Nuclear Bomb Comparisons

[Krumlink]

This is Insane! Check this out!!!

**broken link removed**

That is massive! The mushroom cloud breached the upper atmosphere, even past the top cloud layer

 

[audioguru]

Hi Crummy Link,
That Soviet bomb makes a pretty big BANG.

My head is still swimming about orders of magnitude after I saw a pic taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.
The light travelled for 28 million years to reach the telescope.
The gallaxy has 800 billion suns. (800,000,000,000)
It takes light 50,000 years for light to go from one side of that gallaxy to the other.

And there are billions of other gallaxies!

 

[Papabravo]

This is pretty old news, like 50 years. I'm amazed you just discovered it. Now add MIRVs to the mix and really scare the bejeebers out of yourself. After you recover from the implications of the MIRVs consider SLCMs(Slickem's) and GLCMs(Glickem's). Beachfront property won't seem quite as appealing after that.

Then take a look at strategic defense with their "smart rocks" and "brilliant pebbles". Global Thermonuclear War is just about the most fun game there is going.

 

[j.p.bill]

Don't leave out Ground Pounders and cobalt-enhanced dirty bombs. Look at a map of the fallout plumes from nuked reactors sometime, too. Makes Chernobyl look healthful by comparison.

 

[3v0]

Do not forget nuke equiped cruise missiles. Zero warning.
Even less possible to defend against or even to tell where it came frome !

 

[audioguru]

Luckily the North Koreans can't make a half-decent rocket for their nuclear bang thing.

I don't know when Iran and China are going to show us what they have been working on.

I don't want to be vapourized by those weirdos.

 

[Krumlink]

I meant the picture, not Tzar Bomba. Tzar Bomba was dedicated to the Tzars of russia, in russian it is called "the Tzar's Bomb".

 

[Krumlink]

Wow! the cobalt-60 Dirty bomb with only a peasized amount and 10 pounds of dynamite would contaminate about 200 miles!!!

Cobalt-60 is intensely radioactive, but a half life of 5.27 Years. It would kill hard and quick.

I remember the MIRV's Now! the U.S. had planned to load each pod with a 30Megaton Bomb to kill those communists!

The EMP Bomb nowadays seems more lethal, seeing how we all depend on electricity like we do on cheap movies.

 

[Krumlink]

DUDE! I found out that at chernobyl that they are still working there at reactor 3!!!!!!!

https://images.google.com/imgres?im...lient=netscape-pp&rls=com.netscape:en-US&sa=N

 

[Krumlink]

on this youtube video, you can see that some clips show the white speckles of radiation on the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDaP0UZVbE0&mode=related&search=

 

[theinfamousbob]

Have you ever done research into the cleanup of Chernobyl? There were people sweeping off the roofs of the other reactors in teams, only able to be exposed for a few seconds every couple days.

They were literally in contact with the inner parts of the reactor; stuff like the bushings that hold the rods in place. The stuff was off the scale radiation-wise, enough so that robots would fry before the cleanup workers could get them onto the roof. It had to be done by hand.


https://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter6.html

 

[Hank Fletcher]

I posit arms wars are nothing more than gratuitous male posturing. The metaphorical representation of male sexual identity should (given the amount of resources that have been poured into arms development, and the amount of resources again that are poured into dismantling arms) be obvious to us all by now as something that far outweighs the perceived, practical value of any armament. The wise adage, "Make love, not war," couldn't be more fitting. Stop bragging about your penis size (making war), and do something with it (make love).*

My sense is that public opinion is slowly manifesting the reality of this adage. Nationalism is dead, and what were formerly armies of specific nations have now become little more than policing forces. With the death of nationalism and growing empathy and respect between cultures around the globe, the policing forces will congeal and diminish as their relevance and necessity decreases.

What this means for all countries, but particularly for leaders like the U.S. and China, is that they should shift the basis of their economies towards those of benevolent, civilian interests (consumer capitalism, social reform, safer nuclear reactors) and away from military dependency. Because the most successful regions of the globe will be the one's that are most economically diverse (and hence most attractive to global investors), ironically the countries that invest the most in miliitary spending will ultimately be the biggest losers.

This isn't a fantastic model, it's one that we've all witnessed due to the force demilitarization of Japan and Germany after WWII. Because those nations were forced to spend in areas other than their military, they've succeeded both in terms of their nations and the individual citizens of those nations. Of all the rhetoric that bounced around after 9/11, I don't recall Japan or any Japanese people being fingered as terrorists, despite the fact that they're the only nation that's suffered a nuclear attack. There's no resentment there, presuming at least that some sense of resentment would have filtered its way to me through popular media.

Continued agression, whether on a personal or global level, makes losers of everyone involved. The question is, can we reason that the transition to non-military economies is possible before we are faced with catastrophic consequences such as Hiroshima, the single-minded insanity of Hitler, and 9/11? Let's just cut out the middle-man (war) and get straight to the more enviable state of being (love).

*Don't end up like ol' Slim, though:

 

[HiTech]

Hi Crummy Link,
That Soviet bomb makes a pretty big BANG.

My head is still swimming about orders of magnitude after I saw a pic taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.
The light travelled for 28 million years to reach the telescope.
The gallaxy has 800 billion suns. (800,000,000,000)
It takes light 50,000 years for light to go from one side of that gallaxy to the other.
And there are billions of other gallaxies!

There's a video on the Internet called Powers of Ten which puts into clear visualation the reality of differences between every power of ten. It starts off with a picture of a person lying on a park lawn in central city, zooming out each time by a factor of ten. At one extreme it ends showing an image taken from the Hubble deep field imager nothing but specs of light which are galaxies, not stars, but galaxies!! They are so far out that only the accumulated light emmitted is from an object large enough to be a galaxy!!! Then the camera zooms back in and eventually shows scenes of negative powers of ten down to inner space around individual electrons. It's a way cool video. When we look at the Nasa photo depicting nothing but galaxies as points of light, we are looking way, way back into the very early times of the universe. And that photograph is dotted with loads of galaxies!
**broken link removed**

Now, something else to boggle your mind: the vacuum of space is very often misunderstood by many folks. There are vast areas of deep space where the presence of matter is so infinitismal that only one spec of dust occupies an area many millions of square miles before encountering another spec of dust. Now that's vacuum! Keep in mind that energy still occupies that vacuum, be it photons, electromagnetic, gamma, x-rays, etc. That type we cannot touch or feel when compared to actual matter. In most areas of space there are only a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter at 10−16 Torr.
Since there are virtually no molecules in the vacuum of space there is neither atmosphere nor pressure. When there is no atmosphere all of the molecules in the area want to spread out as much as possible. So if you were on a space ship and stepped outside you would blow up like a huge balloon as your molecules began to spread out. Eventually you would pop.

 

[Hank Fletcher]

Eventually you would pop.

I've often wondered about this (yeah, I'm a loner). Is a vacuum determined merely by density, and not proximity? What is the unit of measurement for the power of nothing? How hard does nothing suck?

In the presence of nothing, will the effect on different materials be observable? What part does the quantity and density of the material play? Is the observation of something popping merely subjective? If the material has a strong structure, like a diamond, or a loose structure, like a fart, in an infinite vacuum, will it all eventually ooze to infinity?

 

[audioguru]

Vacuum doesn't suck anything.
We have an internal pressure of 15 pounds per square inch and also the air around us that forces something into a vacuum.

Because we have an internal pressure of 15 pounds per square inch then that pressure will make us pop if we go into a vavuum.

On space-walks, astronauts wear a pressurized suit that keeps them from popping.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

On space-walks, astronauts wear a pressurized suit that keeps them from popping.

Aren't the American suits made by a ladies underwear manufacturer?, Playtex if I recall correctly?.

 

[monkeybiter]

all particles with a temperature above absolute zero are moving. if they are surrounded by other particles their travel will be impeded by force interaction with the other particles. densely packed [e.g. a solid] their movement is restricted, but very loosely packed they wander uninhibited. hence in a vacuum gasses and liquids can continue to spread out until they find another force to restrict them.

 

[audioguru]

The same girdle that stops fat American ladies from popping also stops astronauts from popping??

 

[monkeybiter]

i could do with one of those!

 

[Hank Fletcher]

One of what, a fat lady?

Speaking of which, Pavarotti past away today - may he R.I.P. I guess the fat lady finally sang for him.