NationStates Jolt Archive

So, oftentimes I've heard the phrase "The U.S. and Russia possess enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world ten times over." Of course, no one ever backs up that claim, give me actual numbers of nuclear weapons, or define what destruction of the world means.

Therefore, I say we figure out what it would take...that is, how many nuclear weapons are required to destroy the world.

First, we need to define destruction of the world. Unlike that fun website where they go for entire destruction of the planet, let's just go with a complete destruction of the environment to the point where it is completely irrecoverable and we can no longer survive in the harsh irradiated wasteland. Does that sound fine to everyone?

If so, we then need to figure out the limits of that. Do we just want partial destruction of the land and environment where enough radiation builds up to cover the world, or are we going for the complete annihilation of the environment where we use enough nuclear weapons to destroy whatever stands on every bit of land on the planet?

Past that, do we want to destroy the environment of the oceans too, just to screw over any life remaining?

I don't think that last part is absolutely necessary for this experiment--though it'd be fun to figure out--since the idea is to make the planet non habitable for human life. So we stick with the second part, where we go for enough to annihilate every spot of land on the surface of the planet.

Now that we have that, we need a few more things. First, we need the average yield of a nuclear weapon, as well as how much surface of land it can destroy, how much radiation it produces, and so on. Then, we need to figure out how many of these are needed to effect the devastation we wish to effect.

After we get that number, we then compare it to the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the world to see if that saying really does hold true or not.

I'd do all of the math myself, but I'm hitting a snag here. First, I don't think I'd be able to do all of the math correctly. Second, I don't know the average yield of a nuclear weapon or the number of weapons in the arsenal of the world.

So I turn to NSG. Does this sound like a fun thought experiment? If so, let's get to work!

In some sense, it'll only take one to destroy the world - the one that sets it all off.

So, oftentimes I've heard the phrase "The U.S. and Russia possess enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world ten times over." Of course, no one ever backs up that claim, give me actual numbers of nuclear weapons, or define what destruction of the world means.

Therefore, I say we figure out what it would take...that is, how many nuclear weapons are required to destroy the world.

First, we need to define destruction of the world. Unlike that fun website where they go for entire destruction of the planet, let's just go with a complete destruction of the environment to the point where it is completely irrecoverable and we can no longer survive in the harsh irradiated wasteland. Does that sound fine to everyone?

If so, we then need to figure out the limits of that. Do we just want partial destruction of the land and environment where enough radiation builds up to cover the world, or are we going for the complete annihilation of the environment where we use enough nuclear weapons to destroy whatever stands on every bit of land on the planet?

Past that, do we want to destroy the environment of the oceans too, just to screw over any life remaining?

I don't think that last part is absolutely necessary for this experiment--though it'd be fun to figure out--since the idea is to make the planet non habitable for human life. So we stick with the second part, where we go for enough to annihilate every spot of land on the surface of the planet.

Now that we have that, we need a few more things. First, we need the average yield of a nuclear weapon, as well as how much surface of land it can destroy, how much radiation it produces, and so on. Then, we need to figure out how many of these are needed to effect the devastation we wish to effect.

After we get that number, we then compare it to the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the world to see if that saying really does hold true or not.

I'd do all of the math myself, but I'm hitting a snag here. First, I don't think I'd be able to do all of the math correctly. Second, I don't know the average yield of a nuclear weapon or the number of weapons in the arsenal of the world.

So I turn to NSG. Does this sound like a fun thought experiment? If so, let's get to work!

What kind of nuclear weapon? Enhanced radiation, or thermo-nuclear?

I've often wondered about that. I'm not even sure it would be possible to render the earth lifeless forever, barring total disintegration or an orbital shift. Assuming life developed spontaneously here, at worst you'd just have to wait a few billion years for the first complex proteins to bump uglies.

Try this site:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/blastmap.html

A few years ago, there was some website, where you could select your own country, city or village and then you could select the kind of nuclear bomb...

On a map you could see if you had some chances to survive or not...

Try this site

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

Okay, some excerptions from wiki: As of 2006, there are estimated to be at least 27,000 nuclear weapons held by at least eight countries, 96 percent of them in the possession of the United States and Russia.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
The energy released from a nuclear weapon can be divided into four basic categories:

Blast—40-60% of total energy
Thermal radiation—30-50% of total energy
Ionizing radiation—5% of total energy
Residual radiation—5-10% of total energy




Even the most optimistic predictions about the effects of a major nuclear exchange predict the death of millions of civilians within a very short amount of time; more pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race or its near extinction with a handful of survivors (mainly in remote areas) reduced to a pre-medieval quality of life and life expectancy for centuries after and cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, Earth's ecosystems, and the global climate. It is in this latter mode that nuclear warfare is usually alluded to as a doomsday scenario.

If all you're looking for is to completely contaminate everything so badly that it'll die or be unable to support human life, large yield bombs with cobalt salting will do the trick for less cost than flash baking the surface.

To completely obliterate the planet? More nukes than we have or ever can have.

What kind of nuclear weapon? Enhanced radiation, or thermo-nuclear?

Probably enhanced radiation, since the idea here is to focus more on destroying life.

Wasser: Ooh, that provides some nice figures. Thank you. Should've thought to check wiki...

To ensure the end of humanity?

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

...not all that many.

To crack open the planet like an egg? I don't honestly have the slightest clue.

Let's find out!
*claps hands excitedly*
Boy, I can't wait...

3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJuIY1NvaG0

More than I have in my possession, it seems. :(

Hello?... Uh... Hello D- uh hello Dmitri? Listen uh uh I can't hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?... Oh-ho, that's much better... yeah... huh... yes... Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri... Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine... Good... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine... I agree with you, it's great to be fine... a-ha-ha-ha-ha... Now then, Dmitri, you know how we’ve always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb... The Bomb, Dmitri... The hydrogen bomb!... Well now, what happened is... ahm... one of our base commanders, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing... Well, I’ll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes... to attack your country... Ah... Well, let me finish, Dmitri... Let me finish, Dmitri... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?... Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dmitri?... Why do you think I’m calling you? Just to say hello?... Of course I like to speak to you!... Of course I like to say hello!... Not now, but anytime, Dmitri. I’m just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened... It’s a friendly call. Of course it’s a friendly call... Listen, if it wasn’t friendly... you probably wouldn’t have even got it...

Let's find out!
*claps hands excitedly*
Boy, I can't wait...

3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJuIY1NvaG0

Bweheehee.

Seriously though, I just thought it would be a fun thought experiment and an exercise in math, to get our brains working on the old mathematics, as it were.

Chumbly: You rock. That was hilarious.

I bet if you detonate one in just the right spot, you could fuck all life on Earth up pretty badly. For instance, if you could crack open the crust where the Yellowstone or Toba calderas are, I bet the resulting volcanic winter will be wonderfully devastating. Maybe if we set them both off at the same time...

The idea of destroying the world with nukes is old. I think we should try a new angle. Like destroying the world with pennies.

The idea of destroying the world with nukes is old. I think we should try a new angle. Like destroying the world with pennies.

I've always been fascinated with nanoplagues. :)

I bet if you detonate one in just the right spot, you could fuck all life on Earth up pretty badly. For instance, if you could crack open the crust where the Yellowstone or Toba calderas are, I bet the resulting volcanic winter will be wonderfully devastating. Maybe if we set them both off at the same time...

A nuke wouldn't do anything to either, a few dozen maybe..

Lets ask our pal:http://www.apollopony.net/images/tootsie_pop.jpg


1....

2....

3...

(after a few well placed one, I don't think many people would be around to care anymore)

I could probably destroy the world with no nukes. But if my only weapons are nukes, then I propose the following:

Hijack an infinite supply of nukes. Say, I become the President of Russia, and I have access to the Russian stockpile. My mission: destroy the world.

I start off in Yellowstone National Park and put a well-placed nuke in Old Faithful. Not only does it explode, it theoretically triggers the supervolcano underneath the surface. There are four things that scare me - bees, suffocation, debilitating disease, and volcanoes. So naturally, I have my spies do it. Voila - the entire western half of the U.S. is reduced to ash.

To kill off the other half of the continent, I send my spies to blow up the island of La Palma. The ensuing reaction triggers a megatsunami that wipes out the eastern half of North America.

Then I figure out one thing - I didn't need to do that. Oops, sorry. I can take out the entire world from here with just two more nukes - one at the North Pole and one at the South Pole. Maybe another super-nuke over the Atlantic to disrupt the current, and another in the Pacific to run up the score. With four nuclear weapons, I've turned Earth into a vast, uninhabitable wasteland.

I'm not sure if the nukes would work underwater, but I'm guessing that the radiation from the ones I detonate destroys a lot of life in the oceans and contaminates the water for many years to come.

Does it have a giant drill attached to it?

A massive concussive nuke with enough electromagnetic discharge set off in the proper place could destabilize earth's core, causing it to undergo a chain reaction and eventually simply causing the planet to explode. Of course, one scientist would figure out that the tremors are caused by the impending planetary destruction, he will be ridiculed, and forced to send only his infant son to another planet.

And where do you plan on getting an infinite supply of nukes?

A few years ago, there was some website, where you could select your own country, city or village and then you could select the kind of nuclear bomb

I had that website bookmarked until a computer crash just last week wiped my bookmarks. Grrr.

Seriously though, I heard that it would only take 40 nukes in high density areas to cause nuclear winter. Its not the nukes themselves but the amount of smoke (from entire cities burning) that gets sent up into the atmosphere that really causes all the global damage.

And where do you plan on getting an infinite supply of nukes?

As I said, I'd become the President of Russia. They have a stockpile that's large enough that it might as well be infinite, and I can always make more.

Absolute destruction? As in wiping the Earth clean of all lifeforms?

To be absolutely sure you'd have to produce enough energy to raise the temperature of Earth's entire crust to 150-200C...That's 20-25 kilometers of rock over the area of 510 million square kilometers.

So, let's say that the temperature of 10 billion cubic kilometers of rock needs to be raised in average by 120 celsius.

Let's be optimistic and assume 20% thermal efficiency...

With an assumed a density of 2.5 kg/dm^3 and specific heat capacity of, say, 900 J/(kg*K) [~sand] it totals to roughly 2.8 *10^28 Joules or roughly 4.1 trillion megatons of TNT.

So the amount of nuclear warheads needed would be around 41,000,000,000,000 or roughly 1.5 billion times the current global nuclear arsenal (assuming a rather optimistic average yield of around and about 100 kt/warhead)

btw.
(510 million km^2*25 km*2.5kg/dm^3 * 120 kelvin * 900 J/(kg*K) * (1/0.2) * (1/0.1)) / (4.184×10^15 J) <- Run that through google and be amazed :D

...where 1/0.2 = efficiency of 20%, 1/0.1 = 1 Megaton of TNT/100 kilotons of tnt = average warhead and (4.184×10^15 J) = megaton of TNT in Joules

sources: Mostly wikipedia & google calculator. :)

Absolute destruction? As in wiping the Earth clean of all lifeforms?

To be absolutely sure you'd have to produce enough energy to raise the temperature of Earth's entire crust to 150-200C...That's 20-25 kilometers of rock over the area of 510 million square kilometers.

So, let's say that the temperature of 10 billion cubic kilometers of rock needs to be raised in average by 120 celsius.

Let's be optimistic and assume 20% thermal efficiency...

With an assumed a density of 2.5 kg/dm^3 and specific heat capacity of, say, 900 J/(kg*K) [~sand] it totals to roughly 2.8 *10^28 Joules or roughly 4.1 trillion megatons of TNT.

So the amount of nuclear warheads needed would be around 41,000,000,000,000 or roughly 1.5 billion times the current global nuclear arsenal (assuming a rather optimistic average yield of around and about 100 kt/warhead)

btw.
(510 million km^2*25 km*2.5kg/dm^3 * 120 kelvin * 900 J/(kg*K) * (1/0.2) * (1/0.1)) / (4.184×10^15 J) <- Run that through google and be amazed :D

...where 1/0.2 = efficiency of 20%, 1/0.1 = 1 Megaton of TNT/100 kilotons of tnt = average warhead and (4.184×10^15 J) = megaton of TNT in Joules

sources: Mostly wikipedia & google calculator. :)

http://qntm.org/destroy

You could just blanket the solid surface area with nukes. Using the link on the first page showing the destruction radius of a 1 and 25 MT bomb, lets assume all bombs used will have a 20 mile 100% death radius, via a combination of radioactive contamination, physical trauma, and thermal radiation. This seems a good compromise between the 25 MT airburst, and the 1 MT ground burst destruction radii.

The Earth has a landmass of 385,750,498 square miles, give or take. At 20 mile destruction radius, a nuclear weapon will obliterate 1256 square miles of surface area, give or take.

So, to nuke the surface of the Earth, we would need 385,750,498 / 1256, or 306,970, with say, 30,000 extra to take care of mountains, and cleaning up the edges of continents, and all that. A much more reasonable number than 41 trillion weapons needed to actually cook the surface to a nice e-coli killing 220 centigrade. But then again, I like my planet on the rare side.

Absolute destruction? As in wiping the Earth clean of all lifeforms?

To be absolutely sure you'd have to produce enough energy to raise the temperature of Earth's entire crust to 150-200C...That's 20-25 kilometers of rock over the area of 510 million square kilometers.

So, let's say that the temperature of 10 billion cubic kilometers of rock needs to be raised in average by 120 celsius.

Let's be optimistic and assume 20% thermal efficiency...

With an assumed a density of 2.5 kg/dm^3 and specific heat capacity of, say, 900 J/(kg*K) [~sand] it totals to roughly 2.8 *10^28 Joules or roughly 4.1 trillion megatons of TNT.

So the amount of nuclear warheads needed would be around 41,000,000,000,000 or roughly 1.5 billion times the current global nuclear arsenal (assuming a rather optimistic average yield of around and about 100 kt/warhead)

btw.
(510 million km^2*25 km*2.5kg/dm^3 * 120 kelvin * 900 J/(kg*K) * (1/0.2) * (1/0.1)) / (4.184×10^15 J) <- Run that through google and be amazed :D

...where 1/0.2 = efficiency of 20%, 1/0.1 = 1 Megaton of TNT/100 kilotons of tnt = average warhead and (4.184×10^15 J) = megaton of TNT in Joules

sources: Mostly wikipedia & google calculator. :)

You could just blanket the solid surface area with nukes. Using the link on the first page showing the destruction radius of a 1 and 25 MT bomb, lets assume all bombs used will have a 20 mile 100% death radius, via a combination of radioactive contamination, physical trauma, and thermal radiation. This seems a good compromise between the 25 MT airburst, and the 1 MT ground burst destruction radii.

The Earth has a landmass of 385,750,498 square miles, give or take. At 20 mile destruction radius, a nuclear weapon will obliterate 1256 square miles of surface area, give or take.

So, to nuke the surface of the Earth, we would need 385,750,498 / 1256, or 306,970, with say, 30,000 extra to take care of mountains, and cleaning up the edges of continents, and all that. A much more reasonable number than 41 trillion weapons needed to actually cook the surface to a nice e-coli killing 220 centigrade. But then again, I like my planet on the rare side.

Holy crap. Looks like the sayings are definitely way off.

What about just killing human life, then?

Holy crap. Looks like the sayings are definitely way off.

What about just killing human life, then?

Even blanketing every continent with nukes you've still got tens of thousands of naval personnel, male and female. More than enough to restart humanity.

But they are using brute force. I haven't run the calculations, but a major nuclear strike along most of the length of a large fault line, followed by a second volley while it's open, should trigger enough tectonic movement to wipe out the world. The figure I heard quoted was 7 if perfectly placed, but to be on the safe side call it a hundred in each volley.

But they are using brute force. I haven't run the calculations, but a major nuclear strike along most of the length of a large fault line, followed by a second volley while it's open, should trigger enough tectonic movement to wipe out the world. The figure I heard quoted was 7 if perfectly placed, but to be on the safe side call it a hundred in each volley.

In order for a fault line to do damage it has to be sudden movement. Disintegrating the fault with nuclear bombs wouldn't really work.

Even blanketing every continent with nukes you've still got tens of thousands of naval personnel, male and female. More than enough to restart humanity.

How widespread are we talking here? And would they have anywhere to actually LIVE? Remember, if you blanket every continent, you're leaving a huge amount of radiation that will spread everywhere. They'd be lucky to make it to port, if they could actually land anywhere.

In order for a fault line to do damage it has to be sudden movement. Disintegrating the fault with nuclear bombs wouldn't really work.

What about volcanoes? Is it possible to set them off?

To ensure the end of humanity?

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

...not all that many.

Uh I believe that would simply restart the dark ages. EMP isn't capable of frying humans. No to mention that Vaccum tube machinery still exists (In basements across the world!) And most US military bunkers are EMP shielded.

It'd stop progress for at least 40 years until we can rebuild though.

In order for a fault line to do damage it has to be sudden movement. Disintegrating the fault with nuclear bombs wouldn't really work.

Well placed nuclear shock should be able to induce slippage, and disintegrating it will also be useful when the second wave comes in and blows the plates several hundred miles apart, and hence into others.

Uh I believe that would simply restart the dark ages. EMP isn't capable of frying humans. No to mention that Vaccum tube machinery still exists (In basements across the world!) And most US military bunkers are EMP shielded.

It'd stop progress for at least 40 years until we can rebuild though.

Not even that long. Most EMP damaged equipment can be salvaged with minimal repairs (particularly equipment that is constructed as a pseudo faraday cage, like cars, etc.)

We'd have pre-home computer society up and running within a few months, and from there a massive insurance nightmare.

And where do you plan on getting an infinite supply of nukes?


Cheat codes and/or hax, of course.

How widespread are we talking here? And would they have anywhere to actually LIVE? Remember, if you blanket every continent, you're leaving a huge amount of radiation that will spread everywhere. They'd be lucky to make it to port, if they could actually land anywhere.



What about volcanoes? Is it possible to set them off?

Probably possible to set off a volcano yes, but the amount of firepower would be staggering and you're not actually destroying the world. If you want to wipe out humanity a rapidly mutating 100% lethal virus with about a 6 month incubation period (during which it's transmissible via air) would do the job.

Holy crap. Looks like the sayings are definitely way off.

What about just killing human life, then?

The difference is in that while one is content on wiping out the surface life with above average nuclear devices the other one is aimed at decimating the crust teeming with life :D

I admit that the number is hugely overblown though, I'd wager several hundreds of billions of average warheads strategically distributed should probably be enough to disinfect the planet...but not absolutely certain. :p

As for humans...well, not that many: Strategically bomb all current farmlands, major harbours and shipyards wait a couple of years, repeat the process again, wait a couple of years, repeat the process...then start wiping out the disease and famine ridden people. Perhaps somewhere around 30-50 thousand megaton class nukes would be enough.

The average yield of nuclear weapons isn't really a constant to use in calculations. Base power of a nuclear weapon doesn't always follow a linear correlation with the effects. For example, as a nuke gets bigger, all the effects get larger but at differing rates. The fact also that there are enhanced radiation/ cobalt salted bombs also makes a difference.

+1 (nuke). :D

Let's assume that on average, each nuclear warhead has a 1 megaton yield. If we assume that they are all airbursted for optimum blast and radiation dispersion, just about every structure within 5 km of blast will be leveled or gutted. This will give a 3000 rem dose of radiation to everyone in a cone over 50 km long and 20 km wide in the direction of the prevailing winds, rendering the area uninhabitable for at least 10 years

Each blast will level an area of about 78.5 square km. An area of about 500 km2 will be rendered uninhabitable for at least 10 years. Given the 27,000 nuclear warheads, we could completely demolish an area of 2,119,500 square kilometers, and render an area of 13,500,000 square kilometers uninhabitable. To put this in perspective, this would be enough to render nearly the entire continent of Asia devoid of most higher life forms, including humans, resulting the deaths of almost 4 billion people. The massive release of radiation wouldn't stay still, either.

If we assume that the nukes are spread across strategic targets on all continents, I would estimate at least a billion deaths in the initial attack, and another 3 billion deaths within a year due to radiation poisoning, famine and disease. Much of the earth would be rendered uninhabitable for higher life forms, and the destruction of the biosphere would be incalculable.

Conclusion: Nuclear Weapons are freaking insane.

I've often wondered about that. I'm not even sure it would be possible to render the earth lifeless forever, barring total disintegration or an orbital shift. Assuming life developed spontaneously here, at worst you'd just have to wait a few billion years for the first complex proteins to bump uglies.

Do we have that long?

According to this website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/1mtblast.html), destruction would be assured in a blast area of about 190 miles around the ground zero of a 1 megaton nuke. There are 57268900 square miles on the surface of the earth. running that through a calculator, it would take 301,415 1 megaton nukes to ensure the total destruction of the entire surface. Now, if the 2 PSI ranges were stacked next to each other because of adjacent, simultaneous blasts, the radius would increase to 440 square miles, requiring only 130,000 simultaneous blasts. Searches seem to show the world nuclear arsenal lurking around 50,000, and most of those are probably in the kiloton range, rather than megatons, so we couldn't obliterate the entire surface.

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

You don't have to vaporize every square inch, radiation poisoning will be more then sufficient. And unless you have a way to have power for air purifiers and food for 10 years or more, a handful of these will eventually kill every human and most animals on the planet. I also highly recommend "On the Beach," a book mentioned in the above article. Rather depressing, but a good book.

Do we have that long?

Well, the Earth will be consumed by the sun in about five billion years, and it will become too hot for life a good deal before then. So most likely no.

I imagine if we detonated every nuclear weapon on Earth there would be enough radiation to destroy most of the life on this planet. However, there will always be pockets that can survive and people will survive. Mother Nature will destroy us before we destroy it, regardless of what amount of nuclear weapons we possess.

Uh I believe that would simply restart the dark ages. EMP isn't capable of frying humans. No to mention that Vaccum tube machinery still exists (In basements across the world!) And most US military bunkers are EMP shielded.

It'd stop progress for at least 40 years until we can rebuild though.

Not even that long. Most EMP damaged equipment can be salvaged with minimal repairs (particularly equipment that is constructed as a pseudo faraday cage, like cars, etc.)

We'd have pre-home computer society up and running within a few months, and from there a massive insurance nightmare.

Well, let's just say that you two are far more optimistic about our chances regarding the idea than I am, and leave it at that, shall we? :cool:

I remember reading somewhere that, contrary to popular perceptions of the power of nuclear weapons, it'd take more nuclear weapons than currently exist just to ensure the deaths of everyone on the North American continent. Can't speak to the validity of this source if I can't remember it though.

Amount of nuclear weapons in the world * average square area 'leveled' by average nuke.

Then calculate the total amount of surface area in the world, possibly just land area if you want.

As much as I would like to look that information up...well I dont want to be on some homeland security list for visiting bomb sites. LMAO

Seriously, I know a guy who disappeared for 2 months, get this, because he walked his dog too close to a federal dam.

As much as I would like to look that information up...well I dont want to be on some homeland security list for visiting bomb sites. LMAO

Seriously, I know a guy who disappeared for 2 months, get this, because he walked his dog too close to a federal dam.

A. You're too paranoid.
B. I doubt it.

A. You're probably right.
B. Homeland security called the sheriffs dept. to close the missing persons file.

A. You're probably right.
B. Homeland security called the sheriffs dept. to close the missing persons file.

Somehow I find that as ridiculous of a claim as "aliens probed my brain." I'm no government crony but there is a line to believable reality.

Well my friend, we all live in our own realities. You may interpet what you see however you choose. However; I would recommend all americans do research into what their government is capable of now legally doing, then interpet the facts for themselves.

Can we go back to destroying the planet now? I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention to change the topic. lol

I think the ocean has been ignored long enough, sea life would have to go as well.

What about this new russian vacuum bomb?

I think the ocean has been ignored long enough, sea life would have to go as well.

What about this new russian vacuum bomb?

It sucks.

if all the nuclear weapons in the world were fired at each other at the same time, wouldnt that create a black hole? That would definitely be the end

if all the nuclear weapons in the world were fired at each other at the same time, wouldnt that create a black hole? That would definitely be the end

...

eh?

if all the nuclear weapons in the world were fired at each other at the same time, wouldnt that create a black hole? That would definitely be the end

No, just, no.

Destroy all human life? Difficult. Pockets of people will be leading some meager existence somewhere. What happens afterward depends on their resourcefulness and whether the radiation clouds hit them or not.


What it would do is kill virtually everyone, save the odd exception, and make it bloody uncomfortable for the rest...

when it comes right down to it, we will never know because we will have lost count after the first one.

if all the nuclear weapons in the world were fired at each other at the same time, wouldnt that create a black hole? That would definitely be the end

Congratulations on a complete lack of understanding of science. Please return to school now.

if all the nuclear weapons in the world were fired at each other at the same time, wouldnt that create a black hole? That would definitely be the end

No, but I am worrying about another black hole devoid of all information and knowledge....