So do we have to ability to actually destroy the earth yet? Or

>>8725082
the latter.

File: 1.jpg (261KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 2048x1152px

>>8725082
>destroy the earth
describe to me what destruction of the earth looks like

>>8725086
not OP but I'd say "destroy" means blow it apart. Say, break it into pieces such that each piece is less than half the original mass of the earth, and the pieces are blown apart with such velocity they won't come back together

>>8725086
Being able to blow it to pieces, I'm not saying we have to be able to atomize it but being able to create enough force to crack it in half would be cool

>>8725082
>build a bunch of big cool drills that are driven by AI that has the compulsion to constantly dig deeper until it reaches a certain depth
>put nukes inside them
>it gets to the center of the earth
>it explodes
>causes some cuhrazy chain reaction that fucks with volcanoes and tectonics and whatnot
>we're all earthquake'd and suffocated under ash to death

>>8725082
There are more energies in a nuclear bomb than there are atoms in the universe so I think we can destroy earth.

>>8725082
we could easily build a bomb that would blow up the moon, but it'd be stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)

one of the earliest nuclear tests, people thought it would ignite the atmosphere and kill everything on Earth

is it possible to ignite to the atmosphere?

>>8725229
No. Not enough oxygen.

If we set off a bunch of nukes in the earth's crush at the exact same time all around the world we could destroy the world.

>>8725162
This is what I was thinking too.

It would be interesting to see the ramifications of detonating several metric tons of nuclear bombs well beneath the Earths surfice in multiple locations.

Interesting thing about destruction: a lot of energy is required. So you gotta decide what you want to destroy.

Historically, countries have determined it was sufficient to destroy human life, infrastructure and military assets. In fact, the destruction of human life and infrastructure is being minimized as modern precision technology becomes the norm. There's no actual reason to spend absurd amounts of money destroying that shit. It pays to follow Sun Tzu's teachings and capture the resources of the enemy and use them to strengthen yourself.

It makes no economic or strategic sense to actually destroy the planet we live on. There are currently no alternatives and it would mean spending unimaginable amounts of money for practically zero gain.

>>8725082
CERN particle accelerator can clash matter with antimatter to fuck up the earth.

>>8725216
Thanks for stopping by Mr. Tyson

File: 242a95795055706f03e82ad52f7742c233d4e54f69803ded1b61c29921e65d84.jpg (148KB, 600x589px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 600x589px

>>8725082
If you mean destroy the biosphere - if we dedicated our entire industry to the effort for some reason, yes, we're are physically capable. Much like colonizing Mars, however, we are not culturally capable.

Just wiping out mankind, via a super-virus or climate change or some shit? That wouldn't be too hard. Hell, we've had the physical ability to that near forever - everyone just slits their wrists one night.

Physically blowing this ~8,000 mile diameter ball of mostly molten rock and steel we're living on to pieces? Ehh.... Not in any way I can come up with off hand. Even if you did, it'd eventually come back together again.

I suppose there are hypothetical ways to even end the universe, but obviously that doesn't go into the category of things we "have".

>>8725535
With very strategic placement you *might* be able to cause an Earthquake. If you dedicated all industry to making a whole lot more nukes, you might be able to get enough together to create a Pacific Rim Firestorm, but that'd be about the limit. Ya ain't significantly cracking this crust apart with the amount of uranium available.

>>8725221
>but it'd be stupid.
>t. reptillian overlord posting from moonbase

>>8725614
"If we could assemble all of the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes." - Rolf Landua, CERN physicist

>>8725221
With what? Nukes? Ain't gonna do nothing to a ~2000mi sphere of rock and metal.

>>8725256
You could make some sizable earthquakes at best. Maybe you could create a tsunami or set off some volcanos as a result - but not blow the Earth apart. To make a truly devastating reaction with globally fatal consequences, you'd need far more nukes than we could make before the century is out - but even that wouldn't blow up the planet.

File: earth_impact_moon.jpg (102KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x600px

>>8725082
Actually, I have an idea of how we could do it... But you'd have to wait a few thousand years, at least.

Find a really big asteroid, send out a bunch of rockets or robots to paint one side white. Do it right, and the Yarkovsky effect will eventually cause the body to collide with Earth. If the celestial body is large enough, it will "crack the Earth in half" as OP is after, or close to. (Though it'll be temporary, of course - most of that mass is gonna glue itself back together eventually.)

It's one of those things we aren't socially capable of, but if you dedicated the entire planet's industry to it, yeah, we're physically capable.

I dunno if you could do it with the moon. The side that gets light is already pretty reflective and painting it whiter might not be enough to overcome the rotational effects. But if you could, it'd be the quickest, most effective, and easiest object to work with.

>>8725676
Since it's in a fast orbit, and so large, I don't think the Yarkovsky would have a significant effect, regardless of how uniformly reflective you made it.

Ceres, Vesta, or Pallas maybe... But I think you'd have to wait a few million years, rather than a few thousand. Though I suppose you could paint all three, "just to be sure". Granted, by that time, you might have enough industry or technology to simply glue enough rockets to them and tow them over.

>>8725082
>do we have to ability
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?