Too complex a question to answer. Depends on:
It would not take all the world's nuclear missiles to destroy the world as it only takes a few well-placed ones to cause catastrophic damage. The exact number is hard to determine, as it would depend on various factors such as the target locations and the size of the warheads. Just a small fraction of the world's nuclear arsenal could potentially cause widespread devastation.
The impact of 10 Titan 2 nuclear missiles would cause widespread devastation, with immediate blast effects and subsequent radiation exposure affecting a large area. While it would not completely wipe out mankind, the destruction and radiation fallout would have severe consequences on human life, infrastructure, and the environment. Recovery would be difficult and long-term effects could be significant.
Nuclear weapons have the potential to cause massive devastation, including widespread destruction and loss of life. However, it is unlikely that they could completely destroy the world or the planet itself. The use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic consequences with long-lasting impacts on the environment and civilization.
It is difficult to provide an exact number as the use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic global consequences, potentially leading to nuclear winter and widespread devastation. It is imperative to prevent the use of such weapons to protect life on Earth.
The size of the area destroyed by a nuclear bomb depends on its yield. A small nuclear bomb with a yield of 1 kiloton could destroy buildings within a few city blocks, while a larger bomb with a yield of 1 megaton could impact several square miles. The damage would also vary based on the bomb's design, height of detonation, and local geography.
Wat would u like 2 no?
Because if the U.S fought Russia with nuclear missiles (which they both had) it would destroy the world.
It would not take all the world's nuclear missiles to destroy the world as it only takes a few well-placed ones to cause catastrophic damage. The exact number is hard to determine, as it would depend on various factors such as the target locations and the size of the warheads. Just a small fraction of the world's nuclear arsenal could potentially cause widespread devastation.
It is difficult to answer how many nuclear bombs it would take to destroy England due to the fact that there are a variety of different nukes. It would most likely take around a couple of dozen.
not worth thinking about , a nuclear war would in itself be a chain reaction causing humanitys elimination . the earth cannot be destroyed but we can .
The Soviets already knew that the US had nuclear missiles in Turkey, placing nuclear missiles in Cuba would simply achieve nuclear parity. Also following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion the leader of Cuba Fidel Castro wanted assurance from the Soviets of their security against future invasion, the Soviets believed that nuclear missiles would provide this security at the least cost.
There was no bombing of nuclear missiles in Cuba. The US got them removed by just blockading (oops sorry I meant quarantining, a blockade would have been an act of war) Cuba until the USSR removed the missiles.
Yes there would be if only one was used.
Missiles can be used to potentially deflect or break up an asteroid, rather than destroy it completely. The effectiveness of this method would depend on the size and composition of the asteroid. Efforts to develop technology for asteroid deflection are currently being researched.
If the atmosphere were destroyed, no life would be there. Mankind would extinct.
One
The impact of 10 Titan 2 nuclear missiles would cause widespread devastation, with immediate blast effects and subsequent radiation exposure affecting a large area. While it would not completely wipe out mankind, the destruction and radiation fallout would have severe consequences on human life, infrastructure, and the environment. Recovery would be difficult and long-term effects could be significant.