Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's convincing, until you realize that the author is treating nukes as just really big bombs. If he's only looking at the area of total destruction, then he should be counting all explosives, since that's ignoring where the real deadliness of nuclear weapons lies.

First off, the heat wave let off will be lethal at a much larger radius than where it will cause total destruction. Total destruction means that everything is gone: buildings, cars, people, anything that was there will be unrecognizable/gone. For a nuke, this is a very small part of the destruction caused. The fallout and radiation will carry much much farther than that. If you tried, you could probably cover the entire earth with fallout with fewer than 100 strategically placed nukes.

It's not beyond belief that ten thousand would both cover the earth with concentrated radiation, and cause enough fallout to create nuclear winter. Volcanic explosions are often enough to affect sunsets on the other side of the world. If we exploded nuclear weapons all over the world, there'd be enough debris in the air to block out the sun, causing a significant temperature drop, and killing plants around the world. Scratch the global food supply, and we're all toast.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: