Comments on: Atom Bomb Explosion

By: ColombianMonkey

ColombianMonkey — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:46:54 +0000

@sylvanish: i am so in love with your brain

By: sylvanish

sylvanish — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:08:38 +0000

@j_bryon: So tell me then, what is to stop a malevolent “leader/COUNTRY” from using his vast resources and skilled agents to *create* and fund such a “loony-toon TERRORIST GROUP” to do such things for him? He can then sit back and say “see: bad terrorists” and the simple folk like you who accept easy demonization go “oh right! crazy loons! why would any sane or rational human do such things? They must be evil and crazy!”

You need to think a little harder about this. Your “loony” terrorists are still human beings with human motives. There are other sides to this story.

By: FullofStars

FullofStars — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:26 +0000

Al-Qeda, Hamas, Westborough Baptist, Branch Davidian, Most(not all) of the 700 Club….

By: Phyreblade

Phyreblade — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:31:25 +0000

errrm… I wonder *how* jacked up you would get…

By: Phyreblade

Phyreblade — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:30:57 +0000

that’s one gnarley ’shroom… If you could eat it, I Wonder jacked you up you would get…

By: j_bryon

j_bryon — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:06:17 +0000

I dissagree, mostly.
No one COUNTRY is going to ever use a nuclear weapon. Why? Everyone knows what will happen if one is used…you know the whole total annihilation/destruction of the Earth and everyone on it, yada yada and no one leader/COUNTRY wants to be responsible for that. Even if they say they have it and will use it if necessary (Iran/Korea) they will still NOT ever use it, EVER.

However, this doesn’t mean some loony-toon TERRORIST GROUP won’t use one if they can. You know what I mean…those with no regard for human life at all…AL-QEDA, Hamas, any group against a normal life in Iraq, any crazy Islamic jihadist, etc. Those are the loons we need to worry about.

By: thelotuseater725

thelotuseater725 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 07:38:06 +0000

@nobody knows:

You might want to see the tsar bomb.
A quote from the wikipedia
“the original U.S. estimate of the yield was 57 Mt, but since 1991 all Russian sources have stated its yield as 50 Mt. Khrushchev warned in a filmed speech to the Communist parliament of the existence of a 100 Mt bomb (technically the design was capable of this yield). The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane, and was seen and felt almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) from ground zero. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres (40 mi) high (nearly seven times higher than Mount Everest) and 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there.[7] Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth.[8] Its Richter magnitude was about 5 to 5.25″

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

By: ColombianMonkey

ColombianMonkey — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:41:26 +0000

@Excelsior: no emp? *tear*

By: Puulaahi

Puulaahi — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:41:17 +0000

It’ll happen again eventully, especially with tentions escalating and resources dwindling. And warmongers unable to hold a hard on will bring this into effect too.

By: Excelsior

Excelsior — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:01:42 +0000

@nobody knows: Yes, a MOAB is a conventional bomb. It's a massive conventional bomb, but conventional none the less. That means no radiation, and no EMP

By: mikoyangurevich15

mikoyangurevich15 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:58:48 +0000

@nobody knows ;or Islamabad,Beijing,New Delhi,Pyongyang,Tel Aviv,take your pick.

By: nobody knows

nobody knows — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:32:40 +0000

@Excelsior: Is a MOAB better?

By: Excelsior

Excelsior — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:14:56 +0000

@nobody knows: You realize of course that Nuclear strikes anywhere in the world will affect everyone in some way? That's why we don't even test them anymore. If Those three cities were nuked, the fallout would likely force much of the world into shelters.

By: ColombianMonkey

ColombianMonkey — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:13:47 +0000

hmmm looks exacly when i “come” breaking the condom in the process :\

By: Cheebs

Cheebs — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:46:46 +0000

Take that Earth.

By: nobody knows

nobody knows — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:31:49 +0000

@mikoyangurevich15: Tehran???

By: mikoyangurevich15

mikoyangurevich15 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:21:07 +0000

It`s been almost 64 years since a nuclear device was used in anger.It`s only a matter of time before it will be used again.Myself,I can wait.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:20:03 +0000

@flood123: That's what it looked like in 1967, when France ran this particular test in the South Pacific. It's considerably more awesome now.

By: nobody knows

nobody knows — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:13:45 +0000

One in Pyongyang, another in Tehran then another in paris and I am happy.

By: flood123

flood123 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:09:40 +0000

So thats what the end of the world looks like. Interesting.

By: Nimbo

Nimbo — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:05:03 +0000

Frighteningly powerful weapons make for some insane possibilities.