuclear Weapons". The New York Times.
Washington, D.C. Archived from the original on 14 April 2022. Retrieved
28 May 2022.
"Here's
how seriously the West should take Putin's latest nuclear threats". NBC
News. 22 September 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
"Nuclear
weapons expert says we should be 'extraordinarily concerned' about
Putin nuking Ukraine". Business Insider. 30 September 2022. Archived
from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
Xia,
Lili; Robock, Alan; Scherrer, Kim; Harrison, Cheryl S.; Bodirsky,
Benjamin Leon; Weindl, Isabelle; Jägermeyr, Jonas; Bardeen, Charles G.;
Toon, Owen B.; Heneghan, Ryan (15 August 2022). "Global food insecurity
and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production
due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection". Nature Food.
3 (8): 586–596. doi:10.1038/s43016-022-00573-0. hdl:11250/3039288. PMID
37118594. S2CID 251601831.
Diaz-Maurin,
François (20 October 2022). "Nowhere to hide: How a nuclear war would
kill you — and almost everyone else". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
"World
Nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would kill more than 5 billion
people – just from starvation, study finds". CBS News. 16 August 2022.
Bumstead,
Pamela (December 6, 1985). NUCLEAR WINTER: THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF HUMAN
SURVIVAL (PDF). 84th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
Association. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09.
Kearny,
Cresson H (1986). Nuclear War Survival Skills. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. pp. 6–11. ISBN 0-942487-01-X.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds (4 January 2011). "The Unexpected Return of 'Duck and Cover'". The Atlantic.
"Strategic National Stockpile (SNS)". Archived from the original on 2013-10-18. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
Pogrund, Robert Seymour (January 1966). "Nutrition in the postattack environment". The RAND Corporation.
Robinson, Martin; Bartlett, Ray; Whyte Rob (2007). Korea. Lonely Planet. p. 364. ISBN 978-1-74104-558-1.
Springer, Chris (2003). Pyongyang: the hidden history of the North Korean capital. Entente Bt. p. 125. ISBN 978-963-00-8104-7.
"Doomsday
Preppers: It's Gonna Get Worse Tonight at 9P et/pt". Nat Geo TV Blogs.
Archived from the original on 2013-10-29. Retrieved 2013-10-09.
Tom
Stevenson, "A Tiny Sun" (review of Fred Kaplan, The Bomb: Presidents,
Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War, Simon and Schuster,
2021, 384 pp.; and Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, The Myth of the
Nuclear Revolution: Power Politics in the Atomic Age, Cornell, 2020, 180
pp.), London Review of Books, vol. 44, no. 4 (24 February 2022), pp.
29–32. "Nuclear strategists systematically underestimate the chances of
nuclear accident... [T]here have been too many close calls for
accidental use to be discounted." (p. 32.)
External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Nuclear warfare.
Wikiquote has quotations related to Nuclear warfare.
Fallout: After a Nuclear Attack – slideshow by Life magazine
The
Effects of Nuclear War Archived 2016-08-28 at the Wayback Machine
(1979) — handbook produced by the United States Office of Technology
Assessment (hosted by the Federation of American Scientists)
Nuclear
Attack Planning Base – 1990 (1987) — assessment of the effects of a
major Soviet attack on the United States produced by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (hosted by the Federation of American
Scientists)
Nuclear War Survival Skills (1979/1987) — handbook produced by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (use menu at left to navigate)
Ground Zero: A Javascript simulation of the effects of a nuclear explosion in a city
British RAF manual on the effects of nuclear explosions dated 1955
20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War by Alan F. Philips, M.D.
archived 2013-03-29 at the Wayback Machine Interactive Timeline of the Nuclear Age
Annotated bibliography on nuclear warfare from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues
DeVolpi,
Alexander, Vladimir E. Minkov, Vadim A. Simonenko, and George S.
Stanford. 2004. Nuclear Shadowboxing: Contemporary Threats from Cold War
Weaponry, Vols. 1 and 2. Fidlar Doubleday.
Air
Weapons for the Cold War Archived 2013-07-24 at the Wayback Machine An
in depth history of American air weapons and nuclear bombs from the
reference book American Combat Planes of the 20th Century by Ray Wagner
Nuclear Emergency and Radiation Resources
NUKEMAP3D – a 3D nuclear weapons effects simulator powered by Google Maps.
Return of Hitler, World War III
vte
Nuclear technology
Outline
Science
ChemistryEngineeringPhysicsAtomic nucleusFissionFusionRadiation ionizingbraking
Fuel
TritiumDeuteriumHelium-3Fertile
materialFissile materialIsotope separationNuclear material Uranium
enricheddepletedPlutoniumThorium
Neutron
ActivationCapturePoisonCross sectionGeneratorRadiationReflectorTemperatureThermalFastFusion
Power
by
countryPower plantEconomicsAccidents and
incidentsPolicyFusionRadioisotope thermoelectric (RTG) MMRTGPropulsion
rocketSafety and security Nuclear meltdown
Medicine
Imaging
AutoradiographRadBallScintigraphySingle-photon emission (SPECT)Positron-emission tomography (PET)
Therapy
Fast-neutronNeutron
capture therapy of cancerTargeted
alpha-particleProton-beamTomotherapyBrachytherapyRadiosurgeryRadiopharmacology
Processing
Atomic gardeningElectron-beam processingFood irradiationGemstone irradiation
Weapons
Topics
Arms raceDeliveryDesignDisarmamentEthicsExplosion effectsHistoryProliferationTesting high-altitudeundergroundWarfareYield TNTe
Lists
States with nuclear weaponsHistorical stockpiles and tests TestsTests in the United StatesWMD treatiesWeapon-free zonesWeapons
Waste
Products
Actinide Reprocessed uraniumReactor-grade plutoniumMinor actinideActivationFission LLFPActinide chemistry
Disposal
Fuel cycleHigh-level (HLW)Low-level (LLW)Nuclear decommissioningRepositoryReprocessingSpent fuel poolcaskTransmutation
Debate
Nuclear
powerNuclear weaponsBlue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
FutureAnti-nuclear movementUranium miningNuclear power phase-out
Nuclear reactors
Fission
Fusion
Nuclear technology portal Category Commons
vte
Nuclear and radioactive disasters, former facilities, tests and test sites
Lists of
disasters
and
incidents
Crimes
involving radioactive substancesCriticality accidents and
incidentsNuclear meltdown accidentsMilitary nuclear accidentsNuclear and
radiation accidents and incidentsNuclear and radiation accidents by
death tollNuclear and radiation fatalities by countryNuclear weapons
tests ChinaFranceIndiaNorth KoreaPakistanSouth AfricaSoviet UnionUnited
Kingdom in Australiain the United StatesUnited StatesSunken nuclear
submarinesList of orphan source incidentsNuclear power accidents by
country
Individual
accidents
and sites
2019
Nyonoksa radiation accident2011 Fukushima nuclear accident2001
Instituto Oncológico Nacional#Accident1996 San Juan de Dios radiotherapy
accident1990 Clinic of Zaragoza radiotherapy accident1987 Goiânia
accident1986 Chernobyl disaster EffectsRelated articles1985 Chazhma Bay
nuclear accident1985–1987 Therac-25 accident1982 Andreev Bay nuclear
accident1980 Kramatorsk radiological accident1979 Three Mile Island
accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects1969 Lucens
reactor1962 Thor missile launch failures at Johnston Atoll under
Operation Fishbowl1962 Cuban Missile Crisis1961 K-19 nuclear
accident1961 SL-1 nuclear meltdown1957 Kyshtym disaster1957 Windscale
fire1957 Operation Plumbbob1954 Totskoye nuclear exerciseBikini
AtollHanford SiteRocky Flats Plant1945 Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki
Related
topics
International
Nuclear Event Scale (INES)Vulnerability of nuclear plants to
attackBooks about nuclear issuesFilms about nuclear issuesAnti-war
movementBikini AtollBulletin of the Atomic ScientistsHistory of the
anti-nuclear movementInternational Day against Nuclear TestsNuclear
close callsNuclear-Free Future AwardNuclear-free zoneNuclear power
debateNuclear power phase-outNuclear weapons debatePeace activistsPeace
movementPeace campRussell–Einstein ManifestoSmiling Sun
Nuclear technology portal Category
vte
Global catastrophic risks
Future of the EarthFuture of an expanding universe Ultimate fate of the universe
Technological
Chemical
warfareCyberattack CyberwarfareCyberterrorismCybergeddonGray
gooNanoweaponsKinetic bombardment Kinetic energy weaponNuclear warfare
Mutual assured destructionDead HandDoomsday ClockDoomsday
deviceAntimatter weaponElectromagnetic pulse (EMP)Safety of high-energy
particle collision experiments Micro black holeStrangeletSynthetic
intelligence / Artificial intelligence AI takeoverExistential risk from
artificial intelligenceTechnological singularityTranshumanism
Sociological
Anthropogenic
hazardCollapsologyDoomsday argument Self-indication assumption doomsday
argument rebuttalSelf-referencing doomsday argument rebuttalEconomic
collapseMalthusian catastropheNew World Order (conspiracy theory)Nuclear
holocaust cobaltfaminewinterSocietal collapseState collapseWorld War
III
Ecological
Climate change
Anoxic
eventBiodiversity loss Mass mortality eventCascade effectCataclysmic
pole shift hypothesisClimate change and civilizational
collapseDeforestationDesertificationExtinction risk from climate change
Tipping points in the climate systemFlood basaltGlobal dimmingGlobal
terrestrial stillingGlobal warmingHypercaneIce ageEcocideEcological
collapseEnvironmental degradationHabitat destructionHuman impact on the
environment coral reefson marine lifeLand degradationLand
consumptionLand surface effects on climateOcean acidificationOzone
depletionResource depletionSea level riseSupervolcano
winterVerneshotWater pollutionWater scarcity
Earth Overshoot Day
OverexploitationOverpopulation Human overpopulation
Biological
Extinction
Extinction eventHolocene extinctionHuman extinctionList of extinction eventsGenetic erosionGenetic pollution
Others
Biodiversity
loss Decline in amphibian populationsDecline in insect
populationsBiotechnology risk Biological agentBiological
warfareBioterrorismColony collapse
disorderDefaunationDysgenicsInterplanetary
contaminationPandemicPollinator declineOverfishing
Astronomical
Big
CrunchBig RipCoronal mass ejectionCosmological phase
transitionGeomagnetic stormFalse vacuum decayGamma-ray burstHeat death
of the universeProton decayVirtual black holeImpact event Asteroid
impact avoidanceAsteroid impact predictionPotentially hazardous object
Near-Earth objectwinterRogue planetRogue starNear-Earth
supernovaHypernovaMicronovaSolar flareStellar collision
Eschatological
Buddhist
MaitreyaThree AgesHindu KalkiKali YugaLast JudgementSecond Coming 1
EnochDaniel Abomination of desolationProphecy of Seventy
WeeksMessiahChristian FuturismHistoricism Interpretations of
RevelationIdealismPreterism2 Esdras2 Thessalonians Man of
sinKatechonAntichristBook of Revelation Events Four Horsemen of the
ApocalypseLake of fireNumber of the BeastSeven bowlsSeven sealsThe
BeastTwo witnessesWar in HeavenWhore of BabylonGreat ApostasyNew
EarthNew JerusalemOlivet Discourse Great TribulationSon of
perditionSheep and GoatsIslamic Al-Qa'imBeast of the EarthDhu
al-QarnaynDhul-SuwayqataynDajjalIsrafilMahdiSufyaniJewish MessiahWar of
Gog and MagogThird TempleNorseZoroastrian Saoshyant
Others
2011
end times prediction2012 phenomenonApocalypseApocalyptic
literatureApocalypticismArmageddonBlood moon prophecyEarth ChangesEnd
timeGog and MagogList of dates predicted for apocalyptic
eventsMessianism Messianic AgeMillenarianismMillennialism
PremillennialismAmillennialismPostmillennialismNemesis (hypothetical
star)Nibiru cataclysmRapture PrewrathPosttribulation raptureResurrection
of the deadWorld to come
Fictional
Alien
invasionApocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction List of apocalyptic
and post-apocalyptic fictionList of apocalyptic filmsClimate
fictionDisaster films List of disaster filmsZombie apocalypse Zombie
Organizations
Centre for the Study of Existential RiskFuture of Humanity InstituteFuture of Life InstituteNuclear Threat Initiative
General
RansomwareCyberwarfareDisasterDepressionFinancial crisisPandemicRiotsSocial crisisSurvivalism
World portal Categories ApocalypticismFuture problemsHazardsRisk analysisDoomsday scenarios
Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata
National
United StatesFranceBnF dataJapanCzech RepublicSpainIsrael
Other
NARA
Categories: Nuclear warfareNuclear weapons
Radiation Emergencies
world globe
العربية English Español Français Kreyòl 日本語 한국어 Русский Tagalog Tiếng Việt 简体中文
Prepare Now
Stay Safe During
Be Safe After
Associated Content
There
are different types of radiation emergencies that vary in how much
damage they cause and harm they pose to the public. Some examples of
radiation emergencies include: a nuclear detonation (explosion), an
accident at a nuclear power plant, a transportation accident involving a
shipment of radioactive materials, or an occupational exposure like in a
healthcare or research setting. While the extent of the damage will
vary, the steps to protect yourself from radiation are the same. You can
keep your family safe by knowing what to do and being prepared if an
incident occurs. Follow these simple steps:
The
best way to stay safe in any radiation emergency is to get inside, stay
inside and stay tuned. Putting material between you and the radiation
provides protection while you tune in for instructions from responders.
Image
Graphic
illustrations show a person running indoors, staying indoors with their
dog, and a picture of a radio. Text reads get inside, stay inside, stay
tuned.
HOW TO STAY SAFE IN THE EVENT OF A RADIATION EMERGENCY
Prepare NOW
Like
in any emergency, you need reliable information, enough supplies and a
plan to protect yourself and your family during radiation and nuclear
emergencies.
Have several ways to receive emergency alerts. Download the FEMA App
and receive real-time alerts from the National Weather Service for up to
five locations nationwide. Sign up for community alerts in your area
from your local emergency management agency to receive timely and
specific information for your area. Have a battery-powered or hand crank
radio, which will continue to work if other forms of communication
fail.
Build an Emergency Supply Kit. Include a spare change of clothes for
each family member, a trash bag for contaminated clothing, and sealed
food, water and medicine.
Make a Family Emergency Communications Plan. Decide where your family
will meet if you cannot meet at home. Identify an out-of-state contact
who you can inform of your whereabouts and safety. Make plans with
friends or family to identify safe places to stay if you need to
evacuate. Familiarize yourself with school, work and care-facility plans
for staying inside/sheltering-in-place and evacuation.
Stay Safe DURING
During
any radiation emergency, follow the radiation protection principles of
time, distance, and shielding. Limit your time exposed to radiation,
stay as far away as possible from a radioactive source, and shield
yourself from radiation by going deep inside a sturdy building.
If the emergency is outside, Get inside. Stay inside. Stay tuned.
GET
INSIDE: If warned of the possibility of a radiation hazard,
immediately get inside the nearest building and move away from windows.
Put as many walls between you and the outside to protect you from the
radiation outside.
Image
Graphic
illustration shows where it is safe and not safe to go during a
radiation emergency. A man and a dog standing outside are marked as not
safe, inside a car is also marked as not safe. Three pictures of
different size buildings are shown, including single family dwellings
and a high rise. Graphic illustrations shows you are safer anywhere on
the inside of the building, but safest in the inner-most part of the
building, protected by inner walls with no windows.
NUCLEAR
DETONATIONS: Nuclear detonations are the most dangerous radiation
emergency. It creates a large, deadly blast. If it detonates on the
ground, the explosion can suck material up into the air and create
dangerous, sand-like, radioactive particles called fallout.
For
a nuclear explosion, if you have warning, take cover from the blast
behind anything that might offer protection. If you are outside, lie
face down to protect exposed skin from the heat and flying debris. After
the shockwave passes, go inside the nearest building as quickly as
possible.
GET
INSIDE: After a detonation, you will have 10 minutes or more to find an
adequate shelter before fallout arrives. If a multi-story building or a
basement can be safely reached within a few minutes of the explosion,
go there immediately. The safest buildings have brick or concrete walls.
Underground parking garages and subways can also provide good shelter.
Remain
in the most protective location (basement or center of a large
building) for the first 24 hours unless threatened by an immediate
hazard (e.g., fire, gas leak, building collapse, or serious injury) or
informed by authorities that it is safe to leave. Radiation levels
decrease rapidly, becoming significantly less dangerous, during the
first 24 hours.
STAY
INSIDE: Take shelter unless told otherwise. If possible, turn off fans,
air conditioners, and forced-air heating units that bring air in from
the outside. Close windows and doors. Close fireplace dampers. If you
are instructed to stay inside during a radiation emergency, pets and
service animals should be inside too. Sheltering usually lasts at least
24 hours.
STAY
TUNED: Follow instructions from emergency response officials. If
advised to evacuate, listen for information about routes, shelters, and
procedures. If you have evacuated, do not return until you are told it
is safe to do so by local authorities.
Be Safe AFTER
If
you were outside during a radiological release or if you think you have
radioactive material on your body, there are simple steps to remove it.
Image
An illustration of a man drinking water
Remove your outer layer of contaminated clothing to remove
radioactive material from your body. Removing your outer layer of
clothing can remove up to 90% of radioactive material. Be very careful
in removing your clothing to prevent radioactive dust from shaking
loose. Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth, if possible.
Get clean. If possible, take a shower or wash with soap and water to
remove any radioactive particles from skin or hair that was not covered.
If you cannot wash, use a wipe or clean wet cloth to wipe any skin or
hair that was not covered. Do not use household cleaning wipes on your
skin. Hand sanitizer does not protect against radioactive material.
Follow CDC guidance on Decontamination for Yourself and Others.
Clean any pets that were outside after the radioactive dust arrived.
Gently brush your pet’s coat to remove any radioactive particles and
wash your pet with soap and water, if available.
Stay hydrated and fed: It is safe to eat and drink food that was
inside a building. It is safe to eat food in sealed containers that were
outside as long as you wipe off the container with a damp towel or
cloth before using. Seal these towels or cleaning cloths in a plastic
bag and place them away from people and pets. Unsealed foods from
outside may be contaminated with radioactive material. Do not consume
food from your garden, or food or liquids that were outdoors and
uncovered, until authorities tell you it is safe.
Take care of yourself and others: If you are sick or injured, listen
for instructions on how and where to get medical attention. If you are
at a public shelter, immediately notify the staff at that facility so
they can call a local hospital or clinic. If you are experiencing a
medical emergency, call 9-1-1.
The threat of a radiation or nuclear emergency can be stressful and
surviving one can be a traumatic experience. Take care of yourself and
talk to someone if you are feeling upset. Follow CDC guidance for
managing stress during a traumatic event.
Associated Content
Nuclear Detonation Safety: Food, Drinking Water and Medicine (PDF)
PrepTalks: Brooke Buddemeier "Saving Lives After a Nuclear Detonation." | FEMa
Centers for Disease Control (CDC): Radiation Emergencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Protecting Yourself from Radiation
Armageddon
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Coordinates: 32°35′06″N 35°11′06″E
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Armageddon (disambiguation).
"Battle of Armageddon" redirects here. For the hymn, see The Battle of Armageddon.
Tel Megiddo with archaeological remains from the Bronze and Iron Ages
Ruins atop Tel Megiddo
Christian eschatology
Contrasting beliefs
Historicism
Interpretations of Revelation
Futurism
Dispensationalism
Preterism
Idealism
The Millennium
Amillennialism
Postmillennialism
Premillennialism
Prewrath rapture
Posttribulation rapture
Dispensationalism
Biblical texts
Daniel
Seventy Weeks
Synoptic Gospels