4 ms·

I don’t think they meant literally destroy the Earth. Nothing we have could possibly do that. But it could easily destroy our world here on Earth. I have to ima

by nkrisc 5y ago

I don’t think they meant literally destroy the Earth. Nothing we have could possibly do that. But it could easily destroy our world here on Earth. I have to imagine the world as we know it would cease to exist after such an attack. Everything we take for granted today would probably be gone pretty quickly, the collapse of civilization in much of the world. It’s a fun bit of research you did, but I think it’s disingenuous to interpret the comment so literally.

alexnewman 5y ago
Funny story, I'm not sure that's true. If by the earth, you mean the land and not the whole planet, there's some very interesting ways man could flood the whole thing.
sandworm101 5y ago
>> Nothing we have could possibly do that. There is some credibility to melting of permafrost triggering runaway greenhouse scenarios that would turn Earth into something more akin to Venus. If we really wanted to destroy the world I think we could do it.
- nkrisc 5y ago
  I meant compromise the physical integrity of the planet, which is what I assumed was the metric the commenter I was replying to was using, based on their comment that the Earth would retain its roughly spherical shape. We can't physically destroy a planetary body yet, not even close to it.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
While a complete nuclear war would cause radioactive waste to reach all the globe, humanity and civilization will likely survive, in the form of countries that were not primary targets. For example, in North America USA would be severely crippled, but Mexico would be mainly unscathed. Canada probably too, as it officially has no nuclear capabilities.
- nkrisc 5y ago
  I mean, maybe, maybe not. Depends on a lot of factors. The entire collapse of a major superpower could potentially have a lot of knock-on effects on otherwise unscathed countries.
  - swader999 5y ago
    Spent fuel pools at nuclear reactors not getting cooled is a bit of an issue after a nuke exchange.

by nkrisc 5y ago

alexnewman 5y ago

Funny story, I'm not sure that's true. If by the earth, you mean the land and not the whole planet, there's some very interesting ways man could flood the whole thing.

sandworm101 5y ago

>> Nothing we have could possibly do that. There is some credibility to melting of permafrost triggering runaway greenhouse scenarios that would turn Earth into something more akin to Venus. If we really wanted to destroy the world I think we could do it.

nkrisc 5y ago
I meant compromise the physical integrity of the planet, which is what I assumed was the metric the commenter I was replying to was using, based on their comment that the Earth would retain its roughly spherical shape. We can't physically destroy a planetary body yet, not even close to it.

ASalazarMX 5y ago

While a complete nuclear war would cause radioactive waste to reach all the globe, humanity and civilization will likely survive, in the form of countries that were not primary targets. For example, in North America USA would be severely crippled, but Mexico would be mainly unscathed. Canada probably too, as it officially has no nuclear capabilities.

nkrisc 5y ago
I mean, maybe, maybe not. Depends on a lot of factors. The entire collapse of a major superpower could potentially have a lot of knock-on effects on otherwise unscathed countries.
- swader999 5y ago
  Spent fuel pools at nuclear reactors not getting cooled is a bit of an issue after a nuke exchange.