5 ms·

> we're capable of wiping out every living thing that inhabits the surface of a world. Oh come on now, dont flatter yourself so much. No, humans cant wipe out

by antocv 11y ago

> we're capable of wiping out every living thing that inhabits the surface of a world. Oh come on now, dont flatter yourself so much. No, humans cant wipe out all living things that inhabig the surface of the world.

danieltillett 11y ago
I think you might need to look into what the Russian and USA nuclear arsenal might do if used evenly across the world. If this does not convince you let me introduce you to the cobalt bomb [1]. 1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb
- Retric 11y ago
  I laugh I your General direction: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbear http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbear note there is a lot of surface area on the planet. A 1MT nuke per sqare mile would come fairly close but not quite get to where you suggest and we don't have close to that many nukes.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I have to say I love Tardigrades, but without a food source they are not going to survive. Nuclear winter is not too conducive for moss growth. More seriously I suspect that short of a massive high altitude cobalt bomb detonation that some small life will survive on the surface even if all the current nuclear weapon were used.
    - Retric 11y ago
      Well they can go without food for 9+ years so that's more of a long term problem. As to nuclear winter they already live in Antarctica so there food source can also survive fairly harsh conditions, and it only takes one (or 2 depending on species). Not that we have a lot of spare planets lying around but IMO it would be an interesting experement. Also, there is a fairly interesting ecosystem living inside the chernobil building which just goes to show how hardy some things are. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus Gama radiation as food... Yea that's a thing.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        A cobalt bomb will keep the background radiation level on the surface lethal for nearly 100 years. There is no way we can yet destroy all life on earth - microbial life is too tough for that, but we could destroy all macroscopic life on the surface.
        Retric 11y ago
        Excluding caves. Also, rain drastically reduces how long radiation stays in an area. And again cobalt produces Gama radiation which some things use as food.
- antocv 11y ago
  Even if we take 1985 levels of nuclear warheads - the maximum, I believe USSR had 40 000 back then, and fuck it, lets say for even numbers, 100 000 nuclear warheads. Land-surace is about 150 square million km. Take 1.2Mt the biggest yield in US arsenal currently. That would require around 270 000 nuclear warheads to cover every square km. We dont have that many and never had. Also that wouldnt even scratch the oceans. And the cobalt bomb, it hasnt been built, and anyway wouldnt work its not a doomsday device. There are also way too many caves and cave systems with ecology in them which would be largely unaffected by civilized weapons. Sure, the earth wouldnt look like it does today, but life would still prevail - and civilization isnt really that powerful to exterminate all life.
  - userulluipeste 11y ago
    "...to cover every square km. We dont have that many..." One does not have to rake every piece of soil in order to wipe out the entire life. The oceans would get the radioactive lavement of the soil and cycle that back on the land over and over though radioactive rains. This affects especially the bottom layer of the food chain, which cause chain's partial (if not total) collapse. In the end there is the possible nuclear winter that may render almost the entire planet inhabitable for all life forms. (Spores, bacteria, algae or other microscopic life forms may resist in hibernation to thrive again someday, but that is not called "living" through the event.) The reality is that there wasn't in our planet history any extinction event that involved nuclear contamination of every available living habitat (among other hostile-to-life effects), and speculating about it and about if it would or not be destructive enough, feels to me a little bit like playing with madness here.
bane 11y ago
Yep, we sure can. Don't underestimate our lunacy.
- antocv 11y ago
  "We" arent that powerful, the best we could do is exterminate our selves, but life would continue, and adapt.
  - bane 11y ago
    We sure are. We can blacken the sun, wipe away the ozone layer, irradiate and poison the earth, freeze the oceans, we can drill down to nearly the mantle, introduce plagues that can ravage continents and over time, we can fracture the earth's ecosystems so badly that a meteor strike will look like a pebble drop. Every living thing on the planet will die as a result.
  - s_q_b 11y ago
    If we dedicated ourselves to wiping out the biosphere, I'm sure we could. But the current nuclear arsenal wouldn't cut it. At best we could destroy civilization, but probably not even humanity.

by antocv 11y ago

danieltillett 11y ago

I think you might need to look into what the Russian and USA nuclear arsenal might do if used evenly across the world. If this does not convince you let me introduce you to the cobalt bomb [1]. 1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb

Retric 11y ago
I laugh I your General direction: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbear http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbear note there is a lot of surface area on the planet. A 1MT nuke per sqare mile would come fairly close but not quite get to where you suggest and we don't have close to that many nukes.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I have to say I love Tardigrades, but without a food source they are not going to survive. Nuclear winter is not too conducive for moss growth. More seriously I suspect that short of a massive high altitude cobalt bomb detonation that some small life will survive on the surface even if all the current nuclear weapon were used.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Well they can go without food for 9+ years so that's more of a long term problem. As to nuclear winter they already live in Antarctica so there food source can also survive fairly harsh conditions, and it only takes one (or 2 depending on species). Not that we have a lot of spare planets lying around but IMO it would be an interesting experement. Also, there is a fairly interesting ecosystem living inside the chernobil building which just goes to show how hardy some things are. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus Gama radiation as food... Yea that's a thing.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      A cobalt bomb will keep the background radiation level on the surface lethal for nearly 100 years. There is no way we can yet destroy all life on earth - microbial life is too tough for that, but we could destroy all macroscopic life on the surface.
      - Retric 11y ago
        Excluding caves. Also, rain drastically reduces how long radiation stays in an area. And again cobalt produces Gama radiation which some things use as food.
antocv 11y ago
Even if we take 1985 levels of nuclear warheads - the maximum, I believe USSR had 40 000 back then, and fuck it, lets say for even numbers, 100 000 nuclear warheads. Land-surace is about 150 square million km. Take 1.2Mt the biggest yield in US arsenal currently. That would require around 270 000 nuclear warheads to cover every square km. We dont have that many and never had. Also that wouldnt even scratch the oceans. And the cobalt bomb, it hasnt been built, and anyway wouldnt work its not a doomsday device. There are also way too many caves and cave systems with ecology in them which would be largely unaffected by civilized weapons. Sure, the earth wouldnt look like it does today, but life would still prevail - and civilization isnt really that powerful to exterminate all life.
- userulluipeste 11y ago
  "...to cover every square km. We dont have that many..." One does not have to rake every piece of soil in order to wipe out the entire life. The oceans would get the radioactive lavement of the soil and cycle that back on the land over and over though radioactive rains. This affects especially the bottom layer of the food chain, which cause chain's partial (if not total) collapse. In the end there is the possible nuclear winter that may render almost the entire planet inhabitable for all life forms. (Spores, bacteria, algae or other microscopic life forms may resist in hibernation to thrive again someday, but that is not called "living" through the event.) The reality is that there wasn't in our planet history any extinction event that involved nuclear contamination of every available living habitat (among other hostile-to-life effects), and speculating about it and about if it would or not be destructive enough, feels to me a little bit like playing with madness here.

bane 11y ago

Yep, we sure can. Don't underestimate our lunacy.

antocv 11y ago
"We" arent that powerful, the best we could do is exterminate our selves, but life would continue, and adapt.
- bane 11y ago
  We sure are. We can blacken the sun, wipe away the ozone layer, irradiate and poison the earth, freeze the oceans, we can drill down to nearly the mantle, introduce plagues that can ravage continents and over time, we can fracture the earth's ecosystems so badly that a meteor strike will look like a pebble drop. Every living thing on the planet will die as a result.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  If we dedicated ourselves to wiping out the biosphere, I'm sure we could. But the current nuclear arsenal wouldn't cut it. At best we could destroy civilization, but probably not even humanity.