How The World Nuked Itself Over 2,000 Times

Tyler Durden's picture

Who needs a wartime nuclear exchange when you have peaceful countries nuking the gamma rays out of their own sovereign territories - now that the environmental theme is rather popular, the following video by Isao Hashimoto shows all the nuclear "tests" conducted by the world in the period between 1945 and 1998. Based on public data, the world's peaceful countries have already nuked themselves at least 2,054 times, with the US nuking the state of Nevada and its immediate neighbors about one thousand times. And keep in mind - the fallout does not just miraculously "disappear." Feel free to consider that next time you look at bargain properties on the strip. Anyway, as asks, "How would your life be different if you were taught in school a small nuclear war already took place?" One thing is certain - Congress would be stunned and appalled, and the disgraced CEO of Nukes R Us, Inc., who previously gave trillions in campaign contributions to every Congressional critter, would be facing a very unpleasant and theatrically televised day.

From a discussion on advanced fallout maps:

'Civilized countries' - that now form what we dub the 'nuclear club' - conducted over 2,000 nuclear blasts on the Earth, and these entities - the executioners of her slow death - vigorously deny any irreversible, incurable damage. 

If you're looking for fallout maps, you won't find any such map here or anywhere that will satisfy your whim or sophisticated inquiry.  Why?  Because the executioners, to their best of their satisfactions, don't want you to see them.  What you can and will see - if you seek it - are bits and pieces of the destruction: a high reading of radioactivity in wheat or milk here, of air over there, a trajectory map here, and a rare truthful analysis there.  Put them together and you have what would happen in a small-but-non-mutually-destructive nuclear war (that we erringly refer simply to as the Cold War): the radioactive fallout circling - for eons - around the Earth and within her biosphere as a consequence of our historic, 'peaceful' tit-for-tat nuclear testing exchange is no different than the fallout in the event of an actual nuclear exchange had 400 or so atomic and hydrogen bombs fell only in remote regions of land and sea on the globe.   How would your life be different if you were taught in school a small nuclear war already took place?  How would that change the way you see your life and your health? Or your country or the world?

Full must watch clip:

And another way to represent the explosions:

h/t Rusty Shorts

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Gully Foyle's picture

"One thing is certain - Congress would be stunned and appalled, and the disgraced CEO of Nukes R Us, Inc., who previously gave trillions in campaign contributions to every Congressional critter, would be facing a very unpleasant day."

That is the funniest thing I have read today. You actually assume they have some type of moral or ethical integrity.

ZerOhead's picture

Hey Gully... you hit the nail on the head! let's get rid of them.... we now poentially have a new political tool at our disposal... sooooo...

If you want this nightmare to end why not help me plan it out at "How to Peacefully Overthrow an Oligarchic Kleptocracy" (for Dummies) in the General Forum threads... please tell this nutty critter why it can not be done and win some kind of prize!

dnarby's picture

Everyone interested should examine the current state of Chernobyl, then form their own opinion. 

It's probably the best example of uncontrolled, concentrated release of radioactive material into a local enviroment (without the heat & pressure blast).

In particular follow up on plant and wildlife populations.

TBT or not TBT's picture

And we didn't even have a nuclear winter.

thesapein's picture

Nuclear winter was Karl Sagan's one pseudo-scientific fear without validity. 

TBT or not TBT's picture

He had that weird tick where he couldn't pronounce "billions" too.   If he'd lived, he could have got past that to the new era, where everything big is in "trillions".   Also, he had a problem pronouncing "nucular" too.   Fracking retard.

thesapein's picture

People seem to like odd speech when it comes to pop science. Take Stephen Hawking, who is only famous because he's... in a wheel chair.

dnarby's picture

He's good at math, and has had to learn to think differently because of his disability.

Still doesn't prevent him from being shackled by the cult of Einstein, unfortunately.

thesapein's picture

Yes, he's a brilliant theoretical physicists, which is nearly all math, and his work on the radiation of black holes was fantastic. Sorry. It's just that he explains some things all wrong in his books. He also pretends to speak for his entire community who often disagree and act like what he says is the fact of the land. It's hard for laymen to tell, but the guy is totally full of himself.

seventree's picture

Compress all the TN (fusion) events into a few days instead of decades, and set off each one in the middle of a built-up area so everything combustible withing 100 square mile area reaches flashover temps - could have a different result. Not necessarily a worst case nuclear winter, just a mildly radioactive autumn for a few years. Without the pretty leaves of course.

aerojet's picture

Seriously.  Some of you need to study the difference between mostly underground testing as compared to what an airburst or ground-level burst would do to the environment.  There is no comparison!  1,000 nuclear warheads used in anger would be devastating to the planet.

merehuman's picture

so clearly there are no negative repercussions within the earth.


TBT or not TBT's picture

So what are we to make of're a rock lover?    We the living care about the biosphere, where the life is, and above all where we are.

thesapein's picture

Actually, some life thrives in intense radiation. Remember when life was discovered in the water used for cooling nuclear power plants?

seventree's picture

Encouraging. Maybe 1000 generations eating & breathing isotopes would produce a radiation-tolerant human. Worth a try.

thesapein's picture

It is encouraging for scientists studying new ways to prevent the degeneration of DNA that leads to cancer which can result from radiation (free radicals and such). Life that can rebuild itself is totally worth studying. I want that trick. 

Spitzer's picture

who cares ? Its not that big of deal.


Ask the guy who designs them, Dr. Bill Wattenberg.



TBT or not TBT's picture

"Compress all the TN (fusion) events into a few days instead of decades, and set off each one in the middle of a built-up area..."

It's what gets very high into the atmosphere that counts for sustained global cooling effects.   Most of the particulate from burning wouldn't get up there where it would stay, and much of the particulate carried to the top of the mushroom clounds wouldn't be of a type to hang out very long up high.   Giant volcanic explosions throw much much more of exactly the wrong types of stuff much higher.

seventree's picture

"Most of the particulate from burning wouldn't get up there where it would stay"

In the middle of 1997 forest fires burning in Indonesia began to affect neighbouring countries, spreading thick clouds of smoke and haze to Malaysia and Singapore. Seasonal rains in early December brought a brief respite but soon after the dry conditions and fires returned. By 1998 Brunei and to a lesser extent Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines had also felt the haze from the smoke of the forest fires. By the time the 1997-98 forest fires were finally over some 8 million hectares of land had burned while countless millions of people suffered from air pollution.

The bigger and hotter the fire, the higher the thermal 'chimney' grows into the atmosphere, so global consequences are posssible with enough combustion.

As for volcanos, the Iceland eruption was small potatos. But there are historical records of "years without summer" from more significant ones.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Indeed, that's why I brought the example of giant volcanic eruptions.   The sun blocking material has to be blown that high..i.e. go ballistic.   It doesn't reach up there by sort of wafting up on thermals.   Also, the gases and particles volcanoes can send that high, in such absolutely enormous quantities, are different both in type and quantity than what you have at the top of comparison tiny...nuclear mushroom cloud.

UGrev's picture

un-fucking real.. 

thesapein's picture

See, Tyler, how you're scaring people over something no one here seems to understand? You're taking advantage of our country's lack of scientific education and the ignorance of the masses.

Cookie, keep in mind the rate of exposer to high energy radiation falls off by the square of the distance. If you go from one mile away to two miles, the intensity should be one-fourth; a thousand miles away...

It reminds me of the fear about the discovery of little black holes or the fear of creating one in a particle accelerator. The fear comes from lack of knowledge.

Radiation is one of those things we can't exist without (the sun being the biggest source). But, yes, too much of a good thing can be really bad. You're still more likely to over-eat than to be over-radiated. 

seventree's picture

You're talking about being in the path of direct radiation emission, and there the inverse-square rule holds true.

The greater danger from nuclear explosions is from inhaled or ingested radioactive particles. Once lodged in the body, the distance from nearby cells is insignificant.

thesapein's picture

Actually, the distance always matters. The body is mostly empty space from the perspective of high energy particles. Mass is equally important, which is why water (most of our mass) is our natural defense against natural radiation since water molecules get hit the most and pass through the body as waste.

But point taken. Our bodies have to deal with enough high energy radiation from internal sources (carbon, potassium) and external (solar, cosmic) as well all of the lower energy radiation (down on to just heat from chemical reactions), to be welcoming any additional sources.

The greatest danger, to me, though, is still just being instantly burned by the blast.

thesapein's picture


That actually made my day.

Thanks. Seriously.


Spitzer's picture

Dr. Bill Wattenberg knows his stuff.

thisandthat's picture

Propaganda for the nuclear industry...?

Cool nuclear rods are safe - so is DU ammo; but once you hit a target with these they'll volatilize into DU nano-particle dust, for which living organisms have no physical protective barriers (cell walls, cell core walls can't block them out), causing what became known as the Gulf War Syndrome. Since Iraq invasion, Fallujah, etc., the cases of several types of cancer, as far as in Israel, doubled.

Cathartes Aura's picture

some numpty anonymously junked you, but I'm here to eat that junk!

+100 - the women of Fallujah have been told best not to have children, the deformities are becoming the "norm". . . AND, all those boys sitting on DU shell boxes as they trundle through the land in their protective tanks?  they go home and pass the radiated sperm into their partners vagina. . . crazy making, indeed.

(one can only imagine the despair / fury that will be experienced when the "heroes" realise there will be no long-term healthcare for their troubles. . .)

CombustibleAssets's picture

The nature of nuclear energy is very different form the politics of nuclear energy...

thesapein's picture

Yeah, I wonder how the sun would vote on this issue.

Gully Foyle's picture

Your map missed some.

The Vela Incident

On 22 September 1979 around 00:53 GMT, the Vela 6911 satellite detected the characteristic double flash of an atmospheric nuclear explosion apparently over the Indian Ocean or South Atlantic. The test location was later localized at 47 deg. S, 40 deg. E in the Indian Ocean, in the vicinity of South Africa's Prince Edward Island, by hydroacoustic data. Due to the position ambiguity of the initial detection (the Vela optical sensors were not imaging sensors and could did not detect location), the location is variously described as being in the Indian Ocean or South Atlantic. The characteristics of the light curve indicated that it was a low kiloton explosion (approximately 3 kt). The hydroacoustic signal indicated a low altitude explosion. A major and lingering controversy erupted over the interpretation of this apparent detection.

The Vela satellite program was an nuclear detonation (NUDET) detection system setup after the 1963 limited test ban and was designed to detect nuclear explosions in space and (later) air. There were two groups of Vela satellites developed. The original Vela were equipped only with sensors for space detection and were launched in three pairs between 1963 and 1965. They operated for at least five years, far beyond their nominal design life of six months. A second generation called Advanced Vela were launched in 1967, 1969 and 1970. These satellites added "bahngmeters" - optical sensors for detecting atmospheric tests - and had a nominal design life of 18 months, but were later rated with a seven year lifespan, although they were all operated for more than ten years, with the last one being turned off in 1984 -- after 14 years of successful operation,8641291



trav7777's picture

As you probably know, that was Israel in conspiracy with South Africa

TBT or not TBT's picture

Run for your lives!  Back in 1979 there was a couple kiloton flash over an ocean somewhere!!!!     We're dooooomed!!!!    Doooooomed!

Paladin en passant's picture


Hysteria is embarrassing to those not caught up in it.  And, ironically, hysteria is the underlying emotional dynamic of the economic bubbles most of these posters rail against. 

Shylockracy's picture

Regarding the Vela Incident, there's some interesting speculation about the destiny of three decomissioned South African warheads the Brits bought and subsequently 'lost'. Israel may have the warheads, which would falseflaggingly explain its insistence in warning the West about "terrorists" and "mushroom clouds". On the other hand, it may well be that the famously venal and unprincipled Brits simply sold the wares to the highest bidder, which would also help to account for part of Israel's hysterical histrionics.

cossack55's picture

Too bad they didn't have one go haywire and hit DC in 1965.  May have saved the world a lot of grief.

Missing_Link's picture

That clip was retarded.  Tyler, for heaven's sake, please don't call something a "must watch clip" if it's going to be nothing more than an Atari 2600 game in ultra-slow-motion.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Once again Missing_Link graphically shows us how s/he's Missing the Link.

thesapein's picture

It was actually brilliantly designed to fool retards who fear what they don't understand.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

I kinda liked it.  But then again, I have a fairly low entertainment threshold.

Ragnarok's picture

Two suprises for me, 1) France went to town, 2)USSR < USA, go figure.


The more you know. (insert rainbow)

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Most US citizens are very surprised how many underground tests were conducted on US soil. Of course, it wasn't exactly discussed on the front page of your local newspaper, let alone the national papers. I always like to show people pictures of the pock marked ground to illustrate the magnitude of over 900 underground tests.

I wonder how many of the 900 are leaking radiation? 

Zoom in on this Mapquest image for a bigger picture of the "test range".

Most US citizens have no idea that Great Britain conducted over 20 underground tests in the US.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Don't know if you noticed the teeming populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, living on above ground test sites?     And now we're supposed to worry about tests done in deserts, siberia, and remote ocean areas?     More radiation has been released into the atmosphere by burning coal than from these tests, I'd guess.   There's radioactive stuff all around us and raining down from space since billions of years.   Relax.

Rusty Shorts's picture

Zero plutonium in the biosphere before 1945, now, it's everywhere, and will persist for a long, long time...half-life of 24,000 years.