Yahoo.com: US says it has 5,113 nuclear warheads

[Larry]

So, has anyone actually calculated the number of nuclear warheads it would take to "blow up the whole world?" I'm talking about the average yield weapon (for example, how many earths could 5113 warheads blow up?). Don't give me any of this "it depends on how big the bomb is" question avoidance stuff.

We'll assume the most efficient scenario, that they are spread evenly over the total land mass of our planet. You have to get Antartica as well, and the mountains. Oceans don't count. By "blow up," I mean to the point that people could no longer inhabit the land for at least 50 years.

Anyone want to venture a guess?

Well, let's see.

The Hiroshima bomb had a "complete destruction" radius of, what, 5 miles?

"Pi r squared" says that's 78 square miles.

Conversion says that's 203 square km.

Wiki says land area of the Earth is 148 million square km.

Division says that if one nuke will destroy 203 sq km, then it will take 729,000 to do the job.

----------

That said, though, hitting the 5,000 most populous cities on the Earth, while not "destroying the Earth", certainly would hurt a lot.

----------

That said, though, there's a reason for having so many.

The military wants our nuclear arsenal to be survivable.

Meaning that we want to be in a position where, if the Russians were to attempt to blow up all of our warheads while they're in their silos/bunkers/subs/wherever, we want for the small fraction which survived their attack to be a large enough number that Russia would consider it too expensive.

The idea is that we want some hypothetical Russian to say "Comrade, even if our surprise attack destroys 98% of America's warheads, the remaining 2% would still be too many for us to survive.

We want, if NORAD detects 5,000 inbound ICBMs, for the President to have the option of leaving our weapons in their bunkers, and to be confident that a few hundred will survive. We don't want him to be in a position of "Mr. President, you must launch everything right now, or you won't have anything left in 10 minutes."

(Thus cutting down on the possibility of the President being pressured into launching based on a potentially false alarm.)

We want him to be able to retaliate after we've been nuked.

[Predicto]

Actually, I seem to recall that every arms control treaty we've ever signed with the Russians, supposedly required us to reveal to them the exact number of warheads we possess, and their exact locations.

(And they did the same thing to us.)

It's done that way so that each side can verify the other's compliance with the treaty. If the treaty says Russia can have 5,000 warheads, and they tell us "here's where all 5,000 of them are", and then we find one nuke that isn't on the list, then we've caught them breaking the treaty.

(Otherwise, the only way we could catch them cheating was for us to get simultaneous pictures of 5,001 warheads.)

This is basically correct.

As any nuclear strategist can tell you, in the game of nuclear standoff, uncertainty is the real enemy. In other military/diplomatic areas, you want to keep your opponent guessing where your real strength lies and what your real intentions might be.

When it comes to nukes, you want them to know exactly what you have up your sleeve, so that they know that they don't want to mess with it under any circumstances. If they lack information and start guessing, they might guess wrong.... and that could lead to kablooie for all of us.

[IONTOP]

Wiki says land area of the Earth is 148 million square km.

Division says that if one nuke will destroy 203 sq km, then it will take 729,000 to do the job.

You forgot to subtract the Sq. Km of the US 9,826,675 Sq. km

So subtract 48408 for that, which brings it 680592.

Add Texas back into the equation

Add 696,241 which is 3430 warheads.

684022 Warheads to make America the greatest country in the world...

[Skins24]

So, has anyone actually calculated the number of nuclear warheads it would take to "blow up the whole world?" I'm talking about the average yield weapon (for example, how many earths could 5113 warheads blow up?). Don't give me any of this "it depends on how big the bomb is" question avoidance stuff.

We'll assume the most efficient scenario, that they are spread evenly over the total land mass of our planet. You have to get Antartica as well, and the mountains. Oceans don't count. By "blow up," I mean to the point that people could no longer inhabit the land for at least 50 years.

Anyone want to venture a guess?

I'm going to guess at least 200,000.

Over 3000 major cities (pop. 100K+) in the world. Thinking an average of at least 2-3 per (by your definition of "blow up".) So I'm guessing about 10K to take out the major cities. Then another 20-30K to take out the 'burbs of these cities. You're up to 40,000 already just taking care of urbanized areas.

^

much better numbers above

[Spec138]

http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=7949543301579224037&q=nuclear+test+site&hl=en&cd=2&cad=src:pplink&ei=6GbgS9WzNaTqzATfy5z0Bg

Change it to satellite view

[Jumbo]

nothing constructive to add here.

I wish others would choose your behavior more often.

I must now leave this thread as I will more than likely get myself in trouble.

Same comment I made to mcsluggo.

A couple posters should have followed either of your guys' lead.

Gotta nuke somethin'.

I've told this beofre in the 'gate, but back in '70 I ordered a t-shirt from National Lampoon Magazine that had graphics of a white whale with mascara and rouge on and a mushroom cloud appearing over it, while Jesus looked down from the clouds, a halo over his head and his arms outstretched.

The caption read "Nuke the Gay Whales for Christ."

It was a beautiful thing.

I always thought the number of nukes we had back in the day was simply obscene, and I like weapons and giving the military lots of stuff.

[Predicto]

I'm going to guess at least 200,000.

Over 3000 major cities (pop. 100K+) in the world. Thinking an average of at least 2-3 per (by your definition of "blow up".) So I'm guessing about 10K to take out the major cities. Then another 20-30K to take out the 'burbs of these cities. You're up to 40,000 already just taking care of urbanized areas.

Except that the bombs we now have make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like firecrackers. Really, one nice big one in the center of Washington DC is enough. You don't need separate ones to take out Arlington, Alexandria, Silver Spring and Rockville.

[Jumbo]

BTW, I'm keeping all seven of mine no matter what happens in the ME.

[Spec138]

Here's an image of the tsar bomba destruction radius overlayed on a map of Paris. It is the Soviets' 50MT nuke, biggest yet afaik.

Yellow is the fireball diameter, red is the destruction zone.

[Larry]

Except that the bombs we now have make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like firecrackers. Really, one nice big one in the center of Washington DC is enough. You don't need separate ones to take out Arlington, Alexandria, Silver Spring and Rockville.

However, in order to have double the destructive radius, the bomb needs to be eight times as powerful. (The volume of a sphere is proportional to the cube of it's radius.)

Assuming that the average warhead, today, is eight times as powerful, meaning twice the destructive radius, meaning four times the area, meaning one-fourth as many as I calculated.

[Skins24]

Except that the bombs we now have make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like firecrackers. Really, one nice big one in the center of Washington DC is enough. You don't need separate ones to take out Arlington, Alexandria, Silver Spring and Rockville.

Yeah I would agree with you, but he said average yield (for the U.S. that's about 600kt.) To blow up-blow up, you'd still need more than one.....

http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/nukes.htm

More tactical info secion

[Predicto]

However, in order to have double the destructive radius, the bomb needs to be eight times as powerful. (The volume of a sphere is proportional to the cube of it's radius.)

Assuming that the average warhead, today, is eight times as powerful, meaning twice the destructive radius, meaning four times the area, meaning one-fourth as many as I calculated.

Sort of. Except I think that the ground serves as a channel, directing half of the force in a shockwave to the sides in a radius much greater than the actual explosion if it were to be detonated way up in mid air.

That picture Spec138 posted sums it up pretty well.

[Predicto]

Yeah I would agree with you, but he said average yield (for the U.S. that's about 600kt.) To blow up-blow up, you'd still need more than one.....

http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/nukes.htm

More tactical info secion

Sure, if you need to turn everything entirely to glass you will need a few more. If you just want to kill almost everyone, destroy everything of use, irradiate the rest, and bring the handful of survivors back to the Stone Age, then our 5 thousand or so bombs will easily do the trick for China, Russia, and Iran all at the same time.

[Hubbs]

Well, let's see.

The Hiroshima bomb had a "complete destruction" radius of, what, 5 miles?

"Pi r squared" says that's 78 square miles.

Conversion says that's 203 square km.

Wiki says land area of the Earth is 148 million square km.

Division says that if one nuke will destroy 203 sq km, then it will take 729,000 to do the job.

...except the power of today's nuclear weapons is generally much, much greater than that of Hiroshima.

[Midnight Judges]

As of 1998, we spent over $35 billion a year on maintaining our nukes.

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx

I think it's pretty safe to say fewer nukes = fewer dollars to maintain. Long term, our plans to reduce the stockpile will likely reduce costs substantially.

I agree with the guy that said we have better things to spend our money on than Nukes we will absolutely never use.

[Larry]

...except the power of today's nuclear weapons is generally much, much greater than that of Hiroshima.

I keep seeing people make this claim.

I don't believe it's true.

[Predicto]

I keep seeing people make this claim.

I don't believe it's true.

Hmmm.

For comparison, note that the Hiroshima bomb was 12.5 to 15 Kt in size. The Nagasaki bomb was approximately 21 Kt. The U.S. weapons now fall principally within the 100 Kt to 375 Kt range, the average being approximately 250 Kt. And the majority of Russia weapons are 550 Kt; the average size is roughly 400 Kt.

http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html

Our current warheads average 20 times larger than Hiroshima. The Russians' average 30 times larger.

Inigo Montoya would be ashamed of you.

[Larry]

Inigo Montoya would be ashamed of you.

Actually, I think Inigo was wrong about that word, too. I think it does mean what Vizzini thought it meant.

[Hubbs]

Actually, I think Inigo was wrong about that word, too. I think it does mean what Vizzini thought it meant.

What word was it again?

[Predicto]

Actually, I think Inigo was wrong about that word, too. I think it does mean what Vizzini thought it meant.

Well, you have to remember that Spanish was his first language.

[Predicto]

What word was it again?

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Corcaigh]

A musical interlude ...

bW6jnOa1lbE

[Hubbs]

Haha, nicely done, Predicto.

[Skins24]

ve9iNTSGoL4

[mcsluggo]

that was beautiful! <snif> chokes one up... like your kid's first teeball game ...