A nuclear war could devastate climate (for those who survive)

Another dimension of climate attention

Excerpt: "The world is on the brink of a climate apocalypse—one caused not by gradual greenhouse emissions but by a sudden exchange of nuclear weapons, a possibility made more salient by the current conflict between India and Pakistan. While the long-term effects of emissions are uncertain, we know that a nuclear war would result in an immediate nuclear winter.

When we think about nuclear apocalypse, we tend to think of the immediate effects: thermonuclear explosions that incinerate cities and vaporize populations. But the worst consequences unfold long after the weapons have detonated. A major thermonuclear exchange would shroud the atmosphere in soot, plunging the world into darkness and ushering in a decadelong winter. While hundreds of millions of people would likely be killed in the initial conflagrations, most of the human population—including those in the combatant nations—would likely die in the subsequent winter famine.

It’s comforting to think that an exchange of nuclear warheads in a regional conflict such as that between India and Pakistan might be more limited. The death toll from the detonation of a few dozen weapons might only number in the low millions, and there would be little effect on planetary temperatures.

But if India bombed Islamabad and Pakistan bombed Mumbai in retaliation, it would be hard to prevent further escalation. Moreover, once intercontinental ballistic missiles are in the air, it’s virtually impossible for other nuclear-armed nations to determine where they’re headed. Leaders in Washington, Moscow and Beijing would need to make decisions in a matter of minutes about whether to launch their own weapons."