This spring I was stranded in Europe for a week, a minor victim of Mother Nature, as most airports on the continent were closed after the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland. This remote natural event did not result in a huge human death toll but still caused hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenue for almost all the world’s major airlines. More important, it disrupted millions of people’s lives.
Such is the nature of our modern interconnected society, where a catastrophe in one corner of the world can nonetheless affect almost immediately the livelihood and well-being of people around the globe.
The Icelandic eruption took on additional significance, following as it did the Nuclear Security Summit that President Barack Obama convened in Washington, D.C., to help begin to secure nuclear materials and to work toward combating global nuclear proliferation. For 40 years the world was focused on the possibility of mutually assured destruction and global annihilation, with literally thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on the mere warning of an attack.
But the dangers facing the modern world are far more complex. The president has emphasized the devastating global economic and social impact that the explosion of even a single nuclear weapon in a major metropolis would have, beyond of course the tragic loss of human life. Moreover, as more countries in regions with rising geopolitical tensions seek to possess nuclear weapons, the likelihood of both nuclear terrorism and regional nuclear conflicts only continues to increase.
As the event in Iceland makes abundantly clear, “regional” is an illusion in the modern world. A recent set of scientific studies by Alan Robock of Rutgers University, Owen B. Toon of the University of Colorado at Boulder and their colleagues—reported on in journals ranging from Science to Scientific American (see the January 2010 issue)—demonstrates a more pernicious impact from even a limited nuclear exchange in what, for North Americans, would seem to be a remote part of the world where natural disasters might be more easily and habitually ignored.
The studies conclude that a regional nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan that detonated merely 100 Hiroshima-size weapons (which are far smaller than many of those in current nuclear arsenals) not only could produce as many fatalities as World War II but also would drastically disrupt the planet’s climate for at least a decade. Up to five million tons of smoke would rise above cloud level and within days form a global stratospheric smoke layer, which would for years block 7 to 10 percent of sunlight reaching the earth. Average surface temperatures could drop lower than they have at any time in the past millennium, significantly shortening growing seasons and reducing the average global precipitation.
To grasp the true magnitude of the human catastrophe from such a use of nuclear weapons, it is perhaps easiest to return to the situation in Europe after the Eyjafjallajökull eruption. Estimates I have gleaned from various sources suggest that the volcano spewed perhaps a million tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere, only slightly smaller in magnitude than the amount predicted to result from a limited nuclear weapons exchange. But the particles of soot from the intense fires ignited by nuclear explosions are much smaller and therefore rise higher into the atmosphere. They also reflect more light than the larger silicon particles emitted by volcanoes. The net result is that this soot would remain in the atmosphere far longer and have a much greater climate-changing effect, affecting agriculture worldwide.
A small volcano in Iceland that was able to paralyze commerce and travel for hundreds of millions of people around the world sends a chilling message: even a limited and remote use of nuclear weapons anywhere will be devastating on a global scale. Airline cancellations would be the least of our worries.
This article was originally published with the title No Country Is an Island.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentShouldn't the title be "No country is isolated" or something else?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause, in fact, The UK, Iceland, Equatorial Guinea and many other countries ARE islands. I understand the attempted play on words - but it is not accurate and it is an overused and played out metaphor.
The magnitude of the worldwide impact of the Eyjafjallajökull eruption was primarily the result of its proximity to Europe and the British Isles, disrupting EU transportation schedules and impacting US international traffic. The much more significant eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 caused less impact around the world, mostly in Asia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author's personal experiences aside, much of the impact of the Eyjafjallajökull eruption was a product of its location relative to airline traffic lanes and population centers. It didn't hardly affect me at all - does that make me an island?
The magnitude of the worldwide impact of the Eyjafjallajökull eruption was primarily the result of government interference - overcautious restrictions on flying. It makes more sense to leave it up to carriers and their insurance companies than to bureaucrats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConundrum - There may be some merit to what say, but there have been near catastrophic failures from brief exposure to ash, including loss of all engines, scuffing of windshields, clogging of instrument sensors, etc., most of these incidents occurred in the 1980s. I'm not an aviator but I was employed by one of the world's largest airlines for >25 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the number of commercial flights as well as small aviation that would have otherwise occurred in the immediate vicinity of the Eyjafjallajökull ash cloud caution was justifiable. If the decision to fly had been given to each carrier (or private pilot), undoubtedly some serious and potentially catastrophic flight problems would have occurred. There is always some pressure to continue to collect revenues. In addition, flight schedules could not have been maintained once a significant number of flights were delayed, affecting all passenger connections, etc.
Millions of dollars of lost revenue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you people not realised that money is the biggest con of all. Enslavement is the purpose of money in today's world, and the bankers have the keys to the kingdom. A few executions would have saved money, too late now.
Money is a measure of value used to exchange goods, services and assets. It is also supposed to be a store of value, if inflation did not exist, this would be true.
Go back to the second war in Iraq, the US military drove into the exchequer and loaded up several trucks with bits of paper called money. When the bureaucrats at the exchequer wanted to count/weigh the trucks to account for the so called money taken the commander overruled them and asserted he was just taking pieces of paper.
The commander was right. It has become difficult to live without money, but its value? don't use it and it aint going to be worth much tomorrow. All money is just about as fragile as Mugabi's now defunct dollar.
Just was watching a History Channel show on Ben Franklin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems he understood back in the 1700's that a year or two long 'cold spell' that affected growing seasons etc; was caused by a much larger eruption of this same volcano. And he published it in his "Almanac". And I remember also that in the mid 1800's a volcanic eruption in SE Asia caused a similar 'cold spell' for the entire planert for several years. I wonder if the world is 'ready' for the next one????
sir bill - You might also remember that a much larger eruption of the Toba supervolcano in (now) Indonesia about 70kya is thought to have reduced the human population from maybe 1M to perhaps less than 10k. 10,000 people is only a marginally viable population. Of course with our current population densities and infrastructure dependencies I'd guess that if a larger population couldn't survive then none would...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased on past frequencies, the Yellowstone supervolcano is due to erupt any time now, although it seems to be fairly quiet right now. But these are the least of our problems...
There was a volcanic eruption in Iceland?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho knew?
BTW, didn't affect anyone I know. Sorry.
Whether the title or the volcano analogy is accurate, is irrelevant. The study shows that nuclear weapons will cause a significant effect on global climate. Special studies also involving North Korea, Iraq, Isreal, etc. should be performed to convince THEM that THEY will suffer if they use such weapons near their own countries. This would be the most effective way of curtailing their use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA history of the world would go like this--humans have effective weapons, humans use effective weapons. The UN ban on gas warfare was observed in WWII only because gas is not that effective a weapon--it disperses easily in wind and countermeasures work. You can't rely on a gas attack.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same might be said of biological weapons. They only work if you have an antidote or vaccination to protect your own population. But that would have to be applied in a mass process, which means the secret would get out and your enemy would copy your biological defense or just nuke you.
If your neighbor is Iran or North Korea and they have nukes, wouldn't you want to have several dozen H-bombs of your own? Not puny Hiroshima-size bombs, but real multi megaton bombs enhanced by tritium, which the US rapidly declines in.