So a realistic Fallout

Batch · July 16, 2015, 09:28:17 AM

How many nukes would actually be needed to render the world completely wasted? Covering every part of the globe and literally just rendering the world uninhabitable? Also do you think the world have enough in possession.

Also slightly offtopic (and gaming related question) in the Fallout games......wouldnt the Fallout in a turn destroy most climates and send the dry hot climates down to the Antarctic, melting it, thus flooding a lot of the world?

XSEAN · July 16, 2015, 10:54:09 AM

Well at the high of the US and USSR power they had enough nuclear weapons stocked up to render the entire planet inhabitable 10 times over.

challengerX · July 16, 2015, 11:01:14 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

BaconShelf · July 16, 2015, 11:39:31 AM

One volcano lowered the average global temperature by 2-3 degrees C. Only a couple hundred nukes would be enough to throw enough shit into the atmosphere to kill most plant life and thus the food chain.

I'm presuming the nuclear weapons used are smaller nukes but more numerous, based off some impact craters we see and actual weapons we see in bases. Not just that, but the majority of the populace survived the bombing in-lore. The most death occurred from the 'rain' in which the ash from the atmosphere, combined with radioactive dust and water that created a black, acidic rain that rained on the planet for weeks an killed most life on Earth. The nukes themselves comparatively did very little.

T6 · July 16, 2015, 11:41:14 AM

But Fallout is realistic

It's the best game ever. And you know what?

Skyrim sets a benchmark for modern games.

Ingy · July 16, 2015, 02:52:27 PM

Well considering that the bombs are 3O kilotons, that would give a total blast radius of 1O miles [1.5 miles of actual destruction and 8.5 miles of radiation, flames, and fallout]

57,3O8,738 square miles of Earth is land
43% of that is inhabited
So 24,642,757 square miles is inhabited

So about 2,464,275 3O kiloton nukes to create a complete Fallout

About 2O,OOO nukes exist today which wouldn't be enough to destroy every inch of land but I assume it would be enough to destroy major cities and cause more proximity destruction
Radiation and fucking with the environment on that scale would cause like 1O times the damage of the initial blast

55,OOO - 1OO,OOO nukes existed during the Cold War so that is more than enough for Fallout

So yes
With the nukes we have today, if all were detonated, an apocalypse is very possible

Jono · July 16, 2015, 02:53:47 PM

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on July 16, 2015, 02:52:27 PM

Well considering that the bombs are 3O kilotons, that would give a total blast radius of 1O miles [1.5 miles of actual destruction and 8.5 miles of radiation, flames, and fallout]

57,3O8,738 square miles of Earth is land
43% of that is inhabited
So 24,642,757 square miles is inhabited

So about 2,464,275 3O kiloton nukes to create a complete Fallout

About 2O,OOO nukes exist today which wouldn't be enough to destroy every inch of land but I assume it would be enough to destroy major cities and cause more proximity destruction

55,OOO - 1OO,OOO nukes existed during the Cold War so that is more than enough for Fallout

So yes
With the nukes we have today, if all were detonated, an apocalypse is very possible

Will you please stop using Os for zeros?

Ingy · July 16, 2015, 02:56:03 PM

Quote from: Jono on July 16, 2015, 02:53:47 PM

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on July 16, 2015, 02:52:27 PM
Well considering that the bombs are 3O kilotons, that would give a total blast radius of 1O miles [1.5 miles of actual destruction and 8.5 miles of radiation, flames, and fallout]

57,3O8,738 square miles of Earth is land
43% of that is inhabited
So 24,642,757 square miles is inhabited

So about 2,464,275 3O kiloton nukes to create a complete Fallout

About 2O,OOO nukes exist today which wouldn't be enough to destroy every inch of land but I assume it would be enough to destroy major cities and cause more proximity destruction

55,OOO - 1OO,OOO nukes existed during the Cold War so that is more than enough for Fallout

So yes
With the nukes we have today, if all were detonated, an apocalypse is very possible
Will you please stop using Os for zeros?

Will you stop being a bitch?

Jono · July 16, 2015, 03:06:57 PM

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on July 16, 2015, 02:56:03 PM

Quote from: Jono on July 16, 2015, 02:53:47 PM
Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on July 16, 2015, 02:52:27 PM
Well considering that the bombs are 3O kilotons, that would give a total blast radius of 1O miles [1.5 miles of actual destruction and 8.5 miles of radiation, flames, and fallout]

57,3O8,738 square miles of Earth is land
43% of that is inhabited
So 24,642,757 square miles is inhabited

So about 2,464,275 3O kiloton nukes to create a complete Fallout

About 2O,OOO nukes exist today which wouldn't be enough to destroy every inch of land but I assume it would be enough to destroy major cities and cause more proximity destruction

55,OOO - 1OO,OOO nukes existed during the Cold War so that is more than enough for Fallout

So yes
With the nukes we have today, if all were detonated, an apocalypse is very possible
Will you please stop using Os for zeros?

Will you stop being a bitch?

I will once you stop being fucking retarded

Ingy · July 16, 2015, 03:16:45 PM

Quote from: Jono on July 16, 2015, 03:06:57 PM

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on July 16, 2015, 02:56:03 PM
Quote from: Jono on July 16, 2015, 02:53:47 PM
Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on July 16, 2015, 02:52:27 PM
Well considering that the bombs are 3O kilotons, that would give a total blast radius of 1O miles [1.5 miles of actual destruction and 8.5 miles of radiation, flames, and fallout]

57,3O8,738 square miles of Earth is land
43% of that is inhabited
So 24,642,757 square miles is inhabited

So about 2,464,275 3O kiloton nukes to create a complete Fallout

About 2O,OOO nukes exist today which wouldn't be enough to destroy every inch of land but I assume it would be enough to destroy major cities and cause more proximity destruction

55,OOO - 1OO,OOO nukes existed during the Cold War so that is more than enough for Fallout

So yes
With the nukes we have today, if all were detonated, an apocalypse is very possible
Will you please stop using Os for zeros?

Will you stop being a bitch?
I will once you stop being fucking retarded

I'm not a retard anymore :[

big sponge · July 16, 2015, 03:22:59 PM

Spoiler

A realistic Fallout wouldn't be a wasteland for starters.

July 16, 2015, 04:09:57 PM

Quote from: LC on July 16, 2015, 03:22:59 PM

Spoiler

A realistic Fallout wouldn't be a wasteland for starters.

It seems as if the inhabitants were Russian to leave the area.

Septy · July 16, 2015, 05:12:17 PM

In fallout the nukes are designed to cause radioactive fallout, while in our world our nukes are designed to cause little to no contamination as possible.

FatherlyNick - fuck putin · July 16, 2015, 05:14:44 PM

OP's farts are still more lethal than the tzar bomb.

Verbatim · July 16, 2015, 05:16:56 PM

We have more than enough nukes to make the human race go extinct, yeah, but not enough to destroy the world.

July 16, 2015, 05:17:16 PM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on July 16, 2015, 05:14:44 PM

OP's farts are still more lethal than the tzar bomb.

I call my mixtape the Tzar Bomba.

big sponge · July 16, 2015, 05:17:30 PM

Quote from: Septy on July 16, 2015, 05:12:17 PM

In fallout the nukes are designed to cause radioactive fallout, while in our world our nukes are designed to cause little to no contamination as possible.

A nuclear meltdown is worse than an air bursting nuke.

Chernobyl recovered and is now an urban jungle.

challengerX · July 16, 2015, 05:17:59 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Septy · July 16, 2015, 05:22:22 PM

Quote from: LC on July 16, 2015, 05:17:30 PM

Quote from: Septy on July 16, 2015, 05:12:17 PM
In fallout the nukes are designed to cause radioactive fallout, while in our world our nukes are designed to cause little to no contamination as possible.

A nuclear meltdown is worse than an air bursting nuke.

Chernobyl recovered and is now an urban jungle.

Well yes a meltdown is going to release a ton of radioactive waste into the environment. Chernobyl won't be safe for humans for thousands of years.

big sponge · July 16, 2015, 05:28:03 PM

Quote from: Septy on July 16, 2015, 05:22:22 PM

Quote from: LC on July 16, 2015, 05:17:30 PM
Quote from: Septy on July 16, 2015, 05:12:17 PM
In fallout the nukes are designed to cause radioactive fallout, while in our world our nukes are designed to cause little to no contamination as possible.

A nuclear meltdown is worse than an air bursting nuke.

Chernobyl recovered and is now an urban jungle.
Well yes a meltdown is going to release a ton of radioactive waste into the environment. Chernobyl won't be safe for humans for thousands of years.

You can actually visit Chernobyl now.

http://www.chtoa.org/

They even run tours.

Batch · July 16, 2015, 05:28:51 PM

Quote from: LC on July 16, 2015, 05:17:30 PM

Quote from: Septy on July 16, 2015, 05:12:17 PM
In fallout the nukes are designed to cause radioactive fallout, while in our world our nukes are designed to cause little to no contamination as possible.

A nuclear meltdown is worse than an air bursting nuke.

Chernobyl recovered and is now an urban jungle.

You say recovered. but its still radioactive to an extent down there right? Plus, from its history I doubt anyone would want to inhabit that place ever again, leave it to nature.

big sponge · July 16, 2015, 05:32:31 PM

Quote from: Batch on July 16, 2015, 05:28:51 PM

Quote from: LC on July 16, 2015, 05:17:30 PM
Quote from: Septy on July 16, 2015, 05:12:17 PM
In fallout the nukes are designed to cause radioactive fallout, while in our world our nukes are designed to cause little to no contamination as possible.

A nuclear meltdown is worse than an air bursting nuke.

Chernobyl recovered and is now an urban jungle.
You say recovered. but its still radioactive to an extent down there right? Plus, from its history I doubt anyone would want to inhabit that place ever again, leave it to nature.

By recovered I mean it isn't a smoldering wasteland that's devoid of life. Plants give no fucks.