Nuclear Weapons Doomsday

It doesnt matter in my opinion the reality we view may indeed be a simulation. How that simulation plays out depends on the creators of the simulation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


I do not think it would destroy all life but it could wipe out mankind.


There are so many separate issues to take into consideration like how would billions of people who have no survival training whatsoever do to survive?

To name just one for example.

During the cold war a point was that it would not be a war where just the nuclear powers involved would be targeted.

Everything surface area on the planet is targeted.

A 10 to 40 % drop in crops world wide after a India-Pakistan conflict using 100 total nuclear weapons was indicated in that link.

Perhaps the oceans then many forms of life could survive but on the surface that could be another story.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I wanted to roll a Drow Elf Ninja ,myself...

This old movie from the UK shows the impact of nuclear warfare

Threads (1984)

First:

originally posted by: Kashai
The United States alone could wipe out all life on the Earth about 4 times over with its current arsenal of Nuclear Weapons.

Later:

originally posted by: Kashai
I do not think it would destroy all life but it could wipe out mankind.

OK going in the right direction, but keep going. "Wipe out" implies extinction, but I don't think the arsenal could cause human extinction. As your own sources says the exact effects are unknown and not easy to predict.

There are so many separate issues to take into consideration like how would billions of people who have no survival training whatsoever do to survive?

Let's say 4 billion people died, there would still be billions left alive some of which already live off the land in remote areas of the south pacific and in places like the Amazon rainforest.

Everything surface area on the planet is targeted.

No I don't think so.

Perhaps the oceans then many forms of life could survive but on the surface that could be another story.

Nobody can say how many humans would survive but some would, and the idea that all land creatures would die is preposterous. I thought nobody ever doubted that cockroaches would survive.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That would be the point of as in the case of the United States, having the capacity to decimate the surface of the planet four times over.

A point being not allowing the enemy any place on earth where recourses were not radiated.

Some insects could actually thrive in such an environment for as long as Sol was stable.

There probably would be human survivors in ships at sea, underground as well as outside earths atmosphere.

but an issue being what happens to them given the conditions.

The WW2 atomic bombs were around 20 kilotons.
In the US they tested a bunch of bombs going up to about 400 k.
Then they moved to the Pacific, Bikini and Aniweetok atolls where they eventually tested a 1 megaton bomb "Ivy Mike"
and a series of bombs in the "Castle" tests. The biggest was Castle Bravo at 15 m.

But overall they didn't test many megaton bombs because Castle Bravo caused natives like 100 miles away to be evacuated, made a boat of fishermen 60 miles away really ill and even reached the West Coast to some degree (the fallout).
That's when the test bans started.

a reply to: joelr



The Chernobyl incident actually occurred at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the town of Pripyat, in Ukraine.

en.wikipedia.org...

2 cu m space occupied by an anti gravity machine and it collapses on itself when the anti gravity machine reaches and hits a singularity, wt will be the yield? Anyone.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: joelr



The Chernobyl incident actually occurred at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the town of Pripyat, in Ukraine.

en.wikipedia.org...

Right but he was asking about nuclear weapons that were tested not radiation leakage from power plants.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
2 cu m space occupied by an anti gravity machine and it collapses on itself when the anti gravity machine reaches and hits a singularity, wt will be the yield? Anyone.

First - maybe no yield. It would just be a black hole sucking in mass.


Second - why would a anti-gravity machine "reach" a singularity? It's anti gravity so it wouldn't be making denser and denser gravity?

originally posted by: laurentius
This old movie from the UK shows the impact of nuclear warfare

Threads (1984)

Is that the one where the supposedly post-war kid screams at the end and her mouth is full of amalgam fillings?

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
2 cu m space occupied by an anti gravity machine and it collapses on itself when the anti gravity machine reaches and hits a singularity, wt will be the yield? Anyone.

First - maybe no yield. It would just be a black hole sucking in mass.


Second - why would a anti-gravity machine "reach" a singularity? It's anti gravity so it wouldn't be making denser and denser gravity?

because it stops time and there is no telling wt will happen after that

originally posted by: Nochzwei
because it stops time and there is no telling wt will happen after that

Why would anti-gravity stop time? Time runs slower in gravity. So with no gravity or anti-gravity time would be slowed down 0%.
No slowing of time. Do you get that?

In a black hole time might stop. Time stops for massless particles, and nothing happens.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
because it stops time and there is no telling wt will happen after that

Why would anti-gravity stop time? Time runs slower in gravity. So with no gravity or anti-gravity time would be slowed down 0%.
No slowing of time. Do you get that?

In a black hole time might stop. Time stops for massless particles, and nothing happens.

my theory is opp to GR and the proof of that is in the thread in my signature.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
my theory is opp to GR and the proof of that is in the thread in my signature.

There is no theory in that thread? Not even a hypothesis or a conjecture?
There was just an idea that we should feel the warping of space but that idea was debunked.

To recap: A planet doesn't warp space very much at all but we do feel the curvature, hold out your arm for a while.
Our bodies are designed to exactly counteract 1G so we don't feel any pull directly.

There is no other way to feel space-time curvature, how would you expect it to feel?

Anyway, if you're sticking to your idea then I see why you think time won't slow down.

Have you heard the rumors about the internet? It turns out not everything on it is true.

Chk out scribd.com...
a reply to: joelr

With the benefit of hindsight, it was a remarkably weak treaty. Although perhaps it did not look that way at the time. Clearly Russia are in breach, as I am sure you agree. As you say, it does not require US/UK to provide military assistance. However, we are morally in breach of the first clause: Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and the existing borders. I agree with you about sanctions. If ones with real teeth targeting their banking system and restricting commercial flights had been immediately implemented it might have been a different story. We should not have gone to war with Russia, but we should have at least provided the victims of Russian aggression with the weaponry and tech support they needed to defend themselves. It is still not too late to do so. It looks too late for Georgia, although I very much hope not. Java training in chennai | Android training in chennai | Oracle dba Training in Chennai |Python Training in chennai

a reply to: dwarak17


The situation with Ukraine, I feel is really relevant as they have the technology and resources to become a Nuclear Power.

For the purposes of threatening Russia and the Ukraine sits on Russia's boarders.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Chk out scribd.com...
a reply to: joelr

For Gob sakes, are you serious with this??

"1.Fireworks get brighter as they ascend into the sky. 2.
Airplanes Nav Lights, Beacon and strobes get brighter as the airplane ascends into the sky. 3.
2 Identical lit candles placed 3 meters one above the other in still air, show that, the higher candle is brighter and burns out faster. 4.
A Flashlight again when moved 3 meters up also gets brighter.

Brighter means that the freq of light emitted is higher and the additional power requirement for this is supplied by the respective power sources in the above examples"


No, Lights do not get brighter when frequency changes!?! They turn darker towards red and then become invisible at ultraviolet.

He says his machine negates time? And that's all he says? I think it's a parody.