Inventing new ways to destroy mankind.

[WickedAle]

I dabble in short stories and have been kicking around a couple of ideas with a few fictional “what if” scenarios.

 

Could a single thermal nuclear detonation at each of the earth’s poles create a critical state that would have major to cataclysmic global effects? If theoretically possible what would the size of the detonation need to be and what would be the global effects?

 

If I use your information may I use your name in reference to your hypotheses?

 

Thanks for your time.

[Tormod]

Interesting question. I don't know the answer but I wonder why it would be necessary to place the bombs at the poles. AFAIK there is nothing special about the poles except for the speed of rotation.

 

But I am sure a well-sized nuclear bomb anywhere could potentially ruin the environment - but I hope someone else can help you out with regard to the required size.

 

You're not about to try it, I hope? :eek:

[WickedAle]

You're not about to try it, I hope? :eek:

The only atoms I can split are beer atoms. =)

 

I was interested in the poles because of the ice. I thought if a massive amount of heat would be generated that it would precipitate large scale melting of the polar caps with the possibility of instant evaporation at and around the blast area.

 

Antarctica for example, I understand it’s a huge mass of land and ice, but would/could a large man made explosion create instant changes to global water levels and weather patterns or at least a chain reaction that accelerated the effects of global warming to the poles or, because of the size of the Arctic region, would this man made detonation have little to no effect?

 

Tormod:

Excellent choice in using the vBulletin for your forums. As a web developer I have setup vBulletin many times for my customers with excellent results.

 

Thanks for your time.

[Tormod]

Excellent choice in using the vBulletin for your forums. As a web developer I have setup vBulletin many times for my customers with excellent results.

 

Thanks! It is so much easier to work with than what we used before.

 

As for the poles. The North Pole is uninteresting as far as sea levels go, because all the ice there is floating in water anyway. However, the Greenland ice is more interesting - if it were to thaw instantly it would cause sea levels to rise about 60 meters world wide (consider this hearsay - I heard it from a scientist on a science programme on TV a few days ago).

 

And of course the South Pole is mostly landlocked ice, so an instant melting would contribute a lot to sea level rise.

 

But like you mention, it's not only the sea level that matters. The Greenland ice could, if it were to end up in the ocean, lead to vast changes in the ocean currents. If the Gulf stream were to be shut off, or reversed, it would have dire consequences for countries like Norway where most of the coast is ice free due to the warmer water brought in with the Gulf stream. The global "conveyor belt" streams would probably also be disrupted - or at least changed.

 

However, as for 1) whether this can happen through a nuclear event or 2) what exactly would happen as a result I am not the one to answer.

[gpdone]

WA,

 

I agree with Tormod in content and in his resoning. I would ad that the best placement for effect in Antarctica would be a few miles(6 maybe) inland from the Larsen ice shelf. Using the largest known bomb (about 200Meg, Russian I think) you would have a chance at least to melt and dislodge enough ice to increase sealevels world wide to cause the effect you seek. Check out link and clik on their results to see the potential rise possible. With only a little 'poetic license' you could have 40 our 50 feet easily! http://www.secretsoftheice.org/icecore/sealevel.html

PS You could also provide dramtic tension and a hopeful ending by something like have the initial effect only causing a large moving wall of water that only affects Australia with only minor rises elsware giving the initial impression that the danger is over. However a flyover inspection shows major cracks extending inland for many miles and video indicates the cracks are moving and widening. This threstens to cause major amounts to slide into the ocean really do us in untill your hero or heroine offers the idea of another planned airburts blast to cause just enough melt and remelt to seal the cracks and stop the process! YeaHHHH! Oh well your get the idea.

 

Good luck with your story..could be very salable as disaster senarios are BIG right now.

[Bo]

perhaps instead of the quite well known 'melting the polar caps' you can do something with this: http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/publ/cup.pdf

 

there is a lot more on the web about all the 3 'disaster scenario's'

 

Bo

[alexander]

why ice? you could detonate a much smaller bomb somewhere in the yellowstone to activate the biggest supervolcano on earth, that ought to change the climate a bit... there was a story on that on the science channel about a year ago.

here's a link to some info

http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm

[Tim_Lou]

what about asteroids crashing the earth?

[Tormod]

what about asteroids crashing the earth?

 

I think that has been tried before. :wink:

[BlameTheEx]

Tormod

 

I don't know about you but here in England I get a little nervous about the gulf stream. A bomb is hardly necessary. Global warming has resulted in a hell of a lot of ice melting. That "conveyer belt" can't be far from being plugged with cold fresh water, that is just too light to sink.

 

Mind you, when it does get plugged (notice I don't say "if." This is a dead certainty) we may certainly consider letting off atomic bombs. I doubt anything short of atomic power will clear the blockage in that drain.

[pgrmdave]

How about a man-made disease aimed at a "pest" creature? Consider what would happen if we wiped out ants, or termites.

[pgrmdave]

The effects wouldn't be felt for a while, people would be lulled into a false sense of security, but when it caught up to them, it would change eco-systems faster than anything we could do.

[Tormod]

Did you read Greg Bear's novel "Vitals"?

 

Or even better - Margareth Atwood's "Oryx and Crake". Chilling thriller about a future where mankind is basically wiped out because of genetic engineering.

[pgrmdave]

I haven't read those books, but I've read "Dust" by Charles R. Pellegrino in which nearly all of the world's insects either die or go dormant

[jamasol]

Wouldn't the heat from the bombs just vaporize the water and make it rain?

[maikeru]

Try "black rain":

 

asahi.com¡ÊÄ«Æü¿·Ê¹¼Ò¡Ë¡§Atomic 'black rain' may have sickened more - English

[Moontanman]

While nuclear weapons are quite powerful and dangerous this thread suffers from a distinct lack of understanding of what a nuclear bomb is capable of. Even the most theoretically powerful bomb would have no long term effects on the ice cap and would not cause any of the extreme effects mentioned here. You have to remember we have detonated quite few large nuclear devices in the atmosphere already with the only real effects is that we all live with slightly more back round radiation.

 

A quite small asteroid (say one mile nickle/iron) however could indeed have massive global effects. Steered to hit the earth at it's poles you might be able to do some real damage to the entire global weather patterns. Go to 10 miles and you could cause a world wide conflagration like what happened with the dinosaurs.