[Rugoz]

Every country is less safe.

The fact that there was a conventional arms race in the cold war kind of proves that nobody fully believed in nuclear deterrence between two nuclear powers. Under MAD no rational actor has an incentive to launch a nuclear first strike on another nuclear power. Further military invasion is not the only way to defeat another country. A blockade would have defeated Japan sooner or later, the Soviet Union collapsed without NATO invading, etc.

I would have selected nuclear powers are made safer if I had trust in mankind's ability to handle nuclear weapons responsibly for the remainder of history. I think that is rather unlikely.

[AFAIK]

@Political Interest,
Another scenario is two nuclear powers going to war and holding back due to the fear of provoking a nuclear response. So the invasion and occupation doesn't happen because the party that is in a position to invade doesn't want to risk it.

[Suntzu]

The bombs dropped on Japan were about 20 kt. Most modern warheads are around 40 kt. and much cleaner in comparison to the crude bombs dropped on Japan. Japan has one of the longest lifespans on the planet, evidence of the effects of the atomic bombs.

[XogGyux]

Most modern warheads are around 40 kt

Modern warheads are in the range of megaton which is 1000x more.

Japan has one of the longest lifespans on the planet, evidence of the effects of the atomic bombs.

Are you implying that longer lifespan is a consequence of atomic bombs by any chance?

[anasawad]

@Suntzu
Modern warheads are 40 KT ?
The Tsar bomb is 50 MT. Thats 50000 KT
The average nuclear warhead in the US arsenal varries between 1 Megaton to 15 Megaton.
The Russian arsenal carry from 1 Megaton to 50 Megaton.
A 50 Megaton nuclear warhead is sufficient to wipe out entire countries in a moment, and flood entire continents with radiation.
And they're no where near being cleaner.

EDIT:
Infact i just checked, and it turns out that not only there is the Tsar bomb which is the largest bomb to ever detonate.
There were reports of other projects in Russia including one that reaches 100 Megaton.
A bomb with this size can blow up Europe, or the US or China or half of Russia atleast.
And would have a nuclear fallout equal to over 25% of the nuclear fallout of all previous detonations since the invention of nuclear weapons. (combined)

Now if you have nations with these types of bombs, and they used them. Its not a city thats gone.
Its the entire world either by the explosion or by the nuclear winter following.
And if Russia worked on that in the 80s. Then both Russia and the US most probably already have such bombs, and possibly even China.

Japan has one of the longest lifespans on the planet, evidence of the effects of the atomic bombs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_o ... man_health

[Suntzu]

Modern warheads are in the range of megaton which is 1000x more.

Are you implying that longer lifespan is a consequence of atomic bombs by any chance?

No they are not. Megaton warheads went out with MIRV. We all know that a nuclear blast turns the area into a wasteland for generations.

[Rugoz]

There were reports of other projects in Russia including one that reaches 100 Megaton.
A bomb with this size can blow up Europe, or the US or China or half of Russia atleast.

That's nonsense. How hard can it be to google stuff before posting?

[anasawad]

Nuclear material would take around 25 million years to become harmless.
If it existed in large concentrations, i.e like in a nuclear war. Then yes, it'll turn into a wasteland for not just generations but for millenias.

And no, they're not gone. They're in both countries arsenals.
Here is a list of US nuclear weapons
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Wea ... bombs.html
Look at the ones meassuring in Megatons and see how many produced in each type.
The production varies between some 50-100 KT. All the way to 25 Megaton.


@Rugoz
I did. A 100 Megaton bomb can take out an entire country easily and would easily flood an entire continent with its direct fallout. And its practically impossible to survive a nuclear fallout in the direct sorroundings of the explosion.
So, yes. It can destroy an entire continent with the size of Europe. Or the US or China or a good part of Russia.


EDIT: A Tsar bomb for example exploding would have an 8 KM initial explosion radius.
Along with up 70 KM radius of severe to complete destruction.
And thats without counting the electromagnatic shock and radiaactive fallout, and without counting the nuclear dust which is the fallout that usually is the deadliest part of a nuclear weapon.

[Rugoz]

I did. A 100 Megaton bomb can take out an entire country easily and would easily flood an entire continent with its direct fallout. And its practically impossible to survive a nuclear fallout in the direct sorroundings of the explosion.
So, yes. It can destroy an entire continent with the size of Europe. Or the US or China or a good part of Russia.

No you did not. You're a pathological liar.

[anasawad]

EDIT: A Tsar bomb for example exploding would have an 8 KM initial explosion radius.
Along with up 70 KM radius of severe to complete destruction.
And thats without counting the electromagnatic shock and radiaactive fallout, and without counting the nuclear dust which is the larger portion of the fallout that usually is the deadliest part of a nuclear weapon.

No you did not. You're a pathological liar.

Or that you're an idiot who don't understand that there are several elements that are counted to meassure the level of destruction when talking about a nuclear weapon.

A nuclear fallout from a Tsar bomb alone can cover, under the right conditions, can cover up to a 1500 KM radius around the explosion.

[anasawad]

Although simplistic fireball calculations predicted the fireball would impact the ground, the bomb's own shock wave reflected back and prevented this. The fireball reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane and was seen almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres (40 mi) high (over seven times the height of Mount Everest), which meant that the cloud was above the stratosphere and well inside the mesosphere when it peaked. The base of the cloud was 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide. All buildings in the village of Severny (both wooden and brick), located 55 kilometres (34 mi) from ground zero within the Sukhoy Nos test range, were destroyed. In districts hundreds of kilometers from ground zero wooden houses were destroyed, stone ones lost their roofs, windows and doors; and radio communications were interrupted for almost one hour. One participant in the test saw a bright flash through dark goggles and felt the effects of a thermal pulse even at a distance of 270 kilometres (170 mi). The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62 mi) away from ground zero. A shock wave was observed in the air at Dikson settlement 700 kilometres (430 mi) away; windowpanes were partially broken to distances of 900 kilometres (560 mi). Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage at even greater distances, breaking windows in Norway and Finland. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth. Its seismic body wave magnitude was about 5 to 5.25.[8] The energy yield was around 8.1 on the Richter scale but, since the bomb was detonated in air rather than underground, most of the energy was not converted to seismic waves. The TNT equivalent of the 50 Mt test could be represented by a cube of TNT 312 meters (1023 feet) on a side, approximately the height of the Eiffel Tower.

Focus on the highlighted parts. And on the fact that this was a prototype of 50 MT bomb not the full bomb.

[Rugoz]

Before you dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. Here's a link for you:

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

[anasawad]

And you can look at the same site and see simillar numbers, just without the size of the fallout, just the initial blast.

A 100 Megaton nuke would have a fallout enough to destroy an entire continent with the size of Europe or a country with the size of the US.
Or if you prefer more accurate words, just kill everything in it.
Specially since it reaches the upper layers of the atmosphere, which is why everyone who has some brains warns about a nuclear war because a nuke that reaches the upper atmosphere will have severe fallout effects and would result in nuclear winter. Which would literally destroy or kill everything.

Do yourself a favor and try reading about nuclear fallout and why the fallout and following effects are responsible for the larger portion of destruction.

[XogGyux]

@anasawad
The Tsar Bomba was actually detonated in russian territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
They took precautions to limit fallout.
Though very devastating, this device would not be responsible for the destruction of a a large country (such as united states) with a single device. By destruction I mean >60% of population instantly dead, >60% of economy wiped out.

[anasawad]

@XogGyux
I just posted an sigment about the effects when the blew up a prototype of 50 Megaton load.
And it had these effects.
The original one was supposed to reach 100 Megaton, which would result in much more severe nuclear dust and radiation fallout.
As said in the previous post. Under the right conditions, like the wind for example. The nuclear dust (i.e the fallout) would cover up to 1500km radius.
Which if you looked at Europe, that would be around half of it. And this is without counting radiation and the electromagnatic shock.
And if the device was detonated on the ground not in air, then it would also cause earth quacks which would result in even more destruction since those travel much farther.


EDIT: More the one device of such size for example would be a catastrophe and yes it would kill the majority in Europe and the US and the world in general.
Since a nuclear device above 20 Megaton would send dust in the upper atmosphere ( i.e above 20 KM into the air).
If we're talking about the blast solely, then the number needed to cover the entire US with the blast would be somewhere around 250-300 devices. Which is more than enough to start a minor nuclear winter( which would mean pretty much mass extinction of most life forms specially the larger ones. Humans are among those) , that if we counted the US didn't send nukes as well.

The Kuwait war with the oil wells being burned up showed how disastrous it could be and those didn't even reach the upper atmosphere nor did it send up significant amount.

[foxdemon]

I had to vote 'other'. Too much is left assumed with a question that simple.

It is obviously the case that these weapons are enormously destructive, such that their use is impractical beyond deterrence, a threat for mutual destruction.

Whether nations are safer or less safe depends on what sort of arrangements the nuclear powers have agreed to among themselves to prevent a crisis that might lead to Armageddon. The Americans and Russians eventually set up a line of direct communication between their national leaders to avoid accidental war. After all, nuclear war is very fast. Warning times are short and the war itself would be over in an hour or two.

So if such arrangements exist, then it might make us safer as nuclear weapons make Industrial Age total war obsolete. However, if no such arrangements exist, then the danger of mistakes and misunderstandings is very great.

Then there is the issue of isolated states such as N Korea, whom are difficult to reason with, and the problem of non state actors securing nuclear weapons, and what can happen if a nuclear state collapses. If nukes could be restricted to stable nations who can talk to each other, nukes might make us safer but rogue states, non state actors and collapsed nuclear states show that the existence of these weapons creates less controllable dangers.

Yet, the technology exists. Everyone now knows it is possible to split the atom and the result is a powerful bomb. Is there really any going back?

[foxdemon]

@XogGyux
I just posted an sigment about the effects when the blew up a prototype of 50 Megaton load.
And it had these effects.
The original one was supposed to reach 100 Megaton, which would result in much more severe nuclear dust and radiation fallout.
As said in the previous post. Under the right conditions, like the wind for example. The nuclear dust (i.e the fallout) would cover up to 1500km radius.
Which if you looked at Europe, that would be around half of it. And this is without counting radiation and the electromagnatic shock.
And if the device was detonated on the ground not in air, then it would also cause earth quacks which would result in even more destruction since those travel much farther.


EDIT: More the one device of such size for example would be a catastrophe and yes it would kill the majority in Europe and the US and the world in general.
Since a nuclear device above 20 Megaton would send dust in the upper atmosphere ( i.e above 20 KM into the air).
If we're talking about the blast solely, then the number needed to cover the entire US with the blast would be somewhere around 250-300 devices. Which is more than enough to start a minor nuclear winter( which would mean pretty much mass extinction of most life forms specially the larger ones. Humans are among those) , that if we counted the US didn't send nukes as well.

The Kuwait war with the oil wells being burned up showed how disastrous it could be and those didn't even reach the upper atmosphere nor did it send up significant amount.

Anasawad, have you heard of the Vela incident?

[anasawad]

@foxdemon
Heard about the claimed testing, but never thought of reading about it or looking it up.
Doing so now.
Why ?

Ok. After some reading, didn't finish it but what got my attention is that the radioactive fallout though slight and didn't have much if any notable effects but managed to reach all the way up to Australia due to the wind.
That pretty much confirms what i stated and what many scientists state and what the entire concept of a nuclear winter is based on.
That the fallout usually cover large and extended range of surface.
Thats why i said that the fallout from a 100 megaton nuclear weapon specially if was detonated on the ground rather than an airbust bomb would be able to destroy much if not most of Europe or the US or China or good parts of Russia and same as for other countries.
The amount of the fallout which is highly radioactive is far larger in a ground explosion and if accompanied by strong enough wind and weather patterns like for examples the ones Europe has.
It would spread into most of Europe. And thus destroy it.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I voted that nukes make all countries less safe. The consequences from nukes far outweigh the safety that comes from being unable to attack each other. Especially since countries without nukes and without any treaties with nuclear capable countries are bullied by the nuclear powers (USA and to some extent Russia). I just don't think that they make us safer.

I do think that they are necessary to have, because we need to be able to defend ourselves against intergalactic imperialism.

[XogGyux]

I do think that they are necessary to have, because we need to be able to defend ourselves against intergalactic imperialism.

What do you mean with intergalactic imperialism?