[ 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

View post   
File: 4 KB, 384x384, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9606716 No.9606716 [Reply] [Original]

Is there enough nukes in the world to completely wipe humans, as in go exctinct. If so, is there also enough nukes to cause the exctinction of the all multicellular life on earth?

>> No.9606743

>>9606716
Considering the first TSAR bomb was originally designed to be 100 megatons rather than just 50 tons and many worried that it would ignite the atmosphere, you could likely yield a result of this by scaling up the amount of plutonium by 5 or 10 times.

>> No.9606764

>>9606743
But as far as my second question goes, how will the destruction of the atmosphere end multicellular life?

>> No.9606768

>>9606716
One decently sized salted nuclear weapon would be enough to do it. They're specially designed to produce very large amounts of long-lived fallout.

>> No.9606773
File: 1.80 MB, 476x434, motor mouth control.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9606773

You're a brainlet if you believe nukes are real.

>> No.9606813

>>9606716
It is said iirc that 500 ton of cobalt irreiated by a salted bomb and evenly distributed could prevent human from living on the surface.
But wipe out all life i don't think so.

>> No.9606818

>>9606716
humans probably if you got the people with bunkers by surprise, idk probably not multicellular life though. extremophiles, creatures at the bottom of marianna trench, etc

>> No.9606840
File: 63 KB, 721x629, boom boom aka lacka boom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9606840

>>9606716
There have been over 2,000 test nuclear detonations on Earth, oplus two bombs dropped in war. Plus a couple of nuclear plant accidents releasing more-or-less radiation from time to time.

Noticeable over-all effect on life on Earth: pretty much zero.

There are more than 2,000 nukes out there, and they may well average out as larger than what has already been detonated.

Still, to go from zero real impact to wiping out everything seems a huge step -- I doubt it would happen.

Only one way to find out for sure...

>> No.9606843

>>9606716
Probably not enough to wipe out humanity.
Certainly not enough to wipe out multicellular life. See
>http://anthonybabbling.blogspot.com/2014/08/10-natural-events-on-earth-that-dwarfed.html
for events -- even a few within historical time -- which make the Tsar Bamba look like a cap pistol.

The Tsar Bomba wasn't scaled back out of fear it would "ignite the atmosphere". The fireball might, however, have bulged above the atmosphere and spread fallout further than the Soviets would have liked. They were pretty callous about the way they regarded civilians as "expendable" but even they had limits.

>>9606768
A deliberate "dirty" bomb (what they used to call the Cobalt Bomb) wouldn't do it either. The surface area of the Earth is 197 million square miles. The fallout would be spread pretty thin.

2 or 3 weeks ago, someone asked it we had enough nukes to evaporate the oceans. Turned out we could only boil off the top few inches. Planets are big and we're still not capable of making major changes to the place.

Though I am not recommending the experiment

>> No.9606849

>>9606716

You can't. Major superpowers all maintain bunker systems staffed with large rations, air purification systems, doomsday assurance equipment.

The US's most famous is Cheyenne Mountain. Countries use them for mainly military strategy and planning but they are also for continuity of government/humanity. They can shut down at a moments notice. They're designed to be able to seal up as soon as a ICBM is detected, avoiding the cloud of fallout from a salted bomb would be easy.