what can scientists do to forestall a nuclear holocaust?
931297
nothing at all, 6 countries have nukes now, only 1 more country is needed for the prophecy to be fulfilled.
568351
Nuke it, propel it away with rockets, or just accept it.  \n\nhttp://search.yahoo.com/search?p=protect+the+earth+from+a+major+asteroid+impact+&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-tab-web-t-403&b=11
512127
There could never be a good excuse for it.\n\nWhere's the humanity in nuking women and children? (or anyone for that matter, but you see what I'm getting at?\n\nI don't think any 'good' result justifies this action.
833708
And the justification would be - -- - -?   Hatred is hardly a valid reason for unleashing nuclear holocaust.  Once a country begins nuking nations the planet will soon become inhabitable.  Global Warming?  Try Nuclear Winter. But then again most Republicans are Evangelical Christians praying for the prophesies in The Book of Revelations to happen so that Jesus can welcome them into Heaven.  Augh.  \n\nPeace...
927979
The link below is to an atomic bomb survivor research program FAQ.  The other site will give some ideas of specific topics and phrasings for further searches.  Good luck.
554473
NUKE their sorry a$$es get rid of those backstabin countries\nfor turnin against america
1012590
Email anyone in the U.S about how you can help find weapons of mass destruction.  NSA will monitor it, and send Condi over to visit.  Put on the tunes, something soft and romantic, and cook a nice (affordable) meal.  Answer the door naked.\n\nGet'er, tiger!
559232
There is a huge problem with the pollution. I don't want to start glowing bright green. With Nuclear power plant comes Nuclear targets for the enemy too. You can't hide them, they glow in the dark.
415205
Settle down at Moon. or Dig 100 meters down the earth construct a room there. Go to underground well before the nuclear attack. You are safe.
1035178
If I'm not mistaken, we've tested a number of 20-megaton nukes before, and the fact that you're able to ask this question means that we've survived that first test. :-)  \n\nAs for how big of a nuke it would take to blow up Earth, a couple of issues you'll have to deal with first is what to do about all of the debris that will settle after the nuke goes off, because as it floats back down because of gravity, then gravity itself will hold down all of the matter upon Earth. As to what it would take to cause the most damage, I've gotten to thinking since the 2004 tsunami that if a well-placed nuke was right on major fault lines either in the ocean or possibly on land (like maybe on the New Madrid fault), the tectonic action resulting from the force of the nuclear blast would be much more destructive than the bomb itself, because the shifting of tectonic plates would then cause damage at a much greater radius from ground zero in the resulting earthquake than would just blast waves in an atmospheric explosion.\n\nMaybe that doesn't answer your question, but it's the best I can figure as I am neither a physicist nor a geologist. :-)
125399
Technology is certainly going to help - for example, there are tests now of fusion power (this doesn't generate as much dangerous radioactive waste that current fission-based nuclear reactors do). But this won't be enough by itself - people need to learn to use less energy, because if we don't reduce the need, there will be a crisis. "Though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac)"
48000
It doesn't help at all, no. Plants are not radiation shields, not that computers emit any dangerous radiation anyway!
122937
The world will never be safe. Countries will still try to dominate and subjugate one another.\n\nMutual destruction only limits Nuclear action.  There are pleanty of ground wars going on.
1167433
yes...in theory...it would require useing our nuclear arsensal and kill everyone on the planet not within our borders and then it would require a secret police and racial profiling concentration camps...\n\nit can be done.....only in thee extreme. i of course  believe in defeating them in various methods besides just tactical force....
474959
Yes, by making sure that everyone on Earth has a bunker with provisions to last as long as an asteroid impact winter, earthquake-proof walls, fallout-proof roofs, and anything else that you know the Earth cannot afford to provide 6,500,000,000 people. Lets face it, it is nearly impossible to prevent the unknown. People are going to die anyway. If one happens, lets help the survivors and find ways to somewhat reduce the death toll next time. If not, stay on alert. People will always be killed, no matter what preventions we have for the disasters.
811129
There is no way you can eradicate an concept.  Terrorism is a concept.  You could theoretically REDUCE its occurrence.  You could possibly DETER its occurrence.\n\nBeyond that, it's just another buzzword.  Look at it in this context:\n\n"Nazi leader Herman Goering once remarked that it was easy to lead people into war, regardless of whether they resided within “a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.'  All that was required, Goering argued, is for their government to 'tell them they are being attacked, and [then] denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger.'"\nDavid R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of PRAVDA
78424
Is it the cold war again? Huh. Now I'm not a fan of N. Korea's abuses or posessions of nuclear weapons, but what is to stop them from asking the same question about the US especially as it has enough nuclear weapons to cover the surface of the earth several times, and we are the only nation to ever use them?