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.
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.