Surprising isn\’t it

504x nuclear3 227x500 Surprising isn\t it Weapons Politics

SwitchAds

Please like MCS on Facebook

Leave a comment ?

25 Responses to Surprising isn\’t it

  1. I may be interpreting this wrong, but I think its not very accurate.

    It doesnt consider the density of different locations, i.e. better to nuke New York City than some remote place in Alaska. You are going to wipe out a lot more than stated if you target high density areas.

  2. This fails to account for alot of things, like fallout, dust clouds, killing off food supplies, power loss, ect.

  3. This fails to account for alot of things, like fallout, dust clouds, killing off food supplies, power loss, ect. To be fair I bet I could get the job 90% done with 5 and then 5 years time of letting the remnants die out.

    • I agree… Certainly if we wanted to blast every square inch of the surface of the planet, yes, maybe, but to simply destroy humanity, you would need only a fraction of this. A few well placed nukes, in strategic parts of the globe would easily wipe out humanity, perhaps not instantly, but between the factors you mention, the dust cloud that would block out the sun, and other secondary effects, it could be done with much, much less.

    • There has already been over 500 above ground nuclear explosions that have taken place (with over 2000 total nuclear explosions) since 1945 and all of those explosions haven’t caused the planet any noticeable effect. They haven’t slowed our population growth, food production or life expectancy, in fact over the same period, all of those of greatly increased. The problem is the fear of the word “nuclear”. As soon as someone says it, all rational thought seems to go away and the mind is filled with outrageous ideas with no link to reality.

      • Not true at all. They have had an immediately noticeable effect. Carbon dating–the most common and effective way to determine the age of an organic object, is completely useless for objects that died/stopped uptaking atmospheric carbon after we started testing nukes. That’s because the atmospheric levels of Carbon-14 are no longer constant and known.

        Nor does your position account for the effects of a large number of nukes 1)targeted at population centers, 2)set for groundburst in a fashion to do as much damage as possible, 3)happening in a massive number of locations, 4)all at once.

        So yes, if a nuke was used in war once in a while, it would have no great impact (no more than an above ground test). What people fear is that once using nukes in war is “allowed,” they will become commonplace, which would have devastating consequences.

        In other words, your argument = fail.

        • “Not true at all”? Everything I said is accurate and to the point.

          The assertion was that 5 nuclear weapons would destroy 90% of the population due to “fallout, dust clouds, killing off food supplies, power loss, ect”. I clearly showed that over 500 weapons (which most happen in a 20 year period, an average of 25 a year) have been exploded with no immediate effect on the human race. Just because far future scientist won’t be able to use Carbon-14 for dating doesn’t equate to “fail”.

          I agree the commonplace usage of nukes would have devastating effect, but that wasn’t the point of rundinj’s statement.

          • Your point is well taken, limiting ourselves to only 5 nukes to destroy 90% of humanity would definitely be beyond the capabilities of our current nuclear weaponry.

            However on the other hand, I don’t think using the past 500 nuclear detonations is necessarily a good predictor of what it would take to destroy 90% of the human population.

            Many of those detonations were not of the same yield we can produce today, and none were specifically intended to effect the annihilation of humanity. Up till this point, all of the the ones that have been detonated in anger were designed to destroy only specific population centers, not wipe out civilization.

            The landscape becomes a little different when you apply current, extremely high yield nuclear technologies, and tactical placement of nuclear strikes for the specific goal of annihilation.

            I agree that 5 would definitely be too few, however, I think 1 million nukes would be some serious overkill. Unless, of course, we are trying to turn the earth into a radioactive asteroid…

            With 10,000, on the other hand, probably even less, I think wiping out the vast majority of human life could be achieved.

  4. Well… not really. It’s all about placement. What we have now is certainly enough to wipe out all of western civilization just by crudely bombing every inch of the soil, and that alone would lead the rest of the world to some very destructive scenarios, but let’s look at this like we wanted to kill everyone in the world right now.

    You would only need one bomb per major city where the majority of humans tend to flock, also noting that 80% of all people live within 100km of the ocean you could rim all continents and still have some to spare. Targeting areas of food sources would be next. Major farmlands and fisheries. The lack of resources would make the remaining ungoverned masses very likely to turn on one another for sheer and simple survival, not to mention those lost to suicide by being unwilling to live in a post apocalyptic world.

    And that’s still not mentioning nuclear fallout carrying far beyond the blast radius of the bomb making even more land uninhabitable. Yes, if they were strategically placed we would have just enough to eliminate 99% of humanity, and make the remainder very uncomfortable for a long while.

    Just a bit misleading, is all.

    Not that I want to get rid of any of our weapons, either, I love nukes!

  5. I’d like to see the sources that the artist used to create this…

  6. or make a big one. thatd be cooler.

  7. The earth is only 1/4th land. And only 1/10th of that is populated.

    Any country has enough to wipe out THE HUMAN RACE.

    Nobody has the power to destroy earth…cmon…

  8. Wikipedia reports surface area of the earth as 148,940,000 square km. 12.5% of this is exactly the figure that they get. I reckon they got the 12.5% from there, too, as in, we inhabit 12.5% of the usable land on the earth. Define “inhabit”, though. Russia is “inhabited”, Montana is “inhabited”, but both have wide open spaces. I second the opinions stated that this is disingenuous at best in saying that we don’t have nearly enough nukes to “completely wipe out civilization”. Again definitions – if you call that as “kill every single last man, woman, and child in one instant”, then maybe it’s true. Otherwise – a few strategically placed Big Ones and it’s all over.

  9. Not all nukes are the same either. It all depends on the yield. The Tsar Bomba was capable of 100 megatons even though as tested it was 50 megatons, which the mushroom cloud alone as tested was 40km wide. So assuming everything dies atleast in the mushroom cloud and that the radius is half of the width, then you have a radius of 20km which means a death zone of 1,256km^2, rounding down. So then we only need 14,823 of these bombs to cover all of the land mass in the world with a mushroom cloud.

  10. You guys are missing the point of this picture.

    We need more nukes, humanity is not necessary.

    • Finally ! somone got the point of my message,

      Seriously though, pretty good point’s, Yes “inhabited” can be a loose term alright, a place could only have 4 people and be the size of a country but it’s still inhabited. It does still present an interesting point though,humans would always survive it’s just built into us, so if a nuclear war did ever happen, even a small landmass (possibly with a dense population) being destroyed probably wouldn’t effect the face of the earth that much, odds are, for the survivors life would still bear some resemblance to current life style (not much but still nothing like fallout etc)

  11. “”Most people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamp post, more for support than enlightenment.”

    more: www.onlinemathlearning.com/statistics-math-quotes.html

    I never put stock in statistics. They prove nothing.

Leave a Comment




Tags!

Alcohol Animated Image Art awesome Awesome Things Cars Comic Books Computers cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Fantasy - Science Fiction fashion Food forum fodder Forum Fodder funny Gaming GIF GIFS Humor interesting lolcats Military Movies Music Nature not exactly safe for work Politics Religion rss post Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports star wars Technology Television Visual Tricks Wallpaper Weapons women wtf