That is an unfounded claim. According to Nuclear War Survival Skills (a downloadable book on the construction of improvised fallout shelters), nuclear fallout remains directly lethal only for two weeks. This is the kind of fallout produced from a detonation where the fireball touches the earth. After this period, radiation from the fallout is weak enough that it is safe to move about for a limited time each day. A nuclear detonation in the air produces much less fallout, and it will be diluted over a much larger area unless there is precipation.
Any discussion beyond this is guesswork..as far as I know we have never really studied this stuff. It would be interesting if someone could point out that I'm wrong. The following article claims that the number of birth defects and cancer-related deaths from the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings are too small to be seen in the (admittedly sparse) data collected.
I think it's a good idea to study the traditional notion that nuclear war is so extremely destructive. The subject seems to be a voluntary intellectual wasteland - no one ever wants to find out how things really would work, only quote the canonical belief that any nuclear war would cause huge amounts of deaths from cancer, birth abnormalities, barren fields, genetic mutations and nuclear winter.
What such a war would do to society is an entirely different matter, but this is almost never discussed.
I think it's a good idea to study the traditional notion that nuclear war is so extremely destructive.
I love the word "traditional". As I was saying to my wife the other day, on the occasion of the passing of Les Paul, "it's amazing how many of the inventors of our ancient and venerable traditions were still walking around as of last week."
In this case, the "traditional notion" that nuclear war could destroy all of life of earth dates back only to the 1960s, was by no means universally accepted, and still is not universally accepted. Nuclear survivability has, for obvious reasons, always been of intense interest to our political leaders, and I assure you that the subject is not an "intellectual wasteland": There are reams and reams of research on it. Much of it is classified, of course.
And talk of "what will happen after the nuclear war" used to be popular -- witness all those movies and bomb shelters and plans made during the 1950s and early 1960s, when people held the then-quite-reasonable belief that nuclear war was inevitable. But then the popular notion of global nuclear annhilation took hold -- probably because, like quite a few "traditional notions", it contains a big grain of truth. Perhaps it is hard to kill the whole world in a nuclear war. But it's not so hard to kill my whole world. I can give you a target list of eight cities, all of which contain major US research universities, which (if bombed) would destroy, say, 95% of all the people I've ever known. In a full-scale nuclear exchange involving the United States, odds are that my world would be destroyed. (I, personally, am incredibly likely to die in the initial blast wave, as I live down the street from the Route 128 tech corridor, home to companies like Raytheon.)
So maybe a person who lives in the New Guinea highlands really can afford to laugh at the prospect of the post-apocalypse. (May we never know.) But those of us who live in Boston, San Franci, New York, or Washington can't. Because, for us, bombing all four of those cities would be an apocalypse.
In a full-on nuclear exchange, it would be much more than major cities getting attacked. I live about 5 miles from Lincoln Labs and about 6 miles from Raytheon, so I'm screwed anyway. But, every ICBM installation, every port, and every military base would also be attacked in such a situation. I'd love to see some specific data on it, but I'd bet when you add those targets to the major cities, the vast, vast majority of the US population wouldn't fare too well.
Of all the "noble lies", if you could call them that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie), people way over exaggerating the potential negative capability of nuclear weapons has to one of the least harmful and most positive. Any country or organization using nukes in warfare would suffer such a huge global backlash that it'd mitigate almost any tactical benefit. That's probably a large reason why the United States, Israel, and Russia, who've all had some pretty serious armed conflicts since getting their arsenals online, haven't used them at all.
I'm generally considered very pro-military in the crowd I run in, but I consider the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to both be in the top ten of WWII atrocities, and that's saying something.
Any discussion beyond this is guesswork..as far as I know we have never really studied this stuff. It would be interesting if someone could point out that I'm wrong. The following article claims that the number of birth defects and cancer-related deaths from the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings are too small to be seen in the (admittedly sparse) data collected.
I think it's a good idea to study the traditional notion that nuclear war is so extremely destructive. The subject seems to be a voluntary intellectual wasteland - no one ever wants to find out how things really would work, only quote the canonical belief that any nuclear war would cause huge amounts of deaths from cancer, birth abnormalities, barren fields, genetic mutations and nuclear winter.
What such a war would do to society is an entirely different matter, but this is almost never discussed.