Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   What if all nuclear weapons on Earth exploded at the same time?   (youtube.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, YouTube  
•       •       •

1995 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 17 Feb 2019 at 8:03 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



90 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-02-17 6:55:32 AM  
Dr. Strangelove Ending
Youtube T4duwSQZyBA
 
2019-02-17 7:27:19 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


/ obligatory
 
2019-02-17 8:04:20 AM  
That'd be one Earth-shattering KABOOM
 
2019-02-17 8:05:02 AM  
And Marvin would have an unobstructed view of Venus
 
2019-02-17 8:20:18 AM  
From a fallout perspective, it would be far worse than if there was an all-out nuclear war.  Bombs are more efficient when they airburst, at least in most situations, and that minimizes the amount of fallout.

Exploding them on the ground or slightly under it means much more radioactive fallout afterwards, as bits of the ground where they are stored are vaporized and made radioactive, and lofted into the air.
 
2019-02-17 8:21:13 AM  
I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
-Big Al Yankovic
 
2019-02-17 8:24:03 AM  

BumpInTheNight: I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
-Big Al Yankovic


No it won't.  I have hated that saying for decades because it's patently not true.
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2019-02-17 8:24:34 AM  
Jesus, I don't even know where to start with this awful video, from the constant drone of random unconnected facts to the unrelated or wholly inaccurate pictures used when explaining things (there is plenty of footage of the tsar bomba being mounted to a specially modified Tu-95V, when they show something like a C-17 on screen!)

Then the suggestion that there are differences in airburst weapons and ground penetrating nukes detonating at ground level, when there aren't.

The fact it takes 8 entire minutes before they even get to the question posed initially; Then it gets worse as it jumps between 'nukes in silos exploding' to 'nuclear exchange' and back seemingly randomly
then talking about long term effects like ozone depletion? I'm pretty sure people would have more pressing concerns...

This video is awful and whoever linked it unfortunately doesn't understand the topic well enough to realise how terrible this video is.
 
2019-02-17 8:30:55 AM  

BumpInTheNight: I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
-Big Al Yankovic


But words will never hurt me.
 
2019-02-17 8:33:50 AM  

BumpInTheNight: I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones. -Big Al Yankovic


Albert Einstein, actually, but Yankovic would probably make a better song out of the quote.
 
2019-02-17 8:35:07 AM  
Everybody would be simultaneously surprised at how well North Korea held up, but also at that big hole where Elon Musk's House was.
 
2019-02-17 8:36:09 AM  
Xai:
This video is awful and whoever linked it unfortunately doesn't understand the topic well enough to realise how terrible this video is.

Yes, video is terrible. What I really want is an XKCD explaining exactly what would happen. I can only assume some of the large nuke storage sites would be large enough explosions to generate new moons.
 
2019-02-17 8:37:11 AM  
There's a little over 9,000 nuclear warheads in the world ready to go.  If they all exploded in place, the US would need a whole bunch of new aircraft carriers and ballistic missile subs.  Air Force bases would be smoking craters, and a lot of corn and wheat would get thrown away.  Cancer rates would spike.  Supermarket shelves would empty.  UPS deliveries would slow to a crawl.

So just imagine the possible worst case scenario:   You could not get a ripe avocado for years, possibly.
 
2019-02-17 8:37:50 AM  

dittybopper: BumpInTheNight: I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
-Big Al Yankovic

No it won't.  I have hated that saying for decades because it's patently not true.


and I'm sure that quote hates you right back for taking it so literally instead of the warning about what he and his colleagues had started.  But I'm sure you are much smarter then our beloved satirical entertainer anyways.
 
2019-02-17 8:37:53 AM  

dittybopper: BumpInTheNight: I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
-Big Al Yankovic

No it won't.  I have hated that saying for decades because it's patently not true.


It is a lie. Einstein had been using time travel to sell relativistic weaponry to WW3. He knew *exactly* what they were using.
 
2019-02-17 8:41:17 AM  
Yeah, video is moronic because it repeats the idea that you get a firestorm every time you detonate a nuclear weapons.  That's not true.  Hiroshima was the exception to the rule.  Most nuclear detonations over cities won't result in firestorms.

Hiroshima suffered a firestorm because it happened at breakfast time and the wood and paper houses collapsed on to the charcoal fires used to cook breakfast.  Nagasaki happened at 11pm and didn't result in a firestorm.
 
2019-02-17 8:48:08 AM  

BumpInTheNight: dittybopper: BumpInTheNight: I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
-Big Al Yankovic

No it won't.  I have hated that saying for decades because it's patently not true.

and I'm sure that quote hates you right back for taking it so literally instead of the warning about what he and his colleagues had started.  But I'm sure you are much smarter then our beloved satirical entertainer anyways.


It was Einstein who said it, and it was just as stupid when he said it.

Why?

Because books and near universal literacy.  Guns are a 700 year old technology, and quality ones have operable lives measured in centuries.

Those who survive arent going to instantly fall back into a Dark Ages-like existence.  There will be books and tools and raw materials and working technological objects left after even the worse imaginable nuclear exchange.

The most charitable thing you can say about that statement is that it's hyperbole.  Anyone who has giving this sort of thing even a modicum of independent thought realizes that.
 
2019-02-17 8:54:58 AM  
Worth watching:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-02-17 8:58:38 AM  

dittybopper: BumpInTheNight: dittybopper: BumpInTheNight: I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
-Big Al Yankovic

No it won't.  I have hated that saying for decades because it's patently not true.

and I'm sure that quote hates you right back for taking it so literally instead of the warning about what he and his colleagues had started.  But I'm sure you are much smarter then our beloved satirical entertainer anyways.

It was Einstein who said it, and it was just as stupid when he said it.

Why?

Because books and near universal literacy.  Guns are a 700 year old technology, and quality ones have operable lives measured in centuries.

Those who survive arent going to instantly fall back into a Dark Ages-like existence.  There will be books and tools and raw materials and working technological objects left after even the worse imaginable nuclear exchange.

The most charitable thing you can say about that statement is that it's hyperbole.  Anyone who has giving this sort of thing even a modicum of independent thought realizes that.


Once again, taking things to literally.

I think what he was poking at is at the rate of human ingenuity for killing one another we'll get so good at it that our next truly global all-hands no holds barred war will result in the virtual or even literal extermination of all of us and it will take many centuries if not thousands of years to even sort of recover from that, if we do at all.  Thus if the earth ever has another one it won't be any of our civilizations involved, but the new ones who formed from the ashes and re-learning everything from nothing.

Or you could remain completely literal and say that there's no way that 2018's arsenals could completely wipe the human population out so its impossible to ever be able to do it.
 
2019-02-17 9:02:02 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-02-17 9:05:35 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: There's a little over 9,000 nuclear warheads in the world ready to go.  If they all exploded in place, the US would need a whole bunch of new aircraft carriers and ballistic missile subs.  Air Force bases would be smoking craters, and a lot of corn and wheat would get thrown away.  Cancer rates would spike.  Supermarket shelves would empty.  UPS deliveries would slow to a crawl.

So just imagine the possible worst case scenario:   You could not get a ripe avocado for years, possibly.


Bremerton, WA would be mostly unchanged.

Bremelo
Youtube Qk5UyfuqWjg
 
2019-02-17 9:09:09 AM  

Man On A Mission: BumpInTheNight: I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones. -Big Al Yankovic

Albert Einstein, actually, but Yankovic would probably make a better song out of the quote.


'Weird Al' Yankovic - Christmas At Ground Zero
Youtube t039p6xqutU
 
2019-02-17 9:18:33 AM  

MindStalker: Xai:
This video is awful and whoever linked it unfortunately doesn't understand the topic well enough to realise how terrible this video is.

Yes, video is terrible. What I really want is an XKCD explaining exactly what would happen. I can only assume some of the large nuke storage sites would be large enough explosions to generate new moons.


If you took all the energy in all the nukes and applied it to soil/rock with 100% efficiency in transporting it to orbit, you'd get a moon about 0.^A the size of our moon.
 
2019-02-17 9:19:10 AM  

Ambitwistor: Man On A Mission: BumpInTheNight: I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones. -Big Al Yankovic

Albert Einstein, actually, but Yankovic would probably make a better song out of the quote.

[YouTube video: 'Weird Al' Yankovic - Christmas At Ground Zero]


Haven't heard that one in a while, and never saw the video. Cool.
 
2019-02-17 9:21:17 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2019-02-17 9:40:14 AM  
Video's answer: It would be massive. We don't know how massive. It would just be massive.

My reaction: Gee, y'think? No shiat, Sherlock.
 
2019-02-17 9:42:23 AM  

snarky kong: MindStalker: Xai:
This video is awful and whoever linked it unfortunately doesn't understand the topic well enough to realise how terrible this video is.

Yes, video is terrible. What I really want is an XKCD explaining exactly what would happen. I can only assume some of the large nuke storage sites would be large enough explosions to generate new moons.

If you took all the energy in all the nukes and applied it to soil/rock with 100% efficiency in transporting it to orbit, you'd get a moon about 0.^A the size of our moon.


Not sure what that number didn't show up, but it's about 10^-8. Which is almost certainly 10,000x or more too large compared to everything exploding in place.
 
2019-02-17 9:44:58 AM  
What if all nuclear weapons on Earth exploded at the same time?

Humanity, as we know it, would make more.

Might take them a few million years.
But humanity, as we know it, would make more.
 
2019-02-17 9:49:06 AM  
Then we make more?
 
2019-02-17 9:50:28 AM  
We're gonna need a shiatload more marshmallows.
 
2019-02-17 9:51:02 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-02-17 9:51:20 AM  
I like when videos (1) tell me the answer first, then (2) follow up with information. This video did neither, in the wrong order, with an annoying voice, and the transcript was written by a high-school sophomore who forgot to reference a theosarus for words he/she could use in place of "massive".
Subby, this link put the F U in fun.
 
2019-02-17 9:53:16 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


Oh, wait, sorry.  That's if a Vogon constructor fleet razes the earth for an intergalactic highway system
 
2019-02-17 9:58:40 AM  

dittybopper: Because books and near universal literacy.  Guns are a 700 year old technology, and quality ones have operable lives measured in centuries.

Those who survive arent going to instantly fall back into a Dark Ages-like existence.  There will be books and tools and raw materials and working technological objects left after even the worse imaginable nuclear exchange.


So luckily, even if there's a full on global thermonuclear war, people will still have guns, so all will be right with the world. As long as there are guns, we are all ok. ALL HAIL GUNS!
 
2019-02-17 10:08:25 AM  
Amazing what you can put together using stock footage and a synthesized narrator.
Pity about the lack of structure and inconclusive conclusion.
 
2019-02-17 10:11:12 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


Challenge accepted?
 
2019-02-17 10:20:50 AM  
Let's worry about another impossible scenario.
 
2019-02-17 10:26:53 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: There's a little over 9,000 nuclear warheads in the world ready to go.  If they all exploded in place, the US would need a whole bunch of new aircraft carriers and ballistic missile subs.  Air Force bases would be smoking craters, and a lot of corn and wheat would get thrown away.  Cancer rates would spike.  Supermarket shelves would empty.  UPS deliveries would slow to a crawl.

So just imagine the possible worst case scenario:   You could not get a ripe avocado for years, possibly.


Or it would be the wrong kind of ripe.
 
db2
2019-02-17 10:29:56 AM  
Well, we could stop arguing about that whole 'climate change' thing for starters.
 
2019-02-17 10:31:04 AM  
Stopped watching at the first "nucular".
 
2019-02-17 10:33:07 AM  
Siri and Alexa would only have each other to talk to ?
 
2019-02-17 10:34:15 AM  

Xai: Jesus, I don't even know where to start with this awful video, from the constant drone of random unconnected facts to the unrelated or wholly inaccurate pictures used when explaining things (there is plenty of footage of the tsar bomba being mounted to a specially modified Tu-95V, when they show something like a C-17 on screen!)

Then the suggestion that there are differences in airburst weapons and ground penetrating nukes detonating at ground level, when there aren't.

The fact it takes 8 entire minutes before they even get to the question posed initially; Then it gets worse as it jumps between 'nukes in silos exploding' to 'nuclear exchange' and back seemingly randomly then talking about long term effects like ozone depletion? I'm pretty sure people would have more pressing concerns...

This video is awful and whoever linked it unfortunately doesn't understand the topic well enough to realise how terrible this video is.


Yea, not a great video. But there is a difference between an airburst and ground detonation of the same bomb. Airburst would cover a larger area with the blast/overpressure wave; ground burst would cover a smaller radius, but throw up more radioactive debris/fallout than an airburst.
 
2019-02-17 10:35:56 AM  
You lost me at "nucular"
 
2019-02-17 10:36:43 AM  
Please, I can only get so erect.
 
2019-02-17 10:59:54 AM  

dittybopper: BumpInTheNight: dittybopper: BumpInTheNight: I no not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
-Big Al Yankovic

No it won't.  I have hated that saying for decades because it's patently not true.

and I'm sure that quote hates you right back for taking it so literally instead of the warning about what he and his colleagues had started.  But I'm sure you are much smarter then our beloved satirical entertainer anyways.

It was Einstein who said it, and it was just as stupid when he said it.

Why?

Because books and near universal literacy.  Guns are a 700 year old technology, and quality ones have operable lives measured in centuries.

Those who survive arent going to instantly fall back into a Dark Ages-like existence.  There will be books and tools and raw materials and working technological objects left after even the worse imaginable nuclear exchange.

The most charitable thing you can say about that statement is that it's hyperbole.  Anyone who has giving this sort of thing even a modicum of independent thought realizes that.


You have so much faith it's refreshing.
 
2019-02-17 11:02:51 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Once again, taking things to literally.


We're talking about what would be the death of billions of people.  I think taking things literally is warranted in cases like that.  Your mileage may vary, of course, but I would like to observe that smart people can say very dumb things, and dumb people can say very smart things.

This is a case of a smart person saying a very dumb thing.
 
2019-02-17 11:03:47 AM  

Beginning of the end: You have so much faith it's refreshing.


I have no faith.  I'm areligious.
 
2019-02-17 11:05:55 AM  
We'd all die. The US alone has enough nukes to destroy all life on Earth three times over.
 
2019-02-17 11:07:10 AM  

Odin's Other Eye: dittybopper: Because books and near universal literacy.  Guns are a 700 year old technology, and quality ones have operable lives measured in centuries.

Those who survive arent going to instantly fall back into a Dark Ages-like existence.  There will be books and tools and raw materials and working technological objects left after even the worse imaginable nuclear exchange.

So luckily, even if there's a full on global thermonuclear war, people will still have guns, so all will be right with the world. As long as there are guns, we are all ok. ALL HAIL GUNS!


OK, so prove me wrong.  Tell me how WWIII would completely deactivate all weaponry except for sticks and stones, and remove all knowledge of metallurgy, chemistry, and physics by completely destroying all books.

I mean, being a raging douchebag is fine if that's your bag, but it's no substitute for actual rational thought.
 
2019-02-17 11:09:33 AM  

dittybopper: BumpInTheNight: Once again, taking things to literally.

We're talking about what would be the death of billions of people.  I think taking things literally is warranted in cases like that.  Your mileage may vary, of course, but I would like to observe that smart people can say very dumb things, and dumb people can say very smart things.

This is a case of a smart person saying a very dumb thing.


Considering you thought you had to correct me when I intentionally mis-attributed the quote, I partially concur with your summary of this exchange.

You know who else missed so much of a message because he can only interpret in literal terms?
img.fark.netView Full Size

(he's a fictionary character btw)
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.