Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Pending menace

  1. #1 Pending menace 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fort Lee, NJ, USA
    Posts
    153
    Referring to menacing situation, a frind wrote: ". . . The danger lies in the release of tremendous energies by modern science, without developing the moral and ethical constrains that needed to safeguard the peaceful usage of those energies. The restrains cannot be developed in an atmosphere of religious intolerance. . . . "

    This and the exponential growth of world's population (which nearly quadrupled during my life time) is alarming. How can the disaster be avoided?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    get enough people on another planet or in space that if somebody starts throwing down with nukes enough of the population survives that humanity doesn't end.

    if i were a bit younger i might expect to see this in my lifetime, but i think my grandchildren might be able to be some of the older folk on the first few trips out.

    honestly there's no really good way to stop nukes from cropping up everywhere on earth. some people already have them and different people with them dislike the other enough that if they got rid of them as a deterent they would be quite afraid of getting nuked themselves.

    that's the typical problem with nuclear reduction. and i really don't see us finishing getting rid of them in my lifetime(although i completely support countdown to zero) america alone has enough nukes to glass all the land area of the planet, humanity as a whole probably has enough to boil the seas down to nothing.


    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    get enough people on another planet or in space that if somebody starts throwing down with nukes enough of the population survives that humanity doesn't end.
    Well, that will get you through the first nuclear war, anyway.

    I laugh at people that build underground tunnels where they think their desendants will wait out a nuclear winter. What happens when group A down there in the tunnels decides they can't get along with group B?

    I guess space is a little better, though, because you can build self sustaining communities that just travel around and mind their own business. (And your violent people can leave those communities and go find a war somewhere if they want to.)




    honestly there's no really good way to stop nukes from cropping up everywhere on earth. some people already have them and different people with them dislike the other enough that if they got rid of them as a deterent they would be quite afraid of getting nuked themselves.

    that's the typical problem with nuclear reduction. and i really don't see us finishing getting rid of them in my lifetime(although i completely support countdown to zero) america alone has enough nukes to glass all the land area of the planet, humanity as a whole probably has enough to boil the seas down to nothing.
    Yeah, I feel the same way. I think nuclear redux is just silly.

    Knowing how to build one === has one already. Japan, for example, is considered a nuclear power even though they've never built a nuclear bomb, but they've got a lot of peaceful nuclear projects, and with their infrastructure they could easily build one in a few months.

    The only way to live in a bomb free world would be to burn every book on the topic of nuclear physics (including the destruction of all computer hard drives with data about the topic on them.), and then kill everyone who had ever studied the subject. And... even that wouldn't work. Sooner or later another generation of scientists would rediscover it anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I don't see us ever getting rid of them either.

    As for reduction, we've already done quite a bit. Much of it though didn't make us any less dangerous because improvements to guidance, delivery as well as customization of the type of damage more than compensate.

    Containment is still important though until every nation shows a willingness to become a willing trusted partner in the global community--many nations aren't there yet.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    america alone has enough nukes to glass all the land area of the planet, humanity as a whole probably has enough to boil the seas down to nothing.
    That's ridiculous. All the nuclear weapons in the world couldn't come even remotely close to destroying the entire surface of the Earth. Probably not even 1% of it. I would be surprised if all the nukes in the world were able to "glass" even 1 square mile. As for boiling the oceans, that's too stupid to even bother correcting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore biohazard87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    get enough people on another planet or in space that if somebody starts throwing down with nukes enough of the population survives that humanity doesn't end.

    I saw a show once where this had happend. Every country had a community in space. The show was made in the 80's. The great part about it was, like 10% of the population wanted to stay on earth. After everything had been set up they had decided to find a reasonable way to find a strong leader. So they invented giant mechanized mobile suits. Each nation made one, and they would fight on earth, piloted by a citizen. Whatever nation won the tournament was in charge of the space nations for a predetermined period of time.


    Here is a video of the fight between neo russia and neo japan


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDROYvU9tSQ
    Noodles happen when you kiss a stranger in the alps.

    Mi padre tiene un impala.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I don't see us ever getting rid of them either.

    As for reduction, we've already done quite a bit. Much of it though didn't make us any less dangerous because improvements to guidance, delivery as well as customization of the type of damage more than compensate.

    Containment is still important though until every nation shows a willingness to become a willing trusted partner in the global community--many nations aren't there yet.
    I'd rather see nuclear weapons produced in greater abundance than reduced. Reducing gives people the false impression that a nuclear war might be survivable for the species. Maybe the first one will be, but once they survive one, people will think they can survive a second, and a third,... and a fourth...... and etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    america alone has enough nukes to glass all the land area of the planet, humanity as a whole probably has enough to boil the seas down to nothing.
    That's ridiculous. All the nuclear weapons in the world couldn't come even remotely close to destroying the entire surface of the Earth. Probably not even 1% of it. I would be surprised if all the nukes in the world were able to "glass" even 1 square mile. As for boiling the oceans, that's too stupid to even bother correcting.
    They could ruin the eco-system, though, and that's all it takes. We're doomed at that point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    They could ruin the eco-system, though, and that's all it takes. We're doomed at that point.
    You can certainly ruin the ecosystem immediately around where the bombs go off, but that would only be a tiny percentage of the Earth's land area. Also, since presumably most of the targets will be cities, the ecosystem in most target areas is probably pretty much ruined already anyway. The Earth wouldn't have any problem supporting human life after a nuclear war. There would probably be mass starvation, but that would have more to do with a breakdown in food distribution than with any sort of ecological problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore biohazard87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by "Scifor Refugee
    I would be surprised if all the nukes in the world were able to "glass" even 1 square mile. As for boiling the oceans, that's too stupid to even bother correcting.
    Sorry, but according to the homland security website, at a 5 mile radius of a 1 megaton nuke, a person would recieve third degree burns. They also day total destruction within a 1.7 mile radius of the blast.

    There is also a lot more info about what kind of damage can be caused by a modern day nuke, and they compare somethings to the 1945 explosions.

    http://www.nationalterroralert.com/nuclear/


    Another thing to consider is fall out. According to this website, fallout can be extreemly dangerous out as fall as 160 miles from the blast, and effects as far as 250 miles away, although they say its not an immediately harmful effect.
    Noodles happen when you kiss a stranger in the alps.

    Mi padre tiene un impala.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore biohazard87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    181
    Also I forgot to say, they deemed a 1 megaton explosion relatively small, and a 25 megaton explosion especially destructive. So figure on average about a 10 megaton blast, I'm guessing. Not saying there is enough to boil the oceans, but it would probably "glass" more than one sq mile of earth. And if say 1000 get launched, I think a high figure, most of earth is dangerous to live in.


    Figure 100, evenly placed that 250,000 miles of fallout minimum. Again, maybe not the whole planet, but we can't really live on water. So out of 10% that leaves little left for mankind to avoid radiation. And figure the circumference of the earth is 25,000, for estimating, and the bombs go off in a circle around the equator, then that leaves, 24,500 miles not effected. However, most of that unaffected area is ocean.
    Noodles happen when you kiss a stranger in the alps.

    Mi padre tiene un impala.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by biohazard87
    Sorry, but according to the homland security website, at a 5 mile radius of a 1 megaton nuke, a person would recieve third degree burns. They also day total destruction within a 1.7 mile radius of the blast.
    Yeah, and the area that's "glassed" might be a few tens of feet. The area that is glassed is tiny compared to the area of total destruction.
    Another thing to consider is fall out. According to this website, fallout can be extreemly dangerous out as fall as 160 miles from the blast, and effects as far as 250 miles away, although they say its not an immediately harmful effect.
    "Dangerous" means that everyone living in the area has a 10% chance or so of getting cancer due to fallout exposure. It doesn't mean that everyone/everything dies. Also, most nuclear explosions in a war would be air bursts, which produce little fallout.
    Also I forgot to say, they deemed a 1 megaton explosion relatively small, and a 25 megaton explosion especially destructive. So figure on average about a 10 megaton blast, I'm guessing.
    Nobody has 10 megaton nukes deployed. Even 1 megaton would be unusually large. The vast majority of nukes are 500 kt or under.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •