3 ms·

Why are people going to compare to a nuke? Because the media uses those terms. Maybe we need to suggest alternatives. Also since 1945, had there been just a si

Why are people going to compare to a nuke? Because the media uses those terms. Maybe we need to suggest alternatives. Also since 1945, had there been just a single size of nukes? I may not have a sense of how big a Hiroshima nuke was as compared to a 1975 nuke vs a 2022 nuke. Just saying ... a better comparison (which I don't know as I am not a subject expert) could be developed. Maybe "enough energy to melt 1980 Antarctica" or some other similar scary comparison. Maybe "10 times the energy of hurricane Katrina" Edited the last 3 words

Jabbles 5y ago
But those other examples suffer from the same flaw that no one has any intuitive understanding of how big those events are. - Tonga eruption was 1e7 tons - Hurricane Katrina was 1e10 tons - Melting Antarctica is 1e12 tons (afaict)
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  Hurricane Katrina was quite recent, it devastated a major American city and had all sorts of bad effects in lots of places, people have an intuitive understanding of how big Hurricane Katrina was - be aware of course that intuitive understandings are not precise.
  - Ratiofarmings 5y ago
    As a non-American, I have no idea what kind of damage hurricane Katrina did. As far as I am concerned, there was some wind. Enough to make international news, but that's about it. But when I see "comparable to a nuke" at least I know immediately that this is a major event. A hurricane, powerful as it may be, is harder to grasp for a comparison.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      >As a non-American, I have no idea what kind of damage hurricane Katrina did As a non-American, I do. I agree comparable to a nuke is better, I was just commenting that Katrina for a large number of people is quite different than the other examples and does convey an intuitive understanding. While noting that intuitive understandings are imprecise.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The math might check out but that's about it. Comparing a storm to an explosion is completely asinine because the mechanism by which the energy is dispensed is completely different. Katrina did squat to the city except tear up some roofs and windows. The water deposited just so happened to breach some flood control stuff and then all the damage was a result of everything being immersed in floodwater. A storm releases energy in the form of find and droplets of liquid being accelerated by gravity and flung around by said wind. An explosion releases a pressure wave. Comparing energy released in storms to explosions is like saying a leafblower can push harder than a dude with a sledge because it has more horsepower. Neither comparison serves any useful purpose.
  - occamrazor 5y ago
    Hurricane Katrina made very little damage directly, as an effect of the energy of the wind. Almost all the damage was caused by the flood, which in turn turn was a consequence of the levees failing. It doesn’t make much sense to compare the energy released by Katrina to that of the Tonga eruption.
- eutectic 5y ago
  I calculate melting the antarctic ice sheet to be more like 2e15 tons (ignoring the heat required to bring it to the melting point).
fps-hero 5y ago
Nuke I’m personally a huge fan that the most destructive device in human history can can be thrown around in conversation simply, as a four letter word, and as simply as one would refer to a “book” as being a good source inspiration, or “coke” as being a delicious beverage. Yes, a “nuke” can be inspirationally delicious comparison for destruction. Perhaps comparisons to “nukes” should be reserved to their “human impact”, and not simply their “big boom” factor. I’m sure victims of nuclear weapons, and unfortunate locals of nuclear test sites would agree. Say, it’s likely more accurate to say “That TikTok went nuclear”, than any comparisons of an explosion or eruption to a “nuke”.
- tigerlily 5y ago
  It's arguable however that books and coke (both varieties) have throughout human history been more destructive than nukes.
zepearl 5y ago
10 megatons = 100 average thunderstorms? https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-energy-of-a-thunderstorm-compare-with-a-nuclear-bomb https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-energy-of-a-thunderstorm-... If that's correct than that comparison doesn't initially sound as cool as a nuclear blast... :). But I guess that that's related to the duration of a blast vs. thunderstorm...?

Jabbles 5y ago

But those other examples suffer from the same flaw that no one has any intuitive understanding of how big those events are. - Tonga eruption was 1e7 tons - Hurricane Katrina was 1e10 tons - Melting Antarctica is 1e12 tons (afaict)

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
Hurricane Katrina was quite recent, it devastated a major American city and had all sorts of bad effects in lots of places, people have an intuitive understanding of how big Hurricane Katrina was - be aware of course that intuitive understandings are not precise.
- Ratiofarmings 5y ago
  As a non-American, I have no idea what kind of damage hurricane Katrina did. As far as I am concerned, there was some wind. Enough to make international news, but that's about it. But when I see "comparable to a nuke" at least I know immediately that this is a major event. A hurricane, powerful as it may be, is harder to grasp for a comparison.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    >As a non-American, I have no idea what kind of damage hurricane Katrina did As a non-American, I do. I agree comparable to a nuke is better, I was just commenting that Katrina for a large number of people is quite different than the other examples and does convey an intuitive understanding. While noting that intuitive understandings are imprecise.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The math might check out but that's about it. Comparing a storm to an explosion is completely asinine because the mechanism by which the energy is dispensed is completely different. Katrina did squat to the city except tear up some roofs and windows. The water deposited just so happened to breach some flood control stuff and then all the damage was a result of everything being immersed in floodwater. A storm releases energy in the form of find and droplets of liquid being accelerated by gravity and flung around by said wind. An explosion releases a pressure wave. Comparing energy released in storms to explosions is like saying a leafblower can push harder than a dude with a sledge because it has more horsepower. Neither comparison serves any useful purpose.
- occamrazor 5y ago
  Hurricane Katrina made very little damage directly, as an effect of the energy of the wind. Almost all the damage was caused by the flood, which in turn turn was a consequence of the levees failing. It doesn’t make much sense to compare the energy released by Katrina to that of the Tonga eruption.
eutectic 5y ago
I calculate melting the antarctic ice sheet to be more like 2e15 tons (ignoring the heat required to bring it to the melting point).

fps-hero 5y ago

Nuke I’m personally a huge fan that the most destructive device in human history can can be thrown around in conversation simply, as a four letter word, and as simply as one would refer to a “book” as being a good source inspiration, or “coke” as being a delicious beverage. Yes, a “nuke” can be inspirationally delicious comparison for destruction. Perhaps comparisons to “nukes” should be reserved to their “human impact”, and not simply their “big boom” factor. I’m sure victims of nuclear weapons, and unfortunate locals of nuclear test sites would agree. Say, it’s likely more accurate to say “That TikTok went nuclear”, than any comparisons of an explosion or eruption to a “nuke”.

tigerlily 5y ago
It's arguable however that books and coke (both varieties) have throughout human history been more destructive than nukes.

zepearl 5y ago

10 megatons = 100 average thunderstorms? https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-energy-of-a-thunderstorm-compare-with-a-nuclear-bomb https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-energy-of-a-thunderstorm-... If that's correct than that comparison doesn't initially sound as cool as a nuclear blast... :). But I guess that that's related to the duration of a blast vs. thunderstorm...?