Einstein also knew enough about geopolitics to be asked to be the first president of Israel.
The results would be very bad for America, but what kind of nuke are we talking about? Conventional, thermonuke, or fusion nuke (hypothetical), antimatter (also very hypothetical and very very destructive and expensive), or neutron? What kind of yield. The difference would be damage, environmental impact, blast radius,
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fusion nukes aren't hypothetical, thermonuclear weapons get most of their explosive power from fusion (the thermonuclear part is short for "thermonuclear fusion"😉.And, yes, I just felt like correcting you without adding anything of actual value to the conversation.
I meant pure fusion, no fission involved. The mechanism I've heard of involves super heating lithium and deuterium in the warhead with a system of lasers. It's why the US is more interested in researching less efficient laser fusion for power rather than the Tokamac and is only symbolically supporting Project ITER.
Antimatter weapons are totally out of the question because unless the military has invented some secret penning or carbon trap, it's unfeasible. Even then, unless the military has perfected some secret simple way to harvest the stuff, such as from thunderstorms, one bomb would probably cost 2.5 times the GDP of every country on Earth combined.
Besides, is the US so insecure about penis size that they would want to fire what would literally be a photon torpedo at a Muslim nation?
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I meant pure fusion, no fission involved. The mechanism I've heard of involves super heating lithium and deuterium in the warhead with a system of lasers. It's why the US is more interested in researching less efficient laser fusion for power rather than the Tokamac and is only symbolically supporting Project ITER.
I wouldn't call that any less pure. In one system you get energy from lasers and in the other you use a nuclear explosion.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Antimatter weapons are totally out of the question because unless the military has invented some secret penning or carbon trap, it's unfeasible. Even then, unless the military has perfected some secret simple way to harvest the stuff, such as from thunderstorms, one bomb would probably cost 2.5 times the GDP of every country on Earth combined.
Once you have a perfected method for storing antimatter building huge bombs stops being worth while even more than it is today. Antimatter carpet bombing would be terrifying but probably not as much as antimatter sabotage.
Thunderstorms are a terrible place to collect antimatter since there's a lot of matter going around that will annihilate it immediately. There's also very little antimatter to get there, there are about 500 gamma ray flashes worldwide, per day, not all of which are antimatter in thunderstorms. Even if you have a perfect system for predicting the flashes you have to get your equipment in place in the middle of the thunderstorm and turn the traps on with millisecond timing. The sheer logistical and administrative difficulties would probably stop such a plan before it even began anyway.
The other option, I suppose, is catching the antimatter with something in orbit but the positioning and timing parts are probably even more difficult in that case.
Anyone who wanted a supply of antimatter would build a bunch of colliders and engineer them specifically to collect antimatter. As far as I know no one has ever tried building a collider for that exact purpose, so there's no telling how much efficiency you might gain, but I think its the most realistic option.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Classy.And what makes you think that Russia would automatically support any country that America would nuke?
If I was to give a answer I would say that pretty much every single country in the world would condemm the actions of the US and offer aid to the Country that was hit, in one form or another.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I wouldn't call that any less pure. In one system you get energy from lasers and in the other you use a nuclear explosion.
Plus conventional thermonuclear weapons produce enormous amounts of radioactive fallout(which poisons the targeted land for long time-spans ranging several decades), a drawback which a hypothetical pure fusion weapon doesn't share.
Re: What Would Happen If Us Launched It Nuke
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Ive hear if any country launched a nuke ant any country, countries that are not even involved would retaliate.What would happen if USA launched A Nuke?
2. Can he shoot down nukes/ what are the chances of a nuke succefully getting here from across the world?
Most nations will publicly condemn such an action, but few if any will try to retaliate. Among all the known Nuclear Powers, only China and Russia have confirmed ICBM capability approaching the US' own, thereby making only them capable of posing a serious threat to the US in a global nuclear exchange. The only reason that they would even bother to retaliate is if said victim of the US was near their borders and the resulting nuclear fallout affected some strategic locations or populated areas as an unfortunate collateral damage. If any of these two do retaliate, it won't be long before the third is forced to join in, MAD becomes inevitable and the End World prophecies finally get fulfilled.
The entire idea is cuckoos anyway because even a regional scale nuclear exchange(like the one which nearly happened at the culmination of the Kargil War between India and Pakistan) is capable of causing severe damage to the global ecosystem for at least a decade or so, and the fatalities could at the very least equal/rival the sum total loss of lives during World War 2.
Originally posted by Utrigita
If I was to give a answer I would say that pretty much every single country in the world would condemm the actions of the US and offer aid to the Country that was hit, in one form or another.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
any nation on Earth possessing the nuclear capability and mutated to the same level of cartoonish supervillainy.
Any arbitrary nuclear state(like Pakistan or North Korea) going into the "mutated cartoonish supervillainy" and the US going into the same frenzy would produce similar effects but vastly different in scale.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Tbh, with the exception of Russia, no nation even begins to approach the level of nuclear might that America possesses currently. In terms of the sheer quantity alone, the United States' nuclear arsenal is probably 10-20 times bigger than the nuclear arsenals of all other nuclear powers(Russia excluded) combined. The delivery systems for these nukes are also top-notch and cover a global range.Any arbitrary nuclear state(like Pakistan or North Korea) going into the "mutated cartoonish supervillainy" and the US going into the same frenzy would produce similar effects but vastly different in scale.
Actually, come to think of it, this may not be correct. Regardless of intent or other circumstances leading to the use of the nuke, a country like North Korea is bound to face a more immediate and withering international response than the USA would.
Every country in the world can talk a big game until they think that the USA is a bloodthirsty dog of a country with a massive nuclear arsenal and an itchy trigger finger. Any kind of opposition to America in this scenario would be subterranean or muted.
But again, I have nothing to base any of this on.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I was saying that if you're going to--to use a metaphor--write the USA out of character for the sake of a hypothetical then you may as well substitute any nuclear power for the USA because there was no specification regarding the scale of the weapon(s) used.Actually, come to think of it, this may not be correct. Regardless of intent or other circumstances leading to the use of the nuke, a country like North Korea is bound to face a more immediate and withering international response than the USA would.
Every country in the world can talk a big game until they think that the USA is a bloodthirsty dog of a country with a massive nuclear arsenal and an itchy trigger finger. Any kind of opposition to America in this scenario would be subterranean or muted.
Agree with you on the points about North Korea and the other stuff.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
But again, I have nothing to base any of this on.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The thing is that there was no context given. The entire scenario is unrealistic because I can't envision the USA ever using a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear power (which would retaliate to the best of its ability) given the USA's conventional military power. And even if you step past that, the question doesn't give an idea of why nuclear weapons were used. My point is that it's uselessly hypothetical, unless we're to say that in this scenario the USA is some mindless raging monster nation without a shred of moral decency or strategic self-interest, and if this is the case then it could apply to any nation on Earth possessing the nuclear capability and mutated to the same level of cartoonish supervillainy.
I was merely giving a answer on behalf of Lestov using my own thoughts on the subject. I agree the scenario with US launching a Nuke, and forgetting about it until it impacts is just as far of the scale as North Korea invading the US.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I would. A noticeable percentage of the destructive work produced from the explosion comes from the fission reactions used for creating the enormous temperatures needed for fusion reactions.
"Noticeable" as in "known beforehand" not "comprising a very large portion of the ultimate explosion". In a laser activated bomb there would also be a known, but much lower, contribution to the explosion from the enormously powerful lasers involved.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Plus conventional thermonuclear weapons produce enormous amounts of radioactive fallout(which poisons the targeted land for long time-spans ranging several decades), a drawback which a hypothetical pure fusion weapon doesn't share.
That doesn't make them not fusion bombs. They're bombs powered by fusion. The priming device happens to cause a bunch of radiation.
It's like saying that Trinity wasn't really nuclear bomb because it was set off by conventional explosives.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Noticeable" as in "known beforehand" not "comprising a very large portion of the ultimate explosion". In a laser activated bomb there would also be a known, but much lower, contribution to the explosion from the enormously powerful lasers involved.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That doesn't make them not fusion bombs. They're bombs powered by fusion. The priming device happens to cause a bunch of radiation.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's like saying that Trinity wasn't really nuclear bomb because it was set off by conventional explosives.
Beyond the distinction between maybe ICBM/plane/Sub-launched and dirty/truck/small-warhead, do you guys really think the distinctions between the possible weapons, such as thermonuclear or "pure fusion", are going to change the global reaction in a serious way?
I get there may be differences in fallout/etc, but the geopolitics should be identical, at least in any immediate/short term.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Beyond the distinction between maybe ICBM/plane/Sub-launched and dirty/truck/small-warhead, do you guys really think the distinctions between the possible weapons, such as thermonuclear or "pure fusion", are going to change the global reaction in a serious way?I get there may be differences in fallout/etc, but the geopolitics should be identical, at least in any immediate/short term.