Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Nuclears bombs needed?

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Melic

unread,
Oct 6, 2006, 6:04:11 AM10/6/06
to

With all this North Korea business going on I just had an idea...
But I need to know, how many nuclear bombs are needed to destroy
planet Earth? Anyone?

dt

unread,
Oct 6, 2006, 2:25:11 PM10/6/06
to
Melic wrote:


Heck, you'd probably only need one. Because whoever you used it on is
gonna retaliate against whoever they *think* used it, and then...

DT

error

unread,
Oct 7, 2006, 12:54:02 PM10/7/06
to

Right. First we need to know how much energy will be needed to separate
the Earth and blow its material to infinity. I'll start with the (bad)
assumption that the Earth is held together only by gravitational forces
- ignoring chemical bonds and whatnot.

The gravitational binding energy of a sphere is:

U=[(3/5)*G*M^2]/r

where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the body and r
is its radius (source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy).

The Earth's mass is 5.9742x10^24 kg and it has a mean radius of 6,372 km
(also from Wikipedia)

Hence, you need to apply 2.243x10^32 J or 53.6 zettatons of TNT to
disperse the mass of the Earth against gravitational forces only. Now,
taking the yield of a modern nuclear warhead to be 1.2 megatons of TNT
(MT), we'd need about 4.47x10^19 such bombs.

That's 45 million trillion nukes.

The total destructive capability of every nation on the planet
throughout history is less than a wet fart compared to this. And I've
ignored chemical bonding energy. And to do this, you'd need to explode
them all at the centre of the planet.

Nukes are not a viable option for blowing up the Earth. It's a sad state
of affairs when we can't even melt a fraction of a millimetre of the
crust of our miserable little planet with our most powerful weapons.

Bring on the singularity weapons. I say collapse the Earth into the size
of a grain of sand.

Melic

unread,
Oct 13, 2006, 6:04:47 AM10/13/06
to

> Nukes are not a viable option for blowing up the Earth. It's a sad state
> of affairs when we can't even melt a fraction of a millimetre of the
> crust of our miserable little planet with our most powerful weapons.

If that is truth then all those pacifist groups anti nuclear weapons are
all a bunch of liers,according to them there are enough nuclear
weapons in the our world to destroy it fifty times or so. I don't point
to a particular group, all anti arment groups usually point out at this.


--
Email:sber...@zy1.arg
Decrypt with Caesar ROT13

Ben

unread,
Oct 13, 2006, 11:52:30 AM10/13/06
to
Well, destroying humanity and destroying the earth are totally different
things. It wouldn't take too many nukes to do serious damage to human
life on the planet. But to actually blow it up? That takes work.

error

unread,
Oct 13, 2006, 3:00:17 PM10/13/06
to
Ben wrote:
> Well, destroying humanity and destroying the earth are totally different
> things. It wouldn't take too many nukes to do serious damage to human
> life on the planet. But to actually blow it up? That takes work.

Exactly. They don't realise how supremely difficult this task is. If
only they'd stop complaining and lend a hand towards our supreme goal -
all that whining must take a lot of energy. We could sure use dedicated
manpower like that. Dunno what for, but manpower is always useful. Hell,
we could use them in the space program to build and launch a very
long-term asteroid diversion program.

We knock a few asteroids off the Kuiper belt in carefully designed
trajectories so that they spend a few thousand years stealing momentum
from Jupiter. After they have all spend a couple of millenia whizzing
around the solar system, they will have all built up a significant
amount of momentum. They will then come slamming into our miserable ball
of rock from different directions (careful calculations needed).
Hopefully, that will at least split the crust, though it sadly won't do
a Death Star on us. It's the best thing I can think of given our sadly
lacking technological base.

dt

unread,
Oct 13, 2006, 5:38:19 PM10/13/06
to
error wrote:

Maybe if we could get all the whiners to whine in unison, we could set
up a sonic resonance that would cause all the atoms in the planet to run
screaming from every other atom.

I know just the whiny, nasaly tone that would do it.

DT

Pete Watters

unread,
Oct 14, 2006, 11:55:05 PM10/14/06
to
dt writes:

alt.zen?

Pete

--
"No more serious thinking until someone shows us some cash." -- absfg motto

ShelShokT

unread,
Nov 21, 2006, 7:28:05 PM11/21/06
to

"Pete Watters" <eldu...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eldupree-E9A0D7...@news.west.cox.net...

Hey, we wanna destroy the earth, not the solar system.


--
Wally

Life will continue to suck until somebody discovers the Undo key.
-
Spider Robinson


error

unread,
Nov 22, 2006, 12:29:35 PM11/22/06
to

Overkill? What's an overkill?

0 new messages