What would be the aftermath if Pakistan and India went to full

Badly.

Goodly

Okayly.

Earthquakes

>>8617545
There would be 90 percent less street shitting

>>8617545
This was covered in New Scientist a couple of months back. To paraphrase:

Between the two of them, India and Pakistan have about 200 relatively small nuclear warheads. Suppose they each use half their stockpile and each is as effective as Little Boy at 15 kilotonnes. The immediate death toll from the blast, fires and radiation would be in the millions to tens of millions, depending on the spread each country employs, not counting those that die afterwards due to the razing of vital infrastructure.

More importantly for the rest of the world, the fires would also release at least 5 million tonnes of hot black smoke, which would spread around the world. This would cut solar radiation reaching Earth by 8%, enough to drop average winter temperatures by 2.5-6 degrees C across North America, Europe and most of Asia with effects peaking around five years later and still being felt strongly after a decade. Rainfall would be reduced as weather systems lost energy, causing the Asian monsoon to collapse - leaving over two billion people with up to 80% less water. The Amazon basin, the arid Southwestern US and western Australia wouldn't fare much better. The smoke would also heat the stratosphere by around 30 degrees, sparking nitrogen chemistry that would destroy most of the ozone layer.

Near ice-age temperatures would cause frosts capable of reducing the growing season in the world's mid-latitude breadbaskets by up to 40 days. This, combined with meagre rainfall and blistering UV would cause crop yields to plummet leading to a global famine - and all this from a small regional war. For comparison, if the US and Russia decided to throw down it would put up about 150 million tonnes of smoke, blocking 70% of sunlight and dropping temperatures by 20 degrees C or more. Those not killed in the initial blasts will certainly die of starvation without access to decades of stored food. It would be the end of the world and almost certainly of humanity as a species.

>>8617545
The price of my tshirts and sneakers would go up before factories in China pics up the slack.

>>8618609
There have been over a thousand nukes detonated to this day. Explain why that hasn't happened now.

>>8618609
Sounds like that stupid 'nuclear winter' theory where if we went to war with Russia we'd put enough smoke in the air to fuck the world up.

But, then we look at the fact that the US and Russia have detonated more nukes on home ground than any country would in war, so in reality nothing but economic collapse, local infrastructure collapse, and potential problems in neighboring countries would happen.

Tsar Bomba was 1/4th the power of Krakatoa, and about the size of every bomb thrown down in ww2 combined. Even 4x every bomb in ww2 combined, including both nukes, wouldn't touch the world.

>>8617545
Less pajeets is always a good thing.

>>8618609

did you just scientifically explain how to prevent global warming?

>>8618701
Probably because his scenario is assuming sequential or simultaneous detonation, not spaced out, controlled experiments.

>>8618826
>destroy most of the ozone layer.
>reducing the growing season in the world's mid-latitude breadbaskets by up to 40 days.
>a global famine

no thanks

>>8618701
most nuclear test are made either in deserts were most sand gets glassed or vaporized (united states) , or snowy places that just volitilize dirt and melt snow(russia) , and they are usually not very low altitude.

But on a nuclear war, thousands of nukes would explode right in the middle of cities which are basically made of polluting materials like concrete and asbestos chemical tech

>>8618846

>destroy ozone layer
>more energy from the sun can be absorbed by the plants
>faster growth
>lower working periods for farmers
>longer vacations
>production of goods in agriculture

why not today?

>>8618826
actually, there's another enviromental issue called "global dimming" which is the fact that pollution that gets aerozosiled into the atmosphere acually blocks out the light from the sun therefore blockign the earth and reducing temperatures.


so actually, if it wasnt from man action the earth would be actually HOTTER than it is