>
New Topic
>
Topic Locked
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> END OF THE WORLD ??
Bookmark topic
AFAIK it will be a natural disaster that will kill all of us ... unless we kill ourselves first!!
--
Posted: 2005-08-02 15:49:59
Edit :
Quote
@786KBR
What I am saying is that in theoretical terms nuclear weapons may have the capacity to destroy all human lif eon Earth, but in practical terms thye do not. Various targets would need to be hit multiple times to ensure both accuracy and destruction e.g. large cities, reinforced positions, etc.
This depeletes the advanatge of numbers that nuclear weapons would have. The vast tracks of the Earth with sparse populations e.g. Sharah, Gobi, Sibera, Steepes, etc are so vast and sparsley populated that nuclear weaponry, as it currently stands, would not be sufficient to kill everyone in those areas.
The result would be a series of isolated communities.
--
Posted: 2005-08-02 15:51:24
Edit :
Quote
what happens if for some weird unexplained reason its all simaltaneous???
but i get what you say, who wants to attack the north and south poles???
--
Posted: 2005-08-02 15:54:59
Edit :
Quote
The world will end when Emporer Palpantine moves his death star into range
--
Posted: 2005-08-02 15:59:39
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-08-02 15:47:38, axxxr wrote:
scotsboyuk i would'nt say nuclear war is the most unlikey way the world will end..my belief is that it is the most likey way you cannot dissagree with the fact that their is enough stockpiles of nuclear weapons on the planet that it could destroy this planet 7 times over..
As I said to 786KBR, the destructive capacity of current nuclear stockpiles is overestimated. Multiple weapons would need to be used on large population centres and military installations. The most likely outcome of such a war would be the destruction of most of the developed world. The Third World would be most likely to fair the best in a nuclear exchange owing to its relatively low strategic importance in military terms.
Quote:
even though the former sovet union is longer able to use its stockpiles i would think america along with israel will use its stock on the middle east as..american's have a incredibly bad histoy when it comes to nuclear weapons as they have used then in Japan as you know...so to trust them now would be foolish.. my gut instinct says they will use them again.only this time the distruction will be 100X what Hiroshima or Nagasaki was.
A nuclear exchange in the Middle East is certainly likely given the current situation there. However, I would disagree with your analysis with regards to American involvement. I would present the following scenario:
Israel and an Arabic neighbour with nuclear wepaonry, likely either Iran or, at some future stage, Syria, become embroile din a war. The likely cause of such a war being terrorist action against Israel or Israeli intervention against the aforementioned Arabic country(ies).
If the war turned nuclear it is likely that America would actively seek to end the war and limit the damage as far as possible to preserve oil stockpiles in the region. The American economy is hevaily dependent upon oil an the Middle East is still the single last source of that oil. Damage to those stokcpiles would likely result in a shift in th world's economic focus towards Russia and Western Africa as it looked for new oil supplies. This would represent a dangerous challenge to the cornerstone of American power, economic supermacy.
America would be far more likely to impose an end to any such war or to even prevent it from happening in the first place through whatever means were necessary. It would simply be too costly to America and could possibly result in a challenge to their power.
--
Posted: 2005-08-02 16:01:04
Edit :
Quote
I agree that certain areas cannot be destroyed due to the reasons scotsboyuk mention but multiple nuclear explosions will spread radiation over thousands of miles poisoning the water supply as well as bringing disease ect...so over time the few pockets that may possibly survive will suffer from the after effects.
--
Posted: 2005-08-02 16:02:49
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-08-02 15:54:59, 786KBR wrote:
what happens if for some weird unexplained reason its all simaltaneous???
but i get what you say, who wants to attack the north and south poles???
Exactly! I think the 'simultaneous' nature of the things we see going on around us has a lot to do with the media. We have 24 hour news coverage, which reports on disasters from all around the world. A hundred years ago it may have taken weeks for news of a disaster to reach the other side of the world. I think it is more of a case that we simply hear about such things more rather than there being more of them.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2005-08-02 15:04 ]
--
Posted: 2005-08-02 16:03:59
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-08-02 16:02:49, axxxr wrote:
I agree that certain areas cannot be destroyed due to the reasons scotsboyuk mention but multiple nuclear explosions will spread radiation over thousands of miles poisoning the water supply as well as bringing disease ect...so over time the few pockets that may possibly survive will suffer from the after effects.
Quite possibly and it is likely that some pockets will die. However, one can also consider the possibility that some people will adapt and become immune to such effects too.
--
Posted: 2005-08-02 16:07:09
Edit :
Quote
@scott
In the event that global warming causes deadly sun rays to beam down on us bare peoples, will we then "adapt" to them???
Dont even try to to say yes coz the answer is absolutly not!!
--
Posted: 2005-08-02 16:11:28
Edit :
Quote
In that case scotsboyuk will suggest we all move underground..and will adapt to life as a hedghog.
just kidding mate!
--
Posted: 2005-08-02 16:15:10
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Topic Locked
