Author Topic: Nukes suck (or how I learned to mock the bomb) (Read 1887 times)

Reb · « **on:** August 30, 2009, 11:35:44 AM »

Some guy crunched the numbers:

Then he tried to figure out if it could at least wipe out all major cities:

So, yeah whole parts of society will probably still collapse if everybody starts shooting all their nukes, but still, disappointing.

duckman2000 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2009, 11:45:21 AM »

Immediate radiation injuries, fall out, death toll from complete or partial disruption of communications, water and electrical systems, etc. Nukes are still the shit.

Besides, I'm pretty sure there are more warheads than his figures suggest. Is he using numbers for warheads, or vessels?

Reb · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2009, 11:51:31 AM »

He lists this as one of his sources:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=phNtm3LmDZEP-ZIl-TOB9Pw

Here's the original article:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-i-learnt-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb/

Veidt · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2009, 12:16:00 PM »

Radiation will destroy food and water supplies. Communication is fucked. Bye bye economy and hello being ruled by fucking taliban.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2009, 12:24:24 PM »

Russia had a 50 megaton bomb.

These statistics are distinguished mentally-challenged, by the way. So if nukes destroy all the inhabitable land, we can go live in the Sahara (which is 9 million km of land)! Oh wait, we can't!

Reb · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2009, 12:26:30 PM »

Quote from: Willco on August 30, 2009, 12:24:24 PM

Russia had a 50 megaton bomb.

These statistics are distinguished mentally-challenged, by the way. So if nukes destroy all the inhabitable land, we can go live in the Sahara (which is 9 million km of land)! Oh wait, we can't!

The point is they won't be able to destroy a fraction of the inhabitable land. The statistics are done based on the 12,5% of the land we actually live on.

You could call the statistics distinguished mentally-challenged for all kinds of reasons, but not that one.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2009, 12:30:37 PM »

But when you consider that the majority of land is uninhabitable for humans (Sahara is 9 million sq/km, Antarctica is 14 million sq/km, large portions of Siberia and the Arctic), that logic is stupid.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2009, 12:38:41 PM »

Furthermore, the CIA World Factbook states that roughly 11% of the Earth's total land mass is arable land.

Check and mate. Lock this thread.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2009, 12:40:56 PM »

Quote from: Willco on August 30, 2009, 12:24:24 PM

Russia had a 50 megaton bomb.

[youtube=560,345]WwlNPhn64TA[/youtube]

TSAR BOMBA!!!

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2009, 12:43:23 PM »

That bomb is totally frightening, but not practical whatsoever.

The Tsar Bomba could certainly destroy an entire city in a blink of an eye, and was the "cleanest" of all the thermonuclear bombs (fallout was minimal), but it was so heavy that it'd have to be sent on some kind of bomber. And likely susceptible to anti-aircraft fire.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #10 on:** August 30, 2009, 12:46:33 PM »

It could just be taken in on a tractor trailer and the some crazed turrist could detonate it.

BOOM! Anyway, regardless of how practical it was, the fact remains that it looks fucking COOL. And as I'm sure Jdubya will agree, I should be able to own one.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #11 on:** August 30, 2009, 12:48:02 PM »

I always found it funny that it was, by far, the most powerful nuclear bomb ever manufactured, but had the least amount of fallout.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #12 on:** August 30, 2009, 01:25:03 PM »

Most of the world's cities will be completed FUBAR'd, but, hey, it's not ALL bad!

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #13 on:** August 30, 2009, 01:40:22 PM »

Yeah, I was totally in the middle of a nuclear explosion just the other night. It did hurt a little bit, but geez, how anticlimactic can you get.

T-Short · « **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2009, 01:46:53 PM »

Quote from: Willco on August 30, 2009, 12:48:02 PM

I always found it funny that it was, by far, the most powerful nuclear bomb ever manufactured, but had the least amount of fallout.

The "Big Ivan" was so clean because it was an almost entirely pure fusion bomb, 97% or something like this. It was a 100 megaton design scaled down to around 50 because they replaced the uranium tamper around the multiple fusion stages with one made out of lead. The fast fission of the uranium tamper would have kicked the yield up to almost double, but also created a very dirty bomb, and russia kinda wanted to keep their Novaya Zemlya bombing range and northern Siberia inhabitable. hehe

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #15 on:** August 30, 2009, 01:59:00 PM »

Why couldn't America employ a similar design? I know they attempted to back in the late '50s, but ended utilizing the design for a "dirty" bomb with a higher yield anyway.

Reb · « **Reply #16 on:** August 30, 2009, 02:09:59 PM »

Quote from: Willco on August 30, 2009, 12:30:37 PM

But when you consider that the majority of land is uninhabitable for humans (Sahara is 9 million sq/km, Antarctica is 14 million sq/km, large portions of Siberia and the Arctic), that logic is stupid.

Quote from: Willco on August 30, 2009, 12:38:41 PM

Furthermore, the CIA World Factbook states that roughly 11% of the Earth's total land mass is arable land.

Check and mate. Lock this thread.

He uses 12.5% in stead of 11% and then shows that only 0.8% (10,277 / 1,241,166) could be destroyed.

Using your 11% its:

148,940,00 * 11% = 16,383,400
16,383,400 / 14,9 = 1,099,557
10,277 / 1,099,557 = 0.9%

Wow! 0.1% increase!

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2009, 03:25:21 PM »

That logic still makes little sense. He's inferring that we don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy even the percentage of land mass that humans populate, but considering we populate more surface space than arable land (a struggle as is) and the fact that humans are not equally dispersed around land mass - destroying a percentage of arable land could be catastrophic.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #18 on:** August 30, 2009, 03:31:48 PM »

Well to be fair, it's mostly Western civilization, China, and western Russia that would get bombed. All the most technologically advanced nations and probably the most densely packed ones basically. It's not like the bombs would do equal damage to the city centers of Beijing and Kabul.

There's not really a danger of humanity dieing out but we would literally be bombed back to the stone age.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #19 on:** August 30, 2009, 03:39:04 PM »

We're not talking about theoretical war, am nintenho.

You'd have to include Israel, Pakistan, India, France, UK, etc. in the discussion.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #20 on:** August 30, 2009, 03:47:42 PM »

The way things are going with the environment and overpopulation concerns, the world will break down to a warlord / Taliban like society soon enough.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #21 on:** August 30, 2009, 03:50:49 PM »

God would save the US and Israel. Then we'd invade them for teh oilz

brawndolicious · « **Reply #22 on:** August 30, 2009, 03:51:15 PM »

Quote from: Willco on August 30, 2009, 03:39:04 PM

We're not talking about theoretical war, am nintenho.
You'd have to include Israel, Pakistan, India, France, UK, etc. in the discussion.

Yeah I know, I'm just saying how the long term damage would actually be calculated.

You know that France and UK will of course be in anarchy after they get nuked. Pakistan and India might also bomb each other just out of panic. So the most powerful country left would probably be Israel, this needs a zionism joke but I can't think of one.

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #23 on:** August 30, 2009, 03:58:18 PM »

The thing about being bombed back to the stone age (or most likely pre-industrial Europe) is that the low hanging fruit of natural resources have mostly been tapped out. How are we going to get our coal/oil/metals when it's taking more advanced technology to extract the ones that are left? If technological civilization truly collapses, it won't be able to just build itself up in a century or two, we might never be able to get back to where we are.

EmCeeGrammar · « **Reply #24 on:** August 30, 2009, 04:09:46 PM »

If you detonate a nuclear bomb high enough in the atmosphere, it acts as an emp explosion that would fry electronics and wiring instantly, nationwide. You wouldn't need many nukes to shut down entire hemispheres.

Veidt · « **Reply #25 on:** August 30, 2009, 05:10:48 PM »

So true.

Mandark · « **Reply #26 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:04:14 AM »

Woo-hoo! Another case of Amateur Solves Global Problem Through Middle School Algebra.

Fresh Prince · « **Reply #27 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:11:00 AM »

New Zealand would be safe

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #28 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:16:29 AM »

Quote from: Fresh Prince on August 31, 2009, 03:11:00 AM

New Zealand would be safe

Do you guys have a valuable natural resource that can be exploited? If not, then Russia will nuke you just for shits and giggles.

Bildi · « **Reply #29 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:22:46 AM »

Quote from: Fresh Prince on August 31, 2009, 03:11:00 AM

New Zealand would be safe

I think Australia would be too despite sucking up to the US and UK all the time. Hopefully most people think we're located somewhere in Europe, or that we're just a bunch of dumb British convicts, or that we just drink beer and root kangaroos all day.

Fresh Prince · « **Reply #30 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:28:12 AM »

Strategically Australia is more important than New Zealand. Australia also has uranium, iron etc.

Bildi · « **Reply #31 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:45:22 AM »

Fresh Prince · « **Reply #32 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:50:43 AM »

New Zealand has...snow?

Bildi · « **Reply #33 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:53:20 AM »

Also sheep and Peter Jackson.

T-Short · « **Reply #34 on:** August 31, 2009, 04:09:34 AM »

Quote from: Willco on August 30, 2009, 01:59:00 PM

Why couldn't America employ a similar design? I know they attempted to back in the late '50s, but ended utilizing the design for a "dirty" bomb with a higher yield anyway.

As mentioned by yourself earlier, this was a pretty distinguished mentally-challenged device mainly used for penis measuring and would never be practical in any sort of conflict. The bomber would just get shot out of the sky before it could ever reach anything. As for using a "clean" pure fusion bomb, well, if you're cynical, that is only preferable when you are testing, in your own backyard so to speak. If you're gonna drop stuff on the enemy, why not get the cool bonus effects of making a huge part of their territory uninhabitable?

Cormacaroni · « **Reply #35 on:** August 31, 2009, 04:40:10 AM »

Quote from: Hyoushi on August 31, 2009, 04:09:34 AM

Quote from: Willco on August 30, 2009, 01:59:00 PM
Why couldn't America employ a similar design? I know they attempted to back in the late '50s, but ended utilizing the design for a "dirty" bomb with a higher yield anyway.

As mentioned by yourself earlier, this was a pretty distinguished mentally-challenged device mainly used for penis measuring and would never be practical in any sort of conflict. The bomber would just get shot out of the sky before it could ever reach anything. As for using a "clean" pure fusion bomb, well, if you're cynical, that is only preferable when you are testing, in your own backyard so to speak. If you're gonna drop stuff on the enemy, why not get the cool bonus effects of making a huge part of their territory uninhabitable?

I think there is room for cynicism in respect to the Cold War and nuclear weapons, yes. Good point.

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #36 on:** August 31, 2009, 05:20:17 AM »

Quote

As for using a "clean" pure fusion bomb, well, if you're cynical, that is only preferable when you are testing, in your own backyard so to speak. If you're gonna drop stuff on the enemy, why not get the cool bonus effects of making a huge part of their territory uninhabitable?

if you're aiming to take their $RESOURCE, or at least secure its continued availability, that's not ideal.

T-Short · « **Reply #37 on:** August 31, 2009, 08:13:35 AM »

Quote from: recursivelyenumerable on August 31, 2009, 05:20:17 AM

Quote
As for using a "clean" pure fusion bomb, well, if you're cynical, that is only preferable when you are testing, in your own backyard so to speak. If you're gonna drop stuff on the enemy, why not get the cool bonus effects of making a huge part of their territory uninhabitable?

if you're aiming to take their $RESOURCE, or at least secure its continued availability, that's not ideal.

Well yeah. But when you are even considering deploying nuclear weapons, you are past the "let's harvest their resources" part. Also, as for russia, thermonuclear devices would be hitting cities, ports and airfields, considering they are weapons targeting people and infrastructure. Oil/gas fields would not be targeted, seems pointless

The Sceneman · « **Reply #38 on:** August 31, 2009, 09:04:33 AM »

Quote from: Bildi on August 31, 2009, 03:53:20 AM

Also sheep and Peter Jackson.

and me

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #39 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:42:49 PM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on August 30, 2009, 12:40:56 PM

Quote from: Willco on August 30, 2009, 12:24:24 PM
Russia had a 50 megaton bomb.

[youtube=560,345]WwlNPhn64TA

TSAR BOMBA!!!

Also, I'm still amazed TSAR BOMBA hasn't yet become a meme on GAF

Bildi · « **Reply #40 on:** August 31, 2009, 06:47:11 PM »

Quote from: Scenester on August 31, 2009, 09:04:33 AM

Quote from: Bildi on August 31, 2009, 03:53:20 AM
Also sheep and Peter Jackson.

and me

I was hoping you'd show up soon and set us straight on what NZ has. Well you did show up but I'm not sure about the 'straight' bit.

The Sceneman · « **Reply #41 on:** September 01, 2009, 05:15:28 AM »

We dont have much in the way of natural resources to exploit (a tiny bit of gas for our stoves), our main exports are dairy and meat products. We have lots of cows and sheep, and premium cuts of our beef and lamb sell for a mint in europe (I used to working in shipping, exporting this stuff). Our dairy is great too! We also export wool and a fuckton of apples to asia and america during apple season. So yeah, we've got lots of food here.

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #42 on:** September 01, 2009, 02:30:29 PM »

Quote

Well yeah. But when you are even considering deploying nuclear weapons, you are past the "let's harvest their resources" part.

I don't think this is necessarily so. A state of all-out war with some nation doesn't mean you won't have a strategic use for it in the future, vide the US with Germany and Japan for example.

News:

Author Topic: Nukes suck (or how I learned to mock the bomb) (Read 1887 times)