While Joe Biden continues to provoke by pouring oil on the fire, Russian President Vladimir Putin has again spoken of nuclear weapons in the face of a full-blown war by the West against his country.
Many specialists warn that our planet is closer to an “Armageddon” than ever since the Cuban missile crisis.
A nuclear confrontation is unlikely, but if it does, it could lead to unprecedented catastrophe, depending on the type and frequency of weapons used.
And even Brazil, far from Europe and the U.S., would suffer the consequences.
According to experts, the consequences of the explosions would reach this far.
But with super powerful nuclear weapons, even indirect effects could lead to a catastrophe.
In large numbers, the explosion of powerful nuclear weapons could throw a large amount of dust, soot, and particles into the atmosphere.
This would block sunlight for long enough to kill some plants.
In addition, such an attack could cause the Earth’s surface to cool due to the lack of light, which would also affect Brazil.
If the United States intervenes in the event of a nuclear attack by Russia, or vice versa, the consequences could be even more catastrophic.
Guilherme Bruneri, a physicist with a master’s degree in particle physics from the ITA (Institute of Aeronautics Technology), explains that both countries’ nuclear weapons are more potent than those used at the end of World War II in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The atomic bomb explosions in the Japanese cities killed 150,000 people instantly.
“Both Russia and the U.S. today have thermonuclear bombs or hydrogen bombs that are more powerful than the atomic bombs that were dropped at the end of World War II.
The main difference between the two types of bombs is the physical principle used to generate the atomic energy,” he explains.
“A possible nuclear war could almost wipe out humanity today, considering that only countries in the Northern Hemisphere would be affected,” Bruneri says.
Bombs of the Tsar’s strength, already tested by Russia, have an energy equivalent to about 57 million tons of TNT and are 3,000 timespotentwerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
“But the secondary consequences would be crucial problems. One of them is blocking sunlight with soot due to the force of the explosions, which affects food production.”
He also points to the risk of large-scale radiation contamination and loss of technical equipment due to radioactive disruption.
“All these processes are called nuclear holocaust.”
According to him, blocking sunlight could lead to a sharp drop in temperature: Simulations show that temperatures in some regions could drop by as much as 20°C.
“That alone would be enough to affect crops and harvests that are more sensitive to climate fluctuations,” the physicist explains.
The ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere could be partially destroyed, making sunlight dangerous and leading to burns and increased skin cancer.
These consequences, of course, depend on the size and strength of the arsenal used.
And even if there is no large-scale destruction of the planet, using such weapons can also destabilize relations between countries and impact trade and food access.
According to attorney Renato Dellova, chairman of the International Relations Commission of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) in Campinas and a law professor at the University of San Francisco (USF), Brazil would suffer from increased inflation in products such as grains and shortage of imported goods.
Ukraine, Russia, and Brazil are the three largest corn producers in the world.
With production and transportation affected by a nuclear war, Brazilian corn exports could increase, but that would unlikely happen without decreasing the grain supply domestically.
“That would affect supply and make meat consumption more expensive, for example, since animals are fed mainly on corn. It would also increase the price of fuel that Brazil imports, which would affect grain transportation,” Dellova explains.
“This type of conflict causes a shock to trade and the chain of destruction in the world. This would shake world trade in unpredictable ways.”
“Not to mention the risk of contamination of products by weapons of this model,” adds Vitor Barletta Machado, a political scientist at the Faculty of Social Sciences of PUC Campinas.