Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
This guy is actually right-ish. The destruction caused by nuclear weapons tends not to be in actual physical destruction of land, but rather long term effects of that much radioactive material being propelled outward from it's center point. So while the actual destructive force of the blasts do match up with his math, the united states does still have enough nuclear weapons to kill the entire planet 7 times over.
User avatar #46 to #3 - useroftheLOLZ (07/06/2013) [-]
You fail to account for population density, and the spread of radiation. China is very dense in terms of population density, if America would fire their missiles at Chinese population centers, then a much larger percentage of population is going to be lost. There is also the nuclear fallout. Take the nuclear power plant that melted down in Japan, in Wisconsin, a couple weeks after the meltdown, there was radioactive snow all over the ******* place, all because the ocean was contaminated with radioactive materials, and I am sure of this, I had the Geiger counter, and I was the thing go ******* haywire.
User avatar #47 to #46 - teranin ONLINE (07/06/2013) [-]
1 hydrogen bomb of 5 megatons could wipe out the whole population of china, because the amount of radioactivity sparked by an unchained fusion reaction inside earth's atmosphere is VAST, and lasting.
#40 to #3 - casadue (07/05/2013) [-]
>implying radiations won't give people superpowers and 			****
>implying radiations won't give people superpowers and ****
#38 to #3 - Rascal (07/05/2013) [-]
This guy!!!! ^^^^
User avatar #16 to #3 - GDUBBS (07/05/2013) [-]
i believe (one can always be wrong and ive had my fair share of times) that radiation has more potential to kill that the actual blast radius
User avatar #6 to #3 - JNS (07/05/2013) [-]
from my limited knowledge the only mistake he made is using the blast radius of the bombs to judge the destroyed area ... doesn't the radiation seep way out away from the bomb killing the everything and essentially making the area destroyed by the bomb several times larger?
#8 to #6 - Rascal (07/05/2013) [-]
exactly, the idiot in the post is talking about the blast radius only, not the radius that would become impossible to live in for several generations from the radiation, which is way way bigger and is where the real power in nuclear weapons lie.

Therefore, the dude in the post is a retard, and op is faggot for reposting this dumb **** .
User avatar #7 to #6 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
Yeah that's what I said, in a nutshell. Chernobyl, for example, was only a 13 kiloton explosion, but it made over 1,000 square miles completely uninhabitable for the next few thousand years. Radiation from the explosion hit letal levels temporarily in areas as vast as a 77,000 square mile radius. The earth has about 59,000,000 square miles of land on it's surface, so if the united states has 5,000 nukes (it has more than that) and they average 300 kilotons, or around 22x that size, 22 x 77,000 is 1.7 million give or take, so with only a small fraction of that nuclear payload you could hit the surface of the earth with enough radiation to wipe out humanity. 7 times may have been too low an estimate, but it is the generally agreed consensus of most nuclear physicists as to the scale of radiation damage the earth would take if america were to fire it's whole nuclear payload.
User avatar #9 to #7 - JNS (07/05/2013) [-]
now just imagine if somehow our stockpile blew up ...
User avatar #11 to #9 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
You think that's bad? the US only has about half of the total nuclear payload of the planet. The rest is in the hands of various other countries.
#42 to #11 - qwertfag (07/05/2013) [-]
The U.S. has 2,150 active warheads.
Russia has 1,800 active warheads.
The other countries have 450 active warheads.
So while the U.S. has 50% of the active warheads.
Russia has another 45%.
User avatar #12 to #11 - JNS (07/05/2013) [-]

seems a bit excessive to me
User avatar #14 to #12 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
or fuse an atom, for that matter. That's about a zero percent chance of accidentally exploding.
User avatar #13 to #12 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
no I mean the concern shouldn't be just the US's payload popping, (which realistically can't happen due to the processes needed to actually split an atom) but there are nukes literally EVERYWHERE.
#23 to #13 - Rascal (07/05/2013) [-]
Isn't there somewhere in between 80 and 150 atom bombs lost around the world?
Oh, and people have started to live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki again. If that is healthy is another matter, but the areas doesn't (from what I know) seem uninhabitable, you can for example mover around in some parts of Pripyat and Chernobyl, without taking permanent radioactive damage as far as I know.
User avatar #26 to #23 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
thats because those bombs were in the very early stages of development, and they weren't as "dirty" as the bombs made later, or nuclear reactors.
 Friends (0)