1 more nuclear bomb = bye bye world?

well, thats what a friend told me, is it true?

Lol, wtf? You can't destroy world with nukes. Well, with millions of them it might be possible. Just destroying mankind requires thousands of them and most importantly spread out to every region of planet. With cobalt bombs destroying mankind is significantly easier though. About hundred of such bombs spread around globe and detonated in atmosphere would be totally surefire way to cleanse earth from life.

What kind of idiot would think that one nuclear bomb could destroy the whole world? Even if he just meant all of humanity, he's still a fucktard.

Unless if he's saying "One nuclear launch will cause a dominoe effect of multiple nations launching their nuclear missles, resulting in the mutual destruction of humanity" which would make sense.

But just one? No. Not even close.

>>3
A weapon capable of fusing enough hydrogen would release enough energy to fuse the hydrogen in the surrounding water (deep ocean detonation). The reaction would eventually run out, but if it is big enough it will "run out" once it has fused a large portion of hydrogen in the surrounding water and release enough radiation into the atmosphere to sterilise the surface of the planet.

>>4
Do you really think that's what some kid is refering to when he says "nuclear bomb"?

the whole dominoe theory doesnt make sense. civilization isnt so stupid that itll blow itself up. someone along the chain will say, wait stop.

>>6
It's stupid cause it's not relevant anymore. Back in cold war times world was literally split in two and both sides loathed eachother. Still totally worldwide nuclear apocalypse wouldn't have been possible, but pretty destructive war that would have destroyed most of humanity was real possibility. 

hey what does this button do. oh it's nucular weapun. - GW Bush, Jan 4 2008. The start of WW3 and end of the world.

>>8
I don't liek bush.

But I like him a hell of a lot more than retards who say dumb shit like you.

>>8
America and assumably China or whatever country that is automatically targeted? = ZA WARUDO?

>>5
Yes, it is a bomb which releases energy by fusing or splitting the nucleus of atoms and it is possible to destroy most life on earth by releasing this energy apart from bacteria which lives inside rocks 1 mile beneath the surface of the earth.

>>4
How would that work ? How would you get enough pressure and temperature for fusion to happen. If you were to detonate a hydrogen bomb in deep sea, wouldn't it just push/boil surrounding water out of the way ? I mean FFS, in hydrogen bomb desings, fusion is reached by actually focusing energy created by a fission process to fuse some of the hydrogen... which will shorty after blow everything to bits and during the "blow everything to bits phase" the temperature and pressure is already below what would be required for fusion to happen

Bush is waaaaaaay more dangerous than 10 nuclear bombs

>>4
Bahahaha! Fucking dream on. To sustain a nuclear reaction you need at LEAST 90 Jupiter masses. A fusion reaction does not just run away uncontrolled dipshit.

Also, to >>2, millions of nuclear bombs wouldn't even come CLOSE to destroying the earth. There is absolutely no way in fuck we could ever even SCRATCH THE SURFACE of this planet. Sure, we could wipe ourselves out, create a nuclear winter for thousands of years... and afterwards, the skies will clear and life will flourish again. Humans are nothing but a tiny speck in the planet's lifespan. We couldn't hurt it no matter how hard we tried.

If you want to get a more realistic grasp of the energy required to actually destroy the earth, read this:
http://qntm.org/destroy

>>14

Well, if we used enough nuclear bombs we might be able to destroy most of the useful elements on the planet so that it becomes unlikely that any useful form of life would evolve again.

But yeah, no way we are going to destroy it, per se

http://qntm.org/destroy
I'm amazed how some people have the time for these kind of things.
Interesting reading nonetheless.

>>15

Is that another joke? There are four trillion metric tons of nitrogen in the atmosphere. There are incalculable stores of carbon products underground out of our reach. It's not just a matter of setting off enough bombs; you need such an even distribution of bombs both throughout the atmosphere and underground to irradiate all the elements, and you'd need to set them off simultaneously so that unblasted portions don't just dissipate into the irradiated materials. It really doesn't make sense because this process would be making more by irratiating higher elements that decay to stable carbon, nitrogen and oxygen.

You are gravely underestimating the size and resilience of the planet. If we took all the uranium and plutonium on earth and blasted our atmosphere to smithereens, the earth wouldn't even feel it. Couple thousand years, and it would be in better shape than it has ever been in millions.

>>17
To expand on this, a quote from that destroy the earth site:

There is evidence that in the past, asteroids have hit the Earth with the explosive yield of five billion Hiroshima bombs - and such evidence is *difficult to find*.

Set off all the bombs you want. The earth will just laugh at you and evolve someone less stupid to replace you.

>>18
That's when we dig out Tesla's resonance generator.

the ability to destroy Earth would take a hell of a lot of power. Hell, even splitting off a decent chunk would take a lot of energy.



What would be possible is launch the world into a nuclear winter. Activate enough bombs and spread enough radiation and dust into the air. The dust would block most sunlight and the radiation would kill most anything that survives the cold and starvation (plants wouldn't be able to live in such cold)


of course, even creating a large enough force to get that much dust and debris into the atmosphere would take a lot of energy. Nuclear war could probably do it, but that would require that no one goes "Hey, wait, truce. We're just killing ourselves."

>>20
Note also that nuclear winter is just theory thus we can't automatically assume that would happen, besides haven't you heard about hydroponic farming? It's not scifi, it's reality.

>>21 True, although it is fairly logical that if you can get enough dust into the atmosphere to block out a decent amount of sunlight..

At the very least, if you got enough dust up, you'd have the effect of the dust bowl, but much larger, which would make things bad enough by itself.


Anyway, yes, but that's assuming that there's actually a bio-dome like enviroment that people can safely hide away in. If they can't control their own enviroment, the cold alone would take quite a toll on anyone who survives the initial blast.

>>22
Well, you just need decent heating and you're set. You can grow stuff in your closet(no kidding). Though you need electricity and good sunlight emulating lamp.

y'know, if u could throw a nuke bomb in the earth's core the world would probably explode

>>24
What movie/book was that then? Or are you seriously suggesting that as truth?

>>25
Austin Powers. "one MILLION dollars!"

The problem with a single fusion reaction cabable of destroying earth is that the hydrogen will be thrown away from center of the reaction by the initial explosion.  To maintain the neccessary temperature and pressure for a fusion explosion you need a supermassive object (like a star) to hold everything together

>>26
At least in Austin Powers theysaid it would cause earth quakes, not blow up the planet.

If you want to blow up the earth, put a giant rocket motor on one of jupiter's moons and precisely change it's orbit so it crashes into earth with enough kinetic energy to disperse the center of gravity of the mass of the earth.

>>28
Lol... The center of gravity is a point. Points don't 'disperse'.

lol 29 stfu