Nuclear Weapons Doomsday

This might be a stupid question, but I figure that someone in this community will be able to answer it. We have all been told that nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy our planet, to wipe out the human race. I have heard anywhere between 10 to 100 large scale 'super' nukes would be enough to destroy the planet.

I believe there have been a little over 2,000 nukes have been detonated on Earth for testing purposes. My question is why have these detonations not resulted in the total destruction of Earth?

I confident that there is rational explanation. I have attempted to research this topic on my own, and could not find a direct answer. Then again my research was rather basic, so it is probably laziness on my part. If anyone could help clear this up for me that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

a reply to: ChairmanMeow

Okaaaay,,,,now wanna talk about the subject matter of this thread?

a reply to: NewzNose

Sorry I was doing this on my phone and hit something by accident, I'm editing it now so standby haha

a reply to: ChairmanMeow

Roger, standing by to stand by.

a reply to: watchitburn

There we go

a reply to: watchitburn

I think the answer is that they weren't all detonated at once. They were spread out over years and location ie, upper atmospheric, subsurface, lower atmosphere...

Global Zero says the United States has 7,700 nuclear warheads, citing a Federation of American Scientists report. The Department of Defense disclosed in 2012 that “as of September 30, 2009, the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons consisted of 5,113 warheads.”

Source


The United States alone could wipe out all life on the Earth about 4 times over with its current arsenal of Nuclear Weapons.

All the tests done with Nukes today is nothing compared what would happen to life on earth in an all out war.

The environmental effects from a nuclear war would probably be the direst consequence, aside from immediate fatalities. Some modern perspective may be enlightening. The 2020 Vision Campaign predicted that if India and Pakistan were to fight a nuclear war, fires ignited by the nuclear blasts could create large amounts of light-absorbing smoke. Furthermore, depending upon the total number of bombs dropped, the resulting flames could create 5 million tons of carbonaceous smoke particles. This smoke could blacken the sky. Winds would transport the carbonaceous smoke across the atmosphere while the smoke induces circulations in response to solar heating. As a result, these radiative interactions would stabilize the smoke arsenal in the upper and middle atmosphere for a decade. On land, changes in surface temperatures, precipitation rates and the growing seasons would cause agricultural yield to plummet, inevitably leading to famines. This scenario is for a limited nuclear exchange. In a full-scale nuclear war, humanity could become extinct. Perhaps this is the reason why world leaders have kept their proverbial finger off the button.

So far.

historynewsnetwork.org...

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: watchitburn

I think the answer is that they weren't all detonated at once. They were spread out over years and location ie, upper atmospheric, subsurface, lower atmosphere...

Most were underground. Above ground testing was banned from nearly the start. Radiation and all. Some were underwater .

To the OP
First if we detonated all nuclear weapons worldwide in one location simultaneously , they would not put but a small freckle on the earth. Google 10 ways to destroy the Earth. That should put the "destroy the Earth" matter in perspective.

As far as all life , that still remains to be proven one way or another (hope it never comes down to final proof) The most dangerous part is not the radiation, but the nuclear winter that theoretically would follow.

Life did , however , survive an ELE event once upon a time that was exponentially more destructive.

Hope this answers.

The two above posters are all over this. Sorry my posts are short and not thorough enough. I'm preoccupied putting dollars in girls underwear.

Let me ask simple question, how many people do you know that has had cancer? Do you think nuclear testing could have anything to do with it?

a reply to: ChairmanMeow

Lol just one anti gravity machine in the wrong hands can also destroy the planet

a reply to: ChairmanMeow

When thinking about the possibility of nuclear war one often overlooked factor is the comparative intelligence of the computer programmers and the top brass. The top brass are simpletons by comparison.

What this means is when they push the red button, nothing happens.

Starfish Prime...

a reply to: Ddrneville

The detonation released an enormous electromagnetic pulse that knocked out power in Hawaii 870 miles away and wrecked one-third of all the satellites orbiting the earth at that time. Basically, unless a satellite was hiding behind the earth, it was rendered useless.

www.youtube.com...

There are many whistleblowers who has claimed decades that ETs have prevented nuclear weapons use and damage that those possibly could have caused, besides they have cleaned some of the pollusion mess that we cause.
And even more now there are many channelers and psychics who claim they are preventing nuclear weapons etc damaging things constantly. So I would not be tooo worried, but of course we should all also rise awareness and do something is we can to stop this madness.

a reply to: ChairmanMeow

We live in a M.A.D world, have done since the 1950s, which is why a full blown nuclear exchange will most lightly never take place. Truth is nuclear weapons these days are becoming smaller yield wise, and even cleaner, down to the fact that said weapons are specifically tailored towards certain needs/aims.

George Carlin had the answer "the planet will be fine. It's the people that will be f#£ked"

originally posted by: Kashai
The United States alone could wipe out all life on the Earth about 4 times over with its current arsenal of Nuclear Weapons.

Sounds like BS to me and neither of your sources say that. However it's probably not a bad thing if people believe that, as nuclear war would have truly horrible and devastating consequences, but wiping all life on Earth isn't likely to be one of them.

Killing millions and millions of people, destroy civilizations and create chaos for the survivors? Definitely. Destroy all life? I don't see how. Here are some facts to consider. The Chixilub impact didn't destroy all life on Earth though it did destroy a lot and probably caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, but it was roughly 8 billion times more destructive than the Hiroshima bomb. So thousands of weapons even a thousand times more powerful still only results in millions of times as much damage, not billions.

As a result, these radiative interactions would stabilize the smoke arsenal in the upper and middle atmosphere for a decade.

historynewsnetwork.org...

Lester Stone II who wrote that article seems uninformed. We learned from the Kuwaiti oil fires what environmental effects of lots of fire smoke had and nobody's predictions were exactly right as far as I know but those made a lot of smoke and the consequences were not devastating and the smoke had effects better measured in days rather than years:

Nuclear Winter

Hobbs found that at the peak of the fires, the smoke absorbed 75 to 80% of the sun’s radiation. The particles rose to a maximum of 20,000 feet (6,100 m), and when combined with scavenging by clouds the smoke had a short residency time of a maximum of a few days in the atmosphere.[109][110]

Pre-war claims of wide scale, long-lasting, and significant global environmental impacts were thus not borne out, and found to be significantly exaggerated by the media and speculators

originally posted by: ShayneJUK

George Carlin had the answer "the planet will be fine. It's the people that will be f#£ked"

I was going to say that too but since you beat me to it, I'll agree with Carlin.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

When the Cold War ended, so too did attention to nuclear winter. That started to change in 2007, with a new line of nuclear winter research2) that uses advanced climate models developed for the study of global warming. Relative to the 1980s research, the new research found that the smoke from nuclear firestorms would travel higher up in the atmosphere, causing nuclear winter to last longer. This research also found dangerous effects from smaller nuclear wars, such as an India-Pakistan nuclear war detonating “only” 100 total nuclear weapons. Two groups—one in the United States3) and one in Switzerland4)—have found similar results using different climate models, lending further support to the validity of the research.

Some new research has also examined the human impacts of nuclear winter. Researchers simulated agricultural crop growth in the aftermath of a 100-weapon India-Pakistan nuclear war.5)The results are startling- the scenario could cause agriculture productivity to decline by around 10 to 40 percent for several years after the war. The studies looked at major staple crops in China and the United States, two of the largest food producers. Other countries and other crops would likely face similar declines.

Following such crop declines, severe global famine could ensue. One study estimated the total extent of the famine by comparing crop declines to global malnourishment data.6) When food becomes scarce, the poor and malnourished are typically hit the hardest. This study estimated two billion people at risk of starvation. And this is from the 100-weapon India-Pakistan nuclear war scenario. Larger nuclear wars would have more severe impacts.

Source

That is from the American Federation of Scientist.

Wars are fought because they are winnable as the numbers presents an advantage to one side allowing victory. Victory is measured by losses in infrastructure, government, population and so on. What made the Cold war mentality viable was in consideration that the above could somehow be maintained.

a reply to: Kashai
That also provides no support to the claim of destroying all life on Earth. This is from the same source:

But how severe would those consequences be? And what should the world be doing about it?

To the first question, the short answer is nobody knows. The total human impacts of nuclear winter are both uncertain and under-studied.

But we do know what effect the Kuwait oil fires had and that those proved several predictions related to nuclear winter scenarios wrong.

As I said maybe it's not such a bad thing if people believe that it would destroy all life on Earth, as they will be less likely to engage in global nuclear war with that belief, but the science supports more along the lines of lots of death and devastation but not wiping out all life.