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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe