How many nuclear "bombs" would it take to destroy the PLANET

[SiXSwordS]

Let me say that I am not in favor of destroying even a portion of the human population; I tend to get upset when even a minuscule portion is harmed.

But I do get pet-peevish when someone implies that the U.S.—or even the entire collective human population—has enough nuclear warheads to “destroy the planet.”

I found one site that seems to give a general idea of what would really be required, but I want MORE!

I’m not concerned about eradicating humanity; I’m not looking to find what it would take to take out the ocelot and the orangutan; bake the bacteria? BAH; boil the oceans and level the mountains? CHILDS PLAY!

I mean full-on Alderaan, millions-of-voices-crying-out-in-terror-and-being-suddenly-silenced, illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator, earth-shattering KA-BOOM!

I’m somewhat partial to the Moon, so leave that out.

[Morgenstern]

Here - this site actually lets you drop nukes on your neighbors.

[AK84]

IIRC, there is not enough Uranium which could be enriched or converted to Plutonium (Plutonium is obtained from Uranium) on the planet to cause an Alderaan type case.

Note that bad things tend to happen to moons of planets that have just been blasted into little bits.

[Andy_L]

@SiXSwordS

Let me say that I am not in favor of destroying even a portion of the human population; I tend to get upset when even a minuscule portion is harmed.

But I do get pet-peevish when someone implies that the U.S.—or even the entire collective human population—has enough nuclear warheads to “destroy the planet.”

I found one site that seems to give a general idea of what would really be required, but I want MORE!

I’m not concerned about eradicating humanity; I’m not looking to find what it would take to take out the ocelot and the orangutan; bake the bacteria? BAH; boil the oceans and level the mountains? CHILDS PLAY!

I mean full-on Alderaan, millions-of-voices-crying-out-in-terror-and-being-suddenly-silenced, illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator, earth-shattering KA-BOOM!

I’m somewhat partial to the Moon, so leave that out.

The approximate amount of energy required to completely disassemble the Earth (giving every particle of it escape velocity away from every other part) is 1.5 10^39 kgm/s/s (this assumes that the Earth is of constant density, which it’s not, and this ignores all the forces holding the Earth except for gravity, so it ignores the mechanical strength of the Earth’s rocks, etc, but it gives you an idea of the size of the problem). For comparison, the amount of energy produced by the largest nuclear bomb every detonated was about 2 * 10^17 kg*m/s/s

[Velocity]

Probably more nuclear weapons than humans could ever create.
I’m with you; this whole “nukes will destroy the world!” false exaggeration is tremendously irritating. It’s like saying that Pop Rock candy can level Mount Everest.

[Kobal2]

@SixSwordS

I’m somewhat partial to the Moon, so leave that out.

Bububut how will we know our math is right without a field test ?!

[SiXSwordS]

@AK84

IIRC, there is not enough Uranium which could be enriched or converted to Plutonium … on the planet to cause an Alderaan type case.

Let’s assume that we harness a Uranium (or Plutonium) asteroid. (Or one with one of those damn Martians!)

Note that bad things tend to happen to moons of planets that have just been blasted into little bits.

True, but she’s a scrapper!

[Kobal2]

@Velocity

I’m with you; this whole “nukes will destroy the world!” false exaggeration is tremendously irritating. It’s like saying that Pop Rock candy can level Mount Everest.

Nah, it’s just working on different meanings of the word “destroy”. Or “world”. If we threw enough nuclear ash into the atmosphere to end all living life as we know it and kickstart an ice age, “the world” as most people think of it would absolutely be gone. For good.

But it’s like Carlin said - the planet is fine. The *people *are fucked.

[SiXSwordS]

@Morgenstern

Here - this site actually lets you drop nukes on your neighbors.

Thanks for that!

[SiXSwordS]

@Andy_L

The approximate amount of energy required to completely disassemble the Earth (giving every particle of it escape velocity away from every other part) is 1.5 10^39 kgm/s/s

Does this overstate the case? If only the core were left, wouldn’t it be dismantled afterward?

To clarify, if everything down to the mantle were blown away, would the planet maintain cohesivity?

(I recognize that that is not the Alderaan idea, but I am very much curious.)

[Sage_Rat]

Here’s the big page of exploding (or otherwise, wholsale destroying) the planet:

How to destroy the Earth @ Things Of Interest

Blown up

You will need: 25,000,000,000,000 tonnes of antimatter.

Method: This method involves detonating a bomb so big that it blasts the Earth to pieces.

This, to say the least, requires a big bomb. All the explosives mankind has ever created, nuclear or non-, gathered together and detonated simultaneously, would make a significant crater and wreck the planet’s ecosystem, but barely scratch the surface of the planet. There is evidence that in the past, asteroids have hit the Earth with the explosive yield of five billion Hiroshima bombs - and such evidence is difficult to find. It is, in short, insanely difficult to significantly alter the Earth’s structure with explosives. This is not to mention the gravity problem. Just because you blasted the Earth apart doesn’t mean you blasted it apart for good. If you don’t blast it hard enough, the pieces will fall back together again under mutual gravitational attraction, and Earth, like the liquid metal Terminator, will reform from its shattered shards. You have to blow the Earth up hard enough to overcome that attraction.

[Jake]

@Kobal2

Nah, it’s just working on different meanings of the word “destroy”. Or “world”. If we threw enough nuclear ash into the atmosphere to end all living life as we know it and kickstart an ice age, “the world” as most people think of it would absolutely be gone. For good.

But it’s like Carlin said - the planet is fine. The *people *are fucked.

I sure miss that guy…

[skdo23]

@Velocity

It’s like saying that Pop Rock candy can level Mount Everest.

Try mixing it with soda.

[Kobal2]

@Sage_Rat

Here’s the big page of exploding (or otherwise, wholsale destroying) the planet:

How to destroy the Earth @ Things Of Interest

Creating a microscopic black hole is tricky, since one needs a reasonable amount of neutronium, but may possibly be achievable by jamming large numbers of atomic nuclei together until they stick. This is left as an exercise to the reader.

I like the cut of his jib.

[Chronos]

Quoth SiXSwordS:

Does this overstate the case? If only the core were left, wouldn’t it be dismantled afterward?

To clarify, if everything down to the mantle were blown away, would the planet maintain cohesivity?

What cohesivity? Planets aren’t cohesive, or at least, not to any relevant degree. They’re held together by gravity. Blow off all the mantle, and the core will still have gravity.

[Jamicat]

@Velocity

Probably more nuclear weapons than humans could ever create.
I’m with you; this whole “nukes will destroy the world!” false exaggeration is tremendously irritating. It’s like saying that Pop Rock candy can level Mount Everest.

…even with enough Coke?

I did hear that the Nepal people call Mt. Everest after…

Tenzing Norgay’s nick name…Mikey

:o

[Andy_L]

@Andy_L

The approximate amount of energy required to completely disassemble the Earth (giving every particle of it escape velocity away from every other part) is 1.5 10^39 kgm/s/s (this assumes that the Earth is of constant density, which it’s not, and this ignores all the forces holding the Earth except for gravity, so it ignores the mechanical strength of the Earth’s rocks, etc, but it gives you an idea of the size of the problem). For comparison, the amount of energy produced by the largest nuclear bomb every detonated was about 2 * 10^17 kg*m/s/s

Oops. Made a mistake. Make that 2.25 times 10^32 kg*m/s/s. The formula is .6 times the gravitational constant times mass squared divided by radius, by the way.

[Andy_L]

@SiXSwordS

Does this overstate the case? If only the core were left, wouldn’t it be dismantled afterward?

To clarify, if everything down to the mantle were blown away, would the planet maintain cohesivity?

(I recognize that that is not the Alderaan idea, but I am very much curious.)

There would be some transient effects due to the fact that a lot of pressure has disappeared quickly, I suspect, but after a while, you’d have a ball of nickel-iron still there.

[AtomicDog]

@SiXSwordS

Let’s assume that we harness a Uranium (or Plutonium) asteroid. (Or one with one of those damn Martians!)

Ever hear of critical mass?

It would have to be a really small asteroid.

[eltro102]

The gravitational binding energy of the earth is     224000000000000000000000000000000 J

The energy released by the Tsar Bomba is             210000000000000000 J 

You will need                                        1152381000000000 
Tsar Bombas to turn the earth into an expanding cloud of debris

(2.24 x 10^32 J / 2.1 × 10^17 J = 1.152381 x 10 ^ 15)