NationStates Jolt Archive

Would it take to sicken the majority of the worlds population though radiation?

Depends...with a suffeciently large, dirty nuke, placed in just the right location, you could probably do it with one.
If you're talking about just randomly carpet-nuking the planet, I dunno. There are way too many different factors to determine something like that other than to say 'maybe a few hundred.'

I suppose it would depend on the size and location. The jet stream could work wonders with a radioactive cloud.

Depends...with a suffeciently large, dirty nuke, placed in just the right location, you could probably do it with one.
If you're talking about just randomly carpet-nuking the planet, I dunno. There are way too many different factors to determine something like that other than to say 'maybe a few hundred.'

Well, I mean to sicken as much of the planet as possible without completly destroying the infrastructure.

I suppose it would depend on the size and location. The jet stream could work wonders with a radioactive cloud.

I was thinking one of the poles. A big, dirty nuke there and a large portion of the world would be experiencing radioactive rain.

Well, I mean to sicken as much of the planet as possible without completly destroying the infrastructure.
Well, dirty nukes dont destroy a whole lot, since a classical 'dirty nuke' doesnt produce a big explosion.
If youre talking modern nuclear weapons like the USA or Russia have, it would take a LOT of them, since they dont produce a lot of radiation.

I was thinking one of the poles. A big, dirty nuke there and a large portion of the world would be experiencing radioactive rain.


Well, dirty nukes dont destroy a whole lot, since a classical 'dirty nuke' doesnt produce a big explosion.
If youre talking modern nuclear weapons like the USA or Russia have, it would take a LOT of them, since they dont produce a lot of radiation.

So it would have to be some specially made nukezzz?

So it would have to be some specially made nukezzz?

Not nessecarily. Old ones, maybe.
I beleive anything made after the 60's is going to be pretty clean in terms of radiation, since people started using fusion weapons for the bigger bangs.

Check Wikipedia for clarification. I might be wrong.

I'd say a few dozen high-yield surface detonations targeting vital freshwater resources ought to do the trick.

So it would have to be some specially made nukezzz?

Short Answer: Yes
Long answer: If you use Cobalt Salted nukes ala Dr. Strangelove, not very many. A key factor whether the detonation is a ground or air burst. In a ground burst you have far more fall out than with a Air burst. Air bursts are actually more destructive than ground bursts because they don't expend energy into the ground. However to high of air burst and the energy is wasted into the upper tropposphere/lower statusphere, but if its a salted bomb, this spreads the the fallout and radioactive material over a larger area, producing the result you desire. The radioactive isotope of cobalt has a half life of about 60 years if I remeber correctly.

Well, dirty nukes dont destroy a whole lot, since a classical 'dirty nuke' doesnt produce a big explosion.
If youre talking modern nuclear weapons like the USA or Russia have, it would take a LOT of them, since they dont produce a lot of radiation.

Neutron bombs? Not really. Neutron bombs have a very high radioactive fallout true, but due to the intense radioactivity, have a very short half life. These were meant as battlefield nukes, to clear out an area with heavy armor concentration through radiation (cause tanks take heat and blast pretty well), making sure no fresh crews can populate it within 70-80 hours without dying and giving NATO troops time to consolidate a defensive position outside the radiated zone.

For world irradiation purposes, you want something near the Arctic pole, probably near the Atlantic, with a cobalt salted bomb. Cobalt can last a lot longer in terms of lethal dose radioactive half life, and it'll carry quite far.

Neutron bombs? Not really. Neutron bombs have a very high radioactive fallout true, but due to the intense radioactivity, have a very short half life. These were meant as battlefield nukes, to clear out an area with heavy armor concentration through radiation (cause tanks take heat and blast pretty well), making sure no fresh crews can populate it within 70-80 hours without dying and giving NATO troops time to consolidate a defensive position outside the radiated zone.
Where did you get that from? I didnt mention neutron bombs at all. I was refering to either low-yield or even conventional weapons packed with radioactives which are spread around on detonation. The sort Bush wants people to believe a bunch of muslims are carrying around in suitcases.

Where did you get that from? I didnt mention neutron bombs at all. I was refering to either low-yield or even conventional weapons packed with radioactives which are spread around on detonation. The sort Bush wants people to believe a bunch of muslims are carrying around in suitcases.

You don't call those dirty nukes. Dirty bombs rather. If you want to salt enough of the earth with radioactive isotopes that way to cause major harm, well, tough luck. There isn't uranium in the world to do that. You need enhanced radiation weapons like neutron bombs to irradiate a large chunk of material which can then be spread around.

You don't call those dirty nukes. Dirty bombs rather. If you want to salt enough of the earth with radioactive isotopes that way to cause major harm, well, tough luck. There isn't uranium in the world to do that. You need enhanced radiation weapons like neutron bombs to irradiate a large chunk of material which can then be spread around.
As far as I know, the terminology is interchangeable. A dirty nuke is a nuclear bomb which does most of its damage via radiation, rather than the initial explosion, that could well encompass neutron bombs, but it includes other devices as well in my opinion.

You wouldnt need to salt the earth. Just put enough in the right places and the wind will do your work for you. Chernobyl showed that much. A few events equivalent to that off the coasts of India and China, done properly, would certainly cause a goodly portion of the worlds population to suffer from some form of radiation poisoning. You dont need to irradiate the earth, just the people.
But I suppose it depends on the goal.

"betcha can't launch just one."
(add for deadlays nuclear fission chips.)

=^^=
.../\...

Would it take to sicken the majority of the worlds population though radiation?

Should we be worried about why you want to know this?

Well, from what i have seen, the Russian nuclear 'Tsar Bomb' would be best - it is the biggest and most powerful in the nuclear bomb family, and as it is designed to explode in mid air, it doesnt leave harmful radiation around for too long

Use them and the clean-up period after using it would not be that long

Someones been watching On the Beach...

Well, from what i have seen, the Russian nuclear 'Tsar Bomb' would be best - it is the biggest and most powerful in the nuclear bomb family, and as it is designed to explode in mid air, it doesnt leave harmful radiation around for too long

Use them and the clean-up period after using it would not be that long

The Tsar Bomb was highly ineffecient and massivly expensive.
Most of the energy from the explosion went off into space.
And the OP wanted to know how to kill people with radiation. The Tsar Bomb was a fusion weapon. Fusion bombs produce fairly small amounts of radiation.

You could always develop the personal beam cannon like they had in command and conquer red alert 2 - those troopers that carried small nuclear weapon gun that could also open its core and radiate a moderate area around themselves
:D

Simple answer: Turn radioactive mass into radioactive gas. From there, high temperatures would help to expand said gas even further and high pressure would make sure it gets blown all over the place.

So in another words, you'd need a nuclear device specifically tailored to cause radiation.

I imagine alot of damage could be caused if you managed to bury a nuclear weapon deep in the North or South pole, smash the ice away, thus causing global warming all the faster, and tidal waves etc would ensue. Of course i'm not a weapons expert but that would probably cause some nasty damage.

About 3ish. Hurrah for the jetstream, I guess.

Nukes.

It's plural, not possessive.

Just in case. (http://www.survivaliq.com/survival/survival-in-man-made-hazards_s1.htm)

One 1 megaton thermonuclear warhead with the right weather around the detonation will do the job. Fallout could travel everywhere

Should we be worried about why you want to know this?
I agree, are you some top secret agent wanting to kill the population of the earth with a couple of nukes? GET HIM!
*my men run in and grab him*:mp5:

More than one,less than 10,000,the real question is who cares? you will likey die in the first strike anyway,and after a million or 10's of millions of years,things will be back to normal,there will be no humans.

And the cat shall take over the world!!!!!

RhynoDD;13537426']Nukes.

It's plural, not possessive.

Yes grammar nazi.

Just in case. (http://www.survivaliq.com/survival/survival-in-man-made-hazards_s1.htm)

I remember playing an old game called Boomtown once. They too had a survival guide.

Might I add that some of the suggestions in that guide became outdated, following Chernobyl where a few discoveries were made.

I'm referring here to concrete in particular. It is not very wise to hide in a concrete shelter, because if radiation does get in there, concrete will reflect it and, given that it has no where to go but round and around...

Let's just say some of Chernobyl's building are far more dangerous than the outside.

Yes grammar nazi.

GODWIN'S LAW. /THREAD