this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
608 points (94.8% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

3536 readers
239 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chaosppe@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag. Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything? France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.

[–] scoobford@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.

We don't know exactly how much "most" is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.

[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Will the ones shit down rain down radioactive dust everywhere?

[–] Madison@feddit.org 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes, but to a way lesser degree.

The bombs become really nasty by creating a big chain reaction (boom) and then radiating the dust the explosion creates (aftermath) which then spreads everywhere.

Without a controlled explosion there will be significantly less radiating reactions and radioactive dust.

It's like deep inhaling the smoke of a package of burning fire starters VS throwing said burning fire starter into a warehouse full of fireworks (and for the sake of this argument you cant leave the warehouse and have no equipment whatsoever)

Both will probably fuck you up a bit if you're to close, but one is comparably insignificant.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)