Bigger Is Not Better: Comparing Nukes In 1945 & Today

Last weekend marked the day the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb named "Little Boy" on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

Three days later, Nagasaki was also the target of an atomic bomb named "Fat Man".

As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, these remain the only wartime nuclear attacks in history.

How do those two weapons compare to the most powerful warheads in the world today?

Infographic: Nuclear weapons in 1945 and 2018 in comparison | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

And yet the neocons push Trump to rumble with Putin in a never-ending grudge match and NATO nips at his heels across 1000s of miles of eastern European border...just spoiling for a fight that they know full well could be the last mankind undertakes.

Comments

Beam Me Up Scotty Mr. Universe Tue, 08/07/2018 - 21:44 Permalink

We have enough weapons to destroy the planet a dozen times over.  Or MORE.  Why do we need to keep spending money on these types of weapons???  This is all just 1984 propaganda to me.  We have ALWAYS been at war with someone!!  Like Eisenhower warned, beware the military industrial complex!!

Lets spend money on aircraft carriers, and jets and tanks and all kinds of other stuff that won't matter ONE IOTA, if the nukes get launched!!

In reply to by Mr. Universe

Joe Trader Stuck on Zero Wed, 08/08/2018 - 13:17 Permalink

"Tyler" aka Daniel Ivandjiiski. Bulgarian national. Basically Russian. Continues his bitching and whining about NATO in eastern Europe. All you have to do is follow the money folks - the owner of this site is russian and is pushing a major anti-eastern European agenda. There's no substance, no truth to any of his points.

 

In 2009, shortly after the blog was founded, news reports identified Daniel Ivandjiiski, a Bulgarian-born former hedge-fund analyst who was barred from the industry for insider trading by FINRA in 2008, as the founder of the site, and reported that "Durden" was a pseudonym for Ivandjiiski.[9][10][11][5] One contributor, who spoke to New York magazine after an interview was arranged by Ivandjiiski, said that "up to 40" people were permitted to post under the "Durden" name.[9]The website is registered in Bulgaria at the same address as that of Strogo Sekretno, a site run by Ivandjiiski's father, Krassimir Ivandjiiski.[12]Zero Hedge is registered under the name Georgi Georgiev, a business partner of Krassimir Ivandjiiski.

There will be a full size NATO base in eastern Europe very soon. I dedicate this to you Ivandjiiski. Get used to it.

In reply to by Stuck on Zero

Radical Marijuana hannah Tue, 08/07/2018 - 22:50 Permalink

Yes, it is theoretically possible that even a country like Canada could construct a doomsday device that would kill Civilization if blown up in Canada.

"National Security" has become psychotic, since the abundance of weapons of mass destruction amount to "National Security" becoming global suicide. What "National Security" has actually done in the USA is to enable the best organized gangsters to almost totally capture control over the powers of the government of the USA, in ways whereby the various provisions for "National Security" make it politically impossible to effectively resist those developments.

Indeed, after the international bankers recaptured control of the American money supplies, everything related to that, which is almost everything, automatically had to get worse, faster. Some of the more recent milestones in the runaway social psychoses operating through "National Security" were when those concerns were used to justify the big banks becoming too big to fail and too big to jail.

"National Security" became the greatest threat to a democratic republic operating through the rule of law, by enabling the best organized gangsters to use that to capture control over the powers of public governments in ways which are allowed to remain Top Secret. The most spectacular symbol of that, so far, were the ways in which the events on 9/11/2001 were inside job false flag attacks, which were NOT actually genuine "failures" of "National Security," but rather, expressions of the ways that "National Security" enabled the biggest and best organized gangsters to consolidate even greater control over the powers of governments, by granting themselves even more abilities to start genocidal wars based on lies, as well as to prepare to impose democidal martial law.

There were already enough weapons accumulated during the later 1960s for any real world war to annihilate the technological civilization that made those weapons. Since then, the only things that have happened were the ways that overall predicament became about exponentially more insane.

While there has been prodigious progress in the development of the delivery systems for various weapons of mass destruction, none of that changes the bottom line becoming globalized self-destruction of the technological based civilization that has prepared to be able to do such things on such scales.

 

There are TWO central facts.

FIRST, there must be some death control systems, because endless exponential growth is absolutely impossible.

SECOND, the actually existing death control systems have become utterly demented deceitfulness, due to the long history of starting wars, including class wars, with various sorts of false flag attacks, which continues to be implemented in the post-modernizing world, using technologies which are trillions of times more powerful and capable than ever before in previous human history.

MEANWHILE, it continues to be that the most likely man-made megadisaster may result from biological super weapons getting loose. There are no good grounds to expect that civilization will develop better death control systems, instead of the current craziness resulting in runaway death insanities.

Theoretically, it is imperative for militarism, as the ideology of the murder systems, to go through series of profound paradigm shifts, in ways which are inspired and guided by the series of intellectual scientific revolutions which made it possible for various weapons of mass destruction to accumulate to become trillions of times more powerful than ever before in human history.

However, the first generation that grew up with the development of those weapons is still alive now, and they generally have NO interest whatsoever in going through sufficiently radical transformations of the perceptions of political problems, in light of the FACTS regarding various weapons of mass destruction.

In reply to by hannah

hannah Radical Marijuana Wed, 08/08/2018 - 01:28 Permalink

i have seen the suicide nuke....it is in beneath the planet of the apes...!...those damn dirty apes..!

 

your ideas on militarism are spot on. the gorilla apes in beneath the planet of the apes had to go through a series of profound paradigm shifts, in ways which are inspired and guided by the series of intellectual scientific revolutions which made it possible for the military apes to gain too much power....! those damn gorilla apes were crazy for war.....

In reply to by Radical Marijuana

Radical Marijuana Kalashnikov545 Wed, 08/08/2018 - 17:13 Permalink

Link to a cartoon to reply to a cartoon-based view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pupd6dQ0pI

Gall Force Stardust War part 1

 

The only events, which I am aware of, which may be compared to some human beings harnessing atomic energy, were those which developed photosynthesis. However, the former is roughly ten billion times greater, as well as roughly happening about ten billion times faster than the latter.

In reply to by Kalashnikov545

CingRed Beam Me Up Scotty Tue, 08/07/2018 - 23:32 Permalink

There are about 15,000 nuclear weapons active in the world.  The average can take out an area that is no more than 10 miles in diameter.  Do the math.  The area destroyed is about 4.7 million square miles or an area that is about 2,200 miles on a side.  Hardly the whole worlds several times over.  Radioactivity dissipates significantly in 3 to 4 weeks.  (Yes, people are living where the bombs hit in Japan.)  A nasty effect?  Certainly.  Lots of lives lost. Of course.  Survivors?  Billions or hundreds of millions at the least.  Life continues? Yes.

In reply to by Beam Me Up Scotty

Victor999 CingRed Wed, 08/08/2018 - 01:29 Permalink

Nearly all those areas directly affected are centres of modern civilisation.  This means of course that your relatively harmless bombs would wipe out human civilisation as we know it for a start, leaving the remainder (yes, perhaps billions) living in an instant Stone Age for which they are not equipped to live.

 

Besides that, a nuclear blast from 15,000 bombs would result in the lifting of massive megatonnes of radioactive dust and debris into the stratosphere, poisoning the skies and producing a sun-resistant blanket covering the upper atmosphere for many years afterwards.  These particles do not settle back to earth quickly but are carried by the upper currents all over the earth, resulting in a definitively cooled world blocking out much of the sunlight needed for plants and animals to survive.

 

You are an idiot.

In reply to by CingRed

Dude-dude CingRed Wed, 08/08/2018 - 01:44 Permalink

No.  You're wrong.  Bombs dropped in Japan in the 40s today are considered light tactical nukes.  People and the world can survive a few tactical nukes dropped on a few cities - yes.  Strategic thermonuclear weapons are minimum 10x more powerful, with the average being maybe 30x and maxing out at roughly 4000x more powerful.  Even at the lower end, the debris, dust and soot is ejected to heights into the ionosphere.  The interaction 'up there' causes the ions to bind and fall into the stratosphere.  Let's say a mere 500 targets including major cities with an average yield of 350Kt, nuclear plants and all = no more ozone layer = UV bombarding, blinding and burning biologicals on the surface.  The soot and carbon at that altitude would block the thermal radiation from the sun, causing global temperatures to drop to ice-age levels.  At that altitude, much of this radioactive soot and carbon would simply circulate for years until finally falling to the surface.  Below the stratosphere are the heavier and much longer lasting Beta and Alpha emitting particulates.  These will come down to the surface in the form of rain or snow (fallout) - covering much of the earth.  These isotopes can have a half-life of up to 300 years.  In Japan, this was briefly experienced as "black-rain" - now imagine 500 times 50 times Hiroshima = black rain everywhere.  All sources of food will die (by the cold, by the UV, by the darkness, by the ionizing radiation.  All larger animals (including near-surface fish) will die.  All fresh water sources become contaminated with deadly fallout.  The Oceans start to freeze and become radioactive within a hundred feet of the surface.  No one, in any shelter, without the means of surviving at least 5 years underground, will survive.  Means of surviving 5 years underground require: (a) clean fresh water and the ability to recycle waste water into consumable water (you can't drink pee and survive for long) (b) uncontaminated food (and the ability to grow new food underground) (c) waste disposal and the ability to recycle it (d) medication, particularly antibiotics - microbiol life will go and live wherever any other living organism goes and lives (e) uncontaminated air and the ability to scrub the air from CO and CO2 contamination over time.  All this requires significant energy and the ability to prevent the waste from energy production to contaminate the protected environment. (You can't just put a diesel-engine generator inside an underground bunker without being able to filter the CO, CO2 and other toxic emissions from combustion - and you'd need five years of fuel - unless you have a way to refine oil and an oil well).  Nuclear power might be an alternative, but you'd need a reactor, engineering expertise to maintain it, and the ability to contain radioactive waste from the reactor without causing hydrogen explosions...  Should I continue?  Your shelter cannot have any contact with the surface atmosphere, so you cannot exhaust any of the harmful gasses to the surface unless you engineer some sort of diode (i.e. what goes out goes out, what is out doesn't come in - at all).  You might be thinking deep cave.  But within just a few months, radioactive Cesium-137 contamination may seep in.  Definitely within a couple of years.

"Radioactivity dissipates significantly in 3 to 4 weeks" unless you're talking about Cesium 137 which has a half-life of 30 years.  Cesium-137 is a primary bi-product of nuclear fission.  Nuclear fission is the primary for detonating a nuclear fusion reaction in thermonuclear weapons.      

"Survivors?  Billions or hundreds of millions at the least.  Life continues? Yes."  Maybe in an alternate universe.  I see some animals surviving near the South-pole and deep-water animals potentially surviving - the surface would become uninhabitable for at least half a decade even if we're -just- talking about 500 warheads.  An all-out nuke war would probably have 2000+ high-yield thermonuclear explosives being exchanged.

Life will go on.  Microbial life will come back in maybe 5-10 years after such a war.  In 10-100 years surface plant life and near-surface oceanic life might emerge.  In about a thousand years, small animals.  In 50,000 years, larger animals.  Etc.  Yes, the earth itself will recover, and life will likely thrive a million years later.  

In reply to by CingRed

EddieLomax Beam Me Up Scotty Wed, 08/08/2018 - 08:12 Permalink

I'd say the reason we spend money on aircraft carriers and other stuff is the fact that going nuclear is all too often a bluff.

For example, the UK was supposed to go nuclear if the USSR got to the channel coast.  Would we really?  By taking that action we would face the certain extinction of all life in Britain.  If the soviets initiated a nuclear attack we could in return destroy every significant city and military installation effectively shattering their country for a 1000 years.

So the likely result would be both sides just going with conventional forces.

In reply to by Beam Me Up Scotty

SixIsNinE Mr. Universe Tue, 08/07/2018 - 21:50 Permalink

it's because nukes have been proven to be a strawman.

the reason Hiroshima & Nagosaki are inhabitable today is because the lies of the nuke bombs have been exposed and proven false.

if the nuke bombs were true in what was told to us  - it would be thousands of years before anyone could live in the areas bombed.

as it is, however - it shows that the firebombing of Tokyo was the photographed evidence of the "nuclear" bombs in august of 1945.

it would be nice if a player outside of the fraud scammsters would admit to the obvious.

 

In reply to by Mr. Universe

lock-stick Yen Cross Wed, 08/08/2018 - 00:01 Permalink

It's all ONE SICK, PATHETIC SPAMMER!!!

•• roea.rita (above)

•• Adolfsteinbergovitch (above)

•• Sanctificado (above)

•• Free This (coming soon, in all his 7th grade glory - JACKASS  as new icon!)

....and all the while, the pathetic little SPAMMER sits in his leaky, moldy, smelly single wide in Western New York, surrounded by garbage and dirty clothes, trying to find his dick amidst rolls of fat, talking to his ACTION FIGURES and wondering where his life went.

 

It's all ONE SICK, PATHETIC LIDDLE SPAMMER!!!

In reply to by Yen Cross

Manipuflation Mr. Universe Wed, 08/08/2018 - 01:57 Permalink

Because it is tactical in nature.  I have a monstrosity Ruger Super Redhawk 44 Mag 9 inch barrel and it is a great gun but it is fucking HUGE.  I have a .38 special S&W Saturday Night Special.  I need something in between so I went for the Ruger 357 Mag GP100 in six inch and I love it.  I have an SA 45 ACP but I like my wheel guns.  

I am impressed with the 357 magnum caliber.  It has power to be sure but not off the charts recoil.  The GP100 gun is lighter and more nimble and I trashed the original factory sights right away and installed William's Fire Sights right away.  It's a great gun for both males and females.  I am impressed with the Ruger GP100 blued 6" and I recommend it to all ZHers.  I have about $1300 into this gun but that is the gun, the new sights, the leather holster, two speedloaders and a couple hundred rounds of ammo.

Just in case there is a huge nuclear holocaust and you survive you would want that gun on your side.  The bad news for big city dwellers is that you are the ones who are going to get hit and not us.        

In reply to by Mr. Universe

jin187 Manipuflation Wed, 08/08/2018 - 02:04 Permalink

That's not necessarily true.  With so many nukes at our disposal, it's likely that resource hubs will be targeted too.  Russia could drop one on every city with over 100k people, and still have plenty to ruin our crops, forests, and oil fields.  They might even have enough left over for vanity targets, like blowing up Niagara Falls, or Mt. Rushmore.

In reply to by Manipuflation

Manipuflation jin187 Wed, 08/08/2018 - 03:10 Permalink

I appreciate your thought but you obviously like video games a great deal.  If you nuke the shit out of a place then you have rendered it uninhabitable for a very, very long time.  That is not victory; that is vengeance.  Have you put down the controller and ever read Sun Tzu?  Why would you nuke a place and then try to take it over?  You don't win.  

In a tactical situation where only one bomb would set into motion a mass exodus of city retards into the countryside.  Just think about it.  One attack anywhere in the world would have major damage to the global financial system.  9/11 should have taught you that.  

If you don't have the money to arm yourself with a firearm then it is not my problem.  Get a machete.  A good piece of pipe.  Get some rope.     

In reply to by jin187

hedgeless_horseman Manipuflation Wed, 08/08/2018 - 08:06 Permalink

 

where only one bomb would set into motion a mass exodus of city retards into the countryside.  Just think about it.  One attack anywhere in the world would have major damage to the global financial system.  9/11 should have taught you that.  

I agree.  Fear is the mind killer. 

People seem to have a difficult time imagining the many unsavory scenarios between peace and Armageddon.

In reply to by Manipuflation

jin187 Mr. Universe Wed, 08/08/2018 - 01:59 Permalink

Actually, if the purpose is to blow up as much stuff as possible, then bigger is better.  If you want to kill as many people as possible, and render the earth uninhabitable, you want to set off as many low-yield nukes as possible to pollute everything with the fallout.  High-yield weapons can push most of their fallout so high into the atmosphere, that it actually stays there.

In reply to by Mr. Universe

transcendent_wannabe Mr. Universe Wed, 08/08/2018 - 04:31 Permalink

Hi, there are realistic limits to nuclear bomb size. At about 50 Megatons, the blast is so powerful, that most
of the force blows a whole straight up thru the atmosphere, and does not increase ground damage. Of course, underwater explosions are a different story. Anyways, the scary trend today is toward smaller and smaller bomb yields, which make them USABLE. Small yield bombs are the real worry.

In reply to by Mr. Universe

MrGalt Mr. Universe Wed, 08/08/2018 - 11:24 Permalink

Accuracy counts as do the implications of collateral damage and the manner in which the blast force is projected. While the power of today's nukes are much greater than they were in WWII, overall nuke power has actually dropped mostly out the MT range. If most of the force goes up and out, you can kill a lot of civilians, but may not do adequate damage to critical hardened targets. As accuracy and warhead design have improved, the need for 20MT or 60MT devices has gone out the window.  Most are now less than 1MT.

In reply to by Mr. Universe

khnum hedgeless_horseman Tue, 08/07/2018 - 21:46 Permalink

After world war 2 America took in the best and brightest Nazi scientists they and their successors have had unlimited funds to develop God only knows what in the last 70 years.Do I wish to live in a world run by Doctors Mengele,Moreau and Frankenstein after a nuclear confrontation,hell no but Im not afraid of that reality no-one not even a psycho wants to preside over a pile of rubble,in fact that reality might be the merciful one. 

In reply to by hedgeless_horseman