|
End of Humanity Predictions!!! (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by sym
No doubt about it.
Nuclear Holocaust. |
How is that? |
|
|
| sym |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
How is that? |
Well, think about it, as time progresses unless we get some form of world government going on, tensions will continue to rise, and it's only a matter of time before someone fires a nuke at someone else. It just takes one government not thinking straight to order it. This would more than likely set off a chain of events which would most likely end the world. People fire enough nukes, the world becomes inhospitable due to nuclear winter. |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by sym
This would more than likely set off a chain of events which would most likely end the world. |
The Indian Ocean Earthquake(9.0) was hundreds of times more powerful than the most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested by mankind. We're still alive aren't we?
| quote: | Originally posted by sym
People fire enough nukes, the world becomes inhospitable due to nuclear winter. |
Between 1945 and 2000 there was an average of one nuclear weapon tested every nine days somewhere in the world.
But that's counting underground and undersea detonations. Minus those there were still 700 nukes tested on the surface of the earth between '45 and '00.
Now how many nuclear weapons would it take to destroy the world? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? There were only about 20,000 operational nukes in the entire world in 2002. |
|
|
| sym |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
The Indian Ocean Earthquake(9.0) was hundreds of times more powerful than the most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested by mankind. We're still alive aren't we?
Between 1945 and 2000 there was an average of one nuclear weapon tested every nine days somewhere in the world.
But that's counting underground and undersea detonations. Minus those there were still 700 nukes tested on the surface of the earth between '45 and '00.
Now how many nuclear weapons would it take to destroy the world? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? There were only about 20,000 operational nukes in the entire world in 2002. |
These are tests, under controlled conditions, are they not? Let's say that someone launches a Nuke at a major world power, lets say the US. The US retaliates by launching a few Nukes of its own. Whoever launched the nukes at the US has allies, those allies also launch Nukes back. Than the US launches more nukes, and it's allies launch more. So on, and So on.
Now, you have to realize that this is not tests done in remote locations. These are most likely large cities being destroyed. When the trade centers went down, you could see the smoke from space I believe. Could you imagine how much debris and smoke would be launched into the atmosphere if an entire city was decimated?
You don't think this would cause catastrophic consequences for the world and humanity? |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by sym
These are tests, under controlled conditions, are they not? Let's say that someone launches a Nuke at a major world power, lets say the US. The US retaliates by launching a few Nukes of its own. Whoever launched the nukes at the US has allies, those allies also launch Nukes back. Than the US launches more nukes, and it's allies launch more. So on, and So on.
Now, you have to realize that this is not tests done in remote locations. These are most likely large cities being destroyed. When the trade centers went down, you could see the smoke from space I believe. Could you imagine how much debris and smoke would be launched into the atmosphere if an entire city was decimated?
You don't think this would cause catastrophic consequences for the world and humanity? |
Mount St. Helens exploded in 1980 with the force of 27,000 Hiroshima sized nuclear devices and released hundreds upon hundreds of millions of tons of ash into the atmosphere. Didn't really have much of an effect on the world and humanity. |
|
|
| sym |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
Mount St. Helens exploded in 1980 with the force of 27,000 Hiroshima sized nuclear devices and released hundreds and hundreds of millions of tons of ash into the atmosphere. Didn't really have much of an effect on the world and humanity. |
aren't the nuclear devices of today many times more powerful than the hiroshima bomb?
I guess maybe we won't know til it happens? :p |
|
|
| bassaholix |
HOly crap talk about a history lesson...
little did i know that i would learn today that eventually were going to blow ourselves up! |
|
|
| Lira |
| Think about it: there's House music (i.e. Residential music), Commercial Music and Industrial music. That's everything you need in SimCity to make (and destroy) a city. Then you have electro to provide power, among other things. Electronic music could build a whole city. This city and its inhabitants (cyborgs) would take over the world, by playing progressive house, which would turn ordinary houses into bloodthirsty transformers. That would be the end of humankind. |
|
|
| Radagast |
The Hiroshima nuclear bomb had about a 13 Kiloton yield. The least powerful volcano which caused a global volcanic winter was Krakatau in 1883. It exploded with 200 megatons of force and ejected about 10 km³ of material. It caused a minor volcanic winter, but came nowhere near the extinction of the human race. The United States only has 10 nuclear devices that are able to reach near 200 kiloton yields. These devices actually reach 300 kilotons and are stored in one LG-118A Peacekeeper ICBM. This ICBM is supposed to be removed from the US nuclear arsenal by this year though.
The most disastrous volcano explosion in human history(recorded or not), much more devastating than Krakatoa, is said to be the Toba eruption about 4000 years ago. This supervolcano was estimated to have ejected about 2000km³ of ash into the atmosphere. In fact it is also said that this eruption may have reduced the human race to a few thousand individuals. But it did not cause extinction.
Also note that the metric definition of kiloton refers to ALL of the energy immediately released by the device, regardless of form. Although chemical explosives release essentially all of their energy as kinetic or blast energy, only part of the energy in a nuclear explosion is released in this form (though under most conditions, it is the major part). Thus a kiloton nuclear explosion actually has significantly less blast effect than a kiloton chemical explosion.
And why would a meteor about a kilometer wide impacting the earth cause extinction of the human race? Because it could yield upward of 10 million megatons of force.
Simply put, the amount of force required to cause a global extinction of human beings via nuclear winter is more than the combined nuclear arsenal of the entire world, hence it is impossible at this time. |
|
|
| Light The Fuse |
| Iraq will bomb us all with their 'weapons of mass destruction' \o/ |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| We will all surely die! |
|
|
|
|
