Why is nuclear warfare considered so bad...

Why is nuclear warfare considered so bad? Why do people treat it like it's the end of the world even if only fought between 2 countries?
For example why can't counties like China and India fight each other with nukes? Both countries are huge with gigantic populations and only have a few hundred nukes? Nuclear warfare would not mean their end much less the world's.

Other urls found in this thread:

nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
m.youtube.com/watch?v=C4eObjku874
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>what is radiation
>what is nuclear winter

Haven't both been debunked? Even then how do they affect other countries?

Hippies like jane fonda making movies about the world ending from nukes in the 70's

No, a nuclear war will basically sterilise a region for thousands of years. It's the worst thing ever.

So it's propaganda. Just as I thought.
But both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fine now. Besides, why do we care if China and India are basically sterilized?

OP's playing FallOut 4 Again.

It's not. The weapons Tesla warned us about is.

>Nuclear warfare would not mean their end much less the world's.

It depends on whether it's tactical nuclear warfare that targets fortifications and infrastructure or strategic nuclear warfare that targets entire cities, and of course how deep the strategy goes.

You can see how many nukes from country X would be needed to take out a country/city with nukemap.

nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

nukes are 75 years old ~

they may start the next war. something else will finish it.

>radiation and nuclear winter
>debunked
[citation needed]
otherwise, literally neck yourself you counter-signalling socialist. Get the fuck off my flags or I swear to god I will fuck with Tumblr like it's 7/4/14 (real person calendar, not nu-european) all the fuck over again bitch.

This is exactly what I mean. If you look at the Tsar Bomba, It's destruction radius is only of about 200km2. Now considering that these two shitholes don't have a nuke that is anywhere near as strong as the Tsar and they have few nukes( India 100 and China 300) how will all of them launched at each other in any way mean their end(India's area: 3 million km2 and China's area: 9 million km2), much less the world's?
Btw, where did you learn all this? Recommend books if you can please.
Even if they are real why do we care what happens to China or India? Besides, their nukes don't have the quality or quantity to cause any serious damage outside the continent.

It's not just that they blow shit up real big it's that modern nukes would leave hundred mile wide uninhabitable zones for thousands of years each.

>nuclear winter

wow so it fixes global warming also?

I'm now not only with OP on this, I even think it SHOULD be used.

>it's that modern nukes would leave hundred mile wide uninhabitable zones for thousands of years each
where is the evidence
and why do we care if some parts of china and India become inhabitable for thousands of years?

>Having your position on a topic confirmed by only one Sup Forumslack
>what is bias?
My dude, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were childsplay compared to todays thermonuclear weapons, nuclear warfare is the death to mankind, since the nuclear winter wasn't debunked.
How could it? The nucl. winter has its merit in the thought, that dust and radioactiv particles will be throwen into the higher atmosphere, wich will happen since a mushroomcloud a damn big fireball. Use your noggin next time my nuclear holocauster

>nuclear warfare is the death to mankind
No it's not.

theres been almost 1000 nukes go off in earths atmosphere overthe years, another 1000 underground.
theres no mass famines, year long winters etc.

remember the main point of the nuke was to act as a deterrent, so it makes sense their power would be exaggerated, obviously anyone who eats one is vapourised but the long term effects are hollywood fiction

just one icelandic volcano can push out more material.into the atmosphere than 1000 nukes and theres dozens of active volcanos worldwide, nuclear winter would take an asteroid hitting the earth or another krakatoa

Those are impact/volcanic winters respectively. You are correct that both are far worse than a nuclear winter.

What about an asteroid hitting krakatoa?

you knew what I meant, point stands that even after hundreds of nukes have been detonated on us soil, vegas and the south west are still habitable

i want more uranium bullets made. they will be necessary for the space war

...

What about the fall out? Space would be uninhabitable for thousands of years. Think user.

Because the fallout is nasty, radioactive material will be carried by thecwind and blow into other neighbouring countres.

Its because nukes are the real equaliser.
Sure Sam Colt bluster is good, but it falls apart in the whole shoot the kike.
But a nuke doesn't care, at some point it will kill them.

This is why they are happy for their slaves to make more tanks, to die with a severed arm and preforated bowel, but keep pushing nuclear disarmament.
Nukes make you sovereign, its the real fear.

Nuclear bombs:
-cause nuclear winter
- contamine areas much larger, than their destruction radius.

USA is big, plus all tests took place on deserts or remote arhipelagos.

That's because they were not used simulateniously on large cities, but through many years in deserts, remote islands or Siberia.

Imagine if America had nuked iraq and afghanistan after 9/11. Your country would have saved trillions of tax payers money and lives. A couple of nukes and they would have un conditional surrendered.

Nuclear weapons cripple the targets infrastructure, health, food and water.

They're basically extinction bombs.

Imagine if we didnt even bother wuth either and went after Pakistan and Saudis instead.
Then we could take their oil.

Total destruction west and russia would be fucking epic :D maybe throw some biological weapons when were at it.

And yet radioactive material still has a half life and no matter how much radiation in about a year everything would be pretty much fine.

Fallout is retarded because there would be no "glowing sea" at ground zero 200 years after.

Even after a month most places would completely devoid of radioactivity.

What is scary is MAD.

Mutually assured destruction. Everyone launched nukes at everyone with nukes.

Even in this situation most the world is fine.

Neutron bombs are basically nukes that just vaporize biomaterial.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

You can have cities and most infrastructure still standing.

But we are fighting ideals, not nations. Nukes do nothing.

This.

We should just level Saudis and take it.

We never will because its easier to pay them and be paid by them

If you blow up the dudes financing and spreading the ideals, it works well.

But this way you make martyrs out of them, which is bad.

And you havent by invading 2 literally innocent countries and working with the known murderers?
Like the US is the villain here man, all because Obama had daddy issues and wanted to show he was a big boy.

Ever hear of Fallout and Nuclear Winter, memeflag?

Less than 1/5th of China's arsenal and literally 5% of India is dead immediatley, which also happens to be about 1% of the world's population killed in the same breath.

Gee, I fucking wonder why...

Hiroshima's blast was equivalent to 14 kilotons of TNT. The tsar bombs yield is equivalent to 50 megatons of TNT.

14,000 vs 50,000,000.

Its not even like comparing a BB gun to a tank shell. It destroyed pretty much everything in a radius of 55km from the centre, badly trashed things several hundred kilometres away, up to 100km away from ground zero you'd be getting third degree heat burns (if you had line of sight).

I don't know about other countries, but in the UK the country practically shuts down if we have 4 inches of snow and the shops are shut for one day. Panic buying, supermarkets getting emptied. Imagine if just one of those things was dropped on London - it would be gone. Not 'destroyed', just gone. The mushroom cloud would be 7 times higher than mount everest.

Of course the tsar was a silly over sized bomb and not actually very practical to drop, they gave it a parachute to give the test pilots enough chance to fly away before the blast and still only rated them 50% chance to live.

Now russia is developing a new line of MIRVs which are independently targeting warheads, each one having a payload of 300kilotons, loaded onto an ICBM. A missile like this is worse, because instead of one bad area, you have a dozen not quite as bad but still utterly fucked areas, absolutely littered with fallout, infrastructure destroyed, electronics fried. One of these missiles hitting the UK would cause the country to collapse for a long while.

Russia has a standing arsenal of 521 ICBM's loaded with these types of nukes, the USA has 741.

Rather not have an excess amount of cesium 137 or strontium-90 injected in the Eco-system user. So stop shilling for suit-case nukes

Tsar Bomba opens a hole into outer space. Fook that

Nuclear winter happens when tens of thousands of nukes all go off in a very short time frame. As was expected if the Cold War got hot. 2 countries with less than a thousand nukes between them aren't going to even reach Krakatoa levels of cooling.

Yes but why do we care if India and China die? It's not the end of the world, just theirs.
Idiot.
>Imagine if just one of those things was dropped on London - it would be gone. Not 'destroyed', just gone.
No, the Tsar Bomba's radius is very small, about the size of Paris, which is not very big.

How are smaller nukes better than bigger nukes? I thought bigger is better.

>One of these missiles hitting the UK would cause the country to collapse for a long while.
No.
Idiot.

Make your Ancap utopia in Chernobyl then.

I will nuke your country first.

...

>Who cares if somebody kills this Archduke, I don't even know him

>No, the Tsar Bomba's radius is very small, about the size of Paris, which is not very big.

>5 million killed
>UK population 65 million
How is this the end of the world? Thanks for proving my point.

Nuclear winter happens with only a measly 100 nukes going off, even concentrated to one area. Drops temperatures to sub-zero everywhere regardless of where they land.

See m.youtube.com/watch?v=C4eObjku874

Another brainwashed propaganda gobbling animal.
tl;dw?

Propaganda or not, show me your computer simulation code and results.

You say that like you would use just one on London, you also say that like there's only one way to skin a cat.

As it turns out, there are A LOT of ways to skin a cat, your lack of creativity is disappointing.

>where is the evidence

You could learn about radiation at the library.