Stick with what we know....

Thread View: alt.destroy.the.earth

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by Ronald William Ely Thu, 29 Oct 1992 21:22

#23

Author: Ronald William Ely
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 21:22

24 lines
1920 bytes

	We get all these ideas about antimater, smashing asteroids into
the earth, diverting the earth into the moon, self replicating robots,
having everyone on the planet flush their toilets all at once, etc etc etc.
But what's wrong with trying the obvious.  NUKE IT!  How many
nuclear weapons would we need to fry the entire surface of the planet?
The surface of the earth is ~2.5x10^9 square miles, and a 10 megaton
weapon could toast a 10 mile square area.  That means all we need is
~25,000,000 nuclear weapons.  There are something like 50,000 in the
whole world right now, but surely if we didn't have to build delivery
systems for them they would be much cheaper to build, so mayhaps
it could be done.  And after all, it wasn't so long ago that there were
only 50,000 computers in the world, but now they are in the
hundreds of millions.
	Now I know your all going to say "what about deep sea life?"
Simple, nuke them also!  We just sink some of the nukes deep into the
ocean and blow them up there.  If they are detonated at the ocean floor
they should kill everything above them as well.  Now granted, we might
need some extra megatonage.  Also bear in mind that current nuclear
weapons are not designed for underwater use.  Perhaps it is possible to
build weapons which are more effective underwater, or could even
exploit the water.  Maybe a pattern on nuclear weapons could fuse
the hydrogen in the ocean and boost their power?

Re: Stick with what we know....

#22

Author: Robert Andracsek
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 03:48

32 lines
2379 bytes

In article <0ew5M8_00VooI3sVIG@andrew.cmu.edu> Ronald William Ely <re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
 >	We get all these ideas about antimater, smashing asteroids into
 >the earth, diverting the earth into the moon, self replicating robots,
 >having everyone on the planet flush their toilets all at once, etc etc etc.
 >But what's wrong with trying the obvious.  NUKE IT!  How many
 >nuclear weapons would we need to fry the entire surface of the planet?
 >The surface of the earth is ~2.5x10^9 square miles, and a 10 megaton
 >weapon could toast a 10 mile square area.  That means all we need is
 >~25,000,000 nuclear weapons.  There are something like 50,000 in the
 >whole world right now, but surely if we didn't have to build delivery
 >systems for them they would be much cheaper to build, so mayhaps
 >it could be done.  And after all, it wasn't so long ago that there were
 >only 50,000 computers in the world, but now they are in the
 >hundreds of millions.
 >	Now I know your all going to say "what about deep sea life?"
 >Simple, nuke them also!  We just sink some of the nukes deep into the
 >ocean and blow them up there.  If they are detonated at the ocean floor
 >they should kill everything above them as well.  Now granted, we might
 >need some extra megatonage.  Also bear in mind that current nuclear
 >weapons are not designed for underwater use.  Perhaps it is possible to
 >build weapons which are more effective underwater, or could even
 >exploit the water.  Maybe a pattern on nuclear weapons could fuse
 >the hydrogen in the ocean and boost their power? 
 
Well, if you wana take out the oceans, just pop one huge sodium
capsule down there...  oughta be fun to watch...

-- 
|R. Andracsek  |  e-mail: andra@cs.widener.edu  |  Voice: kinda deep...  
|  Coach:"Do you think losing is funny?!?"
|  Player:"Not at first, but once you get the hang of it..."
|                 ---The Mighty Ducks

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads