# How Many Nukes Will It Really Take to Instantly Annihilate Humanity?

Discussion in 'General Off-Topic Chat' started by VVoltz, Aug 30, 2009.

# How Many Nukes Will It Really Take to Instantly Annihilate Humanity?

1,448 Views
1. ### VVoltzThe Pirate Lord

Member
Nov 6, 2002
USA

Forget about nuclear winter. Humans are resilient. We will survive. So how many nukes will it take to destroy every single human being in the planet, on first blast? Here's the calculation in graphic form—with a surprising answer:

The first part of the graphic—created by David McCandless—shows how much space is actually used by the entire population. According to the Guardian Datablog and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, only 12.5% of the planet's surface is actually occupied by humans. A total of 18,617,500 square kilometers.

Now, the most powerful active nuclear warhead in the world is the B83, which has a destructive power of two hundred Little Boys, the bomb that destroyed part of Hiroshima. That's a 14.9-square-kilometer total destruction area. Complete instant tanning, and obliteration of anything in sight. To give you an idea of what this space means, Manhattan is 58.8 square kilometers. Central London is 26 square kilometers.

Now divide the total number of square kilometers by the destruction radius of the B83 to get the total number of nukes required for instant annihilation. As you can see, we need 123.36 times the amount of nukes available today: 10,227 nukes vs 1,241,166 nukes needed to completely disintegrate every single one of us in a millisecond.

Conclusion: WE NEED MORE NUKES, NOT FEWER. Better die instantly than having to survive nuclear winter and yet another horrible movie with Mel Gibson playing Mad Max. One that would last for a few hundred years at that. [David McCandless—Thanks David Keyes]

Original post here. What do you guys think?

2. ### Hop2089Cute>Hot

Member
Jan 31, 2008
I would say a 1000 large nukes can take out civilization if they're launched properly.

3. ### SterlingGBAtemp's Silver Hero

Member
Jan 22, 2009
Texas
damn lol. I laugh in the face of death If that ever happens I'll eat every sock I own before the nukes huff and puff me and my house.

4. ### VVoltzThe Pirate Lord

Member
Nov 6, 2002
USA
Don't worry kids, you know Dr. Manhattan will save us, or rather will save the US.

5. ### SatangelBEAST

Member
Nov 27, 2006
Bruges, Belgium
Wow, that's some amazing info right here!
I never knew a nuke would only destroy such a small surface. I always thought it would be whole countries at once....
Thanks for learning me something new today

6. ### Maz7006iSEXu

Member
Aug 2, 2008
this is a good read when its actually happening, you'll actually have a glimer of hope at the time.

7. ### VehoThe man who cried "Ni".

Former Staff
Apr 4, 2006
Zagreb
No he won't. He doesn't care.

8. ### Eternal MystBack from the Myst.

Member
May 2, 2008
I have a bomb alallalallala
it's over 9000!

9. ### vettacossxWii Theme Team Founder

Member
Sep 19, 2008
Right Behind You! Uh Oh!
if history servers...thats OLD TECH.....(Nukes that is)

Personally i worry more of a BIOLOGICAL or CHEMICAL Hiroshima...

and if you think the mindless cleche that is "teerorrism" kills remember this:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/T...Healthcare.html

ALOT LESS PEOPLE DIE FROM "terrorism" than heart related illness every year WORLD WIDE...

why dont you look and see what the gov allocated its funds for...the answer would make you SICK.....

This is all to perpetuate the monetary system that is by all means OUT DATED in comparison to the technology available that could fuel a resource based economy *that wouldnt be perfect but WOULD BE ALOT BETTER THAN ANYTHING WE HAVE NOW!

The monetary system perpetuates greed, war, scarcity, hate, and lack of general education...

TO LEARN THE TRUTH WATCH THIS!:

10. ### ca_michelbachGBAtemp Fan

Member
Nov 22, 2008
The Vualt
You don't necessarily have to destroy a large amount of people with the nukes, they could be used to chemically polute water suplies and take out necessary resources. This would take longer to wipe out humanity but it would mean you could do it with less nukes.

11. ### megawalkThe Legendary SRW Addict

Member
Jun 14, 2008
Netherlands
it requires alot to make it "The Real Fallout 3"
and let the world live in a shady surface (atleast what's left of it)

12. ### geedubGBAtemp Fan

Member
Dec 3, 2008
Scotland
in theory only one !

13. ### Hop2089Cute>Hot

Member
Jan 31, 2008
The Nuke would have to be the size of Texas though for any results.

Member
Jan 30, 2008
Manchester
Thats only if you want to kill everyone in a flash. It will take far less to push the earth beyond recovery though.

15. ### geedubGBAtemp Fan

Member
Dec 3, 2008
Scotland
it really depends how far out of the box you want to look at this !

once one nuke is released , the rest will follow !

if one nuke could cause enough dust or watever to block out the sun , then were back in the ice age !

or if it ever becomes possible to nuke the sun , we too are gone

even nuking the moon , we're gone !

if a nuke was to penetrate down to the core , we are gone !