How I Learnt To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (Kinda)

I’m not going to read every comment here. It’s possible someone else has already stated this: You started with the percentage of the world populated by humans. What exactly does “populated” mean?

Is populated just the physical amount of space taken up by humans or does it include the land area needed to keep us alive? As an individual, I take up little space, but the amount of land taken up by the crops I eat is much larger. And since I enjoy tasty animals, you need to include the land taken up by them as well.

In fact, if you wanted to kill everyone on the planet with nuclear weapons, it seems the best way would be to use those nukes to first destroy as much crop land as possible and to poison the rest with radiation. You wouldn’t need to drop even a single bomb in a city. It’s the same principle as getting rid of ants in a house. You can try to find their nests and blow them away, or you can eliminate and poison the food sources.

In short, I think your analysis on the number of nukes needs work.

No one has mentioned the effect of bombing nuclear power stations. I will. Here’s one for example:

France has about 56 nuclear power reactors at 29 locations throughout the country. 29 nuclear weapons, 200 KT each, will not wipe out the near 60 million French. HOWEVER, 29 nuclear weapons, of ANY yield, will vaporise those nuclear reactors at point blank detonation (or close enough, any first world weapon has the required accuracy). The combined radioactive debris from 56 nuclear reactors is enough to kill everybody in France three times over, even when sheltered in cellars. It will kill also everybody in southern Germany, Switzerland, and Northern Italy. No famine required, 100 million people will glow in the night no questions asked, garantueed.

tsar bomba is 57 Megaton tested in 1961 on ” Nova Sembla” and is 4000 times more powerfull than bomb on Hiroshima. That is more than the 200x Hiroshima you say that is in service now!!!

Hiroshima and nagasaki two bombs, 200.000 people. And there are still people dieing today, and there are still de-formed children born today because of those bombs.
B83 is 200 times as big. 100.000×200=20000000
20000000×10227=204540000000
Thats twohundredandfourbillionfivehundredandfortymillion.
204540000000:5000000000 (world population?)=40908
With these bombs, if they are dropped strategicely, you could kill every living human being on earth 40908 times.

Information is beautiful, but knowledge still is best.

Informing people of bullshit figures is funny, giving proper information is what you need to do. Apparently you haven’t even heard of nuclear bombs before, or you would have known that the destruction of one bomb does not end at the vapourization of it’s blast radius.

All or most bombs going off is not going to happen. A much more relevant question is: what would happen if one goes off? Or two? … Just two or three of these things going off would throw us back into chaos and economic misery for decades… four or more on different continents would disrupt societies, wreak havoc and install chaos and anarchy… the actual chance for it to happen is bigger than ever. Now. With Pakistan and numerous other not-so-safe countries possessing their own atombombs, chances are that one or more will be used within the next decade… melting confidence worldwide, causing new crises… Cold War was a relatively safe period. Those silly ‘ole russians, they were sweet compared to the freaks that menace the earth today.

This assumes a lethality radius of a B83 of just 2.177 km (1.35 miles). I think a thermal range of 5 km (vaporisation), blast range of 10 km and a radiation range of 15 km will be more accurate (assuming highest yield which is classified but >> 1.5MT). This results in 100% lethality in 706.86 sqkm. Heavy casualties will occur far beyond this range because of fallout and ground shock waves.
Keep in mind that 2-stage H-bombs have much higher yields. (Russian limited tests to 10 MT to reduce fallout to ‘acceptable’ level, total yields are classified but much higher.)

Blown off at right locations with right delays this many bombs may cause devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. Then, 14.9 is a total destruction area. You may be sure that the entire city population will be wiped out by the radioactive fallout. Also, most of the electric devices will be out, including those controlling safety at the dams, power stations, etc. So the ultimate destruction is much larger.

And Stalin (Soviet Union) killed more than 20 millions incl 7 million ukrainians in 1932-33.

“Hitler didn’t need a single nuke to kill those 6 million+ Jews.”

Just wondering if this accounts for the additional effects of nuclear arms or just straight deaths via primary blast i.e. – radio active ash, fires, destruction of crops, radiation sickness, etc. etc.

“I don’t know what weapons world war 3 will be fought with. But world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.” Albert Einstein.

If a large nuke explodes over manhattan, but you live in brooklyn, you might have an extra few hours to live before the south-easterly winds bring the radiation to you. You’ll be killed by the initial blast, but not instantly. You feel OK about this?

Thank you for stating your assumptions. I look forward to the new calculations. Keep up the effort and don’t read all your comments!

you forgot the hydrogen bomb, that can wipe out a lot more than a nuke because all the hydrogen molecules chain react and make a much bigger shockwave, and you spelled civilization wrong many times. Technically, you forgot one big thing, since we have whats called a “jet stream” it would carry a lot of the bad things all over the world. so it wouldnt take as many nukes as you think it would. Go look up Chernobyl, and see how much the world was affected in smaller amounts. Hugh was right, too many variables, no one know what would entirely happen, but you are looking at it in the most basic way, the explosion. More to a nuke than the mushroom cloud bro.

Well I am not going to say much except your calculations are seriously flawed. You are only taking the actual destructive damage into account here (the blast radius) is like not even 10% of the total effects of a hydrogen bomb. If you take into account the amount of radiation emitted from nukes this size your out of your mind to say nukes cannot destroy the world. You said 1 hydrogen bomb could wipe out the central area of london which is true but also it would wipe out the surrounding metropolis areas as well with massive radiation. And the farmlands supporting this massive city would be also laid to waste and toxic. 2 hydro bombs could lay any metropolis and surrounding area to waste. If you take the radiation into account and the environmental effects you must be joking because it wouldn’t take many nukes to laid the world to waste maybe less then 300 or 400 strategically placed 20 megaton (normal H bombs) In largely populated areas would desolate all the world major cities and populations and the environmental catastrophes would be impossible to measure. It would not take 100,000 NUKES are you braindead or what? Maybe 300 or 400 to wipe out all major populated areas but surely not 100,000 nukes my god haha are you a child with the capacity of a 5 year old?. Even 1000 H bombs going off in a relatively short time would cause environmental catastrophes. You totally forgot to add the radiation into account and you left out the environment completely. This is seriously flawed.

As many others made clear, your logic and therefore your conclusion is severely flawed.
However, the visualization technique you used for this specific issue is quite relevant, as it makes the isse an understandable and therefore engaging visual one, instead of a boring a list of figures.

HE DID A FINE JOB. THE PEOPLE QUOTING HIROSHIMA FIGURES ARE IDIOTS!!!

Those people who are dividing the total population by the number in Hiroshima are wrong. Sure if EVERYONE in the world lived in the blast radius then it would only take one bomb, but there are people living in remote areas so you have to go by inhabitable land area. AND RADIATION HAS NO EFFECT IF YOU ARE FAR ENOUGH AWAY. So if twenty people live far enough away then EVEN THOUGH it takes 1 bomb to kill 140,000 then it takes 20 bombs to kill 140,020! He’s trying to calculate what it would take to wipe out ALL OF HUMANITY not how many it would take if everyone lived in Hiroshima at the same time. EVEN IF this is wrong still, his figures show that it would take 20 times the number of current arsenal to kill. Do you think radiation kills 20 times the number of people as the initial blast! Give me a break! That’s how wrong he has to be, and that’s how stupid you are. His numbers are so low that no matter what you throw at them he would be correct in his final conclusion even if he was 20 times wrong.

To the author: Most people are guided by inherent biases. They don’t look at your facts as, “Hmm. that’s interesting.” but “This guy has to be wrong because nuclear bombs are evil, and I’m an idiot”. This just shows their lack of intelligence. Please redo this interesting piece but make sure to account for radiation. Show a graphic of the inhabitable land and show it filling up with the integrated land area from all nucluar weapons. And make sure, and this is important, to put as the final statement: “Before you bitch about my numbers, make sure you ask yourself if the ‘flaws’ you believe you find with my analysis can account for a factor of 20 error in the numbers. If it can’t, I’M STILL CORRECT!”

I think that the diagrams and the data are both interesting and convincing but I feel a crucial element of nuclear destruction has been overlooked. The argument assumes that humanity can only be wiped out by wiping out people, in an instant annihilation. However nuclear weaponry can be used more effectively and efficiently to target essentials resources: water supplies, agricultural areas, scientific, academic, political headquarters, oil refineries, other salient elements of infrastructure – the destruction of which will be acutely felt.

Furthermore, nuclear bombs can be used to catalyse natural disasters such as tsunamis and avalanches which can wipe out hundreds of thousands of people in dense areas. They could even be used to spark off a conventional war in an area of political instability.

I think these are a few things which indicate the importance of a more focused look at the impact of nuclear armoury, and I am certain that there are far more examples besides.

Technically, you forgot one big thing, since we have whats called a “jet stream” it would carry a lot of the bad things all over the world. so it wouldnt take as many nukes as you think it would.

Yes, I think that you have completely underestimated things here.

If you can REALLY imagine that kind of damage that a single nuclear blast in Los Angeles or any other major city as compared to some natural disasters, or man-made disasters, and really consider effects rather than direct singular direct results.

So, look at it through the prism of major earthquakes that have hit Los Angeles and San Francisco, hurricanes hitting New Orleans or major city fires (where the local FDs are overwhelmed and cannot contain fires spreading from building to building). How much more damage to freeways and streets, uncontrolled fires, immediate food and water shortages and lawlessness would you have to have just in one city before you realize that “humanity” can’t survive a single nuclear blast in a major metropolitan area.

Now, multiply the number of nuclear blasts you would need to completely overwhelm emergency support to several major cities at once. In California, if you had nuclear blasts in the capital (Sacramento), San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego County (that’s just five blasts), how much “humanity” will be evident when the only people who are eating are ones who have guns and have formed collectives with pooled and stolen food and water?

No, it doesn’t take over 10,000 nuclear weapons to destroy humanity. In any populous nation, just one good nuclear blast in every major city over 1,000,000 coupled with one blast in the heart of farmlands where radioactivity and “Nuclear Winter” effects will destroy the present food chain and also decimate crops for decades, you will only end up with very isolated places where humans live in compounds holed up in mountains and hills using hydroponics and air and water filtration. Is that what you would call humanity?

Well, if that isn’t the end of humanity, then just remember that these people holed up in compounds would also have to deal with fending off hungry gangs and would also have to deal with genetic inbreeding over decades. Is that the end of humanity when only a few hundred colonies of people live? After radiation has cleared and those with the right genetics who can withstand and tolerate low-level background radiation in the food and air and water, perhaps peaceful groups would emerge and “humanity” will be back on its feet. Maybe.

I just find it pretty hard to believe the cities with over 1,000,000 experiencing a nuclear blast and farmlands being blasted strategically around the world is going to require more than 10,000 nukes.

You would certainly have to also send a nuke to small island nations and obliterate them because many of them function well by themselves and rely on Nature for survival.

Do you really need more than 10,000 nukes to do all this work?

Your numbers of nukes are too low. According to the Nov-Dec 2009 Bulleting of Atomic Scientists, the figures are as follows:

Estimated Global Nuclear Weapons Inventories , 2009
Russia 13,000*
United States 9,400**
France 300
China 240
Britain 180
Israel 80–100
Pakistan 70–90
India 60–80
North Korea ?
Total ~23,360

* Approximately 4,850 of the Russian warheads are operational or active. The status of the other 8,150 warheads is unclear. Some portion may be in reserve with the balance retired and awaiting dismantlement.
** Approximately 5,200 of the U.S. warheads are in the military stockpile (about 2,700 deployed); 4,200 retired warheads are awaiting dismantlement.

Apparently you are still back in 1945 when you posted this because I refuse to believe anyone is THIS Ignorant.

Are you trying to comfort yourself while you sit in your little fetal position drowning yourself in the thought that humanity has not advanced in technology in any way? Why the hell are you using bombs from Hiroshima? Those bombs compared to the ones we have now are NOTHING. They are the little firecrackers you buy near your local gas station on the fourth of July. They are nothing compared to the Big explosions you see sparkling in the sky, they are nothing compared to what humanity has reached as of now.

Ever heard of The Tsar bomb? Of course you haven’t because then you wouldn’t be walking around all happy and carefree in your little fantasy world where Humanity has not reached the point where self-destruction is imminent. The Tsar Bomb explosion has the equivalent of 50 MEGATONS of destruction(3000-5000x “The Little Boy”). Hiroshima was only roughly around 10-15 KILOTONS. The Comparison to these two bombs is literally Hiroshima being the firecracker and the Tsar bomb being the grand finale at a fireworks show. If a Tsar bomb was used at Hiroshima, There wouldn’t be no freaking Japan. (and don’t get me started on the nuclear fallouts and radiation)

BOTTOM LINE IS BE AFRAID, BE VERY VERY VERY F***ING AFRAID.

cpm: STOP USING CAPS YOU F*** NOOB!!! xD

It’s probable that nobody will ever read this comment, but I still can’t bring myself to see a bad idea like the one presented in this article go unchallenged, lest it might spread too far.

The fatal flaw in this article is that it only considers the “total destruction” radius of modern nuclear weapons. However, the real killer – and the thing that would devastate and possible wipe out modern civilization – is not the blast wave of such a bomb, or even the radioactive fallout. What would be most devastating is the amount of dust and debris kicked up into the atmosphere by a significant number of nuclear explosions. That dust would quickly be spread through the upper atmosphere and would block a tremendous amount of sunlight, thus cooling the earth.

As an example, in 1816 (”the year without a summer” as some historians call it) the earth experienced a larger than average rate of volcanic eruptions. The ash ejected into the atmosphere from these volcanic eruptions was enough to cause famine on a nigh global scale. Throughout much of Europe and North America, the summer growing season was virtually non-existent. Snow fell well into the summer months. The death toll from the lack of food was enormous. And that was just the result of a few extra major volcanic eruptions. A large scale nuclear war would kick up many many times that amount of ash. The “nuclear winter” is what would destroy human civilization, not the blasts or radiation from the bombs. Even if it were to last only 2 years, in that time it is likely that the vast majority of every large land animal population – including humans – would die of starvation.

We like to think that we are above nature; that we are invincible masters of the Earth. But the reality of it is, we are still merely a part of the intricate web that props up all life on this planet. The difference is, for the first time in the history of life, a species has the ability to put holes in that web large enough to cause its collapse. What remains questionable is whether or not we are smart enough to have that ability, and yet wise enough to avoid destroying not only our one and only home, but so far as we know the only bastion of life in the entire universe.