Nuclear war - end of the world?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i06cWfmnrw Above video is a similar scenario to how what will happen when that launch button is pressed... Although some portions seems from other movies
-
You asked Ah Kim what he wants ........?
lately he seemed to have found some new button to press.
-
Oh you mean North Korea shoot a nuclear missile to US and they also fires them in response? North Korea has missiles that will reach west US... So when US fires those missiles aiming for North Korea...Russia, China which detects incoming nuclear missiles will also fires them in response? Like the last portion of the video, every country which have nuclear missiles just fired them? :o
-
thats retarded ..
anyways .. it would not be the end of the world ..
research has shown that rocahes can withstand nukes .. and that raidiation will not cook or affect them .. ( I got it from TV)
haha.. so those that survive can live with the roaches ..
-
got other insects can survive better than roaches
-
Originally posted by bhkw:
thats retarded ..
anyways .. it would not be the end of the world ..
research has shown that rocahes can withstand nukes .. and that raidiation will not cook or affect them .. ( I got it from TV)
haha.. so those that survive can live with the roaches ..
Even if it is not the end of the world, it will still be the end of humanity if all the countries nuke each other out.
-
Next we have Terminators coming from the future to kill off future resistance fighters.
-
The survivors will be mutated and their descendant will be born with special abilities
-
die die lor.... at least we dont need to suffer the stress and its worst to be alive after a fallout
-
I don't think direct Nuke will take out Human but perharps the effect will and the destruction of cities and civilization know how.
Food source, lack of abilities to produce medication, No internet....sure die!!!!
-
bomb jiu bomb lor. think the day we all stand united is when aliens come attack our pi gu.
-
HEY...SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT NORTH KOREA KEEPS FIRING MISSILES... IS NORTH KOREA TRYING THE "SHEEPHERD WITH THE SHEEP" TACTIC?
-
oh ya.. good solution to our current food shortage and financial crisis.. Ah Kim damn smart lor
-
Originally posted by maggot:
HEY…SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT
NORTH KOREA KEEPS FIRING MISSILES…
IS NORTH KOREA TRYING THE “SHEEPHERD WITH THE SHEEP” TACTIC?
i think there is either internal power struggle or running out of funds. The thing is right now only intel know what is happening andTypically when country project power they can mobilized forces...as they escalate they ....fire short range missile....than they fire long range missile than they move to the ultimate of testing the A bomb.
But Ah Kim started by testing A bomb. So everything goes down hill thereafter....so maybe troop movement after short range missile.
-
Everyone who has played fallout3 knows that nuclear war isn't the end of the world! =D
Watch out for the Feral Ghoul Reavers!
-
I think a lot of bugs will survive nuclear radiation. Rats should cope well too, same for those deep sea creatures. People will surely die one. No internet, no HP, DIE!
-
There's not anywhere near enough nukes to end life as we know it on earth, while we have enough nukes to end human civilization as we know it, and radiation from fallout will be a problem, nature will pretty much take that hit and go on quite easily.
To get a handle on the situtation, picture this: The impact event that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was supposed to be, in the K/T impact theory, to be caused by an asteriod that packed the estimated punch of an estimated 75 million, to 100 million megatons. This is far, far more power then the entire nuclear arsenal of all the world put together.
The most powerful bomb ever built by humanity, the Russian Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 50 megatons (though they intended it to be 100) this is far more then the typical yield of your nuclear weapon which tend to be in the sub megaton range in your MIRV systems. The total number of nuclear weapons the world has in mainly concentrated with the US and Russia, and they number only in the thousands, nowhere near enough to even put up even a small fraction the power of the K/T event, which wiped out most life on earth (generally nothing above 25 kilograms survived on land)
-
If they aim the North and South poles ice caps...perhaps enough to raise the sea water level to dangerous level?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
There's not anywhere near enough nukes to end life as we know it on earth, while we have enough nukes to end human civilization as we know it, and radiation from fallout will be a problem, nature will pretty much take that hit and go on quite easily.
To get a handle on the situtation, picture this: The impact event that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was supposed to be, in the K/T impact theory, to be caused by an asteriod that packed the estimated punch of an estimated 75 million, to 100 million megatons. This is far, far more power then the entire nuclear arsenal of all the world put together.
The most powerful bomb ever built by humanity, the Russian Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 50 megatons (though they intended it to be 100) this is far more then the typical yield of your nuclear weapon which tend to be in the sub megaton range in your MIRV systems. The total number of nuclear weapons the world has in mainly concentrated with the US and Russia, and they number only in the thousands, nowhere near enough to even put up even a small fraction the power of the K/T event, which wiped out most life on earth (generally nothing above 25 kilograms survived on land)
Hi Mr. Tyrannosaur - the dinosaurs (name sounds familiar ha ha ) were most likely taken out by a massive asteroid hit on earth many millions years ago. The cause of the extinction was due to the collateral damage in the form of the asteroid impact throwing up debris & blanketing earth leading to climate changes & making life not sustainable to the dinosaurs.
Here we are talking about not only the great firepower of a nuclear explosion but more importantly the massive atomic rediation & its ensuing side effects on human health, mutation of cells & changes in the earth's ecology & environment. Another point is that asteroid impacts are acts of God & beyond human control but nukes are man made.
That's why I stated in my 1st post dated 28.5.09: "For ordinary folks like many of us , we should tell all these f..xxkk.bas..taks: "Please dont play play with humanity!".
-
Originally posted by richong 3216:
Hi Mr. Tyrannosaur - the dinosaurs (name sounds familiar ha ha ) were most likely taken out by a massive asteroid hit on earth many millions years ago. The cause of the extinction was due to the collateral damage in the form of the asteroid impact throwing up debris & blanketing earth leading to climate changes & making life not sustainable to the dinosaurs.
Here we are talking about not only the great firepower of a nuclear explosion but more importantly the massive atomic rediation & its ensuing side effects on human health, mutation of cells & changes in the earth's ecology & environment. Another point is that asteroid impacts are acts of God & beyond human control but nukes are man made.
That's why I stated in my 1st post dated 28.5.09: "For ordinary folks like many of us , we should tell all these f..xxkk.bas..taks: "Please dont play play with humanity!".
You are restating my point basically. Nuclear warfare will probably end human civilization as we know it, and possibly lead to human extinction, but life itself on earth is pretty safe.
There are plenty of life forms that can tolerate far more radiation then we can, and the mutations caused by radiation from fallout will lead to selective pressure towards organisms that are more tolerant towards such an event.
To note case in point, in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster, where massive amounts of radiation were released, the areas most affected by fallout were feared by scientists to be unable to support any form of life, but 20 years on the wildlife in the area seems to have carried out far better then expected. There were some disturbing mutations though, and you probably shouldn't go hunting for meat there... but practically it seems that nature in itself is a lot more hardy to such disasters then we are.
If they aim the North and South poles ice caps…perhaps enough to raise the sea water level to dangerous level?
Not very likely... I do not think the world's suppy of nukes will be able to melt our ice caps. We don't have anywhere near that amount of firepower.
In any case even if ALL of our ice caps melted there will still be plenty of land left around, though costal areas will be pretty much underwater. Note that there were times in Earth's history where it had far less ice then we have now, especially during the Triassic where we had no ice caps at all.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
You are restating my point basically. Nuclear warfare will probably end human civilization as we know it, and possibly lead to human extinction, but life itself on earth is pretty safe.
There are plenty of life forms that can tolerate far more radiation then we can, and the mutations caused by radiation from fallout will lead to selective pressure towards organisms that are more tolerant towards such an event.
To note case in point, in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster, where massive amounts of radiation were released, the areas most affected by fallout were feared by scientists to be unable to support any form of life, but 20 years on the wildlife in the area seems to have carried out far better then expected. There were some disturbing mutations though, and you probably shouldn't go hunting for meat there... but practically it seems that nature in itself is a lot more hardy to such disasters then we are.
Not very likely... I do not think the world's suppy of nukes will be able to melt our ice caps. We don't have anywhere near that amount of firepower.
In any case even if ALL of our ice caps melted there will still be plenty of land left around, though costal areas will be pretty much underwater. Note that there were times in Earth's history where it had far less ice then we have now, especially during the Triassic where we had no ice caps at all.
-
Heh Nature would actually be a lot better off with a lot less humans around.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
You are restating my point basically. Nuclear warfare will probably end human civilization as we know it, and possibly lead to human extinction, but life itself on earth is pretty safe.
There are plenty of life forms that can tolerate far more radiation then we can, and the mutations caused by radiation from fallout will lead to selective pressure towards organisms that are more tolerant towards such an event.
To note case in point, in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster, where massive amounts of radiation were released, the areas most affected by fallout were feared by scientists to be unable to support any form of life, but 20 years on the wildlife in the area seems to have carried out far better then expected. There were some disturbing mutations though, and you probably shouldn't go hunting for meat there... but practically it seems that nature in itself is a lot more hardy to such disasters then we are.
Not very likely... I do not think the world's suppy of nukes will be able to melt our ice caps. We don't have anywhere near that amount of firepower.
In any case even if ALL of our ice caps melted there will still be plenty of land left around, though costal areas will be pretty much underwater. Note that there were times in Earth's history where it had far less ice then we have now, especially during the Triassic where we had no ice caps at all.
I see your point of view & thank you.
I have stated in para 2 of my post dd 2.5.09: "Here we are talking about not only the great firepower of a nuclear explosion but more importantly the massive atomic radiation & its ensuing side effects on human health, mutation of cells & changes in the earth's ecology & environment. Another point is that asteroid impacts are acts of God & beyond human control but nukes are man made".
From the above statement no where did I say "nuclear warfare will probably end human civilization as we know it, and possibly lead to human extinction but life on earth is pretty safe".
The general idea I get from your para 2 & 3 is that plenty of life forms can tolerate the massive radioactive fall out of nuclear explosions & more or less regenerate themselves (Chernobyl disaster) ..."some mutations though,....that nature in itself is a lot more hardy to such disasters then (than) we are".
Excuse me please remember that 1) we are not simple life forms but homo sapiens which went thru eons of time to become what we are today & 2) "...nature in itself is a lot more hardy to such disaster then (than) we can". Can I then interprete that you are implying humans will fare less favourably than the simple life forms in a nuclear disaster?.
-
Originally posted by richong 3216:
I see your point of view & thank you.
I have stated in para 2 of my post dd 2.5.09: "Here we are talking about not only the great firepower of a nuclear explosion but more importantly the massive atomic radiation & its ensuing side effects on human health, mutation of cells & changes in the earth's ecology & environment. Another point is that asteroid impacts are acts of God & beyond human control but nukes are man made".
From the above statement no where did I say "nuclear warfare will probably end human civilization as we know it, and possibly lead to human extinction but life on earth is pretty safe".
The general idea I get from your para 2 & 3 is that plenty of life forms can tolerate the massive radioactive fall out of nuclear explosions & more or less regenerate themselves (Chernobyl disaster) ..."some mutations though,....that nature in itself is a lot more hardy to such disasters then (than) we are".
Excuse me please remember that 1) we are not simple life forms but homo sapiens which went thru eons of time to become what we are today & 2) "...nature in itself is a lot more hardy to such disaster then (than) we can". Can I then interprete that you are implying humans will fare less favourably than the simple life forms in a nuclear disaster?.
No, no we are not simple lifeforms. We are very complex life forms indeed.
However, complexity also implies a lack of ability to adapt. For example, our computers are very complex products. But it operates on the assumption that there is electricity to power it, without electricity it is just a hunk of metal. With increased processing power, it needs more power to function.
Homo sapiens evolved and gained our current complexity based on the assumption that there is enough energy to be consumed for us to breed. Meaning a clean and stable supply of water and food. We also need a varied diet in order to be able to be healthy enough to live decently.
A nuclear disaster would disrupt that supply, without it humans and its associated civilisation would also cease to function. Much the same way the dinosaurs.
In contrast, simplier lifeforms such as cockroaches are not so dependant on what they eat and can survive for quite a long time without food.
We may think we are the product of eons of evolution. But so were the dinosaurs. And they have been on this planet hell of a lot longer than we have. And considering the way we're treating the planet i doubt we could break their record.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDa5prMnht8 Test video of nuclear artillery