| To clarify, of the 2,121 nuclear tests conducted, 520 have been "above ground" at surface level or atmospheric. That's more than a quarter, and a good many of the above ground tests were larger blasts than the below ground tests which got smaller and smaller as time progressed and atmospheric tests were phased out. The nuclear tests I've been present for were underground and relatively small, one fusion 3x Hiroshima yield (which is 'small' for a fusion bomb), the rest fission and micro sub kilo tonne blasts (smaller than mining bench explosions). The largest bomb, the Tsar, was detonated high in the sky, the sea level dirtiest bomb took out an entire coral reef system and scattered radioactive fallout across the seas to Japan. > In a nuclear exchange, most devices would detonate above the target surface level to maximize destruction through the shockwave. ... and, it should be said, minimize radioactive fallout as bombs are no longer doped to increase radiation and detonation elevations are chosen to maximize physical shock wave damage and not tear a crater in the earth throwing "fallout" up and outwards. Nuclear winter itself is a theory that has had less support in recent times, when first put forward it served the people demonstrating against nuclear weapons to highlight the worst case scenario, and it served diplomats that saw MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as useful way to cap post world war aggression and nuclear escalation. Many of the scientific papers that support a nuclear winter scenario are little more than rough back of the envelope worst case over estimates with few examples that dig into details and not much support from real world oil fire and volcano data for extended multi year devastating persistence. |