New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Nuclear Exchange

A local conflict could produce a global nightmare

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The end of the cold war and ongoing arms-control efforts by the U.S., Russia and other countries have greatly reduced the threat of global nuclear annihilation. But rogue nations and continued tensions make a local exchange of nuclear firepower all too real.

A single detonation can cause horrible death in several ways. The Hiroshima blast—equal to about 15 kilotons of TNT—generated supersonic wind speeds that crushed concrete buildings near ground zero. Heat from the blast scorched to death anyone within one kilometer. People many kilometers away eventually succumbed to radiation poisoning and cancer.

Global effects, however, would not happen unless dozens of bombs exploded, as might occur in an exchange between Pakistan and India. In modeling the effects, scientists have assumed that those nations would unload their entire arsenals, so that about 100 Hiroshima-size bombs would go off [see “Local Nuclear War, Global Suffering,” by Alan Robock and Owen Brian Toon; Scientific American, January].


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Aside from 20 million killed in the war, many outside the conflict would perish over time. That is because the blasts would throw up five million metric tons of soot into the upper atmosphere. Driven by weather patterns, the particulates would encircle the globe in about a week; within two months they would blanket the planet. Darkened skies would rob plants of sunlight and disrupt the food chain for 10 years. The resulting famine could kill the one billion people who now survive on marginal food supplies.

The outcome is grim. But there is one bright spot: it is within humanity’s ability—and responsibility—to see that such a world-changing event never happens.

Philip Yam is the managing editor of ScientificAmerican.com, responsible for the overall news content online. He began working at the magazine in 1989, first as a copyeditor and then as a features editor specializing in physics. He is the author of The Pathological Protein: Mad Cow, Chronic Wasting and Other Prion Diseases.

More by Philip Yam
Scientific American Magazine Vol 302 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Nuclear Exchange” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 302 No. 6 (), p. 40
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0610-40b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe