It's worse than this.
Let's assume that 100% of the warheads never reach the US but 10% of them detonate domestically. Effectively, Russia nukes itself with 600 warheads.
The world consequences will still be devastating.
Let's assume that 100% of the warheads never reach the US but 10% of them detonate domestically. Effectively, Russia nukes itself with 600 warheads.
The world consequences will still be devastating.
But what if only Russia fired their missiles, 90% of them failed, and the remaining 10% exploded in their launcher? Most of those launch tubes are deep underground to protect them from first-strike by the USA, and would not release the same kind of soot as if they exploded in the air.
Even an exchange between India and Pakistan would result in almost 30 million of dead **, but again, that's using math where nuclear weapons (one-hundred 15Kt warheads) are detonated on or above ground.
I'm not remotely suggesting we try out and find out, I like not starving to death, tymv. The math, however, is interesting in a morbid curiosity sort of way.
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0 ** https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclea...
What "world consequences" would there be? Are you talking about the effect on the Russian population and country and subsequent political economic and social upheaval from the result of Russia deciding to make a nuclear attack that backfires on itself, and also brings a retaliatory strike upon itself (which would be far more devastating than the malfunctioning nukes in the first place),? I agree would have pretty significant global consequences.
The global environmental effects of the nuclear exchange itself wouldn't be all that significant though would it? Might slow down global warming for a couple of years which could be nice.