UPDATE: Aug – I’m in the process of revising this diagram in light of all the comments (and flames!). Thanks all. If you can help me research the data, please email
I felt alienated from The Guardian’s graphic about stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
I felt the use of abstract figures made most of the data meaningless. Russia has 5192 warheads. America 4102. France 300. What does that mean? Is that a lot? I can’t relate to that.
There’s a single way I relate to nuclear weapons. By their destructive capability. I grew up watching Threads and The Day After. We were even made to watch those nuclear horror films at school. Those films branded our minds with the idea that nuclear weapons could destroy the world. They are Doomsday devices. They kill everybody. Nuclear War = End Of The World.
So, I thought of a better way to understand the data. Dump the raw totals. Instead visualize the stockpiles by how many times over they could destroy the world. Yeah cool! And that would actually expose the ludicrous stupidly of nuclear weapons at the same time. *So clever*.
However, the idea rapidly unravelled. Here’s why…
I wasn’t expecting that. We only actually have 0.83% of what’s required to completely wipe out civilisation. We couldn’t do it if we wanted to.
10 years ago we had 32,512 nuclear weapons. That’s a much better 2.6%. God damn you Non Nuclear Proliferation Pact!
Ah but we all live in cities now
I tried to recover a eye-popping stat with another quick calc. 50% of us live in densely populated cities now. Maybe we could wipe out all city-dwelling humanity. YES!
Nope. Still no good.
Unexpectedly, in making this image, the data forced me to change my mind.
In this case, it exposed the myth in my head, scorched long ago into my childhood imagination. The scene of many nightmares. That nuclear weapons could kill everything. Could wipe out civilisation.
No doubt, nuclear weapons are crazy devices. In the hands of mad people and mad regimes, they have a nightmarish potential for devastation. But they are not the end of humanity.
As the data reveals, we simply don’t have enough of them.
131 Comments
You failed to account for the nuclear fallout from these bombs; that would kill many more people than the actual blast could.
Also, considering the circumstances in which nuclear weapons are used, there would be many more things besides nukes to worry about. Perhaps we’ll have massive famines and genocides all over the place.
Hitler didn’t need a single nuke to kill those 6 million+ Jews.
True, but physical destruction is only a part of the fun of nuclear weapons. You need to calculate average fallout, mortality rates, and radiation half-life to get the full picture.
How about fallout?
The problem here is that you’re looking at the blast/explosive equivalent without looking at the long term effects. If you set off 88 conventional bombs you get a huge explosion and a lot of death and destruction in the blast area, but anyone outside that zone will be fine. However, nuclear radiation is messy. It can travel in the air, gets into water supplies, doses people who were never in the blast zone. Think Chernobyl: no explosion, but people hundreds of miles away (far outside the blast zone of a nuclear weapon with larger energy release) still got cancer and gave birth to deformed babies. If you explode every bomb we have today, civilization will be over within a couple of generations, guaranteed.
So of course, why do we have so many nuclear weapons? Ability to respond and precision in targeting. We’ve got small bombs and large bombs, bombs designed to go by themselves and those designed to sit 8 to a rocket. And rockets fail too. If 20% of your nukes are ready for launch at any time (integrated on a vehicle), 50% of your launch sites are taken out, only 10% are in range of the target, and you have a 10% failure rate with your launch vehicle, then you’ve got 4 nukes at your disposal to launch. Out of 4000.
Hold on. What about the economic and political fallout of 10% of our cities being destroyed and huge swathes of land made uninhabitable or unfarmable by fallout. I’m not so sure we could recover from that so easily regardless of how many of us survive…
10000 nuclear explosions would totally wang up our climate for several years and kill all our crops, and the fallout would kill everything else.
Only a few hundred are needed.
Wouldn’t be possible to get all Nukes started: The first step in a nuclear war would be to destroy the nukes of the enemy, many are mounted on submarines oder planes and there is a (small) chance that these get shoot down or blown up before they can unleash hell :D so much for the positivie effects :D ….but nice visualisation ;)
As some of the posters before me mentioned, you didn’t take nucelar fallout into account. Have a look here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/1mtfall.html
“900 Rem
Distance: 90 miles
A lethal dose of radiation. Death occurs from two to fourteen days.”
A radius of 90 miles means about 65,879 km². According to my calculation only some hundred megaton bombs are needed to kill all people on earth.
I really hope you update this blog post.
@Andy Yeah I guess it’ll all go a bit like The Road
Yup. Thanks for all the feedback. I’m going to redraft the image with radiation, fallout, nuclear winter, failure rates, poisoned water supplies, crop deaths, deformed babies, and cancer all factored in. After I’ve had this stiff drink…
Also, does your figure include fire damage? That’s a huge factor often ignored in nuclear weapons damage estimation. Here’s a source:
http://www.amazon.com/Whole-World-Fire-Organizations-Devastation/dp/0801435781
Without fire damage, the figure would be extremely misleading.
If you DO want to be thorough..
You would need to include (with all the previous mentioned DOOM scenarios) the fact that all this assumes free propagation of whatever is thrown up by any particular blast (surface, air, ..).
Eg if you are outside the range at which the blast and secundary effects are powerful enough to topple buildings, then you are in a relative ‘shadow’ from the direct effects of the bomb.
If you stay sheltered AND get a hold of uncontaminated foodstuff (with cities there may be ample supply, given the number of deaths and ‘normal’ stocks), …. this will have a positive effect.
Many more factors need (?) to be taken into account. Not everyone seems to suffer the same from radiation effects. Not every pregnant woman ‘exposed’ to the Tsjernobyl fall-out gave birth to a deformed child. And so on.
Mother Earth seems to be able to recover from almost anything, and (sadly?) so does man. The latter never learning from the experience.
I really like the positive attitude of the original here. STOP worrying and hiding in holes. IF you want to do something, then TELL those YOU put in charge to STOP the idiocy and START improving life for everyone.
And most important:
keep smiling while you do whatever you do
this post made me re-watch Threads, the 1984 BBC docudrama.
:(
One more link to add to the list of resources and people mentioning the long-term effects of nuclear explosions, especially multiple detonations on a global scale:
The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW has put together a clear and concise analysis of the global long-term impact of just 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs being exploded in a hypothetical war between India and Pakistan. Learn more here:
http://www.ippnw.org/Programs/ICAN/Famine.htm
It would be nice to know how many people in fact believe this bullshit because it’s made as serious looking graphics. I’d like to know how close to idiocracy the world is ;0)
Knowledge is power! Go to school! Think!
What about destroying the harvest?
And if a bomb is detonated in the atmosphere, a few km above the ground, its effect on the life and the telecommunications infrastructure may be greater than you expected from a bomb detoned on the surface.
Interesting post!
Is absolutely true, try whit the Death Star…
The world is very crazy.
.hc.
http://www.diagramar.com/
Another perspective on this… In John Allen Paulos’ book, Innumeracy, he uses nuclear weaponry proliferation as an example of very large numbers that are difficult to conceptualise. Whan the book was written, the global nuclear weaponry total was 25,000 megatons, or 50 trillion pounds or 10,000 pounds equivalent of TNT for every man, woman and child on the planet. Just think of what one pound of TNT would do in a car bomb…The nuclear weapons on board a single Trident submarine contains eight times the fire-power expended in all of world war two.
Obviously we need more nuclear weapons!
They’ve kept us free for a generation.
Perhaps we could have a world holiday to celebrate this greatest of deterrents. Think of the millions of lives saved from wars not waged! Log live the nuclear bomb!
Recall that in Threads the majority of deaths occur from starvation due to total disruption of food supply.
Without power stations, refineries, major distribution centres, etc, there is no prospect whatsoever of harvesting crops, fertilizing fields or distributing food to the surviving population. World-wide strategic bombing really would kill off most of humanity.
For a carefully worked out study of the immediate effects of nuclear war, you could do worse than the 1979 report The Effects of Nuclear War by the (now defunct) congressional Office of Technology Assesment. They estimate that betwen 20 and 165 million Americans would die from the immediate weapon effects in an all-out nuclear war between USA and the Soviet Union. So indeed, there would be survivors. But they also note that the long-term effects are more or less impossible to estimate: with all industrial infrastructure destroyed, agriculture being very impeded, and a large fraction of the survivors being exposed to fallout, it might be too early to say that a nuclear war would not be “civilization destroying”…
As I said on Hacker News::
*
1 point by tezza 2 minutes ago | link | parent | edit | delete
Everything is even better. There is no way that the numbers will be as high as the (excellent) analysis suggests:
—
* This presumes all parties collaborate to destroy mutually exclusive regions (unlikely)
* Multiple nukes will be launched at particular sites to avoid countermeasures
* Some of those countermeasures will be effective
* The main targets of nukes will be nuke launching sites, which will cut down the retaliatory nuking
* Nuke launching sites are not in populated cities (generally)
Why do you assume only the radius of total destruction?? There will be an awful lot of damage far beyond that point. Furthermore, even assuming that nothing beyond the radius of total destruction was harmed it still doesn’t take that much to kill people.
I’m thinking of where I am now. Drop 4 bombs whose blasts cover the 4 roads into here. Given your blast zones most of the city is still standing. So what? All most of us could do is sit and wait for rescue–and we couldn’t wait long.
When you kill those 4 roads you also take out the power. No power = no air conditioners and no water. Anyone still here in a week is dead–but how do you leave? Few of us have vehicles that could go around the blast zones without winding up stuck. Nobody could survive walking out of here–when you got our wires you also got the wires feeding the few communities that are within range of the amount of water you could possibly carry. The only way to get water is the lake–and that’s assuming that it’s still there. The dam that makes it would be a good target–not to mention hitting the dam takes out both the road and the main power to the city.
Note, also, that if the hit was on the road and not the dam you still have big problems. The road is through the reasonable terrain, if you don’t want to walk through the crater (can you say “radiation poisoning”?) that means going over the mountains, something plenty of people couldn’t do. Not only that but you either go over at night in the dark or you’ve got a lot of water with you to survive the crossing–and if you don’t have a backpack that’s not going to be easy.
How about a graph that plots the number of people killed on detonation of the nth bomb, assuming the most populated area will be (successfully) targeted first, the second most populated area targeted second, and so on, along with the cumulative total % of the world population wiped out by the nth blast. You could call it: diminishing returns of nuclear warfare or supply and demand of nuclear warfare or something.
I think this “study” should be taken as comedy. The serious thing about it is that it isn’t.
The values used are highly questionable, the methods are wrong and the conclusions don’t make any sense.
In the beginning we see “land surface of the world” and “% populated”. Being land it doesn’t make habitable from one day to the other. That % would be interesting, not that simplistic approach (unless you consider as a possibility to bring millions of people to deserts and extreme cold conditions so that they can survive some few days and say that they died from natural cause)
Then, we see destruction being measured by area with reference to the B83 warheads and its destruction radius. Again, that is a wrong method to measure “killing factor”. There is a big range on the number of deaths you can cause with a grenade. With these bombs this range is extremely wider. I don’t need a nuclear bomb to kill half a million people if I drop it in a music festival or if I just seek out the places with higher population density.
Then there is a total absence of the notion of ecosystem, resources, atmosphere, temperature, economy which are probably the most relevant terms to determine the real impact of these weapons.
Let me make one analogy.
250m years ago, a small asteroid destroyed life like it could be known at the time (extinction of dinosaurs). This effect was not a direct consequence of the impact radius but the changes this event caused in the stability of the natural cycles of our planet such as the CO2 covering the atmosphere. The planet became inhabitable. The extinction period may have reached 100k years so definitely it wasn’t the impact the direct cause of death.
This theory may be wrong like any other but my point is it that for real scientists, the killing factor is not measured by the impact radius of the asteroid because they know more than that.
This graph is like a part of series: Children and nucular bombs!(sic!)
It’s not that simple calculating the effects of nuclear blast, think of the nuclear fallout and prolonged radiation to water and crops.
Go back to school!
You also forgot to consider that one of the bombs in Japan had a more devastating effect since it exploded a in the air before hitting the ground. Its a small detail, but as our nukes get stronger and such a effect could be easily achieved, we are talking about more destruction. It ain’t so simple.
All those wasted years in CND – I needn’t have bothered :-)
Nuclear winter is a significant threat, so it may still be possible to wipe out humanity. But there are more imaginative ways to do it these days anyway.
wow! very provocative and great set of comments.. yeah lets keep on smiling while we crawl out of the rubble and deal with the social chaos that will ensue.. on the other had we will probably just all melt on our own fat from global warming before we push the buttons.. there will be oil wars and water wars as we flood and die from rampant diseases maybe someone will hit the button just because it will be a faster way out… soylent green!!!
The thing about massive destruction is that you get all of these nice systemic effects. You nuke every useful hospital and you do what? You kill some people now, but you also effectively kill all the people those hospitals could save. Same with water processing. You kill a few people working at the plant, but more importantly you make it impossible to get clean drinking water for a few decades, someone probably will die from that. And so on. If you do this for a lot of critical systems, and nukes -do- destroy things quite effectively, then most of the people you kill with the nukes will actually have survived both blast effects and radiation exposure. Or at least, they would have survived both of them if there had been a functioning health service, access to clean water, food to eat, news broadcasts about the upcoming bad weather & so on.
Nukes are very very bad.
I did the math based on a lethal dose of radiation, rather than the complete destruction radius. We have enough nukes to kill everyone on earth 36 times over based on your calculation of the area of the earth occupied by people.
This is your attempt at a joke, right? I can assure you that the Department of Defense is fairly secure in their assessment that we could infact wipe the human race off the face of the planet in about within Eighteen months of a massive nuclear exchange. You need to pick up a physics text book.
These are some good responses. Let us remember that in order to ever to any type of analysis some assumptions have to be made and some bias is introduced throught those assumpsions. It doesn’t matter if its a table or a picture. When you look at something from “The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War ” you can guess which way their assumptions leaned. What I appretiated about this was that it started with an idea most people readly accept because it popular. ” that the world will be totally destroyed by Nucs” but came up with a diffret conclusion. While the analysis is not thourgh it is indeed thought provoking. While nuclear arms will devistate a substantial amout of the earth, there is certianly no way of knowing what would be left with an all out nuc war. After all life minus humans is thriving at the greatest nuc accident in the world.
Cool site, but like others there is a lot wrong with the assumptions you make here. I have another point that wasn’t, I think, made by earler commenters. Even if these were conventional warheads and you did not have to worry about fallout and dust in the air and all that stuff, you are asking several different questions here. They all start with “how many nukes would it take to destroy” and they end with “the world”, “humanity”, and “civilization”. These are three different things we dont have anywhere near enough nukes to destroy the world. No where remotely close.
Now we are a lot closer to being able to destroy humanity, that is kill every last person. This seems to be what you are driving at. But that would not really be likely even if we had enough to do it, cause who would target little places like samoa or sparse places like the amazon rain forest.
Now the third thing is civilization. I put to you that this is much more fragile then the other things. What would happen if all, or most, infrastructure was destroyed? No electricity, no gas, no heating oil, no major food distribution centers, waste processing. Now a lot of this would go on for a while, but things break and there may not be the factories to fix them. I assert civilization would fall back to something much more primitive then what we see now. There will always be some sort of civilization around as long as there are people but the sort of global thing we have now would be hard pressed to stand up to real full scale nuclear war.
Yes, the fallout, fire, and shadow effects, not to mention climate effects, are all unaccounted for. BUT, you have vastly overestimated the firepower of the nuclear arsenal. Russia and the US had no need for megabombs once ICBMs and other precision delivery capabilities were developed. Lots of nukes these days are much smaller yield, and are designed for precise strikes. You can’t take the biggest bomb in existence and use it as a baseline. However, put into effect all the other factors, and we’re still talking about slaughtering most of humankind and certainly putting an end to “civilisation” as we know it, even if there are survivors in remote areas.
Something to consider for all of you who are saying that more people would be killed and that this estimate is too low.
These calculations were made with the HUGE assumption that all nukes in stockpiles are the most powerful ones in existence. and seeing that most of the nukes in our stock piles are much smaller “theatre” nukes, the net result of adding damage that was not considered and subtracting damage that was over estimated could easily put us right back to where we started.
I suggest to take a reading on “The day after midnight”, a book from Michael Riordan. It explains in a very understandable manner all the “collateral damages” from a nuclear explosion.
Although this graphic is VERY oversimplified, it does put things in perspective.
Just another little fact, to debunk the myth that it would only take a few hundred to wipe out civilization (as at least one comment has asserted): 1,051 nuclear warheads have been detonated on earth between 1945 and 1992, most of these NOT underground.
Just google this to verify.
Has anyone taken into account the effects of a nuclear winter? Potentially, billions of tonnes of soot, rubble and earth would be blasted into the atmosphere and stay there for months, if not years. This in turn would block out the sun, effecting all flora and by extension fauna on the planet. ‘Extinction level event’ as they call it.
My first thought was that “complete destruction radius” wasn’t a good measure of the true impact of nuclear warfare. Having read the comments above, I’m sure you are aware of the inappropriate simplifications you made. My second thought was that I really enjoyed the representation, the discussion and the potential of your site. I wanted to comment to lend my support, if you were intentionally misleading people I’d take issue. As long as you take the comments and use them to improve the site, go for it. Few people could have the background to fully understand the statistics behind all your topic ideas, how about having a ‘projects’ section for draft ideas? You have great ideas on what would make a good topic and how to represent it, let people comment on the stats and then publish to your main site when you have sorted out the issues? Use the comments, I think you’d get to the accurate data quicker by having a go in draft and getting the errors pointed out.
You say you watched Threads, but it sounds like you missed the point.
If you recall, in Threads a lot of people survived the original blasts by being outside the blast radius or taking appropriate cover in the areas where that made a difference. Now remember the rest of the film following the people who did not die in the blasts, and the impact as the threads connecting various parts of civilisation broke, leaving people with radiation sickness without medical care, cutting off supply chains, destroying civilisation.
The film ended with the small group of malnourished children watching a crackly tape of a BBC schools programme; seemingly the last remaining attempt at education in the area.
Yes, humanity as a whole would probably survive a nuclear war. But we are easily capable of putting the race through centuries of barely-surviving as tribes of scavengers, hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers.
Great graphic & debate. PLUS At least two comments have name checked the BBC film Threads! good work fellas, while a pennyless student in Sheffield in the mid 1980′s me and my chum got work as extras on said production, we were paid in food (!) due to limitations in even this budget you can clearly see my 100% lack of aging throughout the 50 odd year time line…including wearing the same red and black stripped jumper.
Doing a little more fun math (with the aide of wikipedia’s List of Cities proper by population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population )
The 61 most populated cities on earth take up a meager 85,206km^2 which would only take ~5719 nukes to take out.
Leaving plenty of nukes to just fire off randomly while throwing back a 40.
Ok, so those 5719 nukes would only take 381,420,543 people with them…. but golly, you’ve got to assume that a lot of people we consider to be important would be among them.
In your graphic illustrating the number of warheads needed to wipe out cities, you say one missile symbol stands for approx. 100 warheads. Don’t you mean 1,000? 10×100 ≠10,000.
Thanks Gus. Do you have that data? I’d like to factor it into the next version.
that’s a great idea edward. These are my first tentative visualisations, so I wasn’t really expecting such a response. In the future, I’ll definitely attempt to use the combined brainpower of visitors to research and refine the images. Thanks David
If you are going to update this to take into account the non-blast wave effects of nuclear weapons, you should focus on fire damage, which is probobly more destructive than the long term effects of fallout and radiation. There have been more than 2000 nuclear explosions (www.CTBTO.org) since the fourties, many of them atmospheric tests, and we live with the fallout of those tests resonably well (although I would love it if we didn’t have to).
On the other hand, fire resulting from the intense heat released during a nuclear explosion can, depending on wind conditions and construction materials, dramatically increase the area devistated by a nuclear explosion. Moreover, the smoke released from the resulting firestorms could have dramatic climatic consequences. I would draw your attention to this study in Atmoshperic Chemistry and Physics (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2003/2007/acp-7-2003-2007.html) which suggests that even a limited regional exchange of “low yeild” nuclear weapons in South Asia could have dramatic consequences for world agriculture.
Man… do some research. 100 hiroshima-sized bombs (tiny compared to today) in a small regional conflict would likely send us into an ice age and destroy a large portion of humanity. Ridiculous and ignorant infographic. Nuclear weaponry is not just made up of explosive force.
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_61/iss_12/37_1.shtml
Either way, I’ll just grab the nearest likely looking woman and hump myself a goodbye…
62 Trackbacks
[...] This post was Twitted by groques [...]
[...] Notable Posts: Google is not a search engine, If Twitter was 100 people, Not enough nukes [...]
[...] [Source] Publié dans Futilités | Tags : bombe nucléaire, schéma [...]
[...] 这些图表转载自informationisbeautiful.netã€‚è¿™æ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªä¸“é—¨ç ”ç©¶å¯è§†åŒ–的网站，上é¢è¿˜æœ‰å¾ˆå¤šæœ‰è¶£çš„内容，推è访问。 [...]
[...] How Many Nukes Will Destroy de World? | Information Is Beautiful [...]
[...] How Many Nukes Will Destroy de World? | Information Is Beautiful [...]
[...] [...]
[...] How Many Nukes Will Destroy de World? | Information Is Beautiful [...]
[...] gráfico completo How Many Nukes Will Destroy de World? –con el cálculo que arroja esa cifra– puede verse en el precioso blog Information Is [...]
[...] gráfico completo How Many Nukes Will Destroy de World? –con el cálculo que arroja esa cifra– puede verse en el precioso blog Information Is [...]
[...] Via Information is beautiful. [...]
[...] matematicas por fin han tenido su fruto, Un Grafico Encontrado en el Blog de Informationisbeautiful nos muestra que No hay suficientes Bombas Nucleares para poder destruir nuestra [...]
[...] 这些图表转载自informationisbeautiful.netã€‚è¿™æ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªä¸“é—¨ç ”ç©¶å¯è§†åŒ–的网站，上é¢è¿˜æœ‰å¾ˆå¤šæœ‰è¶£çš„内容，推è访问。 [...]
[...] 这些图表转载自informationisbeautiful.netã€‚è¿™æ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªä¸“é—¨ç ”ç©¶å¯è§†åŒ–的网站，上é¢è¿˜æœ‰å¾ˆå¤šæœ‰è¶£çš„内容，推è访问。 [...]
[...] How I Learnt To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (Kinda) | Information Is Beautiful I wasn’t expecting that. We only actually have 0.83% of what’s required to completely wipe out civilisation. We couldn’t do it if we wanted to. [...]
[...] Shared We don’t have enough nukes (Data visualization) [...]
[...] más armas nucleares que el oriente y viceversa, sin embargo gracias al artÃculo publicado en Information is beautiful debemos decir al mundo que podemos dormir esta noche [...]
[...] links to this post on how many nuclear bombs it would take to destroy the world. An illustration: How many nukes does [...]
[...] This is a really interesting article proving that there isn’t nearly enough nuclear bombs in t…. As someone pointed out, it’s the indirect effect, ie. nuclear winter that will wipe us out. No comments yet [...]
[...] link is being shared on Twitter right now. @chrishang001, an influential author, said apparently we [...]
[...] oft-repeated assertion is that nuclear war would destroy the world. Information is Beautiful visualizes the data for us and comes to a startling conclusion: it isn’t [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created byDavid McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to theGuardian [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] first part of the graphics—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] form—with the startling answer: The initial partial of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how many space is essentially used by the complete population. According to the [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] How Many Nuclear Missles would it ACTUALLY Take to Wipe-out Humanity? August 29, 2009 — Tim It turns out, there’s just not enough. [...]
[...] of the posting that no one seemed to debate. To wit: The first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] David McCandless investigó un poco y reunió algunos datos relacionados con la Tierra, la población mundial y la cantidad de bombas nucleares necesarias para erradicar nuestra existencia (con la detonación). Después de ver las imágenes no habrÃa que preocuparse tanto por las bombas nucleares, sino más bien por otros males que afectan al mundo (como por ejemplo, las enfermedades). #gallery-1 { margin: auto; } #gallery-1 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-1 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-1 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } [...]
[...] Ú†Ù‡ تعداد کلاهک هسته ای نیاز داریم؟ در مقاله ای Ú©Ù‡ سایت Information is Beautiful منتشر کرده، با یک Ù…Øاسبه ساده Ùˆ البته با تکیه به آماری [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] interesante gráfico de David McCadless con datos del Guardian Datablog y el Bulletin of Atomic Scientists nos revela datos interesantes, [...]
[...] interesante gráfico de David McCadless con datos del Guardian Datablog y el Bulletin of Atomic Scientists nos revela datos interesantes [...]
[...] Ú†Ù‡ تعداد کلاهک هسته ای نیاز داریم؟ در مقاله ای Ú©Ù‡ سایت Information is Beautiful منتشر کرده، با یک Ù…Øاسبه ساده Ùˆ البته با تکیه به آماری [...]
[...] The Nuclear Holocaust Isn’t Really That Big of a Deal – Apparently, the human race lacks the nuclear arms necessarily to destroy all of human life on the planet with one blinding flash. Â In fact, we only have 0.83% of what would be required. Heck, even before the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we only had 2.3% (which also, for the record, shows how impressively effective that treaty was). [...]
[...] first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian [...]
[...] src: informationisbeautiful [...]
[...] http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-i-learnt-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb/ [...]
[...] humanidade, e por isso, decidiu fazer umas contas de merceeiro, acabando por publicar este texto “How I Learnt To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (Kinda)â€, cujo conteúdo foi depois copiado por diversos blogues, incluindo o artigo da “Sábado†[...]
[...] found a new blog to admire by David McCandless. Being a big fan of the teachings of Edward Tufte, and the everyday application of pure information [...]
[...] cool visualisations of stuff i hadn’t thought about in a while, nice data on nuclear proliferation and time travel in popular film & [...]
[...] lá»i giải khá lý thú đã được David McCandless Ä‘Æ°a ra. Câu trả lá»i được trình bà y dÆ°á»›i dạng đồ há»a và bạn có thể theo [...]
[...] How many nukes do we need to wipe out civilization? (Information Is Beautiful) • The Future Of Human Enhancement (Time) • Hubble Telescope’s [...]