Nukes can't whipe out entire country

All this propaganda in the media along the lines of 'oh dear Iran might get a nuke and whipe Israel off the map'.

Well I was just wondering if a nuke can even do that. According to wikipedia Israel is some 8000 square miles. A nuke can't destroy that, i doubt 100 could even.

How big would a nuke have to be to take out 8000 square miles? The size of a football stadium? I doubt Iran could come up with enough enriched material for such a bomb in 1000 years.

I think This site Will explain a few wonders you have.
It says about what kinda rating nukes would be, and what kind of destruction they can cause regarding blast effects.

Also you don't have to wipe everyone out in one fell swoop. Think strategically, Take out the countries trade goodies, take out the business sectors, take out the capital, etc,

A human needs water, food AND air to live, You see where I am coming from?

reply to post by zaintdead


Find out for yourself...

HERE

reply to post by zaintdead


a single nuke shouldn't be a worry but still devastating none the less' its all media scare tactics,

i feel secure in the fact america is looking out for the world and our individual safety with their 8500-9000 nukes.
damn i love freedom

United States 1,950 / 8,500

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by zaintdead


I think it's quite apparent that you're viewing the subject from the wrong angle. Obviously, if they can make one, they can continue to make more. I'm sure the threat they are concerned with is not related to one gigantic nuke. I'd imagine it's the actual capability of producing nuclear weapons.

Cheers,
Strype

I think any nuke they would make wouldn't even be big enough to take out 50% of the capital city.

A 50 mega ton nuke is just enough to completely destroy Jerusalem. Good luck getting enough material for a bomb that big.

reply to post by zaintdead


Yet even if it remained standing; what good is a capital city full of ill/dying citizens?

reply to post by zaintdead


Here you can play around with this nuke simulater..
meyerweb.com...

I suggest looking at photos from Nagaski and Hiroshima and the damage it caused in WW2. The pictures are devasting. Multiply that times 20. Plus long term collateral damage.

Certainly not an entire country. Just a large chunk.

reply to post by Vandalour


Cool tool but it won't let you input more than 100 mega ton yield.

when i read the title of this thread, a thought came to my mind, that its an attempt to make a nuclear war look not dangerous. to get used to the thought, there could be a nuclear war and "it wont be that bad"...
as said, that what came to my mind.

reply to post by zaintdead


More or less,it would be the long term fall out....i rest my case....radiation is some pretty nasty stuff...here is a tip,if you know your amongst it,barracade yourself with as much solidity as you can.As in concrete +anything around you....them gamma`s break down through a thick wall.keep a noise maker in case you here its o.k..on the other hand,stay safe and don`t let unprepared people in or your f"cked.....

10 nukes the size of Tsar size at 50 megaton would flatten israel
when they tested the Tsar bomb in russia it could be seen and felt 1000 kilometers away
biggest bomb ever made.. but I think they will use smaller and more tactical targets not make one big hole

Here is how ONE of these suckers look like

wrong method of thinking here.
to cause the most devistation you would want to blow a nuke up in space over the area youd want to disrupt.
only a small nuke would be needed at the right height and you would wipe out anything electrical fir thousands of miles.

if my memory is correct look up 'operation argus'.
this was an american atmosperic nuke explosion that wiped out communication and electrics for thousands of miles

reply to post by zaintdead


Nukes can indeed wipe out a country. Take the UK for instance, if a nuke hit London and another hit Scotland the UK would be gone, we are a country (a small one) but still a powerful country none the less.

So yea they can.

Neither an EMP attack , nor a straight up explosion will be the truely devastating thing about the scenario of nuclear attack against a nation.
When a military commander orders a strike by bunker busters for instance, he thinks only about pacifying the hard target before sending in troops. But when a nuclear strike is considered, there is much more planning required. First, weapon deployments would be planned with the windage in mind, so that maximum havoc and death could be caused per bomb drop. Bombs would be dropped in such a way as to take fallout material as far and in as high a concentration as possible, if a target wipeout was required.

Furthermore you have the type of weapon being deployed to think about. Sure a standard nuclear weapon is a fearsome prospect to wave in someones face, but if you intend to drop just one and maximise the horror of it, you would need to increase the amount of radioactive fallout produced by it. Essentially you would need to make a very highly explosive device, which also has the added terror factor of boosted fallout levels, in order to make an area utterly uninhabitable for eons.

And then you have the final option, only available to nations which have plenty of nukes available. That would be the Glass Bottom approach. This involves the launch of significant numbers of high powered nuclear weapons at a given target or nation. With the state of the world as it is at the moment, let us say that the US for instance, wanted to totaly destroy Iran using nuclear weapons. All they would have to do , is launch that many nukes (and they have many more than would be needed I think) that when the radioactive dust settles, all the casualties have died of burns and tumors and so on, all that would be left after is large areas that were once desert, or sandy, and are now smooth, rippling planes of glass.

Nuke Tel Aviv and you can behead the Isreali government. That can cause enough disruption to perhaps allow for further attacks of a more conventional sort. But there is a problem. The moment such a nuke happens, every country on the planet will turn on the attacker.

Single nuke attacks are not very good starting offensive simply because too many people hate the idea of nuclear war.

It's not just the nukes explosion
It's the after effects
An initial loss of life - the loss of resources from that area, the lost of command and control, knowledge and everything else that would have come from that place - food water infrastructure Ect
Then the radiation and fall out contaminating food water the air the radio active dust falling for miles around and dependent of wind
The populus that would just up and leave after such an attack
Theres just too much resulting from 1 well used nuke to a small nation like Israel
So a possibility that yes 1 nuke could destroy a country in a sense
Or maybe andora ( only 180 square miles )

reply to post by zaintdead


its not wiping out a whole country, all thats needed is to wipe out a city or two, to trigger or end a war

reply to post by zaintdead


its not wiping out a whole country, all thats needed is to wipe out a city or two, to trigger or end a war