Staredit Network

Umm are we forgetting what a nuclear bomb is? First of all you guys need to calm down. We have already dropped TWO A-Bombs(nuclear weapons) on Japan in WWII. It didnt affect the EARTH (not meaning people). So even if we had one dorp today not like the world will end or something. Jeeze.

It didn't erupt last year...

That is REALLY freaky that you both say this and then today Mount St. Helens erupted. You guys are doing some crazy stuff. I heard DK's class took a field trip to drop grenades into the volcano today too.

I think it's inevitable that CA will have some earthquakes considering that there's a major fault in it.

Btw, about St. Helens, does it lie in the Ring of Fire?

I don't think it does but it could.

No Earth isn't trying to tell us anything. Maybe a superior being is causing all of this to happen to try to tell us somthing, but not earth.

The thing about the space explosion... if we were that much more closer to it we wouldnt exist because it would be to cold. So there's no worries there.

Helens errupted because of the amount of time it had stayed dormiant.

Everything else was just a coisidence...



Stop thinkin to hard and just accecpt things as they come.

Ever heard of large scale retaliation? Gee... guess not.
Afterall, that "Cold War" period was a breeze was it not?



That "maybe a Higher Entity" did it is the same to me as... *errm* didly squat. We deal with facts here, not suppositions.

Eh, i just posted it to make it sound better... i think its all just happend by chance.

Oh, so sorry then.

Basan, do your research before you argue. Something like large-scale retaliation(or the theory that one thing can lead to a chain of other natural disasters) would not happen over a nuclear bomb. To further prove my point there are many other things going on that owuld cause the same reaction form the earth as a nuclear bomb. So, if nuclear wardare were to occur it would NOT disrupt the earth(not meaning people) in the least bit.

Depends on how many nukes we are talking about. The enviornment would completely be ruptured if multiple nuclear bombs were dropped. Japanese people often STILL get radiation poisoning from the nukes dropped back in WWII.

I find it funny that no one is even mentioning that someone was talking about Mt. St. Helens the DAY before it erupted.

Well Faz, first off. Mt. St. Helens has been talked about a lot this year......so i don't know where the hell you've been(not being rude). Also, the only reason the Japanese are still feeling the effects are because of the resources they are using. Meaning, if they were to just leave the site where the bomb was dropped none of that would occur. Another side note, many nuclear bombs will still not have a great enough affect on the earth to disrupt it greatly. This means that ok you may have a few places messed up, but on a larger scale the world would still rotate around the sun and the climate would still stay the same. Our magnetic field will of course be weaker, however, with everything already going on it would be the exact same as a nuclear bomb.

Okay, first of all I really haven't heard anything about Mt. St. Helens this past year. Second of all, the radiation effects of the TWO nuclear warheads dropped on Japan take up about half of their country. You expect them to "leave the site?" These bombs aren't grenades, their effects reach hundreds or thousands of square miles. Also, nuclear warheads at the current time are hundreds of times more powerful then those that were dropped at that time, meaning that the explosive range of one today would be about the size of texas from estimates. If nuclear warheads were dropped in the current time, we truly may stop rotating around the sun. The climate would change tremendously from the explosion as well. Have you ever heard the phrase, "Nuclear Winter?" Take a quick guess at what that means.

First off I want to address your statement about Mt. St. Helens. You must not live in Cali but I do. Iterupted earlier this year which is why they were talking about it. Only recently did it erupt again. SO it was no coincidence they were talking about it it was based on what actually happened. Second off, the nukes we have today are more powerful yes, but it is not significant enough to affect the WORLD. I have no idea where you are getting your information from but it is false. Third off, "Nuclear Winter" does not refer to a nuke being dropped and a climate change. If you have ever seen the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", that is what nuclear winter refers to: a theory in which, in our case, a nuke was dropped resulting in a chain of catastrophical events occurring. Obviously this is HIGHLY impossible. It is only a theory that something like that could occur.


Edit: A quick edit after reading your text closely. The aftereffects of the nukes is NOT in half of there country. It is only in the immediate area that the nukes were dropped. Meaning, the places the radiation spread through are no longer affected by this. it is only the towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and whatever other immediate areas were hit.

I have seen that movie, and I don't remember any of those catastrophes being the result of a nuke. And I think that it is highly probable that they would be able to destroy quite a bit of life. Half was an exaggeration yes, but not to to much of a severe extreme. The radiation poisoning is still widespread in areas anywhere within like 50-100 miles from those drops from what I have heard.

Faz, I was not saying a nuke caused all of those in the movie. I am saying the theory of Nuclear Winter comes from a nuke being dropped and a chain of events occuring much life in the movie. And the theory of that is NOT highly probable. It has been put into a ratio of about 1:1 billion. you may argue that it could happen but honestly it is NOT very likely at all.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah... First of all, The Day After Tomorrow was a friggen movie. Don't take examples from it. Tornadoes in L.A. Frozen hurricanes. Chinese hail stones the size of large grapefruits. How silly of them big shot Hollywood fim makers. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Ha. Don't make me laugh so much.

Anyways, a nuclear explosion can really screw up the Earth aside from the radiation. The blast can screw up the plates of the Earth and cause earthquakes, volcano eruptions and a climate changes. Just not as drastic as The Day After Tomorrow made it seem...

Naw i don't think "THE WOLRD IS GONNA END" It happens. But its weird i live in minnesota and its still snowing.

Still snowing here in northern Wiscansin too. We already got like four inches today. It is pretty weird, but weather here is always weird. Cause of that big damn lake, Superior or something. I forget the name.

nuclear winter, theory holding that the smoke and dust produced by a large nuclear war would result in a prolonged period of cold on the earth. The earliest version of the theory, which was put forward in the early 1980s in the so-called TTAPS report (named for last initials of its authors, Richard P. Turco, Owen B. Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan), held that the ensuing low temperatures and prolonged periods of darkness would obliterate plant life and seriously threaten the existence of the human species. Later models, which took into account additional variables, confirmed the basic conclusions of the TTAPS report and suggested that the detonation of 100 megatons (the explosive power of 100 million tons of TNT) over 100 cities could produce temperature drops ranging from 5 to 15 degrees.

Copied from an encyclopedia. I see it as easily possible.

A few words... what the is that?



Anyway, Kahoona, The Day After Tomorrow is more based on fact than any other hollywood movie, it just wouldn't happen as fast. Changes can actually occur like that. But even if everything so dramatically happened like that, the human population would still not become extinct.

As for Earth "telling us something", you guys are idiots. The Earth doesn't have a brain, it doesn't speak to us, it doesn't think. Therefore it can not tell anyone anything.



Some few extinction reasons could be


We use up all our food sources and other crap, then we die in mass numbers, and the bacteria poison the earth because of kazillions of dead cells.

We get too crowded, people become desensitized to society, and eventually the human race forgets how to "be human", and no reproduction occurs, thus leading the population to become extinct.

We bomb ourselves to death for being the dumbasses that we are right now.

Some extreme natural disaster happens.

I don't want to be offensive here but you guys are paranoid... It's not like that the world would explode (or implode, whichever one suits you best) or something. We would stop BOMBING ourselves if people wouldn't have made stupid decisions... like bush? Don't want to sound offensive, but Bush did get us into some deep that we can't get ourselves out of...



I could add another few unreasonable reasons (know what I mean?) that we COULD extinct, which would probably be unreal...

The Sun either explodes or run out of hydrogen and helium atoms to fuse with

Aliens come and kills us all

Giant meteor kills us all

Aids spread so quickly, we wouldn't know what hit us until the point that we are near dead

Yeah, right... As if that straw-man attempt would really stick here. And it wouldn't happen, so you say? Gosh, I do recall a certain pair of directly interconnected red phones getting installed in a certain office in Moscow's Red Square (read Kremlin) and another in an Washington's White office due to an incident that almost started a nuclear war, that prob'ly would turn into the 3rd world one (exactly after the Cuba crisis with Kenedy & Gutchoff). So, please stop with the itty bitty crap when you even don't know history that well. *Hint, hint*

If that large scale retaliation occurs, tactics' logic dictates that the most populated areas get striked 1st. Imagine a nuke warhead falling right inside L.A. in the San Andreas flaw. Just no to mention the EMP pulse and all that related jazz that would immediatly disrupt the surrounding tectonic plaques n' environment. Remind yourself that during nuke tests in the Bikini Atol, folks in that area said to have felt vibrations even in far distances from the test site. Before stating such b**ls**t, please study the potencial scenarios of (scientific) Physics, ok? Much obliged. *Double hint*
Just as a reminder, recall that many rising countries from the fallen USSR still have the nuke missiles in their turf and seem eager to sell'em to others interested in those WMD's (aka not a really responsible nuke tech management).



I'm glad that were clearing that point up... you must be an 'wiz kid' or again don't know jack-s**t about Science and such engaged logic (as Physics or even Geography).
"Leave the site" in peace while it being on an island? *Rolls eyes* Gee... sus, spare us. Do you even know for how many years nuclear radiation effects are felt (after the initial blast)? About 60, wich is Chernobyl's disaster case, for instance.
"Climate would still stay the same"? Another 'brilliant' concept of yours. Go back n' please read the Chernobyl disaster link I provided, 'smart' arse.
And since it's already weak (read electromagnetic field) no real fuss would happen if a nuclear EMP pulse would 'aid' it even worse.
You really are makin' me cringe. Such ignorance, must surely be a bliss, to say the least...



Proof, please (to the "it is not significant enough to affect the WORLD" bit). Let's move on to the next subject... shall we?
Nuclear Winter or not it would still have impact on the environment. The "obviously this is HIGHLY impossible", especially when you don't provide your own theory and/or proof for it to occur that way means the same to me as... le'mme see, good ol' plain zilch. Any 'mere' mortal can use scientific methods to prove it's view point (as I did), provided they exist of course. Perhaps it would be highly improbable, wich vehemently don't believe it to be that way, but not impossible. We presented our proof, now I'm expecting yours. *Gently strolls 'round looking for a sitting place and falls asleep*
Avoid the crummy loop techniques and debate it properly, please (aka you're repeating yourself without any reasoning to back it up).

Again your 'sound knowledge' astounds me. No longer affected by it? That's a laugh! Have you ever heard of radioactive sub-products half-life just to point one out? Guess not, afterall. Again, please stop trolling what you don't know nothing about. (Stupidity doesn't look well in anybody/one.)



Circle logic and what... only again. Why ain't I surprised? See it better you too. The Cuba crisis almost ended into one.

------------------
Faz- already explained it also very well, in it's 1st reply to your 'marvelous' post. *Smiles n' tries to give karma*
Wtf, where's the karma button? It was there (below usernames) a few days ago.

InFeReAl_KiLlA, what the hell does bush have to do with ANYTHING?

Two weeks ago i was watching national geographic explorer and they were talking about yellowstone. They say the entire park is a huge crater of a super volcano that could erupt in the near future. If it does... the entire united states and many nearby countries would be doomed because it would be... devastating. It's power would be like 50 or more nuclear bombs combined.

Gosh basan stop flaming and listen. The only point I was trying to make is that if a nuke war were to start the earth wouldn't blow up or cease existing or go off alignment. I wasn't saying the environment wouldn't be messed up or anything. Also, it isn't circular logic, I repeat my points to stick it into people's heads that don't understand anything(meaning you). If you were to pa attention to shows and such you would find out our magnetic field is only weakening because it is getting ready to flip. If a nuclear war happened it would cause it to flip MUCH faster and that would mean large-scale retaliation couldn't occur. And wth does your sentence about L.A. have to do with anything? Anyways, sotp flaming and pay attention.