What would happen if every country shot all their nukes at the moon?
None would reach the moon. They would all head up a distance based on the thrust of each rocket, but that’s not nearly enough to reach the moon, nor even to reach orbit, besides which you didn’t specify an orbital path. So they go up, and then come back down, and burn up in the atmosphere or crash into the ground, spreading radioactive materials around. They don't explode, because you set a timer to tell them when to explode, and you said the target was the moon, so that would be “never.”Further, many of the nukes are sitting in ordinance bays waiting to be placed on aircraft, with the idea that you’re going to drop them and let gravity do the rest, like the only two atomic weapons that have been used in warfare thus far. So I don’t know how you plan to “launch” those at anything, much less the moon.IF we somehow built a vast array of Falcon Heavy launch vehicles and put every nuke on those, at a ratio where the weight would be within the payload, destination moon… then they’d show up there, blow up, there would be some new little pockmarks which would be visible through a good telescope, end of story…. except that here on Earth some conventional conflicts might flare up if we didn’t believe everyone really did launch every last nuke they had, and haven’t been able to build more.Peace through Mutual Assured Destruction isn’t supported when nobody thinks you can destroy them any more.
What would happen if America was the only country with nukes?
Yeah, America will be the dominant power of the World. Till 1949 when the US was the only one to possess nuclear weapons, the Soviets was very careful. That is why Soviets never shot down those cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. As shooting the foreign planes will mean an “act of war”. Even if millions of Soviets were in ready and pushed back the Western powers till France, then they will not be able to launch a invasion of Britain because even if they have naval superiority of the opening of Atlantic Ocean, they wil never get superiority of English Channel as most of their fleets are very far away an the Baltic fleet (the only fleet close enough to use Western harbors without running out of fuel) wil not be enough to even battle with the American and British vessels. And Britain will be the staging ground as hundreds of bombers will nuke the shit of Soviet Union while they are helpless. Around 200 Soviet and Eastern European cities will be targeted according to the hypothetical war plan in 1949 (Operation Unthinkable.). And the US will actually win by bombing the Soviet into submission. In today’s case it wont be that. But it can mean US might even negotiate for Ukraine or even Syria. It can even show soft and hard power in the Pacific.
How can life as a Navy nuke be described?
I found getting shot at in the “Brown Water Navy” (supporting TF-116, it’s Vietnamese successors and other assignments 1970–1972) to be much more pleasant, enjoyable and rewarding than serving in the Nuke Navy. I was a Class of 66/3 Nuke. Don’t get me wrong the people that I worked with were great. The job is just that bad especially for intelligent people. Someone with an IQ around 70 could do 99.9% percent of the work as well or better than someone with an IQ around 140.The high IQ and years of training is for that 0.1% of the time. I don’t disagree with the wisdom of how Nukes work. But, being shot at is more pleasant.Been there. Done both.
What would happen if two countries launched nukes and they collided with each other?
Nuclear weapons don’t have chemical energy that is released when burned or impacted. The have fission energy which is release when a very specific set of conditions is reached. These conditions require a very precise nuclear detonator to bring a critical mass together at the right timing to sustain a runaway fission reaction. If you fail and the bomb is physical damaged by collision or explosion of a nearby chemical weapon you may have nothing or possibly a dud or fizzle reaction. Then you have a pile of radioactive debris that must be cleaned up.Without aiming the chance of two ICBMs crossing paths is extremely remote given the relatively small size of the weapons and the vastness of the upper atmosphere and lower space.Now you can use interceptor weapons what are radar and infrared controlled to be anti missile weapons to seek out and destroy an incoming missile. But that would have to be done on purpose and not unguided, random chance of collision. Most likely the kill weapon would explode itself in the path of the oncoming ICBM and release a hail of shrapnel designed to shred the target rather they try a knockout body blow.
Can you describe the weather conditions associated with the ITCZ?
Yes ... I can describe the weather conditions associated with the ITCZ. Thank you for asking.
If you had a chance to nuke a country out of orbit, which country would it be? Why?
It’s unclear if the OP’s options were:From orbit, launch a nuke to detonate on/over a selected country.Choose a country, which is currently orbiting around the earth to nuke.Alternatively, how many nukes? One? Enough to carpet a country?If #2, then there is only the ISS as an option and it’s multiple countries. Aside from that, I’m not aware of any country currently orbiting the earth. :(If #1/#3, it depends on what you hope to achieve:Take out a crazed country that no one seems to know how to deal with? North Korea. Want to take out both the north and south? Aim for the DMZ and work your way from there.Strike at the heart of global oil production? Saudi Arabia or more specifically, their oil fields.Further destabilize and perhaps cripple the European Union? London.Remove a major influence/power in the Euroasia region? Russia or China.Weaken tech innovation and potentially cripple US economics? Well, I suppose if you nuked USA, it would do that, but specifically, the East/West coasts. Coincidentally, this would also cause massive worldwide internet disruption.Cause a major disruption in the diamond trade? Russia, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, or Australia, but in that order.Highest population impact? India or China.Non-country specific targets… or targetting _near_ a country to generate collatoral damage:Cause global issues: North and/or South Poles. Though technically neither one are countries. This would cause the massive breakup of large chunks of the ice fields and cause massive calving events.Coastal or 50–100 miles off the coast of a given country. Like in the middle of a land locked ocean, a massive bay(gulf of mexico, the red sea, lake superior, Caribbean sea, mediterrainian sea, arabian sea, gulf of guinea, etc.) These would create coastal events against the immediate nations… as well as generate tsunami effects.
If the US President decides to launch one or more nuclear weapons how can he be stopped?
If President Trump decides he wants to launch a nuclear weapon is there anything the Joint Chiefs can do to stop him?The president cannot authorize the use of nuclear weapons alone.The United States has a two-man rule in place, and while only the president can order the release of nuclear weapons, the order must be confirmed by the Secretary of Defense. Nuclear football - WikipediaNothing in Donald’s rhetoric has indicated to me that he would use nuclear weapons recklessly. This was his controversial statement about nuclear weapons:“… in an April interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Trump said, "It's not like, gee whiz, nobody has them. So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea… Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes… " Trump flip-flops on Japan nukesI don’t see anything that can be interpreted by that to indicate he wishes to use nukes. In fact, it can be interpreted that he is trying to do just the opposite by removing the US from the position of being the “Police Force for the World.”Whether or not you agree with his policies, Trump does not come across as a “Hawk” seeking global domination. His tone is clearly one of reconciliation with our previous adversaries toward a unified effort to destroy ISIS.Don’t lose sleep over this one.
Can the president of the US launch a nuclear weapon without the approval of congress?
Yes. The President has that authority. If the United States were attacked and the President elected to retaliate using nuclear weapons there would be no time to secure Congressional approval. Congress has the authority to declare war, the President does not. As Commander In Chief, the President has the authority to use whatever force is necessary to respond to a hostile attack against U.S. soil. This could include nuclear weapons, which might include defensive missiles to be used against enemy bombers or missiles. When President Truman authorized the use of the atomic bombs against Japan in 1945 he was exercising his authority as Commander In Chief and had no approval from Congress beforehand.
In an all out war, what county would win (no alliances with and without nukes)?
Well, it’s more fun when you remove nukes from the equation, because that would turn into a big mess.The only immediate contenders would be the United States, Russia, and China, what with having some of the largest populations, with their militaries, and their involvement in the world. These 3 alone contain 40.96% of the world’s GDP (Sidenote, Russia is abysmal here with a GDP of 1.8%, smaller than several countries).Now, China may have a lot of people, and they may have a powerful military, but without nukes, then the fight would eventually go to the Russians.Don’t believe me?Russia has twice as many main battle tanks against China, and while outnumbered in terms of manpower, they outnumber them in nearly everything else. It’s not an easy fight, but Russia currently is more prepared for actually fighting, and they will continue to do so. But again, not an easy fight.As for the US, are you kidding me?With the most likely most powerful military, the largest military budget, and with bases around the world to transfer troops to, is this really a fight?Actually, it is, and the US will struggle, it’s just a matter of how hard based on what China and Russia will do, but considering this is a free for all, then Russia and China will probably struggle to fight each other and the US and quickly work on trying to invade each other.My thoughts goes to the US, and you may present your arguments otherwise.