| Tango01 | 12 Dec 2016 11:50 a.m. PST |
"Shortly after the end of World War II, the scientists who developed the atomic bombs dropped on Japan tried to envision the kind of nuclear event that could lead to the destruction of not just cities, but the entire world. A declassified document shared by nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein gives the verdict that scientists at the Los Alamos laboratory and test site reached in 1945. They found that "it would require only in the neighborhood of 10 to 100 Supers of this type" to put the human race in peril…"
Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
Oberlindes Sol LIC  | 12 Dec 2016 12:17 p.m. PST |
There's a big difference between "destruction of … the entire world" and "the human race in peril". The world is basically a huge ball of iron covered with silicon, aluminum, more iron, and other materials. It's probably impossible for humans to destroy it. Probably the smallest thing that could destroy it would be a collision with a very large asteroid. I think we're a very long way from the Death Star. Putting the human race in peril, on the other hand, turned out to be pretty easy. |
| Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 12 Dec 2016 1:27 p.m. PST |
Glenn, I agree with your sentiment. The *only* thing I can imagine humanity doing to actually destroy the planet would to be artificially creating a singularity large enough to absorb the planet before it burned itself out. But mostly, the planet and life has absorbed and recovered from far more than we can throw at it. In terms of the planet's history, humanity is just a small blip. |
| Pan Marek | 12 Dec 2016 1:37 p.m. PST |
Well, that certainly makes me feel better. |
| Sir Walter Rlyeh | 12 Dec 2016 1:46 p.m. PST |
|
| mjkerner | 12 Dec 2016 2:57 p.m. PST |
…and Sir Walter for the win! |
 Legion 4 | 12 Dec 2016 2:58 p.m. PST |
If one of them lands near you … it won't make much difference … |
| JasonAfrika | 12 Dec 2016 4:43 p.m. PST |
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop? The world may never know… |
| Lion in the Stars | 12 Dec 2016 8:38 p.m. PST |
That's talking about 100-megaton bombs, which are far larger than either the US or Russia fielded operationally. |
| cosmicbank | 12 Dec 2016 11:40 p.m. PST |
|
| capncarp | 16 Dec 2016 11:59 p.m. PST |
If one targetted the Pacific ring of fire to try to cause massive seismic disruptions, the Yellowstone Supervolcano to release, and carpetbombed the Amazon rainforest, I'm sure we'd be close to packing the human race, or at least Life As We Know It, in for the Long Night. |
| Navy Fower Wun Seven | 18 Dec 2016 11:36 p.m. PST |
If we don't give it a go we'll never know…. |
| Legion 4 | 19 Dec 2016 8:47 a.m. PST |
|
| Martin From Canada | 22 Jan 2017 10:22 p.m. PST |
If we look at the models from climate science, it could be as little as 100 city sized firestorms to shoot enough soot into the upper atmosphere to block incoming solar radiation to lower average global temperatures to the level of the little ice age and 1000 get you about 10 degrees below present. Either way, there's going to be serious disruption to global crop production (mostly via early cold snaps) and thus the food supply. PDF link PDF link |
| Murvihill | 23 Jan 2017 11:32 a.m. PST |
I doubt causing seismic events with nukes is feasible. If I remember my last disaster documentaries correctly earthquakes are caused by events in the mantle, 100+ miles below the surface. |
plays Ambush Alley at Council of Five Nations.
