4 ms·
We would lose tides, although I have no clue what that would cause. But thats irrelevant, blowing up Moon means bits of Moon bigger than Britain would bombard
by jajko 2y ago
We would lose tides, although I have no clue what that would cause.
But thats irrelevant, blowing up Moon means bits of Moon bigger than Britain would bombard Earth and wipe us all out, thats probably the only way to sterilize whole Earth before Sun does it with its expansion. Earth's crust could very well stop existing in its current form and mix with mantle in some brutal apocalyptic scenes that would make Michael Bay's stuff look like cave paintings from 40k years ago.
- saghm 2y agoAmusingly, the article sandwiches the resulting mass planetary extinction in between concerns of practicality and efficacy as reasons to reject this idea: > The proposed nuclear destruction of the Moon has been rejected by astronomers on several grounds: the nuclear arsenal of mankind would fail to do more than crack the Moon's crust; if successful, the heating of Earth's atmosphere by a hail of falling lunar debris would be destructive to all life; and an increase, not decrease, in the Earth's wobble without a stabilizing Moon, leading to an Earth axial tilt of 45 degrees and more drastic seasons would occur