Are nukes actually as devastating as people say or are their effects exaggerated by the media and politicians Sup...

Are nukes actually as devastating as people say or are their effects exaggerated by the media and politicians Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap3d/#
nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
youtube.com/watch?v=cO1q3HwB0y0
youtube.com/watch?v=rFhCUgbf0Ak&t=2s
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/russia-unveils-satan-2-missile-powerful-enough-to-wipe-out-uk-fr/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Nah they're fine, little more than a mosquito sting.

Stupid cunt

they're pretty horrific but probably no more horrific than WWII firebombing.

Nuclear Winter is unscientific leftist propaganda and was a trial run for "climate change"

As far as I'm aware they only kill Japanese.

If you're not Asian you should be all good famalamadingdong.

I've heard it's more like a gentle suntan followed by a warm summer breeze

A single nuke can have the same power as all bombs dropped in ww2 combined

Will nukes stop wars from being fun ever again? If WW3 happens, won't it be over in like a few seconds?

1 MIRV or 1 Nuke? Theres a diffrence as an MIRV has like 200 nukes in it...

>as all bombs dropped in ww2 combined
No.

I don't know but I got the feeling we are about to find out.

They won't use a nuke until after they cull the herd.

the shitty thing about nukes is they make large area uninhabitable for decades

Russkies and Chinese have 25MT warheads.

There weren't 25 million tons of bombs dropped in WW2.

Yeap, just like the blacks

Imagine if someone could make a bomb just as destructive as a Nuke, but without the long term radioactive impacts.

Look at the destruction of the two cities that had atomic weapons used on them and then multiply that yield many times over again-- they were basically firecrackers by comparison.

why does that even exist lel

Over 2000 nuclear tests have been conducted. Some of the tests were with yields greater than all current (known) weapons in existence.

Where is the nuclear winter?

Nukes are fucking huge, but the 1.2MT to 5MT average are for pin-point destruction. Sure, the pin head is pretty damn large, but a nuke isn't going to wipe out a country, unless it's the Vatican City-State.

Fallout 4 will never happen, guys.

Nukes wipe out infrastructure and are for global intimidation.

what about kinetic bombardment? With a large enough titanium pillar you could probably get similar energy release to a mid-size nuke.

Nukes are just a meme

Explosives are measured in tons of TNT.
WWII bombs were much more powerful than TNT and there was a lot of bombing done. Maybe in terms of raw explosive power a few nukes would be more powerful but in terms of damage done I'm not so sure. For example Japan took way more damage from conventional bombing than the nukes (which I admit were small compared to modern ones) and that's only one country.
The point is that there is a lot of them and the consequences of crippling all that infrastructure, shipping, etc. could destroy the modern world.
Would probably be too expensive to bring them into orbit.

I've heard of those, but they sound more like a meme than a real weapon. But I'm not sure. can a Sup Forums weapons expert chime in on this?

Nukes are actually way worse then what movies and video games say. If a nuke goes off it shoots a fire blast that lights everything on fire for miles. The actual blast zone is the best place to be because you would have died instantly.

Even if you have a bomb shelter you still die if you are close enough because the shock wave shoots into the ground and liquidizes your organs.

Plus if a bunch go off it will emit billions of TONS worth of smoke and block out the sun for years so we wont grow crops anymore. Then everyone would starve.

it's just exaggeration xDD

>Russkies and Chinese have 25MT warheads.

No they don't.

The most powerful weapon currently in the Chinese arsenal is 5 Mt (Dongfeng 5)

The most powerful weapon currently in the US arsenal is 1.2 Mt (B83)

The most powerful weapon currently in the Russian arsenal is 800 Kt (Topol, SS-25)

Cunt.

What kind of mutant mosquito-bees you got there Benedict?

Tsar Bomba still spooky tho

Nah mate, worst you get is like a bad sunburn, is all. Put some aloe vera on it and you'll be back to shitposting in no time.

Look up Project Thor. Technically it's not prohibited by any treaties. If the US had one in space, I seriously doubt they'd disclose that.

oh fug:D

but what if hypothetically every single nuke hit one spot either at the exact same time or one after another in succession, do you not think they would dig a hole to the core of the earth and blow us all up in a gravity implosion as everything gets sucked in to the black hole that is keeping the earth together.

fyi planet cores are actually black holes, like a sink plug the earth and mass is slowly circling around this plug trying to get in

Won't happen.

There aren't enough in existence to carpet bomb the world.

You're looking at a 2mi radius per. Do the math.

I frequent /k/, but most of the faggots over there jerk off to the idea that Fallout 4 will happen someday. It's not gonna happen.

they do not exist

Elite bunkers have food and supplies for decades. That's all you need to know about the probability of surface survival after a nuclear war.

...

Only one of them was built. And the most powerful weapon currently existing has 1/10th the power.

Unless they've got secret ones we don't know about. But I still massively doubt they'd have anything that powerful anymore. I suppose they could make such a thing during wartime though.

Gif related also contains a black hole?

Mostly over exaggerated

nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap3d/#

You tell me.

this

The world stopped improving or at least using the power of nukes decades ago because the blast impacts were so heavy on the environment it wasnt safe anymore. It should be pretty easy to beat the tsar bomb, especially with upcomming hydrogen bombs.

people pay insane money for near worthless (((security))) all the time it doesn't mean shit

nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

For those without Google Earth.

>burger
>1 kiloton explosion
>this is not safe back row seat fun anymore
>"holy sheeeeeeeet baby"
>*shits himself*
youtube.com/watch?v=cO1q3HwB0y0

Conspiracy by anti-fissionites. You don't want to be near the blast, but there is a huge party right outside of it.

Mount St Helens was not biggest volcanic explosion on record, was about 25 megatons

Azeebazabbu

When I say elite bunkers I mean like the bunkers world leaders would be living in, not some rich mountain survivalist yahoo. The people who would start the war, in other words. They'd know.

No, you're just an ignorant fat fucking burger. The US or Russian nuclear arsenal alone is enough to blanket most inhabited land masses on the planet.

Theres a lot of misconceptions about nukes... Oppenheimer and other /k/ people have shared information and articles that kind of shed light on them

1. They're pretty fucking devastating
2. There's just so damn many of them in US and Russian arsenals it's unreal
3. They actually WONT leave much fallout as most are programmed for airburst- its only groundburst warheads that leave substantial radiation and these would be used exclusively on hardened military targets
4. Their lethality, while high, can be reduced in a number of ways, most of which involve taking shelter. For example a fallout bunker, even a basic one like they had in the 50s, would provide good protection against a nuke more than 5 miles away or so (depends on yield, don't quote me exactly). For this reason tank columns could feasibly resist nuclear attack, which is why the neutron bomb(no longer in use) was developed

Idk that's about it. If you don't live near a city you'll survive the holocaust but if you live in one, especially in a dense one like new york or san francisco, lol ur toast

also note that nobody has the Russian nuclear strike details, so it's hard to say, for example, whether Los Angeles would get hit by five nukes with millions of survivors, or by 50 with no survivors

That would be a very shitty existence.

note to self don't make the picture more interesting than my comment, note to self clean my asshole and remember to empty piss bottles in the morning

>please respond my post was 50% serious

underrated
have a thicc

tough to say the only ones we've ever used in war where during WW2. since then they ve gotten a lot better so we dont really know.

The point is not to carpet bomb the world but to do damage to shipping, energy, hospitals, etc.
My point being it will be horrible for the majority of the population and there will be starvation, medical issues, etc.
Powerful governments (US, Russia, China, UK, etc) will also survive so it won't be anything on the level of fallout or w/e but it would be disastrous for smaller countries if they got hit.

THICC
H
I
C
C

>It should be pretty easy to beat the tsar bomb, especially with upcomming hydrogen bombs.

But Tsar bomba was a hydrogen bomb.

Not sure if slightly above-average bait or truly great satire

>3. They actually WONT leave much fallout as most are programmed for airburst- its only groundburst warheads that leave substantial radiation and these would be used exclusively on hardened military targets
> what is wishful thinking of burgers who hope that Russians will follow the rules of war for 500

A ''general exchange,'' that is, both sides unleashing their arsenals isn't part of any planning. It was at a time, during the Eisenhower era, but not since we've achieved nuclear parity with the Soviets. Nuclear strikes would happen, likely against military targets, diplomacy would be allowed to do its thing, and depending on the outcome more nukes would fly.

That was pretty cool. I've never seen a detonation that I could observe like that.
All the other ones I've seen the bomb goes critical and then the screen is white or yellow.

>America has a chance of being destroyed by a Dong

I think they are fine and justifiable in certain cases. For example, Arabs could use it against Israel, otherwise they don't stand a chance in non-nuclear warfare. But if arabs could get nukes and bomb Haifa and Tel-Aviv, that would probably work to stop jews.

Oh ur right. But I believe they can make far more powerful bombs now but they wont for the obvious reasons stated previously.

Yes and no. The bunkers carved into mountains are enormous, big enough to house hydroponic farms and livestock, gigantic generators, etc.

The US has tech that can literally deactivate the Atoms.

>nuclear winter is a myth
how so

Yes and no.

A nuke is insanely powerful, and anything close enough to it will be vaporised with no chance of survival. The fireball from a nuke briefly reaches hundreds of millions of degrees hot, and at that temperature matter is simply broken down.
You often see giant monsters surviving them, like Godzilla. In reality unless Godzilla is made of some kind of matter we don't know about, a single nuke would turn Godzilla into nothing. Not even dust or ash would remain.

The thing is, nukes aren't these world ending things. Most movies exaggerate the size of a nuclear explosion and one is usually enough to wipe out anything, including the largest cities.
In Terminator 2 we see one nuke wiping out Los Angeles. In reality you'd need more like 10.

The size of them tends to be over exaggerated, but the actual destructive power of them is way under exaggerated.

Nice quads of knowledge

listen to this and tell me yourself
youtube.com/watch?v=rFhCUgbf0Ak&t=2s

We could live some years without light.
Humans are tricky, we can live like rats if we need.

>serious response
Nah I don't think planet cores are actually black holes. There would need to be a substantial distance between the horizon of the black hole and the semi-solid material surrounding it in order to not be swallowed up, not to mention far more rotation.

the airbursts are to maximize casualties u turbopleb

plus the radiation thing is overblown as fuck anyway

Sigh..

The core of the earth pulls stuff together with gravity. Gravity is really fucking weak. The core of the earth is not very dense (12.8g/cm^3). Density of a black hole is 6×10^15 g/cm^3.

500 trillion times denser than the density of the core.

If you drilled down to the core of the earth, nothing would happen (apart from your drilling machinery getting fucked by the mantle. The hole would eventually be filled because entropy is always increasing.

Worst case scenario there's a reasonably large earthquake.

If the Earth was massive enough to become a black hole, it would have already done so, what do you think is stopping it? some sheets of dirt? lol.

Also if it ever happened there would be an American global empire in no time. United States has the lowest "cost of civilization" in the world due to its vastly superior strategic geography. Due to the Mississippi River system we require far less infrastructure than anywhere else in the world to exist

Somebody who knows please redpill me on nuclear impact.
Say the biggish cities of a couple of 100,000+ get the atomic shaft.
What's the outlook for the 20-80,000 sized places around them?

Pic related.

More tonnage of bombs were dropped on Vietnam by the US than all of the combined bombs in WW2, just to give you a perspective on how little and weak bombs of WW2 were.

Modern nukes can level entire cities. That's not even the problem though, they can make the area uninhabitable for a long period of time. Nukes aren't overhyped, really. Destroy all the important cities of a country and you've destroyed the country for good.

...

A single nuclear weapon could take our LA. It would have to be one of the larger ones, but it's absolutely possible with the weapons in service now. You wouldn't need anything crazy like a Tsar Bomb, a 2 mt warhead would be enough.

>there are people in this very thread who do not have a bunker to protect them

Fuck mayne you basically just dropped your fatman directly over my house.

The new Russian bombs btw, if they nuke Paris it will kill people in London. If it drops on London it will get people in Manny.

And the US have 51 military bases in the UK.

We're both fucked m8, no escape, if nuclear war happens our island is so fucking tiny that 99% of us are instantly dead.

It's like salting the soil in the most 'fuck you' way possible.

okay guys I really appreciate the responses but you responded to the 50% that was a shit post, that black hole shit was just BS, also what do you mean by "entropy" I'm too dumb to understand what you mean by it filling the hole compared to google definitions, if there was a hole would everything around the hole get sucked in slightly, like sand falling downwards into a cone shaped hole, wouldn't the destroy a significant amount of the surrounding terrain


I want to know what would happen if all the nukes in the world hit one specific location or if you tried to use consecutive explosions on one specific spot would you be able to dig down into the earth or would it cause some more significant damage to the earth / environment, since everyone else seems to be comparing the power of a couple of nukes instead of mass nukes

what level of faggotry would lead me to build a bunker.

Oh yeah, I'd just fucking love to live in a world with no internet or electricity where I eat canned beans with the aim of eventually growing root vegetables to sustain me in a place where I can't even drive a car because there's abandoned vehicles all over every road, and there are no other viable modes of transport short of plugging microsoft flight simulator into a generator and trying to teach myself to man an aircraft.

Can't wait to live a life of luddite tier amish manual labour where the world is run by people from countries that were too shit for anyone to bother nuking like africa.

yeah good one.

Yellow circle is complete destruction. Nothing in this could possibly survive.
Green circle is guaranteed kill. Buildings will be destroyed.
Red is almost certain kill. Most buildings will be rubble.
Grey circle is a good chance of survival if you've got some cover. Most buildings will be damaged to a degree but very few will be destroyed.
Orange circle is radiation burns. You'll survive but without cover you've got some nasty sun burn. Buildings are going to be mostly intact, at most they'll have broken windows.

Every study that tries to model it makes the same two mistakes: using the damage and ash plume of Hiroshima (90% wood and paper city) as a reference without taking modern building materials into account, and assuming a scorched earth policy of at least one nuke per major city in an all out exchange between Russia and the US. In reality, nuclear strategy is more strategic and reasonable than they'd make you believe. The first priority is destroying the other country's nuclear capability so a good 80% of both arsenals will be flying into the unpopulated wilderness where the nuke silos are instead of most major cities. Some targets double or triple hit to break their blast proof structures. After that there's be several more small exchanges and negotiations, with infrastructure relatively intact.

Also thermonuclear bombs tend to be much cleaner than their atomic counterparts. At best we'd actually fill the hole in the ozone layer because of how much they'd produce. The big unknown is the effects of the heat of several bombs going off in close vicinity and what temporary and permanent effects it'd have to the weather and atmosphere.

two obviously weren't enough for japan

RIP

10 explosions over a course of 1 hour.

20 million people are now dead and the 10 biggest cities in america are uninhabitable for the next 300 years. All infrastructure has collapsed.

And that's just 10 bombs.

And now americans will retalitate. You have like, what, 2600 nuclear warheads?

I think you might have seen too many zombie movies.

Personally I'm well prepared, for both friends and family.

no they don't they have like 8-12 and some of them are decoys not nukes AFAIK

Modern nukes can be dropped than you can go in the area within weeks and be fine. The whole uninhabitable meme is from chernoybl

>plus the radiation thing is overblown as fuck anyway
It is not if you live in the cardboard box with no available fallout shelters.

Fairly sure only the wildly impractical tsar bomba has that sort of yield.

They're illegal. It's why we don't have a satellite with heaps of missiles.

Entropy is a measure of disorder. There's one law in physics, the second law of thermodynamics, that no one can run from. If your theory disobeys it, your theory is wrong, it is like, the one ultimate law of the universe: entropy always increases.

The long term implications are that even if the human race survives optimally, eventually all energy in the universe will be converted to heat and nothing else will be able to exist. Everything we can ever achieve will definitely be destroyed and there is no intrinsic point in anything. You bring this inevitability on slightly faster every time you stir your coffee.

Anyway, the short term consequence is: if you leave shit, it becomes unstructured. Ruins fall, mountains erode, on a very quick scale, sandcastles flatten.

So, if you have a giant fucking structured hole in the middle of a sphere, entropy will ensure that it will eventually return to just a generic sphere shape. That hole will get filled.

Now, if you were to blow it in craters by nuking over and over, I mean.. I don't know how many bombs exist or their yields or how big the craters are so I can't even estimate.

But once you reach the mantle, that's liquid lava anyway, it's not like you can blow a hole in it, you can just move it around. I doubt it'd reach anywhere near that though, you'd just make some deep crater in the crust.

Meanwhile, the main implication would be that you'd leave loads of nuclear fallout and that area would be fucking irradiated as shit, and an instant death zone if you went near it.

Depends to some extent though if you're using fission bombs or fusion bombs, fusion will just give a big nuclear burst that won't leave a bad long term effect, fission will leave loads of radioactive material. But.. I mean.. that stuff always existed in our earth anyway so if you're just shoving it down to the crust again it wouldn't really make a difference. Good disposal really.

>tfw evacuating to svalbard in case of nuclear war
Get fucking comfy

You'd know all about living in abject poverty, wouldn't you, Ivan?

so you're saying we wouldn't be that fucked ?

google satan 2

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/russia-unveils-satan-2-missile-powerful-enough-to-wipe-out-uk-fr/