baby boom
A single person exploding with the force of thirty hydrogen bombs would be sufficient justification.
--LAN3 Thu Jan 24 16:19:35 2008
"My fellow Americans... prior to this day, we have tirelessly sought out anyone who would seek to harm America with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we face an even more powerful threat: Weapons of Mass."
--Kirk Thu Jan 24 16:26:11 2008
Hmm, I'm picturing this person actually going off in Cuba, which would not only cause massive destruction of Cuba itself, thereby liberating the remaining Cubans to live in freedom on their new radioactive archipelago, but a giant Tsunami would wash over Venezuela, lowering their crime rate and possibly freeing them as well. Also, such a blast would blow a remarkable chunk of atmosphere, much of it carbon dioxide, out of Earth's gravity well.
--LAN3 Fri Jan 25 12:36:42 2008
--Kirk Fri Jan 25 13:42:57 2008
Yup. To my knowledge, the biggest bomb ever 'sploded was a 66-Gigaton H-bomb, exploded by the Soviets. That, fortunately, was the end of a brief race to build bigger and bigger bombs. They do scale up for quite a while after that, and the US briefly considered building a 100-GT bomb, but as far as using them as weapons goes, the returns diminish once your explosion is enough to destroy the target city, a milestone longsince passed, at that point. The problem of the 100-GT bomb blowing a big chunk of air clean into space was also considered to weigh against the idea.

If your basic H-bomb is considered to be 5 gigatons or 20 gigatons, I do not know, but 30 times either number represents the sort of frighteningly huge devastation that, applied anywhere on earth, would eventually negatively affect everwhere else on Earth.
--LAN3 Fri Jan 25 19:52:38 2008

Comments Disabled... (Thanks Dirty Rotten Spammers)
Feel free to write kirkjerk at gmail dot com!