English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

Even a small Neuclear device would destroy a city, most of the population would die, there would be injury and irradiation for miles around the blast site. It would likely represent the largest loss of human life on US soil in history.

2006-10-17 01:57:56 · answer #1 · answered by W0LF 5 · 0 1

Even though they couldn't do much damage directly to much of Europe or the USA, the radiation storms would stick around for a very long time and sweep around the globe.

Since the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine cancer rates in Europe have climbed and the number of deformities at birth has climbed in more local areas too.

Currently there is a taboo with setting nukes off. America did to end a war but except for that time tests have been minimised and they have never been used in force since.

Once one country fires, they all want a go.

Iran v Israel
India v Pakistan
China v Taiwan
N. Korea v S. Korea

The list goes on.

2006-10-17 02:42:10 · answer #2 · answered by eclipsed2908 2 · 0 0

Depends when wear and HOW BIG that bomb is. If you remember the end of WWII. Two relatively small atomic bomb destroyed two entire city's (Hiroshima & Nagasaki) . The few people in the out lieing areas dies soon after from radation poisning.
In the mean time we have lurned how to make bigger and bigger bombs.
Also had you been watching the news N Korea has been test launching missles over japan into the ocean on the other side. A warhead (atomic bomb) could be placed on top of one of those missles. Not a fun place to be for Japan agean!

Check out http://www.history.com/media.do?action=clip&id=mf1_atomicbombings_63

2006-10-17 02:06:00 · answer #3 · answered by Ben 3 · 0 0

Estimated yield of recent test is only about 500 kilotons, less than half that used on Hiroshima. Effectivenes of detonation depends on several factors: (1) altitude at detonation. If it's too high, it won't destroy very much, just scatter radiation. If it's too low, say ground level, that also reduces effectiveness. An airburst yields optimal destructiveness but is very tricky to time. (2) detonation barriers. In Hiroshima, large areas were protected from the initial blast by hills. Detonating within a hilly area will limit the blast, and limit dispersal of radiation into wider areas, while containing radiation within the effective detonation zone.

With 500 kt, you're probably only looking at a destructive radius of about 10 miles at most. Within that, due to the low explosive yield of a fission bomb, expect lots of radiation, but less property damage. Structurally reinforced buildings and bridges may survive. People are likewise better informed about radiation, and so can limit unnecessary casualties by evacuating the affected area, avoiding water sources and food sources that might have been contaminated and so on: precautions about which the victims in Hiroshima were unaware.

No one wants to be on receiving end of even a small nuclear device, but what N.Korea has is little more than a suitcase nuke. Very likely, N.Korea simply detonated a substantial amount of TNT. If I had to guess, I would say they were (a) trying to trick the world into believing they had viable nuclear weapons, and (b) destroying old ordanance (military explosives, rockets, explosive artillery shells, etc.) Over time, explosives can sweat and leak, become unstable. Likely this is what was destroyed. Recently N.Korea has been firing Taepodong Missiles into the Sea of Japan. I figure this is little more than littering!

2006-10-17 02:04:02 · answer #4 · answered by crispy 5 · 1 1

It depends on the size of the nucluer 20 kili-tons probably destroy LA but it wouldn't be the bomb blast that would do the most damage it would be the fallout from the bomb afterwards that would do most of the damage

2006-10-17 02:03:41 · answer #5 · answered by mrtinker553 1 · 0 0

well, the only way for them to get us is strapping one to a rocket. that would mean that it would have to be a really small nuke. if it hit a big city, it may well kill a 100,000 people, but it would also let out a ton of radiation that would do a lot more long term damage.

if they were more technically advanced, i would be more worried, but right now, theres not much that they can do. all they did was test one underground, but its a long way from being able to hit us here. besides, they've got a lot of closer enemies. i bet they would attack s korea or japan or australia long before they go after america. no need to worry

2006-10-17 01:54:42 · answer #6 · answered by swatthefly 5 · 1 0

It would kill anyone in a radius of about 10 - 20 km. Plus a lot of damage to the infrastructure. The place would go inhabetle for a lot of years. Johan

2006-10-17 01:51:48 · answer #7 · answered by Johan from Sweden 6 · 0 0

THE DOGGER !the us only used the bomb to end a war not to start one..when they used it,even the japanese agree it saved millions of lives! but there bomb would wipe out aproximately 25 kilometers give or take a few and leave it a vertual waistland for decades!

2006-10-17 02:00:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Imagine a radioactive sahara desert about the size of China. That is what we have to look forward to if Kim Jong sets one off.

2006-10-17 01:52:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Blow up most of N Korea if their missile fails as badly as their bomb did. Blow up the sea of Japan if their missile works.

2006-10-17 04:03:00 · answer #10 · answered by tom l 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers