[Teacher317]

Why does every idiot fall for the idea that one nuke can destroy, nay evaporate, entire countries? They can barely take out entire COUNTIES, and that's only if they are the biggest nukes.

A 25-megaton nuclear airblast only has a viable destruction radius of about 30 miles. After 20 miles, "Residences are moderately damaged. Commercial buildings have sustained minimal damage. Twenty-five percent of the population between the [20 and 30 mi radii rings] are injured, mainly by flying glass and debris. Many others have been injured from thermal radiation -- the heat generated by the blast. The remaining seventy-five percent are unhurt."

A 20 mile radius (1256 sq mi) barely covers the state of Rhode Island (1212 sq mi). Exactly how does that equate to eliminating entire nations?

And again, that is for the biggest nukes. Pakistan has, as its largest nuke, a few 36-KILOton nukes. That means they need 695 such nukes just to make this small impact of a 30-mile radius with an airblast. (Hint: they don't have 695 of them. Estimates say 30-55 total.)

Further note: A 1-megaton surface blast has an effective radius of about 7 miles. The Pakis need about 28 of their top nukes to match just that. Again, the earth doesn't crumble away when these things go off. With a global total of only 5000 megatons, we can barely fully-evaporate Texas (266,000 sq mi), and that's only if we space the nukes out perfectly. The globe won't even have a divot the size of the Grand Canyon if we, as a global community, go all-in against the Lone Star folk.

[cripplecreek]

The Russian’s Tsar Bomba was designed to be a 100 megaton yield but was tested at 50 megatons. Even at 100 megatons it would have only taken out an area the size of a couple of counties. Fallout would be the biggest killer.

[LiveFreeOrDieUSA]

“Why does every idiot...”
_________________________________

You’re talking about an explosion close to the ground. We’re talking about space buddy. The equivalent of hitting the broadside of a barn... with a rock.

[Right Wing Assault]

Why does every idiot fall for the idea that one nuke can destroy, nay evaporate, entire countries?

No one is saying this. They are talking about EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse), which can cause the internal destruction of electronic and electrical devices. Not talking about destroying buildings, houses, people. Read about it here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm>

[Liberty1970]

Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that you have no idea what an EMP strike is.

I see opinions go both ways on the danger, but it looks to me like the ones saying it is a real threat have a little better handle on the facts. I'm hopeful that more equipment would survive than the pessimists think, but worst case, the total loss of electronic infrastructure (or close to it) would create an incredible catastrophe. Coupled with other EMP strikes in nations that would be expected to launch major relief efforts (as in the online book Lights Out) and I would not be surprised to see 50-90% mortality nationwide in the first couple years. After that things would even out and we'd start to claw ourselves back out of the 19th century.

[Sarajevo]

With a global total of only 5000 megatons, we can barely fully-evaporate Texas (266,000 sq mi), and that's only if we space the nukes out perfectly. The globe won't even have a divot the size of the Grand Canyon if we, as a global community, go all-in against the Lone Star folk.

Whoa thar', pahd'nuh. Why don't you point them thar' hypothesis at someone less friendly, say Zimbabwe? ;)

[Centurion2000]

Why does every idiot fall for the idea that one nuke can destroy, nay evaporate, entire countries?

Because EMP has one hell of a lot bigger footprint than heat and blast.