Some one was wrong.

No, Howard is. Okay, okay, better than Crean anyway...

Does anyone here watch Micallef(?)?

 

Jah, Micallef be gud.

That's a pretty big fucking range. Make up your mind. Oh, and by the way, the technology behind nuclear weapons may be improving, but the actual energy being released doesn't change, fuckwit. It's not like atoms from the 50's aren't as big and powerful as the ones we have now. Radiation hasn't changed one bit, only the way we use (and abuse) it.

 

it IS true though that the three current biggest nuclear warheads in the world (made in and kept by America no less) can destroy the planet's crust if set off in precise locations around the world. There are fault line calculations that have been made so that if those three particular points are nuked with sufficient force then the continental crusts would undergo such violent disruption that 99% of the world's crust would be reorganised. True, it woudn't spell the end of hunmanity, but it sure as hell would be annoying.

To actually wipe out all life on earth it would take a couple of dozen of those large warheads, strategically placed. Either that or just a gallon of Clostridium botulinum toxin spread throughout the atmosphere. Hell, just a level teaspoonful of the most powerul of the seven botulinum toxins is enough to wipe out all the hamsters in the world. :lol:

Jar, by energy I assume you're talking about atomic energy release? The actual energy per warhead has increased by an order of magnitude since it was first dicovered, but that's purely because of the advancements in refining techniques and payload capacity. You're right about the particulate spread though. The radiactive fallout has a wipespred effect, but it's no more harmful now than it was when nukes were first dicovered - and that's not very great. After the first rains the surface is safe enough to walk on because of the dust being washed out of the atmosphere and the dampening and radioactive absorptive affects of water. However, the land will be polluted for years to come so you couldn't use it.

 

Let's just push the button

While it is true that all the nuclear warheads in the world wouldn't kill every one instantly due to radiation, it would only take a couple powerful American warheads to seriously cripple the planets ecosystem. I think I'd rather die in a blinding radioactive flash, than watch the planet grow sick and die, even a little bit. And Bush seems like the kind of guy who'd use them if he "had to." Then he'd say Blair said it sounded like a good idea. And all the while, the people he's trying to kill will keep outsmarting him. And the war for the holiest clump of dirt in all of dirtdom will continue.

There just aren't enough rational people left to vote someone reasonable into office. Or maybe, rational people know enough to not want to be involved with it. Either way, keep voting these assholes into office and then they screw us for it. God bless Amorica.

 

Re: Let's just push the button

No. It's not. You seem to drastically overestimate the effect of a nuke. Sure, they're not nice and they can level a city. The pollution from even the largest of them though will pollute only a few hundred square miles for a long time. The distant fallout won't be nice, but it won't destroy the ecosystem. you'd be surprised at just how hardy things are against that sort of thing. It would take the fallout from a couple of dozen large nukes to affect the planet's ecosystem on a global scale.

 

but my president told me so...

I might be over-estimating the power of foreign nukes, but it wouldn't take more than a couple new generation American nukes to do serious damage. You don't have to pollute that large an area to pose hefty danger to the environment. A small area of polluted ocean can cripple an entire coastline before long. Chernobyl affected an area many times its size, and will continue to do so for a long time. Fact is, we can only theorize about it. Scientists don't know for sure how many bombs or megatons it would take to reduce life on earth to a history lesson. There are probably more than enough nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons on earth to do a pretty thorough job of it though.

 

Ive herd that china has some of the worlds nastiest bombs with a power around 20 megatons, NOW that could kick some arse.
For those that did not know 1Megatonn= 1million tonns of TNT.
Kabooom

 

I think I was misunderstood. What I was saying is pretty much in agreeance with what you are saying. There are bombs much bigger now than there was even five years ago, well over a measly 20 megatons. It would take more than a couple dozen to pose a extinction threat, but only a few to adversely affect a large portion of the earth in a very negative way, for a very long time. I'm not saying it would end life, I'm just saying it would change it very drastically.

 

There also happens to be an acronym related to this known as MAD; Mutually-Assured Destruction, for those of you who have not heard of it before. In layman's terms, it shows how all the countries in the world will be assfucked if one or more nation launches nuclear weapons, another strikes back, so on and so on.

 

The Soviet Union was test than H-bonb (Themonuclear bomb also know as fusion bomb) of 30 megaton captical when they test it it explosite with 100 megaton blast this was than surface text as there was no limit test ban tearty yet. The soviet cancle the next test of than 50 megaton theory blast as they where faird it might be many time more powerful than they want. H-bomb are rare nowday as than full scale themonuclear war will wipe out most life on earth due to x-ray and gamma ray release with tempture being measure in the hundred of million's range. That 100 megaton blast have than
tempurate in the center of over 300 million degree centurage.