braymoore
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2013
- Messages
- 173
- Reaction score
- 63
- Location
- Rio de Janeiro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Interesting video, I have to believe the majority of those nuke explosions were under ground or we would all be glowing but still, kind of scary stuff.
So this is supposed to be the world nuclear explosion count up to the year 1998. Now I have no clue if this is fact and I would like the opinions of others that have more knowledge of this subject. I'm not going to lie, I would have thought that Germany would have had a couple of nuclear tests but according to the map that isn't ture. So I'm a little skeptical on the whole video. All in all there were 2,053 nuclear explosions up to the date of 1998. Another issue I have with this is that if there were really that many explosions wouldn't many parts of the earth be radioactive? Thoughts and opinions.
Yeah I know right! But it would have to be underground or underwater. Because over 1000 tested nukes in America. It doesn't really make sense.
To put it briefly:
1. Yes it is accurate.
2. No, Germany does not, and never has had nuclear weapons.
3. Some of these places that received high amounts of nuclear testing are somewhat hazardously radioactive, but it is limited to the relatively small confines of their testing grounds. However most (the vast majority) are relatively safe for a human to venture into unprotected. Even Bikini Atoll is fine to visit with normal clothing and you could probably eat the fish and fruit on the island without adding too much of a health risk.
4. People have very unrealistic expectations of how nuclear weapons work, and even less for radiation. Generally speaking the immediate risk from nuclear radiation (your ionizing radiation) by the rule of seven, that is radiation decays at a corresponding factor of 10 for every measurement of seven starting at one hour after the detonation. So after seven hours you get a 90% reduction from where it was at the first hour. You can extrapolate this rule successfully for a reasonable period of time and within a few weeks most places would be safe to travel in unprotected. There are a million other variables that nuclear nerds on this board could probably tell you about, but that is a good general outline.
So much for "mutually assured destruction" huh
I mean, if you are loosing thousands of nuclear weapons terrible things are going to happen. A thermal blast over a city is still a thermal blast, and you are still talking about a tremendous amount of very deadly radiation for an inhumane amount of time (weeks or months in shelters will generally result in killing a boat-load of your people) not to mention series of other myriad effects that happen with nuclear detonations on that scale. It's bad in a very particular unique way, just not the caricature it's often portrayed as.
Interesting video, I have to believe the majority of those nuke explosions were under ground or we would all be glowing but still, kind of scary stuff.
When I was a kid we were taught that nuked cities would be uninhabitable for thousands of years. Apparently that is wrong and man kind would survive a nuke war and it is not the end of everything. I hope we never test this though.
When I was a kid we were taught that nuked cities would be uninhabitable for thousands of years.
Interesting video, I have to believe the majority of those nuke explosions were under ground or we would all be glowing but still, kind of scary stuff.
When I was a kid we were taught that nuked cities would be uninhabitable for thousands of years. Apparently that is wrong and man kind would survive a nuke war and it is not the end of everything. I hope we never test this though.
When I was a kid we were taught that nuked cities would be uninhabitable for thousands of years. Apparently that is wrong and man kind would survive a nuke war and it is not the end of everything. I hope we never test this though.
I think the current residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have something to say about that.
What I don't get is why there were so many nuclear tests. Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I can understand maybe up to 20 tests. Beyond that is insanity. If they didn't understand what was going on by test # 20, then they should have thought about doing something else.
Over 1000. And the treaty banning nuclear testing appears to be worthless. Oh that's right, we're America. Our rules apply to everyone except us.
They were trying new warheads for the tests. There are probably over 100 different types of nuclear warheads in America alone. They wanted to see if/how they would work.
So this is supposed to be the world nuclear explosion count up to the year 1998. Now I have no clue if this is fact and I would like the opinions of others that have more knowledge of this subject. I'm not going to lie, I would have thought that Germany would have had a couple of nuclear tests but according to the map that isn't ture. So I'm a little skeptical on the whole video. All in all there were 2,053 nuclear explosions up to the date of 1998. Another issue I have with this is that if there were really that many explosions wouldn't many parts of the earth be radioactive? Thoughts and opinions.
What I don't get is why there were so many nuclear tests. Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I can understand maybe up to 20 tests. Beyond that is insanity. If they didn't understand what was going on by test # 20, then they should have thought about doing something else.
Over 1000. And the treaty banning nuclear testing appears to be worthless. Oh that's right, we're America. Our rules apply to everyone except us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?