Or render it "useless"?
Just curious.
Or render it "useless"?
Just curious.
Last edited by D.B. Cooper; November 24, 2009 at 08:32 PM.
Im thinking...about...in the 50's
About 50,000 in all the places of the world at the same time.
I have no idea but I'd think it depends. Complete instant destruction would take thousands, but it doesnt seem necessary since the nuclear winter and other chaotic weather effects are more than enough to render it "useless", you'd just need to alter the weather enough for it to have a global effect
Originally Posted by Hunter S. Thompson
I am guessing 100 or so, it would depend on the force of each bombs.
Depending the the payload....
....one.
Links to any anti-developer or anti-publisher campaigns are not tolerated on these forums. Any such links will be removed and (most probably) the poster of the link banned.... Please be advised that any information uploaded or transmitted by visitors to Sega becomes the property of Sega. Sega reserves the right to... modify... or delete any of this information at any time and for any reason without notice.
CA trying to prevent dissent on their forums
Carpet bombing with Tzar Nukes will probably take off chucks of the earth.
I like to think outside the box.
Lets find out. *press button*
This is a funny question. It would take only 50~ to render the world 'useless' as you say due to weather effects and the nuclear winter following (Remember, that some cities even have nuclear plants or biological/chemical plants, so the destruction will be even greater).
But to completely and totally cover the entire Earth? The Earth is 12,000 Kilometers (19200 miles) in diameter - Taking the fact that a nuke can cover an area of 100 miles even - I would say that it would take around 1,000 nukes to destroy the planet, or at least it's land - Not sea.
Nazgul Killer's M2TW Guide
Personal Help & Advice forum
My view on the "Friend Zone"
Good things come to those who wait... But better things come to those who never hesitate.
50~ would in NO way render the world useless. Not in the slightest.
As others have pointed out, it would take substantially fewer nukes to destroy life on Earth than to actually turn the entire surface of the Earth into a Hiroshima-like nuclear wasteland. You wouldn't need to literally bomb every square inch of Earth.
Nazgul Killer's M2TW Guide
Personal Help & Advice forum
My view on the "Friend Zone"
Good things come to those who wait... But better things come to those who never hesitate.
50 in close proximity might trigger the start of a new ice age. It wouldn't be the end of humanity, but it would be the end of the world as we know it.
well some volcano eruptions are pretty powerful and they haven't wiped out life............yet
I check into small hotel a few kilometers from Kiev. It is late. I am tired. I tell woman at desk I want a room. She tells me room number and give key. "But one more thing comrade; there is one room without number and always lock. Don't even peek in there." I take key and go to room to sleep. Night comes and I hear trickling of water. It comes from the room across. I cannot sleep so I open door. It is coming from room with no number. I pound on door. No response. I look in keyhole. I see nothing except red. Water still trickling. I go down to front desk to complain. "By the way who is in that room?" She look at me and begin to tell story. There was woman in there. Murdered by her husband. Skin all white, except her eyes, which were red. I tell her I don't give a . Stop the water trickling or give me refund. She gave me 100 ruble credit and free breakfast. Such is life in Moscow
Been playing Fallout, have we?
That would depend on how much bang those bombs give you for your buck and where they were set off. Nuclear bombs are more destructive when used in the atmosphere, which also reduces fallout. If they're set off at ground level much of the destructive capeablity would be lost, but the fallout will be much more, because it'll whirl all kinds of radioactive dust into the atmosphere. During the Cold War such an idea was reserved as a final " you".
But meh, the bombs these days are not nearly as powerful or numerous as during the height of the cold war, because the need for accuracy increased as the allowed number of warheads decreased. Present day bombs are much more accurate but much less powerful. Big inaccurate bombs are expensive and impractical.
If you're looking for a good dose of hypothetical destruction check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon
"A quantity as small as a kilogram of antimatter would release 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy. Given that roughly half the energy will escape as non interacting neutrinos, that gives 90 petajoules of combined blast and EM radiation, or the rough equivalent of a 20 megaton thermonuclear bomb"
Also, what do you mean by useless? These days there aren't nearly enough bombs to render the earth inhospitable, but needless to say that instantly wiping, say, 100 major cities worldwide off the map would have some pretty steep impacts on civlization as we know it.
Under the stern but loving patronage of Nihil.
Well, I looked up the meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs (and that definitely had world-ending effects) and that had a "strength" equivalent to 100,000,000 megatons of TNT.
The Tsar Bomb has a strength of 50 megatons.
So that's...2 million Tsar Bombs in one spot to recreate the dinosaur-ending meteor?
That can't be right.
Last edited by D.B. Cooper; November 25, 2009 at 06:47 AM.
Nobody tell him, he's planning to kill us all!
"I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
- John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)
Sure it can. The instant destruction of an event such as that is nothing compared to the long term effects. What killed the dinosaurs wasn't the impact, it was the dust in the atmosphere. Nuclear bombs don't make gigantic deep craters even when detonated at ground level because unlike a meteor they lack the energy to penetrate far below the earth's surface. If you were to recreate the dinosaur event you would have bury an enormous load of nuclear weapons. Or use an even more enourmous load attatched to missiles that are designed to go underground before exploding. A "normal" nuclear war (if one can imagine such a thing that is) is no longer equal to the end of the human race or all landbased higher forms of life in general for that matter. But that's not the point, the point is that a nuclear war would dramatically change human culture. If life post war can even be described as a culture in the first place of course.
Under the stern but loving patronage of Nihil.