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.

(Wired)   The coolest rendition of the world's 2,053 nuclear explosions that you'll see today   (wired.co.uk) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

37427 clicks; posted to Main » and Video » on 08 Jul 2010 at 9:14 AM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



403 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-07-08 10:51:17 AM  

kvinesknows: Nightsweat: tdpatriots12: Oldiron_79: Only 2 really mattered.

I'd say three had significance so far.

1) Hiroshima
2) Nagasaki
3) First Soviet weapons test (US monopoly on nuclear weapons is over)

India, Pakistan nukes are important since they are most likely to get used right now. And the Israeli nuke has all kinds of significance.

Israel does not have Nuclear weapons


Correct. They only have nuclear fissile devices capable of becoming weaponized. Good catch.
 
2010-07-08 10:51:19 AM  
weblogsinc.comView Full Size
 
2010-07-08 10:51:21 AM  
If you had asked me earlier this morning how many nukes we (the United States) have exploded, I probably would've guessed a number significantly less than 100.
 
2010-07-08 10:51:48 AM  

braedan: cmunic8r99: Thunderpipes: "Yes Sir, drop that Farker, twice!"
/approves


/Disapproves


Gold star for the day, man. You rock.
 
2010-07-08 10:52:19 AM  

braedan: I wouldn't say the US was reluctant to use the atomic bombs, but at the same time those that were responsible for the decision did not revel in its use.


Revel, no I'm sure they didn't. But the way I see it, saying that it was "necessary" to nuke Japan is rationalizing. It may have been necessary from a military perspective, but as the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons in anger we have to rationalize that action or face our conscience.

I'm not a military man nor a student of history, but I suspect with some imagination there were other alternatives available besides "invade" and "nuke."
 
2010-07-08 10:52:53 AM  

Thunderpipes: Fark it lets go bowling: Thunderpipes: Why I also laugh at people who think the Gulf oil spill is some world changing event. In the overall scheme of things, it is an absolute zero impact event.

Zero impact event my ass. If you lived near the Gulf coast you wouldn't be saying that.

100 years from now, a very tiny speck of time, people will not even remember what the hell that oil spill was even about. I don't live near the gulf, nor do almost all people on Earth. Getting in a car accident would be a greater impact to my life than if the gulf sunk into the ocean, or land, or oil well, or whatever. Big whoop.

If not for the media, hardly anyone outside the Gulf would care either.


don't bet on it. The spill if destroying some of the most important spawning grounds for several species that are already overfished. If you mean that people won't remember this is the start of the end for cod or other food species, maybe you'll be right, but a visitor from last year to the future of 100 years from now will wonder where all the fish went.
 
2010-07-08 10:52:57 AM  

Nightsweat: "91/220 is a pretty suggestive percentage of crew and cast to die from cancer, though."


Suggestive, but not conclusive. I'm not exactly disagreeing with you: It seems pretty obvious that there were "downwinder" cancers from atmospheric testing, and those probably include some of the cast and crew of The Conqueror. It's an old story out here.

However, the lasting toxicity of atmospheric testing is vastly exagerrated. For example, Hiroshima has a current population of about 1.5 million, and they aren't all keeling over from cancer and radiation sickness, although an atomic bomb was exploded right over downtown in 1945.

Lots of people probably never think about it, but we all live in a constant bath of radiation from multiple sources...cosmic radiation, background radiation in the soil and rocks, radiation inherent in multiple industrial products and processes, and even from our food (fertilized with phosphates). Radiation is natural and is even a necessary ingredient of evolution.

You can get killed by drinking too much tequila, too. Meh.
 
2010-07-08 10:53:28 AM  
merkey88: work productivity = 0.

I am not alone then.
 
2010-07-08 10:53:59 AM  

kvinesknows:
Israel does not have Nuclear weapons


Not sure if serious.jpg
 
2010-07-08 10:54:18 AM  

PatientZero: Here: lay down on the ground, and then get someone to stack one brick on top of you, take it off, put another brick on you, take it off, etc.

Now, lay down and have someone stack 2053 bricks on top of you.


You could just answer the question.
 
2010-07-08 10:55:12 AM  

kvinesknows: Nightsweat: tdpatriots12: Oldiron_79: Only 2 really mattered.

I'd say three had significance so far.

1) Hiroshima
2) Nagasaki
3) First Soviet weapons test (US monopoly on nuclear weapons is over)

India, Pakistan nukes are important since they are most likely to get used right now. And the Israeli nuke has all kinds of significance.

Israel does not have Nuclear weapons


And Joan Rivers has never had plastic surgery.
 
2010-07-08 10:55:16 AM  

mod3072: "So, we nuked ourselves over 1000 times. I live in the mid-west, and virtually everyone I know who has died over the years died from one form of cancer or another. I wonder if it's a coincidence?"


In the Midwest? The breadbasket of the world? I'd say all the millions of tons of pesticides and herbicides that have been splooshed all over the place are the more likely culprits.
 
2010-07-08 10:55:17 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: braedan: I wouldn't say the US was reluctant to use the atomic bombs, but at the same time those that were responsible for the decision did not revel in its use.

Revel, no I'm sure they didn't. But the way I see it, saying that it was "necessary" to nuke Japan is rationalizing. It may have been necessary from a military perspective, but as the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons in anger we have to rationalize that action or face our conscience.

I'm not a military man nor a student of history, but I suspect with some imagination there were other alternatives available besides "invade" and "nuke."


As someone else pointed out, unfortunately the reason was probably more along the political lines of sending an explicit message to Russia.
 
2010-07-08 10:55:22 AM  

braedan: the bombs in Hiroshima & Nagasaki were dropped to force a surrender and prevent the loss of life (on both sides)


*cough*
No they weren't. They were dropped to send a warning to the Russians.
The Japanese had been trying to surrender for months.
 
2010-07-08 10:55:54 AM  

FarkinNortherner: Flab: I didn't know that the Brits had nuked the US, though.

Yes. Records indicate that we hit 42°19′53″ N, 83°2′45″ W. I'm not sure why nobody's yet noticed?


A nuke hitting that part of the US would be considered an improvement.
 
2010-07-08 10:56:00 AM  
Part of the reason for the great number of tests is that there is a large variety of weapons. ICBMs, SLBMs, IRBMs, SRBMs, air dropped strategic bombs, tactical bombs and missiles, anti aircraft missile warheads, depth charges, torpedoes, artillery shells, nuclear demolition charges....

Some of the types shared the actual warheads, but there was still many different devices, all of them needed to be tested several times each.

Also, as the technology of the weapons improved the new models needed testing, then, as the guidance systems of the delivery vehicles improved, new weapons that took advantage of the increased accuracy by reducing yield needed to be developed, and tested.

I think they also tested older weapons from time to time to make sure they still worked. When you are staking your national existence (or at least believing you are) you want to test that stuff.

I've also read that some stratigists believed that no more than 300 weapons could insure MAD, but those opinions weren't supported by the national leadership at the time. I think that was around Kennedy's administration. The generals convinced him more was better, way more was way better. Missile gap and all that.

/tl;ywr
 
2010-07-08 10:56:07 AM  

canyoneer: Is a radiation dose of 360 millirem in a year harmful?

No. No effects have ever been observed at doses below 5,000 millirem delivered over a one year period. In fact, effects seen when humans are exposed to 100,000 millirem over a short time period are temporary and reversible. It takes a short-term dose of well over 500,000 millirem to cause a fatality. (new window)


Uh, what about 5,000 millirems/year for, say, 4 years? 10 years? At what point does atmospheric radiation become unacceptable to you?

Fact is, we've blown over 2000 bombs into the environment of the earth over a relatively short period and the best you can say is that some of the short-term effects of an even high dose are "reversible." Well, what about the long-term effects? Will having an "extra" 300 millirems/year in the atmosphere affect our great-grandkids in some way? What would it do to humans living in the area 10 generations down the road?

I don't know. You don't know. That's why all of these tests were FARKING insane!
 
2010-07-08 10:56:56 AM  
I'll just leave this here (possibly mildly NSFW)
 
2010-07-08 10:58:05 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Thunderpipes: Fark it lets go bowling: Thunderpipes: Why I also laugh at people who think the Gulf oil spill is some world changing event. In the overall scheme of things, it is an absolute zero impact event.

Zero impact event my ass. If you lived near the Gulf coast you wouldn't be saying that.

100 years from now, a very tiny speck of time, people will not even remember what the hell that oil spill was even about. I don't live near the gulf, nor do almost all people on Earth. Getting in a car accident would be a greater impact to my life than if the gulf sunk into the ocean, or land, or oil well, or whatever. Big whoop.

If not for the media, hardly anyone outside the Gulf would care either.

Except that we can only get shiat Vietnamese shrimp, but I will agree that this doesn't affect your Philistine taste.


Wow, so your big loss is your shrimp won't be the right kind? Kind of proved my point for me, you big girl. Even the hardest hit fishermen or oil worker can get a different job. Really, the world is not changing because of this.

And yes, I taste like Philistine.
 
2010-07-08 10:58:11 AM  

slothMD: braedan: the bombs in Hiroshima & Nagasaki were dropped to force a surrender and prevent the loss of life (on both sides)

*cough*
No they weren't. They were dropped to send a warning to the Russians.
The Japanese had been trying to surrender for months.


Not sure about them trying for months, but yes my understanding was that japan was already on the verge of defeat by the time the bombs were dropped. The US had pushed them out of most of the pacific, and Russia was knocking on their door. The choice was surrendering to the US or being invaded by Russia.
 
2010-07-08 10:59:08 AM  
I live 10 minutes from Oak Ridge Tennessee so I'm getting a kick out of these replies. Spent some time at Y-12 for work and it is very creepy. Abandoned bulldozers rotting away in chained off contaminated areas, chunks of radioactive material occasionally falling off trucks, people walking around with radiation meters that are checked annually for exposure. I've heard some really farked up stories from people that have worked there for years.
 
2010-07-08 10:59:52 AM  
For some frightening beauty, get a copy of "Trinity and Beyond".
 
2010-07-08 11:00:54 AM  
I think that would have been a hell of a lot more interesting if they sped it up by about 3x in the middle.

/I wonder if the end was intended. You have about 6 years of near "silence" where things feel kind of upbeat, and then right at the end you have a new nation "joining ( Pakistan )
 
2010-07-08 11:01:32 AM  

Nightsweat: Thunderpipes: Fark it lets go bowling: Thunderpipes: Why I also laugh at people who think the Gulf oil spill is some world changing event. In the overall scheme of things, it is an absolute zero impact event.

Zero impact event my ass. If you lived near the Gulf coast you wouldn't be saying that.

100 years from now, a very tiny speck of time, people will not even remember what the hell that oil spill was even about. I don't live near the gulf, nor do almost all people on Earth. Getting in a car accident would be a greater impact to my life than if the gulf sunk into the ocean, or land, or oil well, or whatever. Big whoop.

If not for the media, hardly anyone outside the Gulf would care either.

don't bet on it. The spill if destroying some of the most important spawning grounds for several species that are already overfished. If you mean that people won't remember this is the start of the end for cod or other food species, maybe you'll be right, but a visitor from last year to the future of 100 years from now will wonder where all the fish went.



except that this spill just barely has become the Gulf largest spill.. ie the gulf has survived a spill almost as large. less then 50 years ago and barely anyone even remembered and it hardly had any impact.
 
2010-07-08 11:02:19 AM  

Nightsweat:

don't bet on it. The spill if destroying some of the most important spawning grounds for several species that are already overfished. If you mean that people won't remember this is the start of the end for cod or other food species, maybe you'll be right, but a visitor from last year to the future of 100 years from now will wonder where all the fish went.


Or they would wonder why they are simply eating something else. A different fish, or a non-fish critter. We have particular types of fish that we plunder, I agree. When populations dip low enough, we just switch to something easier to get. Nothing you, I, or any number of countries combined can do to really impact the overall abundance of life in the sea.

We might have to give up our favorite fish for a while is all. Countries that rely on fishing as their primary source of food/income might starve a little. Oh well. There is always piracy.
 
2010-07-08 11:02:27 AM  

signine: The biggest problems from the stateside nuke tests in the 50s turned out not to be anywhere near the area in which the nukes were actually tested. There's a huge incidence of birth defects and other developmental disabilities in the midwest for the years during and following the tests that can be directly tied to them.


Well, that explains Sarah Palin's popularity there.
 
2010-07-08 11:03:07 AM  
i235.photobucket.comView Full Size


Not amused.
 
2010-07-08 11:03:13 AM  

b2e44: kvinesknows:
Israel does not have Nuclear weapons

Not sure if serious.jpg



go ahead.. find proof that Israel has them.
 
2010-07-08 11:03:27 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: braedan: I wouldn't say the US was reluctant to use the atomic bombs, but at the same time those that were responsible for the decision did not revel in its use.

Revel, no I'm sure they didn't. But the way I see it, saying that it was "necessary" to nuke Japan is rationalizing. It may have been necessary from a military perspective, but as the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons in anger we have to rationalize that action or face our conscience.

I'm not a military man nor a student of history, but I suspect with some imagination there were other alternatives available besides "invade" and "nuke."


Yes, there was. It was "starve". Would starving 25,000,000 Japanese to death have been better than quickly roasting 100,000 Japanese? The submarine blockade and air attacks on coastal transportation had stopped almost all food import and distribution. The starvation would have been Stalinesque by the winter of '45-'46.
 
2010-07-08 11:04:12 AM  

Petulant Dwarf: Isn't it ironic that the nation most concerned with stopping other countries from having nukes, the USA, is the only country to have ever deployed the weapons against another sovereign nation?



I don't know, Japan seems pretty worried about it too(especially about the North Koreans)

/your bias is biased
//You're making the rest of us Americans look bad
 
2010-07-08 11:06:18 AM  

Count Dyscalculia: Flab: bishop6042: I saw one US test that looked like it took place in Mississippi or Alabama. Where was that at?

According to wikipedia, near Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

Thanks for the link. That would make a good basis for an awesome conspiracy theory. Why would we nuke Mississippi? Aliens. Maybe Zombies. Yeah...zombies..the first outbreak was there and we had to eliminate tens of thousands before they got out.


I was thinking the same thing. I run CoC: Delta Green games and this is great fodder for a great campaign.
 
2010-07-08 11:06:31 AM  

Thunderpipes: Why I also laugh at people who think the Gulf oil spill is some world changing event. In the overall scheme of things, it is an absolute zero impact event.


You get my Douchebag of the Day award.
 
2010-07-08 11:06:33 AM  
Cross breed a sea manatee with a tiger, and all the Gulf problems are solved. A large sea mammal that is aggressive and strong, and strong in magic, we are all set.

The funny thing is, maybe not in our lifetimes, but probably fairly soon, we will be able to engineer creatures that thrive anywhere. They are already working on algae that should be able to eat oil and poop oxygen. No reason we should not be able to engineer critters or even people that thrive on what today are pollutants.

Imagine a person that did well in radiation and could eat oil spill as a vitamin boost? What would people cry about then?
 
2010-07-08 11:07:35 AM  
India exploded its first device in the 1970s?!?

(checks Wikipedia)

Whaddya know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha

/did not know that
//seems an ironic name
///why not Smiling Shiva?
 
2010-07-08 11:07:56 AM  

austin_millbarge: Thunderpipes: Why I also laugh at people who think the Gulf oil spill is some world changing event. In the overall scheme of things, it is an absolute zero impact event.

You get my Douchebag of the Day award.


And you get my I can't debate so I call people names award of the day. Congratulations.
 
2010-07-08 11:08:49 AM  

Thunderpipes: Nightsweat:

don't bet on it. The spill if destroying some of the most important spawning grounds for several species that are already overfished. If you mean that people won't remember this is the start of the end for cod or other food species, maybe you'll be right, but a visitor from last year to the future of 100 years from now will wonder where all the fish went.

Or they would wonder why they are simply eating something else. A different fish, or a non-fish critter. We have particular types of fish that we plunder, I agree. When populations dip low enough, we just switch to something easier to get. Nothing you, I, or any number of countries combined can do to really impact the overall abundance of life in the sea.

We might have to give up our favorite fish for a while is all. Countries that rely on fishing as their primary source of food/income might starve a little. Oh well. There is always piracy.


Your ignorance is astounding.
 
2010-07-08 11:08:51 AM  

tdpatriots12: Oldiron_79: Only 2 really mattered.

I'd say three had significance so far.

1) Hiroshima
2) Nagasaki
3) First Soviet weapons test (US monopoly on nuclear weapons is over)


if you are going to go that route, then you need to include pakistan as the first middle eastern and N.Korea as the first nutbag whackjob led countries wouldnt you?

russia china, US, france and england having nukes but never having any real post cold war intent to launch is one thing... any country in an increasingly unstable middle east and any country with an increasingly unstable leader changes things quite a bit i would think...
 
2010-07-08 11:08:58 AM  

slothMD: braedan: the bombs in Hiroshima & Nagasaki were dropped to force a surrender and prevent the loss of life (on both sides)

*cough*
No they weren't. They were dropped to send a warning to the Russians.
The Japanese had been trying to surrender for months.


You went to school in Texas, didn't you?
 
2010-07-08 11:09:13 AM  

Thunderpipes:

Wow, so your big loss is your shrimp won't be the right kind? Kind of proved my point for me, you big girl. Even the hardest hit fishermen or oil worker can get a different job. Really, the world is not changing because of this.

And yes, I taste like Philistine.


Was there ever a day when taste and quality was important, or was it always fat slobs stuffing their faces at the Golden Corral?
 
2010-07-08 11:09:37 AM  

good0179: India exploded its first device in the 1970s?!?

(checks Wikipedia)

Whaddya know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha

/did not know that
//seems an ironic name
///why not Smiling Shiva?


Yeah, that surprised me too. I thought it was much later
 
2010-07-08 11:09:44 AM  

OrelupM: I'm just wondering where the people claiming "maps in america show america in the center" live. While I remember some maps like that (usually they reference something about the US), most of the maps I see have europe in the center, and the US to the right and Hawaii barely even on the map.


I'm looking at a Nat Geo world map I bought from B&N last year. If we're all so ethno-centric, I guess West Chester, PA must lie in the Gulf of Guinea off western Africa.

/seriously?
//Never seen a world map with US in the middle, although I'm sure they exists somewhere.
 
2010-07-08 11:11:03 AM  

ATTENTION: 2012


You mean 2077, right?
 
2010-07-08 11:12:24 AM  

There is no spoon only Zuul: Am I the only one here that was saddened watching this video?


No.
 
2010-07-08 11:12:54 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: I'm not a military man nor a student of history, but I suspect with some imagination there were other alternatives available besides "invade" and "nuke."


Quite a few.
1) Step up the conventional and incendiary bombing.
2) Starve them out.
3) Accept the surrender offers on the table.
4) Keep doing what we were doing for a few months.
 
2010-07-08 11:13:35 AM  

pb-crunch: "Uh, what about 5,000 millirems/year for, say, 4 years? 10 years? At what point does atmospheric radiation become unacceptable to you? Fact is, we've blown over 2000 bombs into the environment of the earth over a relatively short period and the best you can say is that some of the short-term effects of an even high dose are "reversible." Well, what about the long-term effects? Will having an "extra" 300 millirems/year in the atmosphere affect our great-grandkids in some way? What would it do to humans living in the area 10 generations down the road? I don't know. You don't know. That's why all of these tests were FARKING insane!"


Um, you need to read up on fission products. (new window)

For fission of uranium-235, the predominant radioactive fission products include isotopes of iodine, caesium, strontium, xenon and barium. It is important to understand that the size of the threat becomes smaller with the passage of time. Locations where radiation fields once posed immediate mortal threats, such as much of the Chernobyl power plant on day one of the accident and the ground zero sites of Japanese atomic bombings (6 hours after detonation), are now safe as the radioactivity has decayed to a very low level.


IOW, after a few years, radiation levels drop back to background levels - no worse than what was experienced by our ancestors 10,000 or 100,000 years ago. Most of the testing was done below ground, and 99%+ of the fission products were contained. The threat from this is overblown, and there is zero threat to humans 10 generations down the road. Relax.
 
2010-07-08 11:13:38 AM  

summersa74: ATTENTION: 2012

You mean 2077, right?



good lord I hope not. My retirement plan kind of depends on the earth (or at least civilization for the most part) being wiped out fairly soon.
 
2010-07-08 11:13:58 AM  

gajillion: You went to school in Texas, didn't you?


We're having a civil discussion here. The Douche-off room is down the hall. Thanks.
 
2010-07-08 11:14:06 AM  
If US only used that money on health care you'd be the healthiest nation on earth instead you exploded the most nukes. USA USA USA you are NUMBER ONE RA RA RA
 
2010-07-08 11:14:14 AM  

Schlock: bishop6042: I saw one US test that looked like it took place in Mississippi or Alabama. Where was that at?

I can't figure out where those ones were happening either


Salt domes in Mississippi.

They detonated one which created a cavern and then detonated a second inside the cavern to measure scientific stuff and whatnot.

I put a flint from a bic lighter in one of my hollow points one time and shot it at a rock, for purely scientific reasons.

Science sure does sparkle.
 
2010-07-08 11:14:17 AM  

cretinbob: I'll just leave this here (possibly mildly NSFW)


Cool. Thanks.
 
Displayed 50 of 403 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all



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.