Moontanman

Me liking them has nothing to do with it, their intolerance of anyone who doesn't follow their world view is the issue. In fact, their obsession of trying to change the law to restrict the life style/actions they don't approve of says it all IMHO... carry on.

I have to say, I am very much against religion, as soon as you find a religion that is tolerant of people who do not want to follow their mythology I'll be tolerant of them, being liberal doesn't mean being stupid and that is what being tolerant of someone who is not tolerant of you would mean. Carry on...

Sadly I only speak pidgin math.

I think of my world view as a skeptic, somewhat militant of late, which for me includes atheism but I would never say there is no god but I would say I don't believe what theists are asserting but I'm open to honest discussion on any topic, to me "honest" means being open to the possibility I am wrong.

Is atheism a worldview? Is a stance on one issue a world view?

I would imagine that by now we could make them even more powerful and maybe physically smaller but no one has them now mostly due to many small bombs being more effective than one big bomb in destroying a ground target.

The Tzar Bomba no longer exists, it was a one off 50 megaton bomb so large only one could barely be carried to the text site by the largest bomber they had, what is your point?

Your link said that around 300 miles was the most effective height and your examination for a 100 megaton blast was deceptively used to assert the danger of such a EMP from the distance of the moon. You be you dude, I see no reason to try and reason this any further.

Damn, like trying to nail jello to a tree, your post hoc ability to explain this away is amazing. Why can't you just admit you were wrong? Mordred, you are far better educated than me and I like that you are here to explain these things, you've set me straight several times but in this case IMHO your own exaggerated fear of nukes has clouded your judgement. There was no need to do this, there was no need to assert the EMP effect, your own link to star fish prime clearly stated the EMP effect was most effective at around 300 miles and your own calculations showed the effect of even the outrageous sized 100 megaton imaginary bomb would not be a danger yet you asserted it was. Why? Why not use a realistic sized bomb and show how close it would have to be to pose a realistic danger? I am not your equal in any way but I can recognize emotional deception when I see it, at every turn you rejected any information that indicated that nukes aren't the extreme danger you want others to think they are. I readily admit that current culture seems to be promoting this idea of a nuke being all powerful and all dangerous through fear mongering what some terrorist or rouge nation might do with one bomb but these emotional notions should not enter into a scientific discussion. To have a productive discussion requires the are all on the same page not out chasing deceptive or emotional arguments, when I am wrong I readily admit it...

Again you sad the effect would not be significant not me. That is why what you asserted was deceptive, you tried to convince us the EMP from the moons orbit would be dangerous to the earth in some significant way, then when called out on it you admitted the effect would be minimal and not dangerous. That is deception. I have no doubt that such an important experiment could be approved if proposed by the proper authorities.

Again how do you justify the deceptive nature of your assertion? I'm not questioning your math I'm questioning how you used it to support your deceptive assertion!

Possibly we should try this experimentally to get a handle on just how effective nuke could be? Choose a small asteroid and see what the effect of a nuke is exactly?

I understand that but if that heat pulse can vaporise the surface then it should be able to fuse it as well.

I've wondered the same thing, since the blast effects would be minimal would the radiated energy be enough to fuse the surface?

Now which is it, a 100 megaton nuke at the moon's orbit is dangerous or is it just a detectable effect? And again modern nukes fall far short of 100 megatons and why is the moderness of the nukes important?

No, you used the EMP thing as an example of how dangerous the nukes were, in that context you were not being accurate and in fact deceptive so no your assertion was not valid. In fact your idea of stopping the asteroid as it hits the atmosphere with a 100 megaton warhead is not valid, can you use physics and math to understand why? Your exaggerated assertions about the danger of fall out from the detonation of a nuke were not valid. You go be you dude... I'll stick with arguing reality.

You are quoting yourself now? I've not done anything but ask you to support your wilder assertions, everyone is supposed to to do this, why is asking for this an accusation?

One thing you don't have for sure is the desire to discuss this in a non emotional way.

You are exaggerating the risks to further your agenda, I simply seek to mitigate the actual risk potential to further the safety of the human species. Your assertions about the EMP near the moon I think confirm my suspicions. Your example of the Chicxulub impact just shows you are not interested in an actual discussion.

You made he claim that a nuke detonated inside the the moons orbit would cause a damaging EMP pulse on the earth, then you equivacated and said it would have to be a 100 megaton nuke which no one has ever detonated much less currently have. I suggested a 250 meter asteroid, Apophis is over 300 meters if memory serves me. The asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs was several kilometers in diameter if such a asteroid threatened us now days we would be screwed AFAIK there is no way to deflect such an asteroid in any reasonable time frame so why do you try to use it as an example? More fear mongering? Why?

Why would such a warhead be used as an example here? Who has 100 megaton warheads? Who is capable of delivering a 100 megaton warhead? Why is the orbit of the moon being used as an limit? If all we would get is a minor effect why bring this up at all? This example is nothing but fear mongering, if you wait until an object is within the orbit of the moon you are up the creek, such an object is just hours, possibly minutes from impact at that point, do the math! Why keep using these exaggerated examples instead of realistic scenarios? We need to plan ahead, get the infrastructure in pace before the threat looms over us but until that infrastructure is in place the easiest and fastest method should be used. Nuclear warheads delivered to the target via existing technology as far from us as possible would seem to be the best option we currently have. An asteroid impact is a serious event quite possibly apocalyptic anything other than our best efforts is suicide. Exaggerating the danger of nuclear technology does not serve us.

You have no argument until you provide a citation for your assertions!

I'm going to assume your assertions around the detonation of a nuke in space compared to the earth is just us talking past each other. I know the effect is not as great in space as it is on the ground but that doesn't mean it won't work... But your assertion that a nuke would produce an EMP all the way out to the moons orbit needs to be supported or you need to simply admit you yanked it from where the sun don't shine and we can move on.