[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 44 KB, 967x322, asdf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The real reason why there are so many nukes in the world OP !1hT8I9sQ2g Sat Oct 8 04:43:59 2011 No.3868280 [Reply] [Original]

Have you ever wondered why there are so many nuclear weapons on earth?
We currently have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times, why do we need so many nukes?
The short answer is, the copious amount of nukes we have were never intended to be used on earth.

Back when the cold war and nuclear proliferation began, the space program was in development.
At that stage, the program consisted of trying to find out how to launch rockets from earth and have them end up exactly where we wanted (takes a lot of math and calculations).
The real reason why we put a man on the moon was to distract the people of earth from the real reason why we were developing space rockets... in case of hostile alien attack.

If aliens ever did come, we would have the technology, skills, and weapons to outfit rockets with nuclear warheads and successfully hit any inbound alien motherships that were lumbering towards our planet.

TL;DR - Nukes + Space Program = Alien Defense Measures

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 04:46:59 2011 No.3868289 >>3868280 Thanks Op, i have been so unaware.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 04:47:59 2011 No.3868291 We don't have enough nukes to destroy the world. We have enough to kill everything on it

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 04:47:59 2011 No.3868292 File: 15 KB, 240x210, 1317855941722.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Sat Oct 8 04:48:59 2011 No.3868294 >>3868291 >everything no. but still a lot of things...

>>	OP !1hT8I9sQ2g Sat Oct 8 04:49:59 2011 No.3868297 >>3868294 I am honored that EK showed up in my thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 04:50:59 2011 No.3868299 File: 240 KB, 550x2053, Nukeinfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >We currently have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times, why do we need so many nukes? Lolno

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Sat Oct 8 04:52:59 2011 No.3868304 File: 186 KB, 801x602, sc2protvterran.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3868297 >aliens >nukes whats not to like?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 04:53:59 2011 No.3868308 >>3868299 thank you for the infograph. i was wondering if someone had an infograph and you did. may i suck your dick? verification: nips mum

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Sat Oct 8 04:54:59 2011 No.3868309 >>3868299 i love that image

>>

Anonymous Sat Oct 8 04:54:59 2011 No.3868310

I know OP is troll or trying to encourage speculation.

But, one glaring flaw: Outer Space Treaty basically banned nukes in space. This would not only make it harder to defend against hypothetical invasions, but it has prevented nuclear rocket/shuttle engines from being developed (which, on large scales, are much more efficient than chemical rockets). This means no hedging humanity's bets by allowing feasible off-world colonies, etc.

This not only prevents us from putting nuclear weapons in orbit, but has also prevented us from using nuclear-based shuttle/rocket propulsion (which, on large scales, are far more efficient

>>	OP !1hT8I9sQ2g Sat Oct 8 04:55:59 2011 No.3868315 >>3868310 I think that if humanity ever saw a giant alien ship slowly lumbering towards our planet, everybody on the planet would be ok with the prospect of launching nukes at it to kill it with fire, treaty or not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 04:59:59 2011 No.3868321 >>3868299 10k nukes is still a lot of nukes

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 05:00:59 2011 No.3868326 >>3868299 That ignores aftereffects like radioactivity and nuclear winter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 05:00:59 2011 No.3868329 Currently Nuclear power plants have done more damage on earth than nukes, ban all power plants!

>>	OP !1hT8I9sQ2g Sat Oct 8 05:01:59 2011 No.3868330 >>3868326 In space, Mr. Bond, radioactivity and nuclear winter don't matter

>>

Anonymous Sat Oct 8 05:49:59 2011 No.3868410

>>3868326
Long-term fallout from nuclear weapons is insignificant in real terms (i.e. slightly looser standards than those we currently have). Short-term fallout is very limited in scope, especially with thermonuclear weapons. Nuclear winter is only a theory based on limited data, and even if it occurs as projected, and will have much LESS impact (though still some, of course) on the current, better-developed world than it did in The Year Without a Summer, owing to our ability to preserve and transport foodstuffs from unaffected areas. Ultimately, the majority of casualties WILL come from the blast itself, rather than peripheral effects.

In any case,
LIFE
WILL
GO
ON.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 05:56:59 2011 No.3868425 >>3868329 Well... power plants haven't quite killed as many people, but in terms of ecological damage, you're right...

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 06:09:59 2011 No.3868454 >>3868425 ecological damage? What about the thousands of nuclear tests? Those open air tests did nothing at all...

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 06:15:59 2011 No.3868463 3/10

>>	sage Anonymous Sat Oct 8 06:24:59 2011 No.3868477 The cold war made half the worlds scientists and engineers do nothing but build and improve bombs for 40 years. The Cold War hindered scientific progress

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 8 06:29:59 2011 No.3868491 >>3868326 Those effects are dramatically decreased by the efficiency of modern warheads. The hydrogen bombs that make up the majority of the total available in the world, coming from the biggest makers, leave little fallout behind in comparison.