2055 <--- not a year

[Lizardizzle]

I found this video on collegehumor and found the better version on this website

It gives a visual timeline of every nuclear bomb dropped from 1945 to 1998 (it excludes the two in N. Korea in 2006 and 2009. This was made in 2003).

So far, there have been 2055 Nuclear drops in the world. This video is breathtaking.
http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/

if you are really stressed for time, here's a picture of all the bombs dropped in the world, but it doesn't give the video justice

Spoiler

 

[Viperidae]

None in Canada. Which makes little sense considering our giant uninhabited tundra of a north.

 

[Emporius]

What's that huge one in the western US?

 

[Lizardizzle]

the bigger the sphere, the higher the number of bombs set off in that area.

watch the video. >:l

 

[YROC]

>Africa and Australia have nukes

 

[Raziaar]

United Kingdom did the ones in Australia. 21 of them.

 

[bbson john]

Wow! Don't know French has detonated so much nuke.
Also, UK sucks to be honest.

 

[Yuri]

>Africa and Australia have nukes

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/1010/1243136767726.jpg

Countries only set off nukes within their borders.

 

[Lizardizzle]

Countries only set off nukes within their borders.

actually, if you watch the video all the way through, you'll find that the U.K. tested in the Pacific ocean, Australia, and even in Nevada.

 

[The Monkey]

Nice movie, quite touching. Why did the aussies allow the UK to test so many bombs there? Couldn't they have done it in their possessions in the Pacific like the French did (even though those were quite few at this point)?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Damn straight, keep your nuclear shit the **** away from New Zealand.

Haha, like we have a big enough stretch of land to set off a nuke without sinking the ****ing island.

 

[Rizzo]

Why whould the USA need to test 1032 nukes? I mean seriously. 2053 bombs is one to many.

 

[Shift]

HOW is West America not a smoldering ruin with all that nuclear testing going on there?

 

[Darkshines]

When you think of all the money being poured into producing and testing these nukes, don't you think there's something much better it could go on? *sigh* sobering thoughts...

 

[Lucid]

HOW is West America not a smoldering ruin with all that nuclear testing going on there?

We have pretty big deserts.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

*cancels central New Mexico vacation*

 

[Apocalypse89]

Wow, France nuked the **** out of those three random spots in the Pacific ocean.

 

[Escaep]

Wow, France nuked the **** out of those three random spots in the Pacific ocean.

Thats where Godzilla will inevitably come from.

 

[Warped]

no wonder why there is so much Cancer in the world. Also no wonder why I have 12 toes and 3 nipples

 

[Lizardizzle]

I like when The Soviet Union tests their first bomb, it takes like, two years for us to find out. Once we did, we were like "SHIT, MAKE BOMBS, TEST THEM, BUT KEEP THEM FAR AWAY FROM D.C.!"

 

[Yuri]

actually, if you watch the video all the way through, you'll find that the U.K. tested in the Pacific ocean, Australia, and even in Nevada.

...really?

It wasn't clear enough that I was being sarcastic?

REALLY?

 

[Krynn72]

Why would they test one in Hattisburg Mississippi? People actually live there.

 

[Viperidae]

Just do it already.

 

[Lizardizzle]

...really?

It wasn't clear enough that I was being sarcastic?

REALLY?

that's was pretty badly written sarcasm then... :l

 

[Krynn72]

Nah, it was pretty obvious. What with the fact that it would take a real idiot to believe what he said, and you know... the image he posted with it.

 

[Yuri]

Nah, it was pretty obvious. What with the fact that it would take a real idiot to believe what he said, and you know... the image he posted with it.

Thank you Krynn, for being sane. :cheers:

 

[The Monkey]

that's was pretty badly written sarcasm then... :l

Actually, it was as obvious as can be.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

HOW is West America not a smoldering ruin with all that nuclear testing going on there?

My grandpa says that when they tested nuke in Nevada one time it lit the whole sky up like it was day briefly. At night.

Mind you he lived in Northern AZ at the time. Pretty crazy.


They're still voting on legislation for compensation for 'downwinders.' Those that lived in my hometown actually during a month of a certain year in the 50's and can prove it get financial compensation from the federal government for being exposed to greater cancer risks.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Nice movie, quite touching. Why did the aussies allow the UK to test so many bombs there? Couldn't they have done it in their possessions in the Pacific like the French did (even though those were quite few at this point)?

British-Australian ties were stronger back then. Australia had big areas of uninhabited* desert - the ideal place for testing nuclear weapons. There was also the whole cold war deal and Australia being terrified of the expansion of international communism and so wanting to "do its bit" to gently discourage those filthy reds from thier percieved aims.

Also, the British only tested small nuclear weapons in Australia - the largest one detonated on the mainland was only 25 kilotons and the largest on Australian terretory 60 kilotons. The big ones (ie in the hundreds of kilotons to multiple megatons) were tested at Christmas Island or in Nevada.

*"unihabited" may, at the time, have been defined as "no white people living there, possibly some aboriginals." It was the '50s, Aboriginal rights wern't exactly high on the agenda.

 

[Ren.182]

Why did (do?) they bother testing so many of them? I mean they all seem to explode pretty similarly and they all cause shit loads of destruction, so why keep testing them if they know they work?

I understand it is a show of power and such, but were there other reasons?

 

[Adabiviak]

That's pretty neat, the same way the introductory scene in Contact was the same chronological layout of broadcast radiation from Earth. Also, first nuke test by US, next stop: Japan.

 

[<RJMC>]

Why did (do?) they bother testing so many of them? I mean they all seem to explode pretty similarly and they all cause shit loads of destruction, so why keep testing them if they know they work?

I understand it is a show of power and such, but were there other reasons?

too see if they make them better and stronger?

 

[15357]

When you think of all the money being poured into producing and testing these nukes, don't you think there's something much better it could go on? *sigh* sobering thoughts...

Yeah, like gas that can neutralize entire populations, hypersonic bombers that can bomb and get out of there without need for SEAD/DEAD operations, shitloads of cruise missiles with multiple napalm warheads that could just simply burn down everything within hundreds of meters, etc etc.

Sure, nukes are our symbol of our defensive capabilities and what humanity could ultimately acheive, a testament to human superiority over any know life form we have encountered and may encounter in te future. But these unconventional munitions shouldn't get in the way of the development of conventional weapons that can be used en masse within the realms of this planet without much concern.


EDIT: Also, the reason why they tested so much is prolly because of variations in design throughout the years, and the need to test them to see if they were viable, and to see how "a little of this, and a little of that" could change its performance, and finally perhaps to fully understand the devastation that nukes may wreak upon ones own nation, and therefore allowing themselves to develop adequete measures to protect at least some of the population from that inevitable war that would spell mankind's destruction.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Why did (do?) they bother testing so many of them? I mean they all seem to explode pretty similarly and they all cause shit loads of destruction, so why keep testing them if they know they work?

I understand it is a show of power and such, but were there other reasons?

Changes in design and such. Mostly making more powerful bombs or bombs with the same power (or more powerful) which are smaller/lighter. For a quick comparison, "little boy" wieghed in at around 4,000 kg and had a blast yeild of about 14 kt where as the current American B83 is only 1,100kg and has a maximum destructive force of around 1.2 mt (and has another feature that required testing - its variable yield warhead that can be adjusted from low kiloton to more than a megaton). Its like designing a more efficient engine. That kills people with nuclear fire.

 

[Ren.182]

Ahh yeah, forgot about design changes and upgrades etc. Thanks.

Still don't like them They scare the shit out of me. :|

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

shitloads of cruise missiles with multiple napalm warheads that could just simply burn down everything within hundreds of meters, etc etc.

That's an actual tactic we used before the bomb (not with cruise missiles though but with bombers)


We couldve firebombed Japan further. The A-Bomb was seen as more humane.

Lengthy firebombing can destroy an entire city just the same. The vacuums get so high from the burning that people and things are LITERALLY sucked into the inferno from the street, etc.

Look up Dresden. They got it bad, too.

"The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) as part of the allied forces between 13 February and 15 February 1945 in the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 39 square kilometres (15 sq mi) of the city centre.[1]"

 

[<RJMC>]

Ahh yeah, forgot about design changes and upgrades etc. Thanks.

Still don't like them They scare the shit out of me. :|

well them send a letter to the goverment of every country whit nuclears bombs telling

"can you please get rid of your nuclear bombs?,they scare me"

 

[Bob_Marley]

That's an actual tactic we used before the bomb (not with cruise missiles though but with bombers)


We couldve firebombed Japan further. The A-Bomb was seen as more humane.

Lengthy firebombing can destroy an entire city just the same. The vacuums get so high from the burning that people and things are LITERALLY sucked into the inferno from the street, etc.

Look up Dresden. They got it bad, too.

"The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) as part of the allied forces between 13 February and 15 February 1945 in the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 39 square kilometres (15 sq mi) of the city centre.[1]"

Thing is though, with a nuclear weapon one plane can do that with one bomb. As Sir Humphrey said in Yes, Prime Minister "Conventional forces are terribly expensive. Much cheaper just to press a button".

Thats the other thing with nukes - they're cheap. Much, much cheaper than the conventional forces required to do the same job. Though the whole rendering the target area uninhabitable, the fallout and whatnot are generally considered bad things (which is one of the reasons the US dropped its "massive retaliation" policy to Soviet Agression in Western Europe - thier NATO allies wern't terribly pleased that the plan for "defending western democracy" was nuking the crap out of advancing Soviet forces, and most of West Germany with them).