What would happen when the next nuclear weapon is used in hostility?

Why do people keep saying "destroy the world" when they really mean "destroy humanity" ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because, as far as we're concerned, it's the same thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, it's not.


hu·man·i·ty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.


world
–noun
1. the earth or globe, considered as a planet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Enmos how much do you think will actually be left of the earth and more specifically the enviroment if the whole world ends up being highly radioactive?

 

Most life will perish, but the world itself will be intact.

 

The Cock Roaches will rule the world.

 

Radioactive electronics.

China makes cheap electronics and then ships them here. High frequency computer monitors, cell phones etc that I believe cause cancer and destruction of organic tissues, through the emission of possibly small constant amounts of X-rays. Either its a war or China is extremely weak on testing products for safety... either way, the Chinese definitely didn't deserve the Bronze Medal on the gymnastics balance bar last night. haha

 

:bugeye:

Have you ever been to China?

 

...from one nuclear weapon?

 

no E3R, from a full nuclear war

 

Asguard, even if a million nuclear bombs are detonated in a nuclear war, the Earth itself will still be intact.

 

As a chunk of lifeless rock.
but a rock nonetheless, is that what you're saying ?, because I highly doubt anything surviving a nuclear holocaust.

 

What are you basing this on? The earth has been through a lot worse than what we could subject it to and it is far from lifeless. Plenty of stuff would survive. Human society in the affected areas would change, but our species would do fine.

 

I agree that many life forms would survive a full nuclear war, even some humans. Radioactivity would be a problem in blast zones, but not everywhere will be a blast zone. And radioactive clouds will dissapate over time; and may cause an increased number of birth defects and cancer, but I don't think it'd be "the end of it all". It'd definitely set humanity back a few hundred years though; depending on how much technology and technologists are destroyed/killed. Just my opinion.

 

FR rember it was bush who wanted to invent TACTICAL nukes to use as bunker busters. I cant belive no one seems to rember that

 

This is inaccurate. The B61-11 is the only earth penetrating nuclear bomb in the US arsenal. It was developed in the early 1990s and has been in service since 1997, three years before Bush took office.

 

I dont think thats true. The Soviet Union always had MORE warheads than the united states. We just had more than enough to do the job. There is talk that there is quite a big nuclear gap these days between the US and Russia. The Soviets have ignored and bullshitted their way though virtually every disarmament treaty we've been in the last 15 years. Since the end of the USSR, not only did we start with less missiles, we've dismantled far more than the Russians.

We no longer have the nuclear triad. All our stealth nuclear cruise missiles have been decommissioned. Forget about low yield tactical nukes and nuclear artillery shells - theyre all gone.

The scary thing is, Mr. Obama wants to cut our arsenal even more

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The fear people have over nuclear winter and deadly fallout that destorys all life is bullshit that was put out by the environmentalists in the 70s. 99% of radiation is gone after 7 days of a nuclear blast. 99.9 within 7 weeks. You are right, you only have to worry if youre close to ground zero or downwind without cover.

lol. The scary thing is that if we were ever to get in a real nuclear war with russia, you'd have thousands of incoming MIRVs hitting every population center, industrial center, and military center over and over again for quit some time. It's not just one or two blasts you gotta look out for in that event. lol .

 

DubStyle i was reading an artical about an ABC journilist setting up a bomb sheltier in Israil which i will try to find latter.

Apart from the irony at the end of the artical where he realises after he has set it up acording to the standeds set by the millarty that:
a) he wont be in the shelter he would be out with the bombs REPORTING on it

and
b) that he now has so much crap he has to find a new home for

there was an interesting point about the room having to be air tight to protect against chemical weapons

Now if the room is say 6mx6mx3m and you make it air tight like instructed the likly outcome is that you will be dead anyway by the time the first strike is over symply from the lack of air. Especially if this is a whole family in this small room

I have always found that the stupidist thing about fall out shelters, it doesnt matter how much food and water you put in them because everyone will suffercate as soon as you shut the door