Nuclear War in Britain (part 2)
Loading...
88,760
Uploader Comments (Zappiss)
see all
All Comments (518)
-
did anyone else see (in the montage of things burning) that E.T. looking-thing?
-
TheWhiteDevil1612 that's what I'm sayin
-
TheWhiteDevil yeah I agree
-
What about part 3?
-
thumbs up if agree
-
0.24, looks like e.t yhumbs up if agree
-
Who the fuck would attack Sheffield lol
Loading...
If a nuke supposedly hit the city that the family with the boy named michael were in at the time they would have died in the initial blast. They seem to be in an area fairly close, but not in, the "downtown" area. A major metropolitan area would be completely flattened by the modern nuclear weapon (the icbm).
GWBreck 5 months ago
@GWBreck No they wouldn't. The area of complete destruction for a 2 megaton bomb (with an airburst height of 2km) would be 2,4 kilometers, and as you say, their home is not in the city centre. Most buildings would be destroyed for up to 6,2km and moderate damage up to 17km. The Wikipedia article "Effects of nuclear explosions" has good charts on this subject, check it out if interested.
Zappiss 5 months ago
It comes down to what Albert Einstein said. He was asked how the Third World war would be fought and he said he didn't know but he did know how the Fourth World war would be fought...with sticks and stones. Time to get rid of these things. They serve no purpose at all.
ChrisDutch 7 months ago 14
@ChrisDutch Well, you could also argue that by their very existence they prevent wars. Wars will be fought as long as they are rational, i.e. they can be used to further political goals. Nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction make war suicidal and thus it is avoided. It's been over 60 years since the last war between major countries (the longest period of peace since the Pax Romana), think about why that is.
Zappiss 7 months ago 14