Moontanman

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.

I understand exactly how a nuke works, evidently even reading it in this article it remains unknown to you. No place in that article dose it say a nuke detonated anyplace inside the moons orbit will EMP the Earth. In fact it only mentions EMP up to 300 miles or so, not 250,000 miles so do you have a citation to support your assertions or not!

Please show the paragraphs that support your assertions, its why we have the quote feature, I read it I don't see them. Mordred, I'm not asking you to do anything more than I or anyone else would have to do if called out on such an assertion. You made a claim that a nuke detonated close than the moon would result in a destructive EMP on the earth, you asserted a nuke wouldn't be effective unless it was detonated inside the atmosphere and suggested a 100 megaton nuke. Please provide a citation for these things!

I do not say that zero reentry is necessary or even possible. Can you provide a citation or not?

I never said there is no risk, I am promoting risk mitigation, I say the risk can be mitigated. Can you or can you not back up your assertions about the EMP or the 100 megaton bomb needing to be detonated in the atmosphere or that the radiation from a nuke used to prevent an asteroid impact will be worse than the impact of the asteroid?

Yes, if an irradiated asteroid enters the atmosphere it would drag the radiation it contains with it but it would only be the radiation from the nukes, how ever many modern nukes it took. I am well aware of the blast effects in and out of the atmosphere, no one has a 100 megaton nuke and I see no one making one or being able to launch such a huge nuke and detonating it in the atmosphere would not work, the kinetic energy and mass of the asteroid would still impact the earth and you get the radiation too. So why would anyone so that? No, you made an assertion that defies the physics of how an EMP works, you need a citation on that. I say that is not necessary the amount of radiation released would be trivial over the entire earth compared to what we already have.

Yes, he asserts that a nuke detonated in space millions of miles from the earth would create enough radioactivity to threaten the earth... citation please! So far all he has done is show that radiation from past bombs exist and he equates the deep space detonation with the 507 bombs that resulted in part of our radiation exposure on the Earth. Show me that one or even several detonations would do any such thing, even if they all detonated on the Earth the vast majority of the people on the planet would remain as oblivious as they were of the past detonations. I am not saying that would be a good thing I am saying it wouldn't be worse than an asteroid impact. Risk mitigation, which is worse the release of a small amount of radiation or the impact of an asteroid. Even Tunguska would have been much worse than a modern nuke of 1.5 megatons exploding in space to try to prevent it. His assertion that nuke in space inside the orbit of the moon would cause an EMP needs a citation! Can he not defend himself?

Before this I was up for forgiving Mordred for lots of things but his assertions need to be backed up. I am well aware of the dangers of radioactivity he apparently is not and keep insisting on exaggerating the dangers with no reason other than his assertions. The links he has provided so far do not back up his assertions at all and in fact support my view of mitigating risks. Dilution is the solution to pollution!

Who is suggesting a 100 megaton explosion? I never said there is no threat, I said the risk is minimal and not significant to what we already have. You forget that I might already be familiar with them, this is an area I was obsessed with many years ago. I am well aware of that, are you aware that the risk of shattering the asteroid can be mitigated? If the pieces still hit the earth the radiation will be the least of your worries. Now how about a citation that actually supports your assertions? EMP inside the moons orbit, can you support that assertion?

I don't doubt that nuclear fallout can be dangerous what I am asserting it that the fall out from a bomb detonated millions of miles from the earth will not be significant. The amount of fall out is what is dangerous, a single bomb doesn't have the ability to significantly affect the environment, the fact that 507 didn't do it long term suggest that the idea of a nuclear explosions millions of miles away wouldn't do it either. You do realize that radioactivity is part of the natural environment and that the actual amount is what is important not that any amount exists.. right? I'm not suggesting there is no risk, I am asserting that the risk is far less than a asteroid hitting the earth. Risk management is the important thing here. What poses the most risk, an asteroid impact or the detonation of a warhead millions of miles away?

Why is this relevant? Please explain. Starfish Prime was detonated in very low earth orbit not the distance of the moon! Citation for your assertions that a nuclear explosion inside the moons orbit would cause a EMP please.