The lighted section of the table in front of him went out.

After a short pause, the chairman of the meeting took the floor.

– Now, colleagues, let's hear two more versions of the consequences of atomic war. Optimistic and pessimistic. Pessimistic: "Possible scenarios and a review of the main hypotheses about the consequences of atomic war". You have the floor, Master.

Jarovitovich turned his face to the man sitting to his right. The Magister made a slight nod of his head and the area on the table in front of him lit up. Rutra noticed that the text of the report appeared in that area, but only when the speaker stopped speaking or pressed his finger on the spot.

– Dear colleagues, masters, gentlemen. In mid-December 2018, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War analyzed the consequences of a local nuclear conflict.

A couple of decades after the invention of nuclear weapons, scientists began to wonder about the consequences of their large-scale use. According to most apocalyptic hypotheses, in the event of a local or global nuclear conflict, colossal amounts of smoke and ash would be released into the atmosphere at once. Almost all scientists agree that there will be climate change. It is not clear just exactly what these changes will be. Some are inclined to talk about a sharp and significant increase in temperature, others – about its fall to Arctic values, others – about a slight change in temperature graphs. In any case, none of the proposed scenarios gives mankind a serious chance of survival: and if anyone can survive a global nuclear war, they will still die of hunger and disease. The number of casualties from nuclear conflicts of varying intensity could range from a billion to four billion, with a subsequent active population decline from epidemics, starvation, and poisoning. Within days of a major nuclear conflict, temperatures on Earth would rise. As a result of the nuclear explosions themselves, as well as the numerous fires caused by them, the temperature on Earth will become several degrees higher. The increase in temperature will lead to various natural disasters, including flooding of low-lying areas of land due to melting glaciers. In addition, the explosions will release a huge amount of nitrogen dioxide into the atmosphere, which will cause almost complete destruction of the protective ozone layer over the Earth's surface. Thus, the greenhouse effect will only intensify. According to the most optimistic forecasts, the "nuclear summer" will last one to three years, but many scientists are sure that it will be much longer.

The speaker coughed and continued speaking:

– There is only one difference between the popular "nuclear summer" scenarios. Some researchers say it will begin immediately after a nuclear war. Others believe that the summer will be preceded by a short nuclear winter. The "nuclear winter" theory has many opponents, who, in particular, remind us that since 1945, more than two thousand nuclear tests have been conducted worldwide, which is equivalent to a full-scale protracted conflict. Nevertheless, there has been no serious climate change. The theory of "nuclear winter" also does not take into account the greenhouse effect and heating of soot particles by the sun. In addition, as skeptics note, previous observations of large volcanic eruptions and oil fires have not shown soot and aerosols rising more than six kilometers from the surface of the earth. At this altitude, water vapor condenses rapidly on the soot, and it falls to the ground with rainfall in a short time. Consequences: the Fall variant. In the second half of the 2000s, researchers began talking about a "nuclear fallback." The program was developed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In support of their theory, supporters of the "nuclear autumn", as well as "nuclear winter", cited studies of climate change in the Persian Gulf after the war between Iraq and Kuwait in August 1990. In January 1991, the Iraqi forces that captured Kuwait retreated but set fire to some 700 oil wells. The fires were not put out until November. However, only a fraction of the smoke reached the stratosphere and Asia was not affected. After the fires stopped, the climate returned to normal within a year. Almost completely the consequences of the global nuclear conflict will disappear only after 90-100 years. My report is over, colleagues.

Finally this speaker finished his speech as well, the lights in front of him went out.

– Now let's hear an optimistic view of the problem. You have the floor," Yarovitovich pointed to a colleague sitting on the left, third in the row.

The area on the table in front of him turned on and a text appeared on it. Without a greeting, the speaker began his report:

– By the mid-1970s, the accumulation of huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the USA and the USSR and the threat of mutual annihilation gave rise to many phobias among ordinary people. Thus, among the probable consequences of a global nuclear war between the superpowers as a result of numerous nuclear explosions were: the possibility of splitting the Earth's crust, changes in the planet's orbit and tilt axis, thermonuclear detonation as a result of underwater nuclear explosions of "heavy water" accumulated in the depths of the world's oceans. Mankind has never had enough nuclear warheads for this. People tend to exaggerate their own power, importance and, as a consequence, their ability to control large energies. The amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth in one day alone is many times greater than the energy consumed by the entire humanity. It is known that in the prehistoric past seismic and volcanic activity on the planet was much greater, but it did not lead to the extinction of life. Some volcanoes in one day of eruption emit into the atmosphere energy that exceeds the annual electricity production of any country. More than 3500 thousand volcanic eruptions were recorded in the 20th century. In large eruptions, the amount of energy released exceeds the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima by a factor of tens or even hundreds. These eruptions often cause significant damage to the economies of individual countries and may cause loss of life, but they have had no noticeable effect on population growth. Numerous atmospheric nuclear tests have shown that mass fires are simply impossible in the shockwave zone. References to the example of mass fires in the nuclear bombed Hiroshima are absolutely incorrect. This Japanese city, where bamboo buildings prevailed, burned out not because of the impact of light radiation, but because of mass kitchen fires in damaged buildings, as the majority of the Japanese population at that time used coal stoves for cooking. Of course, there are exceptions: nuclear explosions in the vicinity of oil refineries, large fuel storage facilities, or oilfields are bound to produce significant soot emissions into the atmosphere. However, the experience of the 1991 events in the Persian Gulf clearly shows that the smoke from many burning oil wells and oil storages did not rise above 6 kilometers and did not reach the stratosphere. Proponents of the "nuclear winter" theory are fond of recalling the large eruption of the Tambora volcano on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa in 1815. The effect of this powerful eruption resulted in some cooling, but despite crop failures and famine, there was no significant reduction in population.