4 ms·

Are you being facetious? How many people do you think would be killed by a nuclear blast of that size? How many more would die in agonizing pain as the fall-o

Are you being facetious? How many people do you think would be killed by a nuclear blast of that size? How many more would die in agonizing pain as the fall-out spread over the globe? How many more from horrible cancers forty years from now? A volcanic eruption of that size would destroy agriculture and cause most of Africa, much of Asia, much of South America, and probably good chunks of North America and Europe to starve. It would also send ash contaminated with nuclear fall-out into the atmosphere.

umvi 7y ago
No, the nuclear blast would be underground in the remote Pacific away from civilization, just enough to trigger a massive ash cloud to cool the earth.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  I though ocean warming was enough of a problem as-is? Many thermo-nuclear weapons can reach temperatures exceeding one hundred-fifty million degrees. Also, that would probably wipe out the entire Pacific rim with colossal tsunamis. The radioactive fallout would then be carried throughout the world by currents, percolate throughout the ecosystems, and poison every one.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Nukes are not that powerful. See: https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - aeouaoea123123 7y ago
    Well, it turns out ocean warming is not what we thought it was: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5 I'll add: "According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-great-failure-of-the-climate-models https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-great-... Side note, the technology to massively reduce carbon emissions from cargo ships is also emerging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails

umvi 7y ago

No, the nuclear blast would be underground in the remote Pacific away from civilization, just enough to trigger a massive ash cloud to cool the earth.

big_chungus 7y ago
I though ocean warming was enough of a problem as-is? Many thermo-nuclear weapons can reach temperatures exceeding one hundred-fifty million degrees. Also, that would probably wipe out the entire Pacific rim with colossal tsunamis. The radioactive fallout would then be carried throughout the world by currents, percolate throughout the ecosystems, and poison every one.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Nukes are not that powerful. See: https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- aeouaoea123123 7y ago
  Well, it turns out ocean warming is not what we thought it was: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5 I'll add: "According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-great-failure-of-the-climate-models https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-great-... Side note, the technology to massively reduce carbon emissions from cargo ships is also emerging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails