Is Nuclear War Really the Answer to Climate Change?

A social media thread is gaining momentum as it paints nuclear war as a hero that can be the answer to climate change.

The validity of this claim was fact-checked by Newsweek.

International nuclear tensions have recently gotten more attention due to the ongoing war waged by Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. A small nuclear war's potential to cause a global cooling has been discussed.

Now questions are coming up if these claims are due any merit.

The Tweet

On October 6, the 2.4 million-follower World of Engineering, a popular Twitter account niching on science and engineering, tweeted about the potential consequences of a minor nuclear war.

The tweet went on to say that the planet is covered in a layer of soot that prevents the Sun's rays from reaching it because of smoke rising high into the atmosphere from the burning cities.

After a war, global temperatures drop by 2.25 degrees F for two to three years. Temperatures could drop from 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F in more tropical areas.

Over a thousand people liked the specific thread.

Ron Filipkowski, a former federal prosecutor, soon after uploaded a video of Donald Trump Jr., the son of the former president of the US, Donald Trump, to Twitter.

In it, Trump Jr. is seen speaking to the camera about nuclear war and claims to have read a news article the previous week that discussed how a minor nuclear conflict might help with global warming or perhaps the climate crisis.

Trump Jr. made no mention of the references that he claims made such a statement, nor did he provide any specific citations.

Technicalities and Fact Check

The terms "climate change" and "global warming" are neither equivalent, nor interchangeable.

Scientific consensus has phased out climate change in favor of global warming, with the latter deemed to be more accurate and comprehensive when describing the seismic shifts occurring in Earth's weather and temperature patterns.

Prior to analyzing some of these narratives, it is crucial to remember this.

Newsweek Fact Check investigated the scientific consensus on the subject to see if there was any research to support the underlying claim.

There is plenty of evidence that suggests that a nuclear war would temporarily reduce global temperatures, most probably only on land, but this does not solve the problem of global warming or the wider climate crisis.

Supporting Studies

Researchers from various institutions from around the world suggested in a study that was published in the journal Nature Food in August of this year that a nuclear war would eject significant amounts of soot into the planet's upper atmosphere.

This would then spread worldwide and "rapidly cool the planet."

The severity of the impacts would depend on the size of the nuclear war.

The study suggested that a hypothetical nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India could release five to 47 Tg of soot into space, whereas a more serious conflict between the US, its allied forces, and Russia could release over 150 Tg of soot.

One of the study's co-authors is distinguished professor of climate science Alan Robock from Rutgers University's Department of Environmental Sciences.

He claimed that World of Engineering's estimate of 2.25 degrees F for 2 to 3 years was "wrong" and that the effects on the climate would solely depend on the amount of smoke present.

He added that the duration of the possible impact does not rely on the volume of smoke to address the question of how long they would last.

The maximum effects will last for five years for each scenario.

Opposite of 'Solution'

Robock said that the effects of increased ultraviolet (UV) light on crop varieties, people, and ecosystems are one aspect that has not yet been thoroughly investigated.

The heating would destroy ozone in the stratosphere, allowing more UV radiation to reach the surface.

However, the impacts would be felt instantly for the smallest amount of smoke.

Before its effects could be felt at the surface, the excess UV would be absorbed by the large stratospheric smoke that has been stacking for years.

A nuclear war, according to Robock, would result in lower temperatures because the soot will indeed rise high enough in the atmosphere to prevent rain from washing it out.

The soot would then absorb sunlight, turning the Earth's surface dark and chilly.

The idea that a small nuclear war would stop global warming is untrue because these effects would only last a short time.

Warning, Not Suggesting

Whether accurate or not, it is noteworthy that the World of Engineering thread warned of the serious consequences of such an event rather than suggesting that the projected sharp decline in global temperatures would be highly beneficial to humanity.

A nuclear war would actually worsen the situation by sparking a brand-new climate crisis when considered in the larger context of climate change.

For instance, significant crop disparities in major exporters like the United States and Russia would result in export restrictions and have an impact on nations that rely heavily on imports.

According to the study, a war between the US and Russia could result in more than 5 billion deaths worldwide, while a war between Pakistan and India could result in more than 2 billion deaths worldwide.

Other studies also highlighted potential indirect effects of this kind of conflict, such as significant oceanic damage, which are likely to have further negative-and less predictable-effects on the environment.

The Verdict: FALSE.

Although just a small nuclear war might indeed have a temporary global cooling effect, it is incorrect to state that this would end the climate crisis, according to Newsweek's FACT CHECK.

This is due in part to the fact that the cooling effects would only last a short time and in part, because a nuclear winter would itself cause a climate crisis, leading to a global food crisis and perhaps billions of fatalities, Newsweek reported.