3 ms·
Mh, just wondering: What about 'creative' nuke usage? Basically, I am thinking about not dropping a nuclear bomb on, say, Berlin, but rather using bombs to cre
by tetha 17y ago
Mh, just wondering: What about 'creative' nuke usage?
Basically, I am thinking about not dropping a nuclear bomb on, say, Berlin, but rather using bombs to create major disasters, like tsunamis (either by setting off the bomb in an ocean, or by destroying almost collapsed landmasses, which would then drop into the water and cause monster-waves), or by abusing tectonic knowledge and nukes to create major earth-quakes? Is such thing efficient enough to be reasoned about when trying to calculate the overall killing power of all nuclear weapons?
- njharman 17y agoYou sir, should study to become a super-villian.
- mr_luc 17y agoThe Russians planned that, at one point! I remember reading, back when I was in junior high school, that the Russians had some plan involving multi-hundred-megaton nukes on or near the ocean floor off the pacific coast. Supposedly it would have created a massively radioactive tidal wave that wouldn't have stopped until it hit the Rockies. This is something I vaguely remember reading in the school library, thinking was cool, and using in a report. So it may be my imagination, or it may have been sensationalist writing, or it may have been a real plan, because the Soviets and the US had no shortage of real, ridiculous plans.
- eru 17y agoInteresting idea. Earth-quakes release much more energy than most nukes. I do not believe it's possible to ignite a quake this way. Tsunamis may be possible with some help from thawing methane ice.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]