Matt Whiting wrote:

Would the radiation really affect the temperature all that much? Would
it block that much radiation from the sun? I can't find it now, but I
remember reading once how much effort man would have to make to have the
impact of one large volcanic eruption, and it was a huge effort.

Back in the 70s the concept of "nuclear winter" was popular. The general idea
was that a nuclear war would put enough dust into the stratosphere to block off
a significant portion of the sun's energy. As I recall, the effects of Krakatoa
were advanced as evidence of what would happen (the explosion of Krakatoa
produced the "year without a summer").

It would take much more than "a few" nukes to do that, though. In 1962 alone,
the U.S. set off 98 devices in the atmosphere. We set off 43 at Eniwetok and 23
at Bikini atoll in other years. So far, the U.S. alone has conducted 1,054 test
explosions. All set off before 1962 were in the atmosphere. Other countries have
conducted about the same number.

When this sort of thing was advanced as an argument against the concept of
nuclear winter, the people who believed in it argued that setting off nukes over
cities would put more dust in the air than setting them off over the Nevada test
grounds. At this point, the discussions began to take on the tone of a religious
argument.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.