What can 10,000 H-bombs do?

BuckTurgidson · Post by **BuckTurgidson** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:32 pm

Or 20,000 or 50,000 or whatever thousands you care. I am curious to hear what everyone thinks.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:34 pm

Besides obliterate the planet? I'm not sure I understand the question... :yh_think

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:36 pm

I'd do as one american once said ''Put your head between your knees and kiss your arse goodbye.''

BuckTurgidson · Post by **BuckTurgidson** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:41 pm

BabyRider wrote: Besides obliterate the planet? I'm not sure I understand the question... :yh_think

Okay, what can the power or energy of 10,000 H-bombs do? I am attempting to discover what other people think are the uses for this type of energy projection.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:46 pm

BuckTurgidson wrote: Okay, what can the power or energy of 10,000 H-bombs do? I am attempting to discover what other people think are the uses for this type of energy projection.
bombs, by definition, are for blowing things up. what other use do you think they have?

BuckTurgidson · Post by **BuckTurgidson** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:58 pm

anastrophe wrote: bombs, by definition, are for blowing things up. what other use do you think they have?

Thanks for the science lesson.

Okay then, what can you blow up with all these H-bombs?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:02 pm

BuckTurgidson wrote: Okay then, what can you blow up with all these H-bombs?Whatever you want, I'd think.... :yh_ooooo

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:03 pm

BuckTurgidson wrote: Thanks for the science lesson.

Okay then, what can you blow up with all these H-bombs?
anything. next question.

on second thought, how about *you* tell *us* where you're going with this?

BuckTurgidson · Post by **BuckTurgidson** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:13 pm

anastrophe wrote: anything. next question.

on second thought, how about *you* tell *us* where you're going with this?

Since you insist...

In my humble opinion, most people tend to look at the Hydrogen Bomb as having a sole purpose...to destroy our Earth. To me, thats a very narrow way of looking at it. After all, if the Bomb can destroy the Earth, and the Earth is a planet, cannot the Bomb destroy any planet? (of relative size, of course)

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:43 pm

BuckTurgidson wrote: Since you insist...

In my humble opinion, most people tend to look at the Hydrogen Bomb as having a sole purpose...to destroy our Earth. To me, thats a very narrow way of looking at it. there's a problem of definitions here. we need a working definition of "destroy the/our earth".

1.If by Destroy the Earth you mean cause the earth to break apart and be functionally/materially destroyed, then no, not even 10,000 H bombs would do the trick. the best they might do is about a few seconds to the length of a year, by slowing the earth's path around the sun slightly (and that would require that the all be set off in one spot on earth - if distributed across the face of the globe, even that wouldn't happen). now, i don't know if anyone has looked into it very deeply, but i suppose if 10,000 H bombs were piled one on top of the other, all on top of a 'fragile' tectonic fault zone, it might be possible to trigger a pretty significant earthquake, that could cause a pretty fair bit of damage to the crust. but again, i don't think that would qualify as 'Destroying the Earth'.

2.If by Destroy the Earth you mean cause all life on the planet to cease, again, that won't do it. it would probably bring about the grand age of the insects, anthropods, molds, sea sponges, trilobites, dandelions, and scotch broom, but it wouldn't kill off every living thing by a longshot.

3.If by Destroy the Earth you mean cause all *human* life on the planet to cease, again, that won't do it. even without any advance warning, there are people who would survive, and possibly thrive. the earth's pretty big, and even targetting 10,000 H bombs as evenly as possible over the land surface of the earth wouldn't get everyone.

After all, if the Bomb can destroy the Earth, and the Earth is a planet, cannot the Bomb destroy any planet? (of relative size, of course)
this brings us back to the definition, and the intent.

if case one above, we know it won't 'blow up' a whole planet. so that one's out.

if case two or three above, i'm not aware of any other planets that have been determined to have life on them. there probably are, the odds are in that favor, but it's as yet not confirmed.

the next question that arises from all of this is: why would you want to destroy another planet?

BuckTurgidson · Post by **BuckTurgidson** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:13 pm

Okay, fair enough. Let me first say when I say 'destroy' the Earth, I meant that in a more generic sense. Of course it would take a lot more than 10,000 to 'blow the planet up'. How many more? That would be for a nuclear physicist or the like to answer. The point is, setting off x thousands of H-bombs would leave the planet in a vastly different state, no?

To cut directly to the chase, I don't necessarily buy what the 'powers that be' having been selling regarding nukes for the last 50 odd years. The concept of 'overkill' doesn't make a bit of sense to me. (or to many others I suspect) I believe that the Cold War nuclear paranoia of yesteryear and the 'Nuclear Proliferation' of the modern age are elaborate ruses to legitimize the existence of tens of thousands of nuclear devices.

BuckTurgidson · Post by **BuckTurgidson** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:34 pm

Far Rider wrote: Isn't 'War of the Worlds' opening soon? :yh_rotfl

Yes. Am I to infer that you suggest some kind of linkage between my question and the release of Spielbergs next overrated, overhyped 'film'?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:46 pm

BuckTurgidson wrote: Yes. Am I to infer that you suggest some kind of linkage between my question and the release of Spielbergs next overrated, overhyped 'film'?
spielberg has directed some extraordinary films, and some dreadful schlock. i gladly cut him slack on the schlock, so to speak.

saving private ryan was a masterpiece. schindler's list was a masterpiece. amistad was (arguably) a masterpiece. i consider AI to be significant, though not necessarily a masterpiece.

don't mind me, i'm just hijacking the topic.

BuckTurgidson · Post by **BuckTurgidson** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:34 pm

Indeed, "Hot metal will abound the land"