Staredit Network

Other way around frank, atomic bombs were used on Japan. Hydrogen bombs are the more powerful version. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki (the larger one) had a kiliton yeild of around 1. Hydrogen bombs can be just as "weak" but they genrally are not. The largest nuclear weapon ever built/tested was 'Czar Bomba' built by the Russians it was 50 megatons, even though it was supposed to be 100 Mgtons. 1 bomb could not destroy the planet.

Captain its 10 times over. and the us doesnt have quite that many, its only 7,650 ( http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/nukenote...03nukenote.html )

Why could't 1 bomb destroy the world explain ?

Its about power frank. The average nuclear warhead is about 20 megatons. Thats enough to vaporize up to 10 miles of a city. The largest nuke ever built 50 megatons was tested on some remote islands by Siberia and the islands were a decent size maybe a few miles large each. That bomb vaporized 5 islands. For a bomb to be able to destroy the world it would have to be quite large, like several thousand megatons. I havent dont the calculations yet but even that might only crack the crust a bit.

And of course you couldnt fit a several thousan megaton bomb on any plane or missle. Which then it becomes useless.

Well one bomb could atlest kill most humans?I dont know not blowing up alot but just choking people somehow poisoining them.

To answer your questions, yes, it's possible to build a bomb that can wipe out all life on Earth, hydrogen bombs are more powerful, and regular atomic bombs were the ones used on Japan and have relatively small yields compared to modern A-bombs.

If theres going to be a bomb thatll wipe out all life on Earth, it probably wont come from the explosion itself; therell need to be another part of it, like some kind of toxic gas thatll be released into the atmostsphere. Slowly, but surely, is probably the best bet on killing Earth.


Anyway, nukes may be deterrants, but theyll most likely be brought out in the next major world war. People realize the massive casualties that could result from just a couple of bombs; they have Hiroshima and Nagasaki(?) to look back on.

There's a theory about a phenomenon called a "Nuclear Winter", where radioactive dust would spread and kill most of our food supplies. Supposedly the human race wouldn't be able to make it more than a year... That was what would have happened if JFK didn't maneuver us diplomatically out of the Cuban Missile Crisis. So the real problem isn't the explosion from the bomb, it's the radiation.

Did you just not read my post at all ?

Please someone actually read this post before making any uninformed guesses.

It seems I have some explaining to do. The blast and fragmentation of the nuclear weapons may outright kill you, or it may not- surprisingly even the big nukes, greater than one megaton in yield, don't flatten entire cities with their initial blast. It's what they set on fire during the detonation that really does the number.

Think of everything flammable in about five miles of the point of detonation (20MT weapon, rough guess) bursting into flames simultaneously. It generates a tremendous bonfire, with the flames consuming all available oxygen, and generating fierce winds that suck in towards the point of detonation- the hot air's going upward from the heat, and it's drawing in near-hurricane force winds to feed the flames.

It is this phenomenon that analysts are saying is the real killer- even if you happen to survive the initial blast and heatwave, you're going to most likely die in the firestorm that follows- out to a certain range, but it's much greater than the blast zone- about four times the diameter, and again- I'll have to search that site out and post a link for better accuracy.

As for fallout- give it two weeks or so to settle out- stay in your bunkers as much as possible until then, and don't look into the bright light! Radiation will be the highest at the points of detonation, and the fallout loses much of its radioactivity after the aforementioned two weeks. Still, can't just pop on down to the local pub to see how we fared in the "war", can't go to the hospital to get patched up or treated for the radiation sickness you incurred during the main delivery phases








The predicted fallout from radioactive material.

http://www.blizzforums.com/attachment.php?...ntid=7447&stc=1

Helios, the amount of nuclear warheads a country has varies from source to source. I don't think we know the actual number for sure.

Ya captain.Helios i dont read most of ur posts cuz i find them boring,long,uninformative.

Well if you check again at the bottom it says....

"Nuclear Notebook is prepared by Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Hans M. Kristensen, and Joshua Handler. Inquiries should be directed to NRDC, 1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C"

So considering where this is coming from Im pretty sure they have the right numbers.

The only way my posts could be uninformative is if you dont read them (like you said you didnt) so whatever.

Nukes are used for intimidation and terrorism. The terrorists claim they have several nukes in America.

role of nuclear weapon, whoever controls most is in control of the world almost. Country has power to wipe out world in blink of an eye with nuclear winter. Only der to make you feel bigger and stronger while other nations are weaker. Man who controls nuclear weapons (Aka Bush) will control our :censored:ed up lives.

It would matter who controls the most. They'd never have enough to nuke all the world! If they launch a lot of them to a country, that country could lauch some before is totally destroyed!

Nuclear weapons are used to scare others into complying with their requests. Would you not sign a peace treaty with a country that has over 1000 nukes?

ok here is a very funny flash movie saying the end of the world (has alot of language though)
http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm

I agree with the whole could use wont use thing. But another reason why they wouldn't, coutries have counter nuke measure such as launching a missile at the nuke itself. This would give the coutnry no use to the nuke even though it is very expensive to manufacture.

Emu currently that nuclear defense system has only been tested and is now in production by the U.S (not surprisingly). So no other country has this deense system yet, not that this system would block every incoming nuke anyways. It would be impossible to say stop the 6,000 nukes Russia has under its "control". Or even half that amount.

And that thing about them being more expensive is not true. The larger a nuke is the easier it is to make and thus the cheaper. The only reason even larger nukes havent been made (like the Czar Bomba) is because they arent practical for use in war. The Czar Bomba was the largest nuke ever built/tested but it was 'too' big to be carried by airplane, it had to be shipped to its testng place(where it vaporized 3 decent sized islands).

Nuclear weapons have the same cause of hate----Fear! People use nukes because they are afraid their enemy will strike first, so they use nukes.