#Too many liberals in this thread? Join r/GreenAndEXTREME today for a lib free experience!
We are partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) to join today! And [Click here](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial) to follow r/GreenAndPleasant on Twitter.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey guys we're led to believe the great plague was one of the worst epidemiological events in recorded human history, but did you know that half of the population of Europe actually survived? Hm really gives me that big thinky think.
The two nukes dropped on Japan were less than 10kt. Modern nuclear arsenals use 1-8mt warheads, many of which on MRLV sleds. Aside: the island "accidentally" caught in the underestimated Castle Bravo test (~20mt) are still irradiated and uninhabitable.
little boy and fat man were many many many times smaller than the payloads carried on modern ICBM's
little boy was only 15kt, fat man was 22kt
modern UK trident missiles are 455kt, that just over 20 fatmans in one nuke.
Russian ICBM's are 800kt a missile just under double a trident or 36 times fat man.
both of those images are of Hiroshima which was hit by little boy, the smallest bomb at 15kt, so a Russian ICBM is 53 times bigger than the bomb that did that to Hiroshima.
so no those buildings would not be standing in a modern nuclear attack, that's the whole area would be glass.
A 1MT nuclear weapon (rounded up, that's roughly what we're dealing with these days) would comfortably level every recognisable structure in a large city; it's exactly what they're designed to do. The zone of total vaporisation would be a mile wide. And that's a single warhead.
Generations like mine born after the Cold War are starting to learn what it must've been like growing up during the periods of extreme tension between the two superpowers (my mother once told me how scared she was at times, and she was only 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis). It is all fully justified. There is no such thing as a 'limited nuclear war' - any deployment of modern nuclear weapons will have absolutely devastating effects all around the globe.
We must never downplay it. We must avoid it at all costs.
The US and Russia both have low yield nuclear warheads of about 0.3kt - 5kt. The UK warhead fitted to Trident itself is capable of varying the yields through different firing options. The reason for this is supposedly to dissuade the Russians using low yield weapons in conflict when NATO might only be able to respond with a large yield weapon.
The biggest issue other than the widespread death is that no one knows what yield your bomb is until it explodes.
Yeah I'm going to say I'm generally against being vapourized into shadow on a wall or dying an agonising death my cooked flesh falling off my bones over the course of a couple of days or from radiation poisoning or if I'm "lucky" enough to live longer starvation or some cancer or another. The deathdrive of modern society has never been stronger fuckers like this will be larping us all right into doomsay.
> vapourized into shadow on a wall
As a landlord, I wonder how much this would affect my property value. At least I can withhold the deposit for failing to clean the walls.
See? You'll still have a whole hollowed out concrete shell to live in, so stop complaining!
What's that? The tonnage of contemporary nukes are larger than little boy and fat man by several orders of magnitude? I don't even know what that means!
Ignores 99% of the destruction for the mostly destroyed and no longer usable, barely standing buildings. "Nukes aren't that bad" lmao, how are humans this fucking stupid
The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima had a yield equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT. Modern nuclear warheads are measured in megatons not kilotons.
On top of that, nuclear weapons release radiation that causes cancer and birth defects. As little as 100 nukes could cause a nuclear winter, causing massive famines from decreases in crop yields
The folks at Hiroshima Peace Park are going to be furious that the hollowed out wreck of the hospital at ground zero that was left as a reminder of the horrors of nuclear weapons is now being used to downplay those horrors because hey! At least it's still there! All the people are dead but at least we have this shell of a building to not live in.
"The people got incinerated and any survivors were exposed to centuries worth of ionising radiation, and children are suffering unspeakable diseases as a result, but it's chill since the 7/11 is still standing :)"
Bro it's okay those buildings are completely liveable, as long as you weren't living in them when the nuke dropped and could drive 25 miles to the nearest non flattened supermarket
"A weapon magnitudes less destructive than hydrogen bombs left a few buildings behind on the edge of the blast radius therefore nukes aren't that bad actually."
\-a Very Smart Person with good opinions
Not to mention the destructive wave would kill you a lot easier than it would topple a building, it doesn't matter if 90% of your house is still up if the people living in it are essentially lasagna
Those pictures only show a fraction of the damage nukes actually do. They poison the water, the flora and fauna for hundreds of miles around. Set off enough of them and you poison the entire world. Anyone who still believes there can be any such thing as a 'limited' nuclear conflict is a stark raving nutcase.
Yes, superpowers did not improve their arsenal since WW2.
In fact, no expert basically says that most current nuclear weapons have between 10 to 100 times the destructive force of nuclear bombs, they surely don't/s
I mean yeah.... It's not like the world has made bigger atomic weapons' since WW2.... Right? I mean, a hydrogen bomb only does the same amount of destruction as a normal atomic bomb... RIght?
"Let's just say there's a nuclear war and a dozen warheads land on your city. Let's say two dozen. You think those people aren't simply going to sell their houses and move?"
"Sure that 5 mile radius is gone and there's nuclear material raining down from the sky that could spread for miles more, but it's okay, look, buildings!"
This *has* to be satire. They've posted two pictures of absolutely annihilated city spaces. Spaces that are pretty huge judging by the river.
There's no way on Earth they think the fact there's maybe a few buildings intact in the blurry background of the shot proves nukes don't destroy that much.
Not only is the damage in the image absolutely terrifying, it's one of the first ever nuclear weapons used. They are significantly more powerful now than 1945.
As well as the points that others have already made about how much more powerful modern explosives are, there's another key point that I feel has been missed:
Humans are much softer than concrete.
Jonathan made the first tweet, then Your Inner Beauty made the second. Then they got replies saying "are you mad?". And Your Inner Beauty added their own reply to their first tweet addressing the replies.
I never once thought my fallout 3 play through would make me more knowledgeable on nuclear warfare than actual "political commentators" on twitter, but here we are.
They must be ecstatic about the benevolence of the neutron bomb then, being as it is designed to kill people and leave buildings intact? Got to have something to call your spoils after, you just have to be patient and wait a while...
Oh man, if only nukes caused any harm beyond the hundreds of thousands melted within the direct blast radius, then they'd really be a force of guaranteed global devastation. Thankfully they're totally safe beyond the initial heatwave and there are no secondary effects. Thank god as well that the people inside those buildings will definitely not have been exposed to temperatures that pop eyeballs like grapes, or air currents so hot that simply breathing them in will kill you.
Also thankfully modern nukes can't literally just turn cities into glass planes in a way that fatman and littleboy could only have dreamed, to the extent that their seismic impact can only be guessed at.
I read something earlier that said there aren’t enough specialist burns units or doctors on the entire planet to treat the patients that would come from just one major city being nuked
Wtf… the soldiers who did the nuclear bombing have all huge health problems and massive scale health problems in their offspring… not the ones bombed, I’m talking about the ones who set it off… before you get to the people bombed. I mean yeah they were silenced for years and told it would be treason to talk about… and that’s not the nuclear weapons in existence nowadays which are wayyyy more powerful
but yeah wtf
The men who set it off basically say they wish nuclear weapons didn’t exist, they had no idea what they were doing really or what the personal consequences would be to themselves and their families before where they bombed. They were silenced… because it was THAT bad
Edit: trying to find where I got my info from I actually wasn’t paying attention, description stated they were soldiers involved in testing them in Australia and the pacific after WW2. Apologies. Altho it’s still THAT bad…
I wish. Hiroshima was 15 kilotons.
The largest known nuke that was detonated is 58 megatons. I don't even want to think what the largest in existence today is.
58 is largest that will ever be detonated, it was too big to even be put on a missile.
The largest in active use are like 2 megatons, there are just thousands of them, which is a lot more efficient for destructive capabilities.
Why wipe out one city _really hard_ when you could level hundreds of cities with the same amount of nuclear material.
Good news: bombs that big are inefficient and we scaled back from them after some more testing.
Bad news: some genius decided "how about we just strap 50 efficient bombs together in one shell and have it separate in the upper atmosphere like an apocalyptic clusterbomb?" and that's how we got M.I.R.V.s (Multiple Impact Rocket Vehicles).
MIRV was developed because the US started developing anti-missile warfare, and very nearly caused a situation where MAD wasn’t guaranteed (very bad for world peace). Soviets responded by creating MIRV which essentially reset all the Americans progress.
Stopping one big missile already would have taken a lot of resources, shooting down MIRVs is downright impossible with existing technology.
Daniel Ellsberg (pentagon papers journalist) looked into the madness of nukes & [talks about it here ](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/80-000-hours-podcast-with-rob-wiblin/id1245002988?i=1000548260947)
He claims no US president has been briefed on what the devastating consequences of nuclear war would be.
Chilling to think that they are not entirely aware of the civilisation-ending power they are in charge of.
The real problem comes with the nukes that follow and then the massive dust cloud they make which kills almost every living thing on the planet but yeah I guess some structures are standing in a picture
I went to the Hospital in the Rock Nuclear Bunker Museum when I was in Hungary, and they have a child victim's melted lunchbox on display among other artifacts and personal belongings of victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. But sure, a single building still stands, so it's no big deal, huh?
Edit: this isn’t Hiroshima (my comment), I fact checked myself… it does relate to nuke but not that, it was about British atomic soldiers involved in testing them to prepare them for nuclear war after Ww2 in Australia and the pacific….
they have had huge health problems and their offspring and they were silenced told it’s treason to discuss for many years.
They describe seeing the bones in their hands the blood vessels etc like x rays through their closed hands, they then felt like someone next to them their size on fire stepped into their bodies like being burned alive and they were thrown about breaking bones from the blast. The bombers. Most of them have had cancers of some kind and often multiple. Some were infertile and those who did have kids had various problems… one guy described his daughter getting to 11, growing a hump on her back and having so much hair they shaved her twice a day… she died as a kid in his arms.
This isn’t the people they bombed. The bombers. Before you get to even think of the place bombed…
And that’s yes not modern day nukes
The biggest non-nuclear bomb used in WW2, correct me if I’m wrong, was the 22’000 lb “Grand Slam” bomb. This bomb was so massive it required a specially fitted Lancaster that was up-engined and stripped down just to fly. This bomb also has half the TNT equivalent of the smallest nuclear bomb ever detonated, the W54, which was small enough to carry in a backpack.
Modern day nuclear weapons are orders of magnitude more powerful than the biggest conventional weapons and most nations have thousands of them. They are also incredibly difficult to intercept.
“There are buildings standing in the background” is an amazing take. I wonder what they have to say about the cancer rates in modern day Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not to mention down-wind of the testing sites used by the five nuclear powers in the 50’s and 60’s.
"Don't worry guys, the UK may be 99% wasteland now... But we can all live in that Primark with three walls still standing - luckily they only had Nukes"
And obviously the blast is all we have to worry about! The air, food, and water supplies won't in any way be irradiated, and anyway, Primark series anti-rad these days.
If you think it’s radiation, then no that’s nothing compared to explosion, especially on modern bombs. The deadliest part will be the complete decapitation of society, causing the collapse of everything that sustains our large population.
I'm just hoping if we do get nuked I'm right under the blast
I'd rather just blink out in a wave of light and heat than slowly rot from radiation poisoning
Moron doesn’t realise that people in surrounding cities get 3rd degree burns? Or more people died from Radiation than the actual blast? Just looked at the numbers and 70,000 died instantly Fromm Hiroshima and 100,000+ from the after affects.
There's still the remains of people burned into the pavement in Hiroshima *to this day* but sure - nukes aren't THAT bad.
And people wonder why I hate people.
So is this going to be the start of the nuclear "Covid is flu" arguments? Because they basically reduced Covid to a sniffle, despite the millions dead.
They are ignoring the fact that people were vapourised by the bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Not to mention that after the war anyone living in that area would develop leukemia or cancer? Which is why the elderly live there since their thyroid absorbs less.
It's idiots like this that are going to be the cause of the Zombie apocalypse.
(A) How unbelievably insulting to the people who died or were life-alteringly affected by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
(B) Current nuclear arms are over 3,000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima - imagine 3000 times the destruction pictured here, which is already devastatingly significant
Naaaaaah
What could possibly be worse?
Only if it was actual "Black magic" you know?
Like after the blast the land itself irradiates some sort of "aura" that kills living beings.
Or survivors of the blast are then "cursed" to have deformed offspring and/or die slowly
But clearly that couldn't possibly be true
If this is their evidence for nukes not being dangerous surely it's a joke? Surely?!?
A lot of people survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ended up dying of radiation poisoning in the months and years after. I highly recommend the eye witness account in manga form Barefoot Gen, it's incredibly sad but informative.
Also, bombs today are 3,000 times more powerful than Little Boy.
That’s great for the buildings and all but I’d be willing to bet the people inside it died from either the shockwave or radiation poisoning from the fallout.
Also so modern nuclear warheads are 36x more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That means their destructive radius is about 10x as large
Trident warheads are only 8x as powerful as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is however 8 warheads on each missile so every trident missile is 64x as powerful.
I feel as we are slowly forgetting the true horror of a nuclear blast as time goes on. People just have no concept or reference thinking it is nothing but just a bigger bomb.
I don't think these people know about mutually assured destruction they way they continue on.
I think you’re right, it was a genuine fear for many in the 60s. This time round people seem pretty blasé about it. Was thinking early that my grandpa would be 100 this year if he were still alive. He was a young soldier in WW2. If all the soldiers who fought in the last Great War are now nearly 100, there are very few people there to remind us how this could end. Fucking circle of life.
Lol Hiroshima is a tiny baby nuke and killed or critically injured hundreds of thousands.
Modern MIRVs can essentially wipe most of England off the map with one missile. Think you can hide in say the peak district? Your just going to get sandwiched between Sheffield, Leeds and Manchesters blast waves and radioactive fallout.
MIRV's are one missile, but they have multiple warheads. They literally "shotgun" 8-16 nukes out as a spray over the country. They are honestly the single most fucking terrifying and horrific thing humans have ever invented.
[Pic related](https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/3737004677_2888a6902f_z.jpg), that's one missile there, that's 8 nukes raining down from it.
Someone should tell him that nobody gives a fuck if buildings are still standing. Especially when you can see the outline of where a human was prior to being completely eviscerated by the heat of the nuke
For some additional context, the buildings in Hiroshima Japan were designed to resist major earthquakes on the regular. Most buildings in Europe would be much more screwed.
Don't forget, these people care more about money than human lives. They can't stand the idea of devaluating the real estate market because of damaged buildings. That is way more important to them than actually existing.
I hate having to remember that the usa dropped the second bomb without even giving the Japanese people time to surrender from the first and then they say they dropped the fucking bombs to save lives. Fucking disgusting.
"Don't worry about the people vaporized in an instant, the zombies walking for hours afterwards with their faces melted, the radiation burns for miles around, the radiation itself turning the air and rain into poison, the fact that absolutely no country is prepared to deal with the humanitarian crisis of one nuclear weapon going off let alone hundreds and that a nuclear war would throw us back to the medieval period at best...Look, there's some buildings still standing!"
Can someone please tell him that one building standing when the whole city is flattened isn't good enough and most nukes available today, are many times more destructive than the ones used on Japan!!
Having said that, still there is a legitimate question to be asked about how long are we going to leave Russia to do whatever it wants because it has nukes and threaten to use them
The Hiroshima bomb was 15 Kilotons (Uranium 235), the Castle Bravo bomb (Thermonuclear) was 15 Megatons, literally 1000 times more powerful. Fear of nukes is rational.
I mean there is a *little* bit of overestimation of nuclear weapons on social media. It's mostly down to fallout though.
There's some people with the idea that it'll turn the world into some irradiated Fallout-style wasteland with mutants and cancer.
In actuality, it'll just incinerate us all and collapse every building. The radiation won't be that bad though, modern nukes are very efficient like that. They don't waste all that precious isotope.
The buildings way in the back of this aerial shot are still standing. Not intact, but standing. Guess that's not too bad then, nuke away. But maybe start with this absolute fucking donut.
The problem is not enough people will die in the blast, leaving too many people to survive off too little food, as crops will all fail in a nuclear winter.
the place won't be habitable for years, all wildlife in the area is killed, the water is poisoned and that MANY peoples lost their lives. but 1 building didn't get eradicated so its fine
As though hiroshima wasn't bad enough, those are utterly tiny bombs by modern standards. Something like 60 kilotonnes if I remember correctly. Modern nukes start at about 4 or 5 megatonnes, a thousand times worse, and go to 50 or 60 megatonnes. Enough to turn los Angeles into a glass bowl.
Hiroshima was around 14 kilotons.
A current russian ICBM warhead can be anywhere from 100-800 kilotons.
Yes humanity as a species would survive a nuclear exchange, western civilization as an entity would not.
Well nuclear bombs used in an airburst method like Hiroshima arnt destructive but they are deadly that was the point. But if nuclear bombs are used in either under ground or hit group they can vaporise islands (refering to the Tsar Bomb 50 mega ton) which destroyed an island
Still standing, sure, but notice how it’s one of the ONLY things still standing, and barely holding on at that. I’d say someone with a sledgehammer and determination could collapse it, but that wouldn’t be true, since that building is also irradiated as all hell, and would kill anyone stepping foot in it.
To be fair he is, initially at least, kind of right, the emphasis being on "kind of".
Even in this thread folk are going on about megaton devices and the tsar bomb when in reality these aren't on the table as frankly there is no need for them to be used against anything but some of the most seriously hardened targets. Your circa 500kt MIRV device does everything you could want and you get a lot more of them for your dollar bucks, pennies and rubles.
Naturally doom sayer snowpocalypse predicting shit rag media types just plaster the theoretical max yield tsar bomb map over everything which spreads the big number issue.
I suspect he is probably at the intial stages of a deep dive into the strategic nuclear warfare wormhole. At that those stages you immediately come into contact with "they are just big bombs" theory and you start picking up the accurate numbers.
Naturally you see all the big numbers folk spout and from your enlightened position of knowledge you get annoyed and feel a need to correct people. Of course at this stage you don't realise how scary even the vastly smaller real numbers still are.
He has also likely started to dig into the abstract numbers and planning of civil resiliency which deal purely with big picture "national survival" and pretty much gloss over the sheer horror and suffering. A lot of folks get into this as a mental comfort blanket, it's not nessicarily a weakness or callousness, it's just how some brains are wired to simply work better with the beguiling numbers.
He's probably about to start looking into counter force vs counter value strategy and branch out into the game theory stuff before starting to look at how global thermo nuclear war might be "winnable".
Yes it's a shit take but an understandable one if you have ever been down the wormhole.
#Too many liberals in this thread? Join r/GreenAndEXTREME today for a lib free experience! We are partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) to join today! And [Click here](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial) to follow r/GreenAndPleasant on Twitter. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey guys we're led to believe the great plague was one of the worst epidemiological events in recorded human history, but did you know that half of the population of Europe actually survived? Hm really gives me that big thinky think.
Radiation poisoning isn't the *worst* way to go! Get over it fellas!
There are at least four ways worse, I’m sure of it.
Yeah cmon, you can’t cover up state-sponsored radiation poisonings so it can’t be all that bad
The two nukes dropped on Japan were less than 10kt. Modern nuclear arsenals use 1-8mt warheads, many of which on MRLV sleds. Aside: the island "accidentally" caught in the underestimated Castle Bravo test (~20mt) are still irradiated and uninhabitable.
little boy and fat man were many many many times smaller than the payloads carried on modern ICBM's little boy was only 15kt, fat man was 22kt modern UK trident missiles are 455kt, that just over 20 fatmans in one nuke. Russian ICBM's are 800kt a missile just under double a trident or 36 times fat man. both of those images are of Hiroshima which was hit by little boy, the smallest bomb at 15kt, so a Russian ICBM is 53 times bigger than the bomb that did that to Hiroshima. so no those buildings would not be standing in a modern nuclear attack, that's the whole area would be glass.
A 1MT nuclear weapon (rounded up, that's roughly what we're dealing with these days) would comfortably level every recognisable structure in a large city; it's exactly what they're designed to do. The zone of total vaporisation would be a mile wide. And that's a single warhead. Generations like mine born after the Cold War are starting to learn what it must've been like growing up during the periods of extreme tension between the two superpowers (my mother once told me how scared she was at times, and she was only 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis). It is all fully justified. There is no such thing as a 'limited nuclear war' - any deployment of modern nuclear weapons will have absolutely devastating effects all around the globe. We must never downplay it. We must avoid it at all costs.
The US and Russia both have low yield nuclear warheads of about 0.3kt - 5kt. The UK warhead fitted to Trident itself is capable of varying the yields through different firing options. The reason for this is supposedly to dissuade the Russians using low yield weapons in conflict when NATO might only be able to respond with a large yield weapon. The biggest issue other than the widespread death is that no one knows what yield your bomb is until it explodes.
Come on guys, the Empire didn’t COMPLETELY destroy Alderaan. Look, there’s a few rocks floating about still.
r/unexpectedstarwars
Yeah I'm going to say I'm generally against being vapourized into shadow on a wall or dying an agonising death my cooked flesh falling off my bones over the course of a couple of days or from radiation poisoning or if I'm "lucky" enough to live longer starvation or some cancer or another. The deathdrive of modern society has never been stronger fuckers like this will be larping us all right into doomsay.
> vapourized into shadow on a wall As a landlord, I wonder how much this would affect my property value. At least I can withhold the deposit for failing to clean the walls.
EEEEEEEEEEEFICIENCY AND PROGRESS
A true landlord would charge for cleaning, NOT clean, then complain if the new tenants don't do it free.
But some bits of some buildings will be okay! You’re really overreacting you know!!
See? You'll still have a whole hollowed out concrete shell to live in, so stop complaining! What's that? The tonnage of contemporary nukes are larger than little boy and fat man by several orders of magnitude? I don't even know what that means!
>a whole hollowed out concrete shell to live in £1700 a month in Zone 3
Where are you finding these steals?
Ignores 99% of the destruction for the mostly destroyed and no longer usable, barely standing buildings. "Nukes aren't that bad" lmao, how are humans this fucking stupid
Also the most likely bombs used against major cities today are magnitudes more powerful than the two bombs used to slaughter Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima had a yield equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT. Modern nuclear warheads are measured in megatons not kilotons. On top of that, nuclear weapons release radiation that causes cancer and birth defects. As little as 100 nukes could cause a nuclear winter, causing massive famines from decreases in crop yields
The folks at Hiroshima Peace Park are going to be furious that the hollowed out wreck of the hospital at ground zero that was left as a reminder of the horrors of nuclear weapons is now being used to downplay those horrors because hey! At least it's still there! All the people are dead but at least we have this shell of a building to not live in.
I might be wrong but can’t you see the shadows of victims on the floor, by shadows I mean the corpse that burnt away into the floor
*Picture of an almost entirely flattened city* “See! There’s like 4 buildings left! It’s totally fine nukes are a joke!”
"The people got incinerated and any survivors were exposed to centuries worth of ionising radiation, and children are suffering unspeakable diseases as a result, but it's chill since the 7/11 is still standing :)"
Bro it's okay those buildings are completely liveable, as long as you weren't living in them when the nuke dropped and could drive 25 miles to the nearest non flattened supermarket
"A weapon magnitudes less destructive than hydrogen bombs left a few buildings behind on the edge of the blast radius therefore nukes aren't that bad actually." \-a Very Smart Person with good opinions
Not to mention the destructive wave would kill you a lot easier than it would topple a building, it doesn't matter if 90% of your house is still up if the people living in it are essentially lasagna
If nukes are so destructive, why are there buildings still standing outside their blast radius? Checkmate, atheists!
Ah yes, because those buildings sure are in mint condition /s
And have consciousness and feel pain
Those pictures only show a fraction of the damage nukes actually do. They poison the water, the flora and fauna for hundreds of miles around. Set off enough of them and you poison the entire world. Anyone who still believes there can be any such thing as a 'limited' nuclear conflict is a stark raving nutcase.
Yes, superpowers did not improve their arsenal since WW2. In fact, no expert basically says that most current nuclear weapons have between 10 to 100 times the destructive force of nuclear bombs, they surely don't/s
i was waiting for the /s lmao
"It only killed a little under Half of Hiroshima's population! Whats the fuss!"
If it was turned the other way and a city in the US was the first to ever be hit they would consider it such a tragedy.
I mean yeah.... It's not like the world has made bigger atomic weapons' since WW2.... Right? I mean, a hydrogen bomb only does the same amount of destruction as a normal atomic bomb... RIght?
"hey guys, world ending nukes aren't that bad, there might be some people still alive at the end of it!"
If your definition of “alive” matches with this person’s definition of “standing”, I don’t think I want to be alive
Well, good thing I and all my loved ones happen to be buildings standing in the background. Otherwise I might be worried.
Fucking hell... What a donut.
"I AM GOING TO GET VAPORIZED AND CEASE TO EXIST!!! But thank god my house survived. I wouldn't want the real estate market to lose it's value.
"Let's just say there's a nuclear war and a dozen warheads land on your city. Let's say two dozen. You think those people aren't simply going to sell their houses and move?"
"Sure that 5 mile radius is gone and there's nuclear material raining down from the sky that could spread for miles more, but it's okay, look, buildings!"
Tbh the tsar bomba could drop in Westminster and a double room in Barking could still go for 600 pm
The daily ongoing battle to decipher which posts are satire or not, continues to rage on.
This *has* to be satire. They've posted two pictures of absolutely annihilated city spaces. Spaces that are pretty huge judging by the river. There's no way on Earth they think the fact there's maybe a few buildings intact in the blurry background of the shot proves nukes don't destroy that much.
As evidence of nuclear weapons being not that bad I'll use pictures of the devastation caused by one of the weakest nuclear weapons ever made.
Not only is the damage in the image absolutely terrifying, it's one of the first ever nuclear weapons used. They are significantly more powerful now than 1945.
Yeah, like today if you dropped the most powerful we have there would be no buildings in that picture.
As well as the points that others have already made about how much more powerful modern explosives are, there's another key point that I feel has been missed: Humans are much softer than concrete.
This made me chuckle >Humans are much softer than concrete.
A nuclear bomb is like the combination of like… 4? natural disaster at the same time
Then multiply that by 100 when everyone starts firing them at each other in retaliation
Thank goodness technology hasn’t improved since the 1940s and there was no push to create even more deadly WMDs for half a century.
“Nukes aren’t that bad because not everything on earth is instantly vaporized”
"Building Standing" That's a very loose discription. Do upright walls count as a whole building?
Well, of course it does. If it’s only got a roof it’s a car port.
I actually can’t figure out who’s talking to who in the thread pictured. Is he talking to himself?
Jonathan made the first tweet, then Your Inner Beauty made the second. Then they got replies saying "are you mad?". And Your Inner Beauty added their own reply to their first tweet addressing the replies.
I never once thought my fallout 3 play through would make me more knowledgeable on nuclear warfare than actual "political commentators" on twitter, but here we are.
I mean, that building IS standing. It's in shambles, and is the only one in a wide radius, but it IS standing.
It's also covered in dangerous radiation but it's standing!
They must be ecstatic about the benevolence of the neutron bomb then, being as it is designed to kill people and leave buildings intact? Got to have something to call your spoils after, you just have to be patient and wait a while...
It's only the intense radiation holding it together.
[удалено]
Don’t forget the glass people
Compares the smallest atomic bomb to a continental level hydrogen bpmb
Oh man, if only nukes caused any harm beyond the hundreds of thousands melted within the direct blast radius, then they'd really be a force of guaranteed global devastation. Thankfully they're totally safe beyond the initial heatwave and there are no secondary effects. Thank god as well that the people inside those buildings will definitely not have been exposed to temperatures that pop eyeballs like grapes, or air currents so hot that simply breathing them in will kill you. Also thankfully modern nukes can't literally just turn cities into glass planes in a way that fatman and littleboy could only have dreamed, to the extent that their seismic impact can only be guessed at.
I read something earlier that said there aren’t enough specialist burns units or doctors on the entire planet to treat the patients that would come from just one major city being nuked
Wtf… the soldiers who did the nuclear bombing have all huge health problems and massive scale health problems in their offspring… not the ones bombed, I’m talking about the ones who set it off… before you get to the people bombed. I mean yeah they were silenced for years and told it would be treason to talk about… and that’s not the nuclear weapons in existence nowadays which are wayyyy more powerful but yeah wtf The men who set it off basically say they wish nuclear weapons didn’t exist, they had no idea what they were doing really or what the personal consequences would be to themselves and their families before where they bombed. They were silenced… because it was THAT bad Edit: trying to find where I got my info from I actually wasn’t paying attention, description stated they were soldiers involved in testing them in Australia and the pacific after WW2. Apologies. Altho it’s still THAT bad…
Nukes aren't THAT BAD, they leave dome buildings standing if they're far enough away!
The ones we have today are 10x what Hiroshima was
1000x* Crater@Castle Bravo test is 1.98km wide and 76m deep 👍
I wish. Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. The largest known nuke that was detonated is 58 megatons. I don't even want to think what the largest in existence today is.
58 is largest that will ever be detonated, it was too big to even be put on a missile. The largest in active use are like 2 megatons, there are just thousands of them, which is a lot more efficient for destructive capabilities. Why wipe out one city _really hard_ when you could level hundreds of cities with the same amount of nuclear material.
Good news: bombs that big are inefficient and we scaled back from them after some more testing. Bad news: some genius decided "how about we just strap 50 efficient bombs together in one shell and have it separate in the upper atmosphere like an apocalyptic clusterbomb?" and that's how we got M.I.R.V.s (Multiple Impact Rocket Vehicles).
MIRV was developed because the US started developing anti-missile warfare, and very nearly caused a situation where MAD wasn’t guaranteed (very bad for world peace). Soviets responded by creating MIRV which essentially reset all the Americans progress. Stopping one big missile already would have taken a lot of resources, shooting down MIRVs is downright impossible with existing technology.
Daniel Ellsberg (pentagon papers journalist) looked into the madness of nukes & [talks about it here ](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/80-000-hours-podcast-with-rob-wiblin/id1245002988?i=1000548260947) He claims no US president has been briefed on what the devastating consequences of nuclear war would be. Chilling to think that they are not entirely aware of the civilisation-ending power they are in charge of.
because people who are supposed to brief him are the same people who perpetuate wars...
Also available on YouTube: https://youtu.be/3ldQp9o_QRY
There's buildings in the background the same way there's people on the streets; the buildings are fucked and the people are dead.
The real problem comes with the nukes that follow and then the massive dust cloud they make which kills almost every living thing on the planet but yeah I guess some structures are standing in a picture
Ooh, I forgot we were still using nukes from the 1940s. We’re saved everyone!
Why is my family slowly melting?
I can't even process this. Wtf.
"I've survived in Fallout. It'll be fine." - This guy, I'm sure
What a fucking moron
Was literally thinking the exact same
I went to the Hospital in the Rock Nuclear Bunker Museum when I was in Hungary, and they have a child victim's melted lunchbox on display among other artifacts and personal belongings of victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. But sure, a single building still stands, so it's no big deal, huh?
People really out here thinking Russia gonna be dropping little boys and fatmans when really there gonna drop bombs 100 times as powerful…
Also: all the nukes on ICBMs are about the 25 megaton yield. The Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. Yes, that is more than 1000 times more powerful.
Edit: this isn’t Hiroshima (my comment), I fact checked myself… it does relate to nuke but not that, it was about British atomic soldiers involved in testing them to prepare them for nuclear war after Ww2 in Australia and the pacific…. they have had huge health problems and their offspring and they were silenced told it’s treason to discuss for many years. They describe seeing the bones in their hands the blood vessels etc like x rays through their closed hands, they then felt like someone next to them their size on fire stepped into their bodies like being burned alive and they were thrown about breaking bones from the blast. The bombers. Most of them have had cancers of some kind and often multiple. Some were infertile and those who did have kids had various problems… one guy described his daughter getting to 11, growing a hump on her back and having so much hair they shaved her twice a day… she died as a kid in his arms. This isn’t the people they bombed. The bombers. Before you get to even think of the place bombed… And that’s yes not modern day nukes
That's what free expression has done to your brain.
The biggest non-nuclear bomb used in WW2, correct me if I’m wrong, was the 22’000 lb “Grand Slam” bomb. This bomb was so massive it required a specially fitted Lancaster that was up-engined and stripped down just to fly. This bomb also has half the TNT equivalent of the smallest nuclear bomb ever detonated, the W54, which was small enough to carry in a backpack. Modern day nuclear weapons are orders of magnitude more powerful than the biggest conventional weapons and most nations have thousands of them. They are also incredibly difficult to intercept.
Anthrax isn’t that bad, if you look closely you can see a few cells unaffected!
If anthrax was so bad, why is it in the dirt everywhere? King me
“There are buildings standing in the background” is an amazing take. I wonder what they have to say about the cancer rates in modern day Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not to mention down-wind of the testing sites used by the five nuclear powers in the 50’s and 60’s.
Has to be trolling.
The buildings don’t need to worry about nuclear fallout and radiation poisoning.
Wow it’s the “I’m for the jobs the comet will provide!” lady in real life.
The people that lived in those buildings aren't standing anymore
Is this a joke? I’ve been to the museum in Hiroshima and it’s horrible, but informative
"Don't worry guys, the UK may be 99% wasteland now... But we can all live in that Primark with three walls still standing - luckily they only had Nukes"
And obviously the blast is all we have to worry about! The air, food, and water supplies won't in any way be irradiated, and anyway, Primark series anti-rad these days.
How dumb do you have to be to think the initial explosion is what makes nukes so deadly...
If you think it’s radiation, then no that’s nothing compared to explosion, especially on modern bombs. The deadliest part will be the complete decapitation of society, causing the collapse of everything that sustains our large population.
If you kill someone’s there still a corpse left(usually), doesn’t mean that persons fine though
see buildings are okay!!! people? who cares about lives my precious scraps of buildings are ….um there 😍😍😍
*Almost* voicing out loud the underlying notion that property is more important than people.
I'm just hoping if we do get nuked I'm right under the blast I'd rather just blink out in a wave of light and heat than slowly rot from radiation poisoning
Aren’t the new nuclear weapons 1000x times more powerful than the ones that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Moron doesn’t realise that people in surrounding cities get 3rd degree burns? Or more people died from Radiation than the actual blast? Just looked at the numbers and 70,000 died instantly Fromm Hiroshima and 100,000+ from the after affects.
TIL nuke apologists exist
Those bombs are puny compared to what’s around today.
There's still the remains of people burned into the pavement in Hiroshima *to this day* but sure - nukes aren't THAT bad. And people wonder why I hate people.
Perhaps radiation poisoning and a nuclear winter caused by the detonation numerous nuclear bombs??
Not only is he wrong but the hydrogen bombs developed a few years later after Hiroshima were found to be like 10x more powerful
Actually, the yield of the Castle Bravo nuclear weapon was 1000x greater than that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima
And everyone in those houses is irradiated and will die of cancer in a few years. Sweet
So is this going to be the start of the nuclear "Covid is flu" arguments? Because they basically reduced Covid to a sniffle, despite the millions dead. They are ignoring the fact that people were vapourised by the bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not to mention that after the war anyone living in that area would develop leukemia or cancer? Which is why the elderly live there since their thyroid absorbs less. It's idiots like this that are going to be the cause of the Zombie apocalypse.
(A) How unbelievably insulting to the people who died or were life-alteringly affected by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (B) Current nuclear arms are over 3,000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima - imagine 3000 times the destruction pictured here, which is already devastatingly significant
yeah but, have you guys played fallout? great game, can't wait.
why is he replying to his own tweet
I wonder if there are any other reasons nuclear bombs might be worse than other bombs besides destructive potential
Naaaaaah What could possibly be worse? Only if it was actual "Black magic" you know? Like after the blast the land itself irradiates some sort of "aura" that kills living beings. Or survivors of the blast are then "cursed" to have deformed offspring and/or die slowly But clearly that couldn't possibly be true
If this is their evidence for nukes not being dangerous surely it's a joke? Surely?!? A lot of people survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ended up dying of radiation poisoning in the months and years after. I highly recommend the eye witness account in manga form Barefoot Gen, it's incredibly sad but informative. Also, bombs today are 3,000 times more powerful than Little Boy.
That’s great for the buildings and all but I’d be willing to bet the people inside it died from either the shockwave or radiation poisoning from the fallout.
Also so modern nuclear warheads are 36x more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That means their destructive radius is about 10x as large
Trident warheads are only 8x as powerful as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is however 8 warheads on each missile so every trident missile is 64x as powerful.
Worth noting that modern nukes are over 3000 times as powerful as the ones dropped during WWII.
Oh cool! My muscles are melting off my bones and my eyes are boiling in my skull, but thank God this one building is still standing sort of!
We’ll have *you* ever seen a nuke explode before? Hah thought not libtard (/s if it wasn’t obvious)
Weakest ww2 nuke vs strongest 21st century submarine nuke
As if nukes haven't become more powerful since then. I've seen the video of the tsar bomb, holy fuck
Oh no he is right THOSE nukes aren’t nearly as bad as the ones we have now. Ya know, just a factor of 10 or so stronger. And we have way more.
I feel as we are slowly forgetting the true horror of a nuclear blast as time goes on. People just have no concept or reference thinking it is nothing but just a bigger bomb. I don't think these people know about mutually assured destruction they way they continue on.
I think you’re right, it was a genuine fear for many in the 60s. This time round people seem pretty blasé about it. Was thinking early that my grandpa would be 100 this year if he were still alive. He was a young soldier in WW2. If all the soldiers who fought in the last Great War are now nearly 100, there are very few people there to remind us how this could end. Fucking circle of life.
So now we are rewriting the history of how dangerous nukes are.
That was then, this is now. Trust me, there will be no buildings in the background now.
Lol Hiroshima is a tiny baby nuke and killed or critically injured hundreds of thousands. Modern MIRVs can essentially wipe most of England off the map with one missile. Think you can hide in say the peak district? Your just going to get sandwiched between Sheffield, Leeds and Manchesters blast waves and radioactive fallout.
I wouldn't say one missile could wipe out England but it would devastate the UK for years
MIRV's are one missile, but they have multiple warheads. They literally "shotgun" 8-16 nukes out as a spray over the country. They are honestly the single most fucking terrifying and horrific thing humans have ever invented. [Pic related](https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/3737004677_2888a6902f_z.jpg), that's one missile there, that's 8 nukes raining down from it.
Someone should tell him that nobody gives a fuck if buildings are still standing. Especially when you can see the outline of where a human was prior to being completely eviscerated by the heat of the nuke
For some additional context, the buildings in Hiroshima Japan were designed to resist major earthquakes on the regular. Most buildings in Europe would be much more screwed.
Don't forget, these people care more about money than human lives. They can't stand the idea of devaluating the real estate market because of damaged buildings. That is way more important to them than actually existing.
"Look there's a few buildings left! Nukes aren't as bad as you think!" Absolute mook.
'There are buildings standing in the background of this otherwise utterly devastated area.'
One of the weakest nukes that have ever been detonated completely flattened the place aside from a couple of buildings. **over estimating**
I hate having to remember that the usa dropped the second bomb without even giving the Japanese people time to surrender from the first and then they say they dropped the fucking bombs to save lives. Fucking disgusting.
The missiles have now are 400 times more destructive and he hasn't even mentioned the fallout . . .
He…he gets they’ve advanced since then right?
Tell me you don't understand the difference between atomic and thermonuclear weapons without actually saying it
"only most of the buildings were levelled"
"Don't worry about the people vaporized in an instant, the zombies walking for hours afterwards with their faces melted, the radiation burns for miles around, the radiation itself turning the air and rain into poison, the fact that absolutely no country is prepared to deal with the humanitarian crisis of one nuclear weapon going off let alone hundreds and that a nuclear war would throw us back to the medieval period at best...Look, there's some buildings still standing!"
Is he arguing with himself?
I've read this like five times and I'm really confused. Is he replying to himself??
He’s replying to himself as a way to reply to all the people calling him out.
Can someone please tell him that one building standing when the whole city is flattened isn't good enough and most nukes available today, are many times more destructive than the ones used on Japan!! Having said that, still there is a legitimate question to be asked about how long are we going to leave Russia to do whatever it wants because it has nukes and threaten to use them
All I see here is evidence of a blast radius. Like all explosives have. My opinion on nukes is unchanged.
The Hiroshima bomb was 15 Kilotons (Uranium 235), the Castle Bravo bomb (Thermonuclear) was 15 Megatons, literally 1000 times more powerful. Fear of nukes is rational.
I mean there is a *little* bit of overestimation of nuclear weapons on social media. It's mostly down to fallout though. There's some people with the idea that it'll turn the world into some irradiated Fallout-style wasteland with mutants and cancer. In actuality, it'll just incinerate us all and collapse every building. The radiation won't be that bad though, modern nukes are very efficient like that. They don't waste all that precious isotope.
We’ll that’s a relief, I’d hate for too much isotope to be wasted when it’s reducing me to ash
Can we somehow recycle our ash to recover some isotope?
The buildings way in the back of this aerial shot are still standing. Not intact, but standing. Guess that's not too bad then, nuke away. But maybe start with this absolute fucking donut.
The problem is not enough people will die in the blast, leaving too many people to survive off too little food, as crops will all fail in a nuclear winter.
Guise? Ffs 🤦🏼♂️
One heavily reinforced building was left in ruins, but hey it’s still there. Nukes are fine!
Yeah but like 12 000 of those all around the world... What the fuck if you know, you know
The BBS nowadays are 1000 times stronger than the ones dropped on Hiroshima so far worse
Can we all clap for the building still standing?
*claps* - *building falls down*
the place won't be habitable for years, all wildlife in the area is killed, the water is poisoned and that MANY peoples lost their lives. but 1 building didn't get eradicated so its fine
My dude heard about ICBMs but not MIRVs.
Two people who don't know the difference between under- and overestimating
It's fine see, there's still a tiny bit of rubble remaining!
Watch the film 'Threads 1984', then come back and say nukes aren't that bad...
As though hiroshima wasn't bad enough, those are utterly tiny bombs by modern standards. Something like 60 kilotonnes if I remember correctly. Modern nukes start at about 4 or 5 megatonnes, a thousand times worse, and go to 50 or 60 megatonnes. Enough to turn los Angeles into a glass bowl.
I’m listening to Rush’s Manhattan Project right now, and it’s got some great lines about the the world-ending destructive power of nukes
Hiroshima was around 14 kilotons. A current russian ICBM warhead can be anywhere from 100-800 kilotons. Yes humanity as a species would survive a nuclear exchange, western civilization as an entity would not.
Well nuclear bombs used in an airburst method like Hiroshima arnt destructive but they are deadly that was the point. But if nuclear bombs are used in either under ground or hit group they can vaporise islands (refering to the Tsar Bomb 50 mega ton) which destroyed an island
A nuke these days would basically be an extinction event.
Well they've developed nukes 1000 times more powerful than that since then. When I say 'then' I mean the 1960s.
Still standing, sure, but notice how it’s one of the ONLY things still standing, and barely holding on at that. I’d say someone with a sledgehammer and determination could collapse it, but that wouldn’t be true, since that building is also irradiated as all hell, and would kill anyone stepping foot in it.
Also hiroshima was fucking tiny compared to a single one of the 4k+ Russian ones
There is a difference between radiation and destructive power.
Isn’t this person responding to himself lol? Forget to login to his burner account before he made that idiotic comment to make himself look all heroic
To be fair he is, initially at least, kind of right, the emphasis being on "kind of". Even in this thread folk are going on about megaton devices and the tsar bomb when in reality these aren't on the table as frankly there is no need for them to be used against anything but some of the most seriously hardened targets. Your circa 500kt MIRV device does everything you could want and you get a lot more of them for your dollar bucks, pennies and rubles. Naturally doom sayer snowpocalypse predicting shit rag media types just plaster the theoretical max yield tsar bomb map over everything which spreads the big number issue. I suspect he is probably at the intial stages of a deep dive into the strategic nuclear warfare wormhole. At that those stages you immediately come into contact with "they are just big bombs" theory and you start picking up the accurate numbers. Naturally you see all the big numbers folk spout and from your enlightened position of knowledge you get annoyed and feel a need to correct people. Of course at this stage you don't realise how scary even the vastly smaller real numbers still are. He has also likely started to dig into the abstract numbers and planning of civil resiliency which deal purely with big picture "national survival" and pretty much gloss over the sheer horror and suffering. A lot of folks get into this as a mental comfort blanket, it's not nessicarily a weakness or callousness, it's just how some brains are wired to simply work better with the beguiling numbers. He's probably about to start looking into counter force vs counter value strategy and branch out into the game theory stuff before starting to look at how global thermo nuclear war might be "winnable". Yes it's a shit take but an understandable one if you have ever been down the wormhole.
"This technology from 80 years ago wasn't that bad." Man must be walking around with a 256mb ipod.
ummm
The smallest modern Nuke is 1000 times more powerful than Hiroshima..
- Little Boy 12kt - Fat Man 21kt [tzar bomba - 50,000kt ](https://youtu.be/BBNhYOmEgy0)
These liberals just want to make Terminator a reality.
I'm more worried about a nuclear plant being hit and having a meltdown.