Slag
Soldier
F'n A, mate!
Posts: 157
|
Post by Slag on Oct 8, 2003 14:40:30 GMT -5
It's the same kind of uninformed panicy mindset that led to Waterworld and similar "environmental disater" films.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 8, 2003 16:10:32 GMT -5
Long has man been preoccupied with the end of the world. Countless times in history has the imminent End Of Everything been declared on the horizon. Nostradamus. The Y2K bug. Revelations from the Bible. We're fascinated by it, yet it never seems to happen.
|
|
|
Post by LarsBlitzer on Oct 10, 2003 17:23:13 GMT -5
I always thought that the nuclear stockpile wouldn't blow up the world per se, just make it impossible to live on the vast majority of the planet's surface without succumbing to radiation sickness, cancer, or a host of other ailments that would stem from a large-scale exchange of missiles.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 10, 2003 20:27:14 GMT -5
Oh, that's true. Sure. We can wipe ourselves out. It would take a while and a MASSIVE exchange of nuclear weapons, but we could do it.
To put things in perspective, a hurricane contains the same energy as hundreds of nuclear bombs. Granted, they aren't focused and they are spread over several days, but, we do have hurricanes every so often and we are still here.
|
|
agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Oct 12, 2003 17:04:26 GMT -5
That would depend on which bomb you use as an example. We have 10 ton bombs up to 100 megaton warheads.Out of couriosity, what size bomb is used as the comparitive?
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 15, 2003 4:56:04 GMT -5
The average force 2 hurricane (the most common sort) has the same potential energy, not destructive force, as 250 megatons worth of nuclear devices. It always startles me that people don't seperate the two things; destructive force and potential energy.
While Krakatoa did in fact, when it errupted, have more potential energy than every nuclear device in the combined world militaries, and while it did make alterations in the weather that were felt for decades and are, in some small ways, still being felt, it did not exhibit a destructive force equal to that of the largest SINGLE weapons in the nuclear inventory.
Science and it's explanations are more complex than catch lines in books and headlines in news papers can convey.
While it is ridiculous to think that all the destructive force weilded by all the weapons in existence, if combined into a single unit, could destroy the planet, there ARE more than enough devices of various natures in the military stockpiles of the major world governments, if a large majority of them were used in a short period of time, to render this planet unsuitable for human life.
Net result to the planet? The next iteration of life won't include homo sapients. So what? To the planet and the bio-sphere, after a few hundred thousand years at most (an eye blink on a planetary scale) it is insignifigant.
Net result to us? That's a tad worse, I'm afraid. We cease to exist. We, after all, are far easier to destroy than a planet, no matter what the DBZ fans will tell you.
But to down play the ability and possibility for abuse of these devices, maybe especially the chem-bio weapons that everyone has and no one will admit to, is also dangerous.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 15, 2003 9:10:15 GMT -5
An excellent rephrasing of what has already been said. The point still remains, no matter what we do to ourselves, we still, at this moment, cannot destroy the entire planet. Wipe ourselves out? Sure. Not a problem. Wipe out all life on the planet? Not bloody likely.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 15, 2003 12:32:53 GMT -5
Hi Hussar,
Actually, it's not simply a rephrasing, but a partial refutiation.
You were saying that a hurricane releases the same energy as a large nuclear exchange (and yes, 250 megatons worth of nukes would be a truly nasty large exchange), which is true, but it implies that the destructive value would be the same, which it most absolutely and patently is NOT!
I understand that you are answering directly to the idiot idea that we can do even signifigant damage to the fabric of the planet itself, but the "hurricane comparison" is one that so often gets abused by a different brand of ignorance, one that I do NOT think that you share, that I had to throw my two cents worth in.
A single tactical nuclear weapon can do more human and property damage than you would see with several force 2 hurricanes that would possess thousands of times the potential energy release.
Saying that they equate is like saying that hitting a sky scrapper with several hundred thousand frozen peas shot through a straw has the same damage potential as shooting a baby in the head with a .45 acp round from the same range. Sure the potential energy is the same, but the damage comparison is anything but the same.
I may be alone in this thinking, but I thought it was a distinction worth pointing out.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 16, 2003 0:09:36 GMT -5
Fair 'nuff ;D
|
|