It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How many nukes do you REALLY need to destroy the world?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

Good point, combustibles .




posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Okay guys, so the consensus is;

On starting a chain reaction

A nuke going off over a boat load of nukes probably wouldn't start a chain reaction.

On short term damage to a power plant

This would depend on factors such as if the nuke was airburst, direct hit, yield, probably the surrounding terrain such as hills funnelling the shockwaves etc..

While the initial damage would spread more radioactive waste about. Not an earth shattering event.

On long term damage to a power plant

So, the consensus is that nuke power plants are robust things able to withstand an earthquake. And probably a conventional "terrorist" attack with say; carbombs.

Now what about a nuke weapon detonating neara nuclear power plant? That might knock out enough internal machinery such as pumps, cooling towers, etc, to cause a meltdown.

So, creating a Fukushima/Chernobyl event is a possibility.

The ocean currents and and winds would carry fallout to global locations as was seen with Fukushima irradiating the Pacific ocean, Canada and the USA.

How many Chinese or Japanese reactors would NK need to blow up to strike a devestating fallout on US soil?

Shift to the middle East, Israel has reactors, sterilise Israel and where ever the winds blow.

Europe, lots of reactors there too.

What I am getting at is this; someone with half a dozen nukes can wage global nuclear war by proxy..

Especially if one has a fleet of 70+ submarines to deliver them to coastal nuclear reactors.


So, if one thinks in terms of conventional warfare, it would take a lot of nukes to destroy the world as we know it.

Thinking in terms of how few nukes it would take to destroy the world as we know it, maybe the number is within a small country's ability.


Creating ongoing nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl is a way to amplify devistation.

How many Chernobyls could Europe survive before falling into chaos?



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
So what would happen if you set off a nuke at the epicenter of a supervolcano?



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Over a thousand nuclear devices have been detonated since their invention, plus a Three Mile Island, plus a Chernobyl, plus a Fukushima.

Don't believe all the fear-mongering. We're gonna have a nuclear war ... and probably pretty soon.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
How many have you seen first hand? I mean beyond the television programmin and pictures? I bet none... no one..



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
We can't destroy the entire planet just all life that the radiation can kill.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
1

If you have one and fire it off, everyone else will get antsy and likely fire off theirs. Then we'll all be up a creek.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

Yep, It wouldn't be pretty. So yes a minimum of one nuke to destroy the world as we know it.

Bonus points since the Elite can just sit it out in their bunkers while the world is "depopulated", extra points for Yellowstone going up can be dismissed as a "natural event".

But let's think of our little dictator in NK . . .

From a tactical point of view, there are not too many supervolcanoes to choose from as opposed to the number of nuclear power plants around the world.

A dictator with delusions of grandeur and no social conscience (sociopath?) would probably want to bask in the suffering caused to his enemies.

He would also want his enemies to know who did the deed.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Yep, but let's not give in to the inevitable


I think the superpowers know exactly how expensive a nuclear war is.

Everyone will think me silly for saying this; I think there is more responsibility in government then one might think.


It's the little idiots in the middle East and NK that worry me



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

True enough.

But war hurts people, families, women and children . . .



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Try seeing what fighting one does inside...wait ...DON'T do that ,JUST trust the negative idea alone...others seek it as a tool to take and oppress...WE have BANKS.
THAT way WE can pay for better stuff so the world's tools fail to win against ours.
AND the lasted iterations of your favorite lifestyles are preserved behind an IRON WALL of death so that those protected can remove said protection's peace by peace in complete ignorance, so they will no longer be preserved at all.
edit on 21-8-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Too young for Viet Nam here in Oz so no experience of what it is like to be inside one.

Banks and the rest cause enough sufferings, just reading ATS makes that clear.

I just wonder if all the attention given to NK testing ICBMs is what one should be worrying about.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Depends, we have a marine presence in your country so they will have limited protection with Agis systems as to Aussies proper,I think NK wants to win the war against us alone.
YOU have to worry about Iran handing one over to a #e Muslim faction that may not be too crazy about the SAS.
edit on 21-8-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-8-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-8-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I know what you mean, and the SAS, from what I understand can undoubtedly take care of business.

But really, it doesn't matter where cr#p happens, it affects everyone when it comes to nukes.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: saadad

Actually... There are aprox 150-200 people gone back in. One elderly couple is back at their farm.. Search Nat. Geo. /Life after Chernobyl. Radiation is astonomically high... But authority know of these folks and just leave them be. They are fine... Just glowing a little!
Just catch the 1hr. N. Geo. special..



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: saadad
Just one is enough. I just read that modern nukes are up to 50 times stronger than those that exploded in Hiroshima. And several times dangerous than Chernobyl disaster. And look how is life in Chernobyl now.


We've actually test detonated bombs over 1000 times stronger than the bombs that were dropped on Japan.

We're still here, in case you haven't noticed.

There's been over 2,000 nuclear weapons test-detonated over the last 70+ years, many of which were 10s to 100s of times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan. You can read all about it here.

So no, the assertion that you'd only need one or a handful of "modern" nuclear weapons to destroy the world is complete and utter nonsense. Our modern weapons are no more powerful than any of the ones we've tested. Actually the most powerful one ever tested, by the Russians, was never meant to be deployed it was basically just showing off.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I wonder how many people looking at how nukes affect the world consider the Nature Spirits and other such folk?

We can see the physical damage with our physical eyes and instruments.

Although I cannot prove anything; the damage to the spiritual world of Nature Beings, Shrines, Temples, unseen life and so on can be considered a form of "spiritual warfare".

More then meets the eye.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Since radiation is a natural phenomenon, I hear they're fine with it.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I'll add "Christian churches" to the list above.

Anyway,




Since radiation is a natural phenomenon, I hear they're fine with it.


An excess of radiation is another thing . . .

Radiation aside, the blast takes a toll on the unwarry.




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join