Yup, and senoy admitted that it’d take millennia. If you want something done, take the time to do it right.
And, this is what we get from our education system.
No, moderate damage from a 10 kiloton bomb is around 1 mile.
A 10 Megaton bomb would destroy the entire New York metro area, or at least the best part of it.
Apparently 100 nuclear explosives set off in one region would have some pretty world devastating consequences:https://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-render-earth-uninhabitable
Outlaw human birth control … y’all will eat everything else and then die yourselves …
We love aardwolves now? …
The problem is that average nuclear warhead today is closer to 500kt than anything else on that page. According to their own calculation, they would need 336,000 weapons of this size to “destroy” land area.
The FAS estimates that there are about 14,500 nuclear weapons in existence today.
We we are short by 20X.
Nukes are not even close. You need astronomical entity or go home.
How does a nuclear warhead know what are the best parts of the city? Is it reading Yelp or something?
Yelp?
You are bad reviews.
Let there be light.
Barack Obama wants to know if it’s possible to destroy the entire planet?
Man, maybe the Republicans were right about him after all.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Ask George Carlin:
There’s a number to call to let them know when the earth is destroyed: +44 115 09Ω 4127 
The Federation for American Scientists estimate gives some more detail and has total estimated world inventory at 14,485 in early 2018. The Global Zero link used interesting rounding rules (or slightly older data to be fair) but they are at least in the right ball park. Of that, ~9335 are in military stockpiles with ~3,750 deployed and ready for use right away as opposed to being in central stockpiles requiring shipping to delivery systems. The other near five thousand are retired but not yet dismantled. It’s probably worth assuming that not all the retired warheads can be returned to service quickly.
The Gizmodo link is from 2012. If you look at my cite, the chart from FAS shows that being about the number of warheads for the time the story was published. Those retired weapons really are being dismantled. Estimates date pretty quickly as a result. If the US and Russia can keep up the pace captured in that period, the number goes down by over 1k warheads a year.
I think the explosion route is flawed … we’d have to kill every last cell over all the land area … just one bacterium survives and the world will be full of life again in short order … we’re vaporizing rocks and soil down five or ten feet … not enough by a wide margin … and all these explosion would have to be simultaneous, just one little gap the size of a cell or even a spore and we’ve failed …
Smacking the Earth with something will take a fairly large something … and it’s been over four billion years since this happened …
We need something that boils away of the surface layer say down 30 or 40 km … or a full crust turnover … perhaps something that eliminates the magnetic field …
How about a great big particle accelerator that allows us to make a black hole in the Swiss Alps, turn the Earth into neutron degenerate matter … with luck we can cause a pair-instability supernova … see if we can’t bring about the Big Rip … winking the entire universe out of existence would certainly work …
Well, there is also the Stavromula Beta dilemma. I mean, we can only assume that Arthur and Agrajag have not yet resolved the dilemma based on the fact that the Earth exists, because once they do, Earth will be erased for billions of years into the past in order to complete the bypass on schedule.
I think you’re all thinking too hard about this. All we need to do is to turn our atmosphere into something similar to Venus with its runaway greenhouse effect. That’d take care of land and sea. We’ve arguably already started this process so we probably don’t have to do much. I was going to suggest bringing CFCs back but we wouldn’t want to wipe out too many humans before the runaway properly took hold.
Earth’s greenhouse can’t run away as far as Venus’s. We’re further from the Sun, and have a lot less volatiles.
It takes a lot of work just to sterilize a space probe. And you want to sterilize the entire earth?? Not a chance, unless you move the whole planet closer to the Sun, or build a space mirror several times the size of the Earth and focus it on the Earth.
There’s no need to add energy to the Earth all at once. Why not do it gradually and shake it apart?
I propose the destruction of the Earth using a network of telegeodynamic oscillators.
Do we have to outlast those other pesky species? Because, if not, it seems to me all we have to do is to sit down and roll our thumbs… for a looooooong time…!
Mother Nature has quite a few times made fairly good attempts to remove life from the planet
even as far as devastating life in the oceans, and yet life remains.
She has smashed it, flamed it, froze it, greenhoused it, massively poisoned it etc etc.
I highly doubt man has the capacity to do more
Discussion of the effects of detonating a nuclear bomb in the Marianas Trench:
(Short version: Life in the Challenger Deep would be gone. Radioactive contamination in the ocean might cause a bit of trouble. But by and large, the planet would barely notice.)