Could a thousand nukes > a single, but huge meteor?

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,929
Best answers
0
I got this idea from the other thread and also hope to have the discussion shift over here.

What do you think would be more disasterous? To me, a nuclear explosion, while impressive, is just small in scale to the rest of the world. Not only that, but they are more wind and heat with some radiation in comparison to a meteor which, if the size of, let's say, Texas hit the earth, would be an actual solid against solid collision.

Take a big rock and throw it into the water. A huge splash occurs and the insueing waves are quite powerful. Take 20 firecrackers and throw them into the water all lit. They will create a lot of small splashes with pretty weak waves, not to mention that once they've detonated, they're gone, while the rock is still in the water.

Nuclear explosives would be good at destroying the surface of most of the earth, while the meteor would cause more structural damage to the earth and more intense problems.
 
Validated Steam Engine
🌈 Beta Tester
✔️ HL Verified
🌹 Regular Rosé
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
657
Best answers
0
I agree with that. All of my arguement is in the other thread though. :p
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
A thousand nukes wouldn't be able to. Every warhead in the world could.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,929
Best answers
0
Zeonix said:
A thousand nukes wouldn't be able to. Every warhead in the world could.
I still don't think so. Are you putting them into a small area and detonating them at the same time, or putting them all over the earth? The former wouldn't be able to happen, I believe, as I've read that nuclear explosives can't be detonated too close to each other. Once one goes off, the other will fail.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,626
Best answers
0
Thats why you blow them all up at once, sillypants.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
.....let's say some smart guy arranged them so that they would cause the maximum damage o.0.

Remember, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs "hit with the force of SEVERAL THOUSAND nukes". Shouldn't the world's arsenal be able to do more damage then?
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,929
Best answers
0
Zeonix said:
.....let's say some smart guy arranged them so that they would cause the maximum damage o.0.

Remember, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs "hit with the force of SEVERAL THOUSAND nukes". Shouldn't the world's arsenal be able to do more damage then?
They have nothing else to compare it to without just saying what it did. It's like comparing damage from fire to that of bullets.

Nuclear explosives are just too small to actually detonate the planet. They really are. The planet is huge, even if it seems small in the long run.
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
2,497
Best answers
0
its all how you make the nuke, its never been said taht you couldnt make a nuke bigger and more dangerous than the ones we used its just that we wouldnt want too
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,929
Best answers
0
DaRkOwNs said:
its all how you make the nuke, its never been said taht you couldnt make a nuke bigger and more dangerous than the ones we used its just that we wouldnt want too
You can really only make a nuclear bomb in one way :eek:, just more or less efficient with more or less raw materials. And even then, it's just an explosion; flame, wind, and radiation, nothing more. It's not going to materialize and knock the planet into the sun. Not to mention that its energy isn't going into one specific direction, but in every direction, meaning much less specific power.
 
brainfeeder
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 29, 2002
Messages
5,179
Best answers
0
A meteor would only effect the Earth biologically for a fixed amount of time.

I believe a meteor caused the most recent ice age, by altering the jet stream through the inertia of climate pressure and severely damaging the ozone layer. When the meteor entered, it basically wore the ozone layer out by using it's own kinetic force against it, which may have caused an extreme burst of sunlight, which may have raised temperates greatly during the day enough to dry rivers, melt glaciers, and slowly relapse in the amount of trapped sunlight the ozone would normally withhold at night, severely ruining any form of climate control, originally when it impacted, sending debris into the sky around the impact area and blocking out the sun as well. Here is where the dinosaurs met their end, and what was left of evolution started to develop natural defenses against the cold. (hair, warm blood)

But, eventually the debris would collapse to the ground because of gravity, as the ozone slowly healed itself.
-

A nuclear holocaust could effect the Earth biologically forever.

Instead of one concentrated tear in the ozone layer, nuclear radiation, if exposed in numerous places, could completely corrode the ozone layer, severely altering the electromagnetic axis of our planets rotation in the process, poisoning every drop of water, therefore killing the plankton in the water, thus removing the first step of our food chain, and completely collapsing the entire system. We'd basically cook ourself not only from clouds of subatomic particles, but with the UVB radiation (solar rays) we've fully exposed ourself to.

If only those aliens hadn't dropped the technology to contain unstable nuclei in our irresponsible laps, with their poor piloting over Roswell in 1947.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
I did say use our entire arsenal. Our arsenal is also comprised of hydrogen bombs and just about every other thing that goes boom, and then some. I also never said anything about vaporizing the Earth.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
....blow up a meteor? Wrong thread o_O.
 
Freelance Mappzor
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
17,065
Best answers
0
Well dunno when but there was a documentary about this.

22 (BIG) rocks crashed on Jupiter each evry 30 min

1 explosion was about the size of the earth. And there were 22 such explosions.

So jea Meteor >>>> Nucks
 
Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
434
Best answers
0
That was a HUGE comet that hit Jupiter. The comet broke up into 22 smaller ones and kicked Jupiters ass. Also Jupiter is a ball of gas... it likes explosions.

I also agree with Synth. A nuclear holocast would suck.
 
New Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
652
Best answers
0
It really depends on the power and quantity of the nuclear weapons used, and the power of the asteroid (measured in megatons of course).

The most powerful nuclear weapon detonated was by russia back in the 60's I believe. It was detonated in the exosphere and had a power of 168 megatons (168 megatons = 168,000,000 lbs of TNT... I believe)
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,929
Best answers
0
Walmart Security said:
It really depends on the power and quantity of the nuclear weapons used, and the power of the asteroid (measured in megatons of course).

The most powerful nuclear weapon detonated was by russia back in the 60's I believe. It was detonated in the exosphere and had a power of 168 megatons (168 megatons = 168,000,000 lbs of TNT... I believe)
Heh, about 3x too much, pal. It's ~50 megatons. 168 megatons would've been, bleh!
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Nuclear Explosions cause huge amounts of damage, but they best transfer their energies from the air. Most modern nuclear weapons will detonate several hundred feet above ground zero for maximum damage. Even at this, certain things will survive. For instance, many insects survived the initial New Mexico tests. Asteroids on the other hand, will cause maximum damage if they hit the earth. If I'm not mistaken, almost all true asteroids could cause a minimal extincition of life in the high 90% range.

The point I'm getting at here is that 40% of the earths biomass, and if only half of those insects could survive, that would mean 20% of life would survive.
 
Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
814
Best answers
0
The impact from a meteor/asteroid collision would supposedly kick up enough dirt and debris into the atmosphere to (almost) completely black out the sun for a while, which is _not good_ for any ecosystem D:

Also, 1 kidboy > 10,000,000 meteors, if you have pit access you know what i'm talking about lol
 
New Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
652
Best answers
0
Smith| said:
Heh, about 3x too much, pal. It's ~50 megatons. 168 megatons would've been, bleh!
Lies, all lies! The soviets didnt want you to know!

I could've swore that when I last read about that, it was 150+ megatons.

I think I need to buy so.... Wait... OH YEAH! I think I need some more of that fangled "brain memory ram".
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
A meteor could easily destroy Earth, it just has to have a high velocity and enough mass. I'm sure if you had a meteor the size of a basketball travelling half the speed of light (335,308,315 Mph) it would cause tremendous damage, maybe even destroying the Earth in the process.

A nuclear weapon on the other hand cannot cause significant damage to the Earth's structure. The explosion of a nuclear weapon is not dependant on velocity, but rather dependant on mass and the release of energy. You could have an atomic bomb the size of a pen and have it destroy a few city blocks when detonated.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top