Scientists:Only 100 nuclear bombs needed per nation,any more is suicide

Nations with huge nuclear arsenals are wasting their money because just 100 missiles would be enough to destabilise the globe and kill their own citizens, scientists have said.

Britain currently possesses approximately 215 warheads of around 15,000 worldwide, the vast majority of which are American or Russian.

But researchers have determined that no nation could fire more than 100 without causing a chain of events so catastrophic the impacts are felt at home.

In the first such exercise of its kind, scientists analysed the “environmental blow-back” of a one-way but massive nuclear strike.

Based on models including those of burnable materials in cities, they calculated the amount of soot and dust that would be thrown into the air by the blasts, the consequent blotting of the sun and damage to the atmosphere.

They found that the “nuclear autumn” of such destruction would damage agricultural output by up to 20 per cent, enough to affect widespread food shortages even on the other side of the world.

The concept of nuclear deterrence has traditionally included the doctrine that the bigger the arsenal, the less likely an adversary is to attack.

However, the authors at Michigan Technological University and Tennessee State University say there is no “pragmatic” reason for any nation to maintain more than 100.

pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph/20180614/281775629866713

Attached: bob creation.webm (352x288, 3.71M)

More environment shit to make nations accoutable to some (((central authority)))

Most nukes are tiny, tactical nukes, a lot are half kiloton devices.
They are also spread out across delivery systems: subs, planes, bases - and the bases have to be spread out across the globe, with american bases in 100 different locations worldwide, in dozens of foreign countries. This is called having redunancy measures.
A large number could be intercepted, especially with modern tech, and a fair amount will fail to deliver due to technical faults or environmental factors.
There are numerous other reasons.
It is interesting how (((scientists))) have no fucking brains of thought processes whatsoever, and just blindly follow the leftist sjw cult agenda.
I'd like to see them all nuked.

So scientists are calling out humanity for moderation…that has to be the dumbest news I've read today. First of all every number above one is too much for nuclear missiles, then historically and statistically it's already proven that humans will use those weapons to destroy themselves. Common sense should tell anyone that if it's there, it will be used.

>It is interesting how (((scientists))) have no fucking brains of thought processes whatsoeve

Some opinionated fool on 8ch.

I bet you really think you know it all.

(((Jeeeeze)))

Hey guys, remember the second time humanity wiped itself out with nukes? Good times.

The purpose of nuclear weapons is to be a deterrent, they exist to prevent conflicts.
Is the lack of direct wars between nuclear equipped powers a pure coincidence?

...

Let's be honest humanity deserves a good nuking, only the neanderthals should live

So that's why the US used them on civilians "merely" seconds after building them? Anyway we live in a state of piece that is build on the fear of nuclear destruction. It will not hold, it cannot hold, it's a scientific impossibility for mankind to not use their nukes. It's just a matter of when.

No shit. Maybe he meant Atlantis?