Those were low double digit kiloton weapons that were detonated as air bursts. Now a days they would be classified as tactical nukes. So, you wouldn't expect a "nuclear wasteland".
Nukes are real, but they are nowhere near the doom porn that the media makes them out to be. A nuclear war would suck, and kill a lot of people, but it's not an extinction level event. The Nuclear Winter stuff is all bullshit too. It's based on an unsophisticated model from the 70s with ridiculous assumptions.
They were also relatively "clean" compared to what we call "dirty" bombs. Additionally, generally, the explosions became relatively cleaner over time. Likewise, this is specifically why underground testing became the norm. As this significantly reduced the worst of it above ground. Locking in the worst radioactivity underground.
But they say Chernobyl should be uninhabitable for at least 100 yeras after the event.
It is largely safe so long as you don't disturb the soil or dust and don't inhale any of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1up-TRMxdo
Now go research what happened to the people who returned to live there after the extensive clean up.
"Dont disturb or inhale the soil/dust" is a big deal. For a transitory visit, you can wear a mask and hike in on foot to be pretty darn safe. You're not ingesting dust or soil, so you're not being exposed to alpha radiation.
Habitation is another matter entirely. You cant wear a mask 24/7/365. Which means you're at risk of exposure to alpha particles, which will kill you.
You also need to disturb the soil and dust for building and road construction or maintenance to inhabit the area.
Radiation is also highly dose dependent. Your body can repair from a transitory visit. Living there...the cellular damage accumulates through generations of cells.
The wildfires in canada blanketed a good portion of the US in thick smoke. That same wind distribution will cover large areas in radioactive fallout. Those blasts will come with large fires too.
The media can't be trusted, but nuclear winter is a real threat given the fact that dozens, if not hundreds, of nukes go off evenly spaced accross the continent.
I would disagree with some of that. 1) most strikes would be airbursts, which would really in minimal fallout. Only anti counterstrike capability strikes would be at ground level. 2) The nuclear Winter hypothesis doesn't seem to be consistent with empirical days. Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 shot over 1 cubic mile of debris into the stratosphere. The result was a slightly cooler summer for 1 year in the northern hemisphere. 29,000 square miles of fuel dense forest burned in Canada this year with no perceptible impact on even regional temperatures. Further, the world is 70 percent ocean, with few to no strategic targets in the southern hemisphere. So the part of the world that is burning will be a relatively minor fraction of the total surface. Finally, there is no longer a need to "pound the rubble" with multi-megaton weapons for to missile inaccuracy. Through the mid 80s high value targets would be targeted by multiple huge weapons because the accuracy of the delivery system couldn't guarantee a hit. Now, weapons are much lower yield because the platforms carrying them can get them close enough to the target to guarantee destruction. That will significantly limit the extent of fires.
(post is archived)