The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-20-2004, 06:22 AM
Starguard Starguard is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 683
what would happen if all the world nuclear weapons were detonated all at once

Try to imagine if someone were able to gather all of the worlds nuclear and atomic weapons, move them all to one spot on earth, then detionate them all at the same time (every last one). What do you think would happen?

1) Would the blast crack the earth focing it to split in half or shatter to pieces?

2) Would the blast force the earth to shift to the point where it would be blown clean out of its orbit?

3) Would it just leave a VERY big hole killing only a small portion of life on earth?



What do you think would happen?
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-20-2004, 07:34 AM
nocturnal_tick nocturnal_tick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Last time I studied the Cold War we were told that there were enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire earth several hundred times over. I don't have any figures (who would have thought that would be hard to find out) as to total megatons but most likely a simultaneous explosion will pretty much obliterate everything, except maybe a few stray particles on the other side.


So, are you planning a fun night out or something?
  #3  
Old 05-20-2004, 08:25 AM
kitarak kitarak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Well it's certainly not going to crack the earth in half - that's not how things work. The earth isn't just held together like a normal physical object - most of what holds it together is it's own gravity. But could all the nuclear weapons blow it up? A quick back of the envelope calculation gives that one needs about 10^53 joules of energy
  #4  
Old 05-20-2004, 08:26 AM
kitarak kitarak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Argh. Sorry. Accidentally hit submit reply too early (silly keyboard). A more complete post will follow shortly.
  #5  
Old 05-20-2004, 08:44 AM
kitarak kitarak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Well it's certainly not going to crack the earth in half - that's not how things work. The earth isn't just held together like a normal physical object - most of what holds it together is it's own gravity. But could all the nuclear weapons blow it up? A quick back of the envelope calculation gives that one needs about 10^53 joules of energy to merely overcome the earth's gravitational binding energy (let alone the force needed to actually break things apart). I'm neglecting the effect of the earth's rotation there, but it should be about the right order of magnitude.

That's about 2.5 * 10^37 megatons. Even before I look up some more accurate figures, I can tell you right now that this is way out of the league of the current nuclear arsenal. Maximum yield of a nuclear weapon built so far is about 50 Megatons. In 2002 there were about 40,000 nuclear weapons in the world (according to wikipedia). If we assume those were all 50 Megaton weapons (a gross exageration), that gives us a total of 2 million, or 2 * 10^6 megatons. I don't think we'll be blowing the earth up any time soon.

That amount of energy could concievably nudge the earth I guess. Another back of the envelope calculation gives that if you could convert all that energy into kinetic energy of the earth, you'd get a whopping great big velocity change of... 0.0028 m/s. We're probably not going anywhere just yet unless someone is hiding a spindizzy in their back pocket.

The idea that we could 'destroy the world' isn't entirely wrong though. You could do some seriously bad things with those nukes, and probably scorch the surface of the world. It just wouldn't do all that much damage to the bulk of the planet beneath the surface.

Anyway, if we ignore the (numerous) technical difficulties associated with setting off a lot of nukes in one place (e.g. if you don't get the timing exact, they're going to fratricide and you'll only get a small fraction of them actually going off), you're still going to have Bad Things happening if you set them all off. There'll be a big crater of course, and a lot of crap (much of it radioactive) ejected into the atmosphere. Expect massive climate changes, radiation poisoning, and general unpleasantness. Probably wouldn't be the end of life as we know it though. 'fraid I don't have a calculation to back this one up.

If it's all the same with you, I'd rather not test my predictions though.
  #6  
Old 05-20-2004, 09:03 AM
dantheman dantheman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by nocturnal_tick
Last time I studied the Cold War we were told that there were enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire earth several hundred times over.
Actually, I think what most of us were taught was that there were enough nukes to destroy all of the life on Earth several times over, not the planet itself.
  #7  
Old 05-20-2004, 09:18 AM
Skelji Skelji is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
The simultaneous detonation of all nuclear weapons on Earth would not have near the destructive impact as everyone in China jumping off their chairs in unison.
  #8  
Old 05-20-2004, 09:24 AM
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 17,691
What if everyone in China detonated a nucler weapon as they jumped off their chairs? And would the explosion be loud enough to be heard in the United States?
  #9  
Old 05-20-2004, 09:33 AM
Amp Amp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou
What if everyone in China detonated a nucler weapon as they jumped off their chairs? And would the explosion be loud enough to be heard in the United States?
And would the explosion echo?
  #10  
Old 05-20-2004, 10:09 AM
clayton_e clayton_e is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Plattsburgh, NY
Posts: 4,385
Only if it were falsely attributed to a duck.


And even if the earth were "blown apart" all the nukes were put in one pile and detonated at the same time, wouldn't gravity just pick up the pieces and Earth II would just reconstitute itself, w/ or w/o life?

And any non-earth-blowing-apart explosion would leave some life to restart that process. Bacteria, life near sea vents, life locked deep down in the soil someplace not directly hit etc. would just start it all over.
__________________
Buy Whizzo butter.
  #11  
Old 05-20-2004, 10:14 AM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
In addition, if we put all the nukes in one place and lit a very big fuse all the whump would be focused in one very unlucky place. Life, even human life would almost certainly survive.

When you see calculations about there being enough firepower to kill everyone six point three times it presumes that the bombs are all detonated in the right place.
  #12  
Old 05-20-2004, 10:32 AM
Epimetheus Epimetheus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Many of the older nuclear weapons are inoperative. Russia had the 50 megaton hydrogen bomb(there was, AFAIK, only one), I think the "biggest" bomb we had was 32 megatons. I am not entirely sure if it is in operation or not. It might even have been dismantled. Much of the aresenal of the US was. Many of the nuclear bombs we have in operation are tactical nukes. These things are small, made to take out small military outposts or destroy bunkers. These are generally no more than 1 megaton, oftentimes less. These newer and smaller bombs are much cleaner, meaning they are less radioactive.

For the most part, big Uranium based nuclear missles are over. The damage Uranium does when it is broken down is, I think, too much for us to handle. IIRC, Uranium breaks down into a radioactive Strontium isotope which replaces the Calcium in human's bones. This is what causes the radiation sickness. Cleaner bombs would probably only cause cancer.

Now, I can't speak for India, Korea, China and the smaller nuclear countries. They probably have the dirtier, easier to manufacture atomic weapons. I am sure Pakistan and India's weapons are very dirty, and relatively weak. Their blast range is probably only a bit over a mile. All that radioactive dirt flying in the air is the major problem.

I am not personally convinced that all the nuclear weapons can destroy all of human life. I think the claim that it can is merely sensationalistic, and for that reason it persists.
  #13  
Old 03-24-2011, 01:57 PM
Aezur Aezur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
"I am not personally convinced that all the nuclear weapons can destroy all of human life. I think the claim that it can is merely sensationalistic, and for that reason it persists. "

Well it seems ignorance can indeed be a good thing sometimes, imagine if all those dudes during the cold war thought the same way
  #14  
Old 03-24-2011, 03:34 PM
twickster twickster is offline
Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 38,266
Mod note

Welcome to the SDMB, Aezur.

The person who wrote that did so seven years ago. If you'd like to start a new thread on this topic, do so in Great Debates (the pros and cons of nuclear weapons/power) or General Question (what would actually happen).

I'm going to close this thread, though.

twickster, MPSIMS moderator
Closed Thread



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.