Terrifying simulation reveals devastating impact of nuclear war with sun blocked out by ash and global starvation
The simulation comes as a warning at a time when the world stands closer to a nuclear war than ever before since the Cold War - and it could destroy the atmosphere and cause widespread famine.
6
6
6
With the advancement of technology and modern weaponry, a nuclear conflict in this day and age could be the deadliest of all in the history of mankind.
We could see unparalleled levels of suffering, the displacement of millions, severe food insecurity, and disruption to essential services.
It is predicted that in the event of a nuclear war between the US and Russia, an estimated 99 per cent of the population in the belligerent countries, as well as Europe and China, would die.
Other attacks across the globe could result in catastrophic events - upending the structure of society completely.
A new study by the Pennsylvania State University simulated the effects that nuclear winter would have.
The research found that a large-scale global nuclear war could inject 165million tons of ash into the atmosphere.
This could act as a catalyst to damage the protective layer of the atmosphere - Ozone - as well as block sunlight reaching the Earth's surface.
And this could in turn affect global food production and could push millions of people into starvation.
The simulation found that a nuclear war in such an event would last for almost a decade - causing widespread famine for those who survive the devastating bombings.
The UV-B would peak between six and eight years after a nuclear war, and the global temperatures would sharply drop, stopping almost all agricultural activities.
Donald Trump orders nuclear submarines to be moved near Russia as he blasts 'foolish' nuke threat from Putin crony
Scientists used corn - one of the most widely grown grains in the world - as their test subject and found that a wider nuclear war could lead to an 80% drop in annual corn yields.
Yuning Shi, plant scientist and meteorologist at Penn State, said: "We simulated corn production in 38,572 locations under the six nuclear war scenarios of increasing severity – with soot injections ranging from 5 million to 165 million tons.
"The blast and fireball of atomic explosions produce nitrogen oxides in the stratosphere.
"The presence of both nitrogen oxides and heating from absorptive soot could rapidly destroy ozone, increasing UV-B radiation levels at the Earth's surface. This would damage plant tissue and further limit global food production."
The simulations suggest that it could take between 7 and 12 years for global corn production to recover from nuclear winter.
It is understood that most countries have contingency plans to prepare for the worst.
6
Robust food circulation and modern logistics systems are at the top of the list to ensure essential items can reach people whenever there is a need.
It all comes at a time when the world is increasingly witnessing more conflicts.
Just a few months ago, India launched military strikes targeting what it claimed was terror infrastructure in Pakistan.
Islamabad retaliated by launching its own wave of strikes against its archenemy New Delhi.
While a ceasefire was soon agreed upon between both countries, an all-out conflict could have resulted in a nuclear war, experts feared.
India as well as Pakistan are equipped with enough nuclear warheads to cause utter devastation in the region.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has also pushed the world into a dangerous place.
6
Moscow has been preparing its citizens for a nuclear war with the West in the near future.
Several media outlets in Moscow - part of Putin's propaganda machine - have been actively publishing articles discussing a nuclear armageddon between Russia and the West.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump has said that the US is "totally prepared" for a nuclear war following a slew of threats against America from a Kremlin comrade.
.
The nuclear sabre-rattling comes after Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's security council, made an ominous threat and warned that the US is taking drastic steps towards war with Moscow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
Scientists rush to bolster climate finding Trump administration aims to undo
Veteran climate scientists are organizing a coordinated public comment to a US Department of Energy (DOE) report that cast doubt on the scientific consensus on the climate crisis. The report, published late last month, claimed concerns about planet-warming fossil fuels are overblown, sparking widespread concern from scientists who said it was full of climate misinformation; it was an attempt to support a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undo the 'endangerment finding', which forms the legal basis of virtually all US climate regulations. 'A public comment from experts can be useful because it injects expert analysis into a decision-making process that might otherwise be dominated by political, economic, or ideological considerations,' said Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University who is organizing the response to the report. 'Experts can identify technical errors, highlight overlooked data, and clarify uncertainties in ways that improve the accuracy and robustness of the final policy or report.' The response comes as part of a broader wave of experts' attempts to uphold established climate science as the Trump administration promotes contrarian and unproven viewpoints. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (Nasem), the country's top group of scientific advisers, has launched a 'fast-track' review of the latest evidence on how greenhouse gases threaten human health and wellbeing – a move announced following the proposed endangerment-finding rollback. Nasem, which advises the EPA and other federal agencies, plans to release their findings in September, in time to inform the EPA's decision on the endangerment finding. The initiative will be self-funded by the organization – a highly unusual practice from the congressionally chartered group, which usually responds to federal bodies' calls for advice. 'It is critical that federal policymaking is informed by the best available scientific evidence,' said Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, in a statement. Trump administration efforts to block access to data have also inspired pushback. This month, the president ousted the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after baselessly saying the data it publishes is 'rigged'. In earlier weeks, federal officials have also deleted key climate data and reports such as the national climate assessments and the US Global Change Research Program from government websites. The administration has changed 70% more of the information on official environmental websites during its first 100 days than the first Trump administration did, according to a report the research group Environmental Data and Governance Initiative published last week. In light of these actions, research organizations such as the Public Environmental Data Project and Cornerstone Sustainability Data Initiative have worked to safeguard and publicize data that the federal government is hiding from the public. 'Attacks on science are dangerous because they erode one of society's most effective tools for understanding the world and making decisions in the public interest,' said Dessler. 'When political or ideological forces undermine scientific institutions or discredit experts, they weaken our ability to harness this powerful tool.' Asked for comment about the Nasem review, an EPA spokesperson repeated a comment offered earlier this month: 'Congress never explicitly gave EPA authority to impose greenhouse gas regulations for cars and trucks.' The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to set emission standards for cars if the EPA administrator determines that their emissions endanger public health or welfare. That includes greenhouse gas emissions, due to the endangerment finding. Asked for comment on the DOE report supporting the EPA's position, Department of Energy spokesperson Ben Dietderich also repeated an earlier comment. 'This report critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence – not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous presidential administrations,' he said. The UN and the US have regularly convened top scientists to produce scientific climate reports, which warn that urgent action to curb emissions is needed. Dietderich also said officials 'look forward to engaging with substantive comments' on the report. However, 'the real question is whether they'll listen to us', said Dessler.
The Guardian
10 hours ago
- The Guardian
Experts push to uphold credible climate science findings as Trump administration spreads doubt
Veteran climate scientists are organizing a coordinated public comment to a US Department of Energy (DOE) report which cast doubt on the scientific consensus on the climate crisis. The report, published late last month, claimed concerns about planet-warming fossil fuels are overblown, sparking widespread concern from scientists who said it was full of climate misinformation. It came as an attempt to support a proposal from the the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undo the 'endangerment finding', which forms the legal basis of virtually all US climate regulations. 'A public comment from experts can be useful because it injects expert analysis into a decision-making process that might otherwise be dominated by political, economic, or ideological considerations,' said Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University who is organizing the response to the report. 'Experts can identify technical errors, highlight overlooked data, and clarify uncertainties in ways that improve the accuracy and robustness of the final policy or report.' The response comes as part of a broader wave of experts' attempts to uphold established climate science as the Trump administration promotes contrarian and unproven viewpoints. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), the country's top group of scientific advisers, has launched a 'fast-track' review of the latest evidence on how greenhouse gases threaten human health and wellbeing – a move announced following the proposed endangerment finding rollback. NASEM, which advises the EPA and other federal agencies, plans to release their findings in September, in time to inform the EPA's decision on the endangerment finding. The initiative will be self-funded by the organization – a highly unusual practice from the congressionally chartered group, which usually responds to federal bodies' calls for advice. 'It is critical that federal policymaking is informed by the best available scientific evidence,' said Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, in a statement. Trump administration efforts to block access to data have also inspired pushback. This month, the president ousted the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after baselessly saying the data it publishes is 'RIGGED'. In earlier weeks, federal officials have also deleted key climate data and reports such as the national climate assessments and the US Global Change Research Program from government websites. The administration has changed 70% more of the information on official environmental websites during its first 100 days than the first Trump administration did, according to a report the research group Environmental Data and Governance Initiative published last week. In light of these actions, research organizations such as the Public Environmental Data Project and Cornerstone Sustainability Data Initiative have worked to safeguard and publicize data that the federal government is hiding from the public. 'Attacks on science are dangerous because they erode one of society's most effective tools for understanding the world and making decisions in the public interest,' said Dessler. 'When political or ideological forces undermine scientific institutions or discredit experts, they weaken our ability to harness this powerful tool.' Asked for comment about the NASEM review, an EPA spokesperson repeated a comment offered earlier this month: 'Congress never explicitly gave EPA authority to impose greenhouse gas regulations for cars and trucks.' The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to set emission standards for cars if the EPA administrator determines that their emissions endanger public health or welfare. That includes greenhouse gas emissions, due to the endangerment finding. Asked for comment on the DOE report supporting the EPA's position, Department of Energy spokesperson Ben Dietderich also repeated an earlier comment. 'This report critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence – not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous Presidential administrations,' he said. The UN and the US have regularly convened top scientists to produce scientific climate reports, which warn that urgent action to curb emissions is needed. Dietderich also said officials 'look forward to engaging with substantive comments' on the report. However, 'the real question is whether they'll listen to us,' said Dessler.
Reuters
11 hours ago
- Reuters
Putin appears ready to test new missile as he prepares for Trump talks, researchers say
WASHINGTON, Aug 13 (Reuters) - Russia appears to be preparing to test its new nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered cruise missile, according to two U.S. researchers and a Western security source, even as Russian President Vladimir Putin readies for talks on Ukraine with U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday. Jeffrey Lewis of the California-based Middlebury Institute of International Studies, and Decker Eveleth of the CNA research and analysis organization, based in Virginia, reached their assessments separately by studying imagery taken in recent weeks until Tuesday by Planet Labs, a commercial satellite firm. They agreed the photos showed extensive activity at the Pankovo test site on the Barents Sea archipelago of Novaya Zemlya, including increases in personnel and equipment and ships and aircraft associated with earlier tests of the 9M730 Burevestnik (Storm Petrel). "We can see all of the activity at the test site, which is both huge amounts of supplies coming in to support operations and movement at the place where they actually launch the missile," Lewis said. A Western security source, who asked not to be further identified, confirmed that Russia is preparing a Burevestnik test. Lewis said a test could occur this week, raising the possibility it could overshadow the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska. Asked for comment, the White House did not address the possibility of a Burevestnik test. The Pentagon, the CIA, and Russia's Defense Ministry declined to comment. Putin has said the weapon - dubbed the SSC-X-9 Skyfall by NATO - is "invincible" to current and future missile defenses, with an almost unlimited range and unpredictable flight path. Lewis, Eveleth, and two arms control experts said the missile's development has taken on more importance for Moscow since Trump announced in January the development of a U.S. Golden Dome missile defense shield. But many experts say it is unclear the missile can evade defenses, will not give Moscow capabilities it does not already have, and will spew radiation along its flight path. A test would have been scheduled long in advance of last week's announcement of the Trump-Putin meeting, the researchers and experts said. But Putin could have suspended preparations in view of U.S. spy satellites to signal his openness to ending his war in Ukraine as well as to restarting arms-control talks with the U.S., the experts said. New START, the last U.S.-Russia pact capping strategic nuclear deployments, expires on February 5. "Sometimes you can push up or push down the schedule for a political reason," said Tom Countryman, a former acting undersecretary of state for arms control. The Burevestnik has a poor test record, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative advocacy group, with two partial successes among 13 known tests. Eveleth and Lewis said the Planet Labs imagery showed stacks of shipping containers, equipment, and personnel arriving since late July. Lewis said two aircraft equipped to gather test data had been parked at the archipelago's Rogachevo military airfield since mid-July. Images he provided to Reuters showed two large jets mounted with saucer-shaped radar domes. He noted the presence of at least five ships associated with previous tests. A ship-tracking website - - showed a sixth ship linked to earlier tests was due to arrive on Tuesday, he said. Reuters confirmed the website showed the vessel, a cargo ship named the Teriberka, bound for Novaya Zemlya, but could not independently confirm the researchers' other findings. Eveleth and Lewis said they began examining imagery of Pankovo starting from July, after Russia on August 6 published a notice to mariners to stay away from the area from August 9-12. Reuters found a series of notices on the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's Defense Internet NOTAM Service issued by Russia showing a possible launch window between August 9-22. The Norwegian military told Reuters in an email that the Barents Sea is a "prime location for Russian missile tests" and that it had indications from notices and maritime warnings of "preparations for test activities." But it said it would "not confirm any knowledge of what kind of munitions they are to test." In late July, Eveleth said, he noticed a shelter protecting the Burevestnik launcher from the weather was being slid back and forth, which he called "very clear evidence" of plans for a test. Lewis provided to Reuters images taken of the site on August 7 showing the protective launcher cover, stacks of shipping containers, a crane for moving them, and a helicopter. "It's full steam ahead," he said of the pace of test preparations.
