<SPAN name="conclusions"></SPAN>
<h3> SOME CONCLUSIONS </h3>
<p>We have considered the problems of large-scale nuclear war from the
standpoint of the countries not under direct attack, and the
difficulties they might encounter in postwar recovery. It is true that
most of the horror and tragedy of nuclear war would be visited on the
populations subject to direct attack, who would doubtless have to cope
with extreme and perhaps insuperable obstacles in seeking to
reestablish their own societies. It is no less apparent, however, that
other nations, including those remote from the combat, could suffer
heavily because of damage to the global environment.</p>
<p>Finally, at least brief mention should be made of the global effects
resulting from disruption of economic activities and communications.
Since 1970, an increasing fraction of the human race has been losing
the battle for self-sufficiency in food, and must rely on heavy
imports. A major disruption of agriculture and transportation in the
grain-exporting and manufacturing countries could thus prove disastrous
to countries importing food, farm machinery, and
fertilizers--especially those which are already struggling with the
threat of widespread starvation. Moreover, virtually every economic
area, from food and medicines to fuel and growth engendering
industries, the less-developed countries would find they could not rely
on the "undamaged" remainder of the developed world for trade
essentials: in the wake of a nuclear war the industrial powers directly
involved would themselves have to compete for resources with those
countries that today are described as "less-developed."</p>
<p>Similarly, the disruption of international communications--satellites,
cables, and even high frequency radio links--could be a major obstacle
to international recovery efforts.</p>
<p>In attempting to project the after-effects of a major nuclear war, we
have considered separately the various kinds of damage that could
occur. It is also quite possible, however, that interactions might
take place among these effects, so that one type of damage would couple
with another to produce new and unexpected hazards. For example, we
can assess individually the consequences of heavy worldwide radiation
fallout and increased solar ultraviolet, but we do not know whether the
two acting together might significantly increase human, animal, or
plant susceptibility to disease. We can conclude that massive dust
injection into the stratosphere, even greater in scale than Krakatoa,
is unlikely by itself to produce significant climatic and environmental
change, but we cannot rule out interactions with other phenomena, such
as ozone depletion, which might produce utterly unexpected results.</p>
<p>We have come to realize that nuclear weapons can be as unpredictable as
they are deadly in their effects. Despite some 30 years of development
and study, there is still much that we do not know. This is
particularly true when we consider the global effects of a large-scale
nuclear war.</p>
<br/><br/><br/>
<SPAN name="note1"></SPAN>
<h3> Note 1: Nuclear Weapons Yield </h3>
<p>The most widely used standard for measuring the power of nuclear
weapons is "yield," expressed as the quantity of chemical explosive
(TNT) that would produce the same energy release. The first atomic
weapon which leveled Hiroshima in 1945, had a yield of 13 kilotons;
that is, the explosive power of 13,000 tons of TNT. (The largest
conventional bomb dropped in World War II contained about 10 tons of
TNT.)</p>
<p>Since Hiroshima, the yields or explosive power of nuclear weapons have
vastly increased. The world's largest nuclear detonation, set off in
1962 by the Soviet Union, had a yield of 58 megatons--equivalent to 58
million tons of TNT. A modern ballistic missile may carry warhead
yields up to 20 or more megatons.</p>
<p>Even the most violent wars of recent history have been relatively
limited in terms of the total destructive power of the non-nuclear
weapons used. A single aircraft or ballistic missile today can carry a
nuclear explosive force surpassing that of all the non-nuclear bombs
used in recent wars. The number of nuclear bombs and missiles the
superpowers now possess runs into the thousands.</p>
<br/><br/><br/>
<SPAN name="note2"></SPAN>
<h3> Note 2: Nuclear Weapons Design </h3>
<p>Nuclear weapons depend on two fundamentally different types of nuclear
reactions, each of which releases energy:</p>
<p>Fission, which involves the splitting of heavy elements (e.g. uranium);
and fusion, which involves the combining of light elements (e.g.
hydrogen).</p>
<p>Fission requires that a minimum amount of material or "critical mass"
be brought together in contact for the nuclear explosion to take place.
The more efficient fission weapons tend to fall in the yield range of
tens of kilotons. Higher explosive yields become increasingly complex
and impractical.</p>
<p>Nuclear fusion permits the design of weapons of virtually limitless
power. In fusion, according to nuclear theory, when the nuclei of light
atoms like hydrogen are joined, the mass of the fused nucleus is
lighter than the two original nuclei; the loss is expressed as energy.
By the 1930's, physicists had concluded that this was the process which
powered the sun and stars; but the nuclear fusion process remained only
of theoretical interest until it was discovered that an atomic fission
bomb might be used as a "trigger" to produce, within one- or
two-millionths of a second, the intense pressure and temperature
necessary to set off the fusion reaction.</p>
<p>Fusion permits the design of weapons of almost limitless power, using
materials that are far less costly.</p>
<br/><br/><br/>
<SPAN name="note3"></SPAN>
<h3> Note 3: Radioactivity </h3>
<p>Most familiar natural elements like hydrogen, oxygen, gold, and lead
are stable, and enduring unless acted upon by outside forces. But
almost all elements can exist in unstable forms. The nuclei of these
unstable "isotopes," as they are called, are "uncomfortable" with the
particular mixture of nuclear particles comprising them, and they
decrease this internal stress through the process of radioactive decay.</p>
<p>The three basic modes of radioactive decay are the emission of alpha,
beta and gamma radiation:</p>
<p>Alpha--Unstable nuclei frequently emit alpha particles, actually helium
nuclei consisting of two protons and two neutrons. By far the most
massive of the decay particles, it is also the slowest, rarely
exceeding one-tenth the velocity of light. As a result, its
penetrating power is weak, and it can usually be stopped by a piece of
paper. But if alpha emitters like plutonium are incorporated in the
body, they pose a serious cancer threat.</p>
<p>Beta--Another form of radioactive decay is the emission of a beta
particle, or electron. The beta particle has only about one
seven-thousandth the mass of the alpha particle, but its velocity is
very much greater, as much as eight-tenths the velocity of light. As a
result, beta particles can penetrate far more deeply into bodily tissue
and external doses of beta radiation represent a significantly greater
threat than the slower, heavier alpha particles. Beta-emitting
isotopes are as harmful as alpha emitters if taken up by the body.</p>
<p>Gamma--In some decay processes, the emission is a photon having no mass
at all and traveling at the speed of light. Radio waves, visible
light, radiant heat, and X-rays are all photons, differing only in the
energy level each carries. The gamma ray is similar to the X-ray
photon, but far more penetrating (it can traverse several inches of
concrete). It is capable of doing great damage in the body.</p>
<p>Common to all three types of nuclear decay radiation is their ability
to ionize (i.e., unbalance electrically) the neutral atoms through
which they pass, that is, give them a net electrical charge. The alpha
particle, carrying a positive electrical charge, pulls electrons from
the atoms through which it passes, while negatively charged beta
particles can push electrons out of neutral atoms. If energetic betas
pass sufficiently close to atomic nuclei, they can produce X-rays which
themselves can ionize additional neutral atoms. Massless but energetic
gamma rays can knock electrons out of neutral atoms in the same fashion
as X-rays, leaving them ionized. A single particle of radiation can
ionize hundreds of neutral atoms in the tissue in multiple collisions
before all its energy is absorbed. This disrupts the chemical bonds
for critically important cell structures like the cytoplasm, which
carries the cell's genetic blueprints, and also produces chemical
constituents which can cause as much damage as the original ionizing
radiation.</p>
<p>For convenience, a unit of radiation dose called the "rad" has been
adopted. It measures the amount of ionization produced per unit volume
by the particles from radioactive decay.</p>
<br/><br/><br/>
<SPAN name="note4"></SPAN>
<h3> Note 4: Nuclear Half-Life </h3>
<p>The concept of "half-life" is basic to an understanding of radioactive
decay of unstable nuclei.</p>
<p>Unlike physical "systems"--bacteria, animals, men and stars--unstable
isotopes do not individually have a predictable life span. There is no
way of forecasting when a single unstable nucleus will decay.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, it is possible to get around the random behavior of an
individual nucleus by dealing statistically with large numbers of
nuclei of a particular radioactive isotope. In the case of
thorium-232, for example, radioactive decay proceeds so slowly that 14
billion years must elapse before one-half of an initial quantity
decayed to a more stable configuration. Thus the half-life of this
isotope is 14 billion years. After the elapse of second half-life
(another 14 billion years), only one-fourth of the original quantity of
thorium-232 would remain, one eighth after the third half-life, and so
on.</p>
<p>Most manmade radioactive isotopes have much shorter half-lives, ranging
from seconds or days up to thousands of years. Plutonium-239 (a
manmade isotope) has a half-life of 24,000 years.</p>
<p>For the most common uranium isotope, U-238, the half-life is 4.5
billion years, about the age of the solar system. The much scarcer,
fissionable isotope of uranium, U-235, has a half-life of 700 million
years, indicating that its present abundance is only about 1 percent of
the amount present when the solar system was born.</p>
<br/><br/><br/>
<SPAN name="note5"></SPAN>
<h3> Note 5: Oxygen, Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation </h3>
<p>Oxygen, vital to breathing creatures, constitutes about one-fifth of
the earth's atmosphere. It occasionally occurs as a single atom in the
atmosphere at high temperature, but it usually combines with a second
oxygen atom to form molecular oxygen (O2). The oxygen in the air we
breathe consists primarily of this stable form.</p>
<p>Oxygen has also a third chemical form in which three oxygen atoms are
bound together in a single molecule (03), called ozone. Though less
stable and far more rare than O2, and principally confined to upper
levels of the stratosphere, both molecular oxygen and ozone play a
vital role in shielding the earth from harmful components of solar
radiation.</p>
<p>Most harmful radiation is in the "ultraviolet" region of the solar
spectrum, invisible to the eye at short wavelengths (under 3,000 A).
(An angstrom unit--A--is an exceedingly short unit of length--10
billionths of a centimeter, or about 4 billionths of an inch.) Unlike
X-rays, ultraviolet photons are not "hard" enough to ionize atoms, but
pack enough energy to break down the chemical bonds of molecules in
living cells and produce a variety of biological and genetic
abnormalities, including tumors and cancers.</p>
<p>Fortunately, because of the earth's atmosphere, only a trace of this
dangerous ultraviolet radiation actually reaches the earth. By the
time sunlight reaches the top of the stratosphere, at about 30 miles
altitude, almost all the radiation shorter than 1,900 A has been
absorbed by molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. Within the stratosphere
itself, molecular oxygen (02) absorbs the longer wavelengths of
ultraviolet, up to 2,420 A; and ozone (O3) is formed as a result of
this absorption process. It is this ozone then which absorbs almost all
of the remaining ultraviolet wavelengths up to about 3,000 A, so that
almost all of the dangerous solar radiation is cut off before it
reaches the earth's surface.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />