If an asteroid was going to hit Earth!

what would happen?

Total Votes:

[ 0 ]

This poll closed on November 15, 2004.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Sogar]

Unfortunately, I don’t believe NASA would be able to do anything. At least right now. Their shuttle technology is far outdated. Maybe once NASA builds a new fleet of shuttles, we’ll at least stand a chance. But as it stands right now, I say sit back, relax, and enjoy the show before you’re killed.

[Izukii]

Ireska

...i would get soooooooooooooooo wasted and have soooooooooooooo much sex, it wouldn't be funny. and if i was still alive then, i'd go looting...FOR MORE BEER!!! blaugh

i sooo agree and i sooo have the things your sig's person has weird

[Xiphophorus]

We'd be trying to plant space stations on the bloody moon, thats what I think Nasa would do. ^^

[Rusted Shadow]

Kill off people

[Kazekage]

little_ryan763

Well, from all the different nuclear explosions you would probably:
a) put enough radiation in the air to poison the atmosphere
b) crack the Earth's crust with the sheer power of the nuke

.........riiiiiiiight. Lets look at this logically though instead of tinted with our Cold War glasses okay?

1.) The radiation danger is not everything it's cracked up to be. Yes nukes produce radiation, however air is not as transperant to ionizing radiation as it is to thermal radiation. Furthermore the inverse square law means the amount of radiation will drop off pretty quick the farther you are from the blast. The primary radiation risk involving nuclear warheads is the creation of large amounts of radioactive material. This was a bit of a problem with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes since they were fission weapons and thus relied solely upon radioactive elements like uranium. However fission weapons tend to create highly intense radiation over a short period of time. Within a day most of the residual fission radioactivity is going to be gone.

Furthermore nukes fired at cities are going to be airbursts, this greatly reduces the fallout danger since higher yields mean more of the radioactive material is thrown into the dry stratosphere where, due to lack of weather processes, it will take quote a long time to descend, allowing it to lose its radioactivity and further distributing it over a wider area and thus reducing the intensity of what radiation remains.

There will be areas of high radioactivity to be sure, but nowhere near the level you're proposing that would poison earth's atmosphere globally.


As for cracking the crust.. well, that's just plain laughable considering that nukes nowadays are typically kiloton range affairs.

[little_ryan763]

Kazekage

little_ryan763

Well, from all the different nuclear explosions you would probably:
a) put enough radiation in the air to poison the atmosphere
b) crack the Earth's crust with the sheer power of the nuke

.........riiiiiiiight. Lets look at this logically though instead of tinted with our Cold War glasses okay?

1.) The radiation danger is not everything it's cracked up to be. Yes nukes produce radiation, however air is not as transperant to ionizing radiation as it is to thermal radiation. Furthermore the inverse square law means the amount of radiation will drop off pretty quick the farther you are from the blast. The primary radiation risk involving nuclear warheads is the creation of large amounts of radioactive material. This was a bit of a problem with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes since they were fission weapons and thus relied solely upon radioactive elements like uranium. However fission weapons tend to create highly intense radiation over a short period of time. Within a day most of the residual fission radioactivity is going to be gone.

Furthermore nukes fired at cities are going to be airbursts, this greatly reduces the fallout danger since higher yields mean more of the radioactive material is thrown into the dry stratosphere where, due to lack of weather processes, it will take quote a long time to descend, allowing it to lose its radioactivity and further distributing it over a wider area and thus reducing the intensity of what radiation remains.

There will be areas of high radioactivity to be sure, but nowhere near the level you're proposing that would poison earth's atmosphere globally.


As for cracking the crust.. well, that's just plain laughable considering that nukes nowadays are typically kiloton range affairs.

Well, sorry I must have been thinking of the old nukes, but anyway, I think we're getting a little off topic.

[Toxica Blackthorn!]

Id be getting layed I mean come on thats the best way to go wink

[Toxica Blackthorn!]

Well anyone else?

[shaowebb]

ahem...i for one...am a thorough beleiver...that we would be ********

[lovely_luna07]

Well... I happen to have given many a speech on this subject in debate....

First off... the impacts of an asteroid:
1)If it landed on ground, the shock wave would obviously create a massive earthquake in the surrounding areas. This would also cause a massive dust cloud to enshroud our Earth, therefore putting an end to all photosynthesis until the cloud cleared, by which point all living things would be extinct.
2)If it landed in the sea, this would cause massive tsunamis that would devour islands and entire continents... in addition to the shockwave created in scenario 1.

Secondly.... surprisingly enough, NASA is doing research regarding what we could to do prevent such a catastrophe... unfortunately, NASA's funding is going to be cut pretty soon, so such "whimsical" endeavours such as Asteriod Impact Prevention are likely to be abandoned for more "down to earth" matters.

[zeroten]

I think I would try to live. If you can make it through, and your offspring make it through, in like a couple hundred years, maybe like 1/3 of the human population would be related to you. Wouldn't that be awesome?

[lovely_luna07]

Hmm.. coincidentally enough, I have given many a speech on this topic in debate...

First off... the impacts of asteriod hitting earth
1)If the asteroid hits land... massive earthquake in surrounding areas obviously... also, this would produce a huge dust cloud which would surround the globe and prevent the vital photosynthesis process... by the time said cloud were to disband, all life would be extinct.
2)If the asteroid hits sea/ocean etc... same massive shockwave in scenario 1, as well as giant tsunamis would be devour islands, even continents... so, human extinction as well...

Secondly... what NASA is doing to stop it...
oddly enough, NASA IS investigating ways to deal with an asteroid shoud it penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, however, NASA's budget will probably soon be cut. Therefore, any "Asteroid Prevention" programs will most likely be exterminated due to more "down to earth" priorities...

[Kazekage]

little_ryan763

Well, sorry I must have been thinking of the old nukes, but anyway, I think we're getting a little off topic.

Thing is, that older nukes never got over the low megaton range. The biggest ones the soviets ever had planned was a potential 100 megaton weapon. The reason these weapons were abandoned was due to efficiency. The inverse square law does bad things to weapons that release their energy in a spherical manner. Simply put a big nuke was only good if you were throwing it at a heavily armoed single target like a missile silo. When doing something like wiping out cities or troop formations 5 200 kiloton nukes will damage a far greater area than a single 1 megaton nuke.

Ironically enough this reduction in weapon yields INCREASES fallout dangers since a bigger detonation will throw the debris higher into the air.

[Kazekage]

little_ryan763

Well, sorry I must have been thinking of the old nukes, but anyway, I think we're getting a little off topic.

Thing is, that older nukes never got over the low megaton range. The biggest ones the soviets ever had planned was a potential 100 megaton weapon. The reason these weapons were abandoned was due to efficiency. The inverse square law does bad things to weapons that release their energy in a spherical manner. Simply put a big nuke was only good if you were throwing it at a heavily armoed single target like a missile silo. When doing something like wiping out cities or troop formations 5 200 kiloton nukes will damage a far greater area than a single 1 megaton nuke.

Ironically enough this reduction in weapon yields INCREASES fallout dangers since a bigger detonation will throw the debris higher into the air.

[blak_demon]

I'd skip in meadows smelling flowers and playing with animals....YEAH RIGHT....

I would probably just chill and hang out with friends...I have no idea actually xP