Comments by "Miriam Weller" (@miriamweller812) on "U.S. Sending Nukes To Finland’s Border With Russia" video.
-
17
-
@mikaseppanen1632 People don't seem to get that nukes are decastating, but not 300km devastating...
Always ridiculous. Most seem to think nukes are just bigger bombs, you can for example use to destroy a bridge (and if you use a nuke on that area, the bridge got the biggest chance to survive it if not hit directly.
Meanwhile the others think a single nuke could obliterate whole englang for example.
It would of course have a desasterous effect one everyone in england if you would wipe out London for example - what a single nuke indeed can easily do, even several cities. But it won't destroy the whole country with its heat, pressure or even radiation (radiation actually plays a lesser role the bigger the nuke is, because most of the radioactive material will simply be shot high up the atmosphere (not coming down before decayed or spread so much you won't have an effect) and even space.
Nuking Helsinki would have absolute zero effect on St. Petersburg from the explosion (the curvature of earth alone would likel not even let you see it). Longest sightline on earth is around 450km from a very high starting point to a very high objet in the distance, both mountains with nothing in between. So you have to be on a very high level and have something very high.
If you want to destroy a city, you will likely detonate the nuke in a few 100m height for optimal destruction (we speak cold analytics here, it's not about the moral aspect).
Unlikely enough to be seen from 300km away, though parts of the mushroom cloud might.
8
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1