There are a number of reasons why the concept of 'destroying the world,' while a popular image in culture, is not possible.
First of all, let's look closely at something Baba said about man's ability to destroy the world with bombs in 1957, after the first testing of the hydrogen bomb.
Scientists and statesmen now solemnly declare that if total war comes, the whole world may perish.Note that Baba didn't say this was true, but carefully couched the remark in what scientist and statesman 'solemnly declare.'
Closer examination, with emotions detached, will show that such a scenario is not just unlikely, but physically impossible. And Baba never said it was possible. At least not with the weapons that currently exist.
I'm going to show this carefully.
First, let's take a look at the yield of the largest atomic bomb tested by North Korea. Below is the radius of the blast if perfectly airbursted (largest possible destructive power) over New York City.
Now here is the radius of destruction of the largest hydrogen bomb ever tested by the United States (Castle Bravo), if blasted over New York City. The image includes the fallout. The US no longer has these large bombs in their arsenal.
 |
| Largest hydrogen bomb ever tested by the US if dropped on NY (for scale) |
The actual bombs that would be used in an actual all-out nuclear holocaust would be no larger than 1.2 megatons, the largest currently in the US arsenal. The blast of such a bomb is depicted below. It too includes the fallout.
 |
| Largest nuclear bomb in current US arsenal |
However large this dot may seem over New England, to get a sense of true scale we need to zoom out.
 |
| All the habitable land of the Earth (for scale) |
What we learn from the image above is just how puny the blast of the largest nuclear bomb in the US arsenal really is when compared to all the habitable land of the Earth. Incidentally, the red marker in the above image is only a marker; the actual blast radius is far too small to be visible at this scale. It would be far less than a pin-prick.
In movies like The Road and Road Warrior, people cross the open lands of the Earth finding devastation everywhere. This is pure fantasy. There is no plan to bomb the countryside. That would serve no strategic purpose. Only cities (and military installations) would be targeted - not the great planes and mountains of the continents.
The thermal radius of the above largest US atom bomb is 8 miles. That means that the entire diameter (from end to end) of the radiation would be 16 miles across. That's 256 square miles. Compare that to the square miles of the habitable portions of the Earth, 24,642,757 square miles. That means that the largest nuclear bomb kill radius is 1/100,000 of the habitable land of the Earth. In other words there is 100,000 times more habitable land on the Earth than the largest atomic bomb in the current US arsenal could destroy. There are currently 15,000 nuclear bombs in the world, most of them much, much smaller than the bomb blast described, by many magnitudes. And most bombs that would be used would target other bombs. Hence the largest nuclear holocaust you could imagine would destroy a tiny fraction of the habitable land of the earth.
What about nuclear winter? Nuclear winter is a theory. In reality unsurvivable "nuclear winter" is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving. (source)
Naturally I am not advocating for nuclear war. But people ought to learn their facts. The above source is very helpful in doing so. In truth, the fictional books and movies about a devastated post-apocalyptic Earth are just that, fiction.
We would absolutely survive a nuclear war. And if people are not happy about that, there is something seriously emotionally wrong with them.
As I have said over and over in the last few months, people need to ask themselves why they need to believe in these things -- the JFK conspiracy theories, the 911 inside job theory, forbidden archeology, alien visitation, the pending collapse of civilization, three-quarters of humanity dying (something Baba did not say), and so forth. What psychological purpose do these habitual beliefs serve? Why do people cling so fervently to them?
The answer to that question remains a mystery to me. But it is more interesting to me as a question than the subjects themselves, and I believe it is a deeper question. I believe the time has come to question our assumptions. How can we be ready for Baba's manifestation before we can do that? I am startled how many people never do.
If there is one heresy that this blog commits again and again, especially in recent months, is its optimism. I have questioned our pessimism about our ancient past and our pessimism about our future. I hope I can inspire a few people to do the same. I am not naive. I look into things, and question broadly held assumptions. There is nothing naive about doing that. Quite the opposite is true. Beware of the mood our current culture is trying to put you in. And question what the deeper causes of this trend might be. Do not accept public assumptions at face value. Wake up and get conscious.
Nuclear bomb detonation information. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Myths about nuclear destruction. http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
Websites that explain the same thing I am:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a27736/blow-up-earth/
http://gizmodo.com/5899569/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-to-blow-up-the-entire-planet
https://qntm.org/destroy
No comments:
Post a Comment