Nuclear Weapons

Originally Posted by Jin Shukumei

The heat could have caused third degree burns at a distance of 100 km. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 60 km high and 30–40 km wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there. Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 km away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the earth.

Source for all of those?

el oh el?
I know I'm late to replying, but real life calls and we must heed,
Your information on the 50mt bomb is apparently greivously underestimated.
the blast's effects traveled as far as 1,000km

Source?

not 100km.

I said the blast radius was 100km, not that there was some invisible barrier at 100km that blocked all effects from passing it.

Had they detonated this "test bomb" any further south fallout would have blanketed much of populated russia.

How much further south?

as far your fallout dispersing notion,
you were wrong in the way you said it.
that anything decreases with distance is true, but to say it in a way that makes it seem
as if it harmlessly evaporates completely within seconds, is absurd.

That's not what I'm saying. However, you seem to be saying that people thousands of miles away would be irradiated by a nuclear explosion.

That is absurd.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Source for all of those?




Source?


I said the blast radius was 100km, not that there was some invisible barrier at 100km that blocked all effects from passing it.

How much further south?

That's not what I'm saying. However, you seem to be saying that people thousands of miles away would be irradiated by a nuclear explosion.

That is absurd.

It's a direct quote. Just plug it into a search engine and I'm sure you will get the link, or even easier type "Tsar Bomba". BAM! instant facts.


Blast radius is defined by all blast effects, if you mean just the fireball then your information is still incorrect.

The information regarding how much further south is also within the information regarding the other aspects of the test detonation, I simply did not include that informartion.

and no, I never said people thousands of miles away would be irradiated, only that it does not disperse as you depicted it did.
Basically I said no, when you posted your radiation dispersement theory.
Something akin to a "wrong buzzer".

Apparently you can't comprehend what I'm typing correctly, nor can you convey your ideas correctly.

Originally Posted by Jin Shukumei

Blast radius is defined by all blast effects, if you mean just the fireball then your information is still incorrect.

Either way it's misleading. Most people assosiate the blast radius with the actual explosion. I'll admit that my number is low if you go with the official definition, but yours is high if you go with the common one.

The information regarding how much further south is also within the information regarding the other aspects of the test detonation, I simply did not include that informartion.

The Wikipedia article has nothing on that. Since you'd have to move it 1km south for every 'new' kilometer of irradiated area I have a hard time believing that moving it a few km would've irradiated a vast number of populated areas.

and no, I never said people thousands of miles away would be irradiated, only that it does not disperse as you depicted it did.

I said that the radioactive fallout would be lessened very dramatically by distance, which is true.

But all this debate about the Tsar Bomba is silly, since it is incredibly rare to find a nuke of even 1/50th its strength, never mind thousands that would equal it (which is what you'd need to wipe out all life.)

What you said was that the fallout would disintegrate instantaneously, which is flatout wrong.

The reason tsar bomba came up is to show you just how powerful it was, and to enlighten you to the damage it could potentially inflict.

Since none of us have information on the nuclear stockpiles of certain dangerous nations, you would be flatout ignorant to suggest that it is incredibly rare to find something as powerful, when you have no idea what is out there!

for all we know NK has something that is far beyond TB.
You don't know and one can only prepare for the worst, because only a fool would prepare for less than that.

Originally Posted by Jin Shukumei

What you said was that the fallout would disintegrate instantaneously, which is flatout wrong.

I said no such thing. I may have said that the radiation did, which is actually true.

The reason tsar bomba came up is to show you just how powerful it was, and to enlighten you to the damage it could potentially inflict.

It would still take millions, if not more, of them to wipe out all life on Earth.

Since none of us have information on the nuclear stockpiles of certain dangerous nations, you would be flatout ignorant to suggest that it is incredibly rare to find something as powerful, when you have no idea what is out there!

Considering that building a Tsar Bomba takes vast amounts of time, and that there would never be any reason to actually use one, coupled with the fact that it's too large to be delivered via ICBM, and I think you'll see that the threat of that is rather small.

for all we know NK has something that is far beyond TB.

Unlikely, since the only use of a Tsar Bomba is intimidation, and the nuke they detonated to that was so small that the explosion could have been caused by conventional explosives.

Originally Posted by Jin Shukumei

terra: you insult me and steal my avatar to boot!
if you don't know what the topic is don't go about insulting people,
noone ever claimed the bomba was strategic, especially not me since I'm not a nuclear armament supporter

Nonsense. I've been here more than a solid year longer than you, and I've had my avatar longer too. In any case, it's not like we designed the thing ourselves. And I never said someone said the Tsar bomb was strategic, I merely gave some scanty background info on it after someone started talking about how bomb yiels must have got much larger since its detonation (untrue).

You don't know and one can only prepare for the worst, because only a fool would prepare for less than that.

So you'd be in favour of an extensive ABM and airborne laser defence system, would you?

Originally Posted by Terranix

Nonsense. I've been here more than a solid year longer than you, and I've had my avatar longer too. In any case, it's not like we designed the thing ourselves. And I never said someone said the Tsar bomb was strategic, I merely gave some scanty background info on it after someone started talking about how bomb yiels must have got much larger since its detonation (untrue).



So you'd be in favour of an extensive ABM and airborne laser defence system, would you?

I'm in favor of not using nukes at all.
and I have had this avatar longer than you have,
because I've seen you post before and it wasn't with that avatar

Question: Why is the U.S practically forcing other countries to get rid of their nuclear programs? Do other countries not have the right to have the same defensive systems we have? Just because we are supposedly of "sound mind" and never would just send them out unless attacked first, who is to say that other countries, yes even N. Korea, cannot have the same "luxury"?

Originally Posted by Arcain

Question: Why is the U.S practically forcing other countries to get rid of their nuclear programs? Do other countries not have the right to have the same defensive systems we have? Just because we are supposedly of "sound mind" and never would just send them out unless attacked first, who is to say that other countries, yes even N. Korea, cannot have the same "luxury"?

In the case of n.k. at least, we know they don't deserve the luxury, since their leader is a complete psycho.

and missile defense programs don't need to use nuclear warheads at all.
The objective of a missile defense program is to intercept the missile and cause it to detonate in the atmosphere, truth be told if you were to hurl a baseball at a high enough speed, you could achieve the same function.

Originally Posted by Jin Shukumei

In the case of n.k. at least, we know they don't deserve the luxury, since their leader is a complete psycho.

and missile defense programs don't need to use nuclear warheads at all.
The objective of a missile defense program is to intercept the missile and cause it to detonate in the atmosphere, truth be told if you were to hurl a baseball at a high enough speed, you could achieve the same function.

Indeed, N. Korea's leader is a little psycho, but what about the other countries we have been embargoing because they have a nuclear program? Are all the countries who have nuclear capabilities lead by nutjobs?

Oh, and on the subject of missile defense systems, they would definately not have to be nuclear themselves. You do not need one nuclear weapon to detonate the other, that would just be ridiculous. All a nuclear warhead has to do is come into contact with something solid to actually detonate. A word on the missile defense system though: Even the government itself has stated that the system is not perfect, and their is a chance that a missile could still get though. So in a sense, we are not completely protected.

You don't know and one can only prepare for the worst, because only a fool would prepare for less than that.

I'm in favor of not using nukes at all.

1) As you later bring up in a reply to somone who did not mention missile defence, missile defence systems need not (indeed, should not) require nuclear payloads themselves. I specifically referred to ABM and laser defence systems. Pay attention.

2) In a world where rival nations have nuclear weapons, how is throwing your own nukes away "preparing for the worst"? Yes, it would be nicer for all concerned if they didn't exist, but they do, and as such it is only sensible to have your own arsenal for the purposes of detererrence and, if it comes to it, retaliation.

On the subject of the avatar I think you're lying (or at least mistaken), frankly. In any case it's a petty aside with nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

I don't lie child.
anyway,
I never said missile defense systems needed nuclear payloads, in fact you just repeated what I said, pay attention.

also what is meant by "no nuclear weapons" is that noone has them, not just one country throwing theirs out.
Pay attention.
and yes you are quite petty, no need to keep bringing it up.

No, it probably won't happen because if someone tries to nuke someone, another country will nuke them and this will go on and on. I still wish there was no war and everyone worked together so we wouldn't even have to make nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons, who needs them? They serve no other purpose than to mass-kill. You can't even invade a country after nuking them because of the fallout.
You can't fight a war with them, the minute you launch them the war is over...

Also I do believe that US/UK/Russia should start dismantling there nuclear weapons as when they don't have any than the argument of "If they have them we can have them" falls away. Besides what are we going to do with them? If say Iran launches a nuke at a western country, we have 2 choices: 1. Nuke the entire country to the stone age and beyond.
2. Invade them
If we have nukes our selves or not it doesn't matter, we use option 2. So they are redundant.

And for the smaller countries counts:
Country A has nukes because country B has them, if B doesn't have them than A doesn't need them anymore either.
Now you probably think but if B dismantles then A will launch there nukes at B. Well they won't because the rest of the world will launch themselves at A for doing so.

Iran and North Korea have them, because on military alone they can't win from the US. Now with a nuke they hope that the US won't attack them, they also know that they need about 20 of them to pose any serious threat.
Nuclear weapons are purely defensive weapons, how odd this may sound.

They were once used to stop a world war and then to scare the **** out of everybody for years. They are old and useless lets just get rid of them.

Originally Posted by Nictel

Nuclear weapons, who needs them? They serve no other purpose than to mass-kill. You can't even invade a country after nuking them because of the fallout.
You can't fight a war with them, the minute you launch them the war is over...

It's still a war.

Also I do believe that US/UK/Russia should start dismantling there nuclear weapons as when they don't have any than the argument of "If they have them we can have them" falls away.

Only if everyone on the planet gets rid of every nuke ever made and no others are ever created. It would be nice if that happened, but it's safe to say it won't until something even more destructive is made.

Besides what are we going to do with them? If say Iran launches a nuke at a western country, we have 2 choices: 1. Nuke the entire country to the stone age and beyond.
2. Invade them
If we have nukes our selves or not it doesn't matter, we use option 2. So they are redundant.

If they launch nukes then option 2 won't work, since the infastructure of the country they attacked is going to be severely damaged.

And for the smaller countries counts:
Country A has nukes because country B has them, if B doesn't have them than A doesn't need them anymore either.
Now you probably think but if B dismantles then A will launch there nukes at B. Well they won't because the rest of the world will launch themselves at A for doing so.

But you've already said that the large countries should get rid of theirs. See the problem?