Could we blow up a planet with our current technology?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of "blowing up" a planet using current technology, exploring theoretical and practical implications. Participants examine the energy requirements, material availability, and the potential for destruction of planetary bodies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that it is not possible to blow up a planet, citing the enormous energy requirements and the limitations of current explosives.
  • Others propose that with sufficient materials, such as trillions of tonnes of C4 and thermonuclear devices, it could be theoretically possible, though they acknowledge the practical challenges.
  • One participant mentions that the gravitational binding energy of an Earth-type planet is around 10^32 J, which is significantly greater than what current technology can provide.
  • Another participant suggests that while current arsenals are insufficient, future advancements could potentially allow for such an endeavor.
  • Some contributions include humorous references to fictional devices, such as the Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, indicating a light-hearted approach to the topic.
  • There is a discussion about the distinction between "blowing up" a planet and rendering it uninhabitable, with varying interpretations of what destruction entails.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the feasibility of blowing up a planet with current technology. While some assert it is impossible, others believe it could be achievable under certain conditions, leading to an unresolved debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the availability of materials and the energy requirements for such an action, highlighting the speculative nature of the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those curious about theoretical physics, explosive energy calculations, and the implications of advanced technology in planetary science.

harp AP 2010
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Could we "blow up" a planet with our current technology?

Could we "blow up" a planet with our current technology?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Actually, we could, but it depends upon the availability of materials. I'm pretty sure that 5 or 6 trillion tonnes of C4 would be noticeable, not to mention the addition of thermonuclear devices.
 


The gravitational binding energy of an Earth type planet is of the order of 10^32J = a few 10^20 kilotons.
 


NobodySpecial said:
The gravitational binding energy of an Earth type planet is of the order of 10^32J = a few 10^20 kilotons.

Oh, sure... get technical about it... :rolleyes:


:biggrin:
 


Danger said:
Actually, we could, but it depends upon the availability of materials. I'm pretty sure that 5 or 6 trillion tonnes of C4 would be noticeable, not to mention the addition of thermonuclear devices.
Nope, wouldn't make a scratch. All the explosives, conventional and nuclear, along with all the known reserves for making more would be insufficient to noticeably damage the smallest planetoid. Energy requirements for a planet killer are absolutely enormous.
 


K^2 said:
Nope, wouldn't make a scratch. All the explosives, conventional and nuclear, along with all the known reserves for making more would be insufficient to noticeably damage the smallest planetoid. Energy requirements for a planet killer are absolutely enormous.

But you are referring to everything that we currently have in the world's arsenals. That was the whole point of me specifying a limit of resources. I don't disagree with you in the context that you are referring to, but I do believe that with almost-unlimited future resources it can be done. I also believe in the possibility of a Dyson sphere or a Ringworld, so maybe I'm just a dreamer.
 


Danger said:
Actually, we could, but it depends upon the availability of materials. I'm pretty sure that 5 or 6 trillion tonnes of C4 would be noticeable, not to mention the addition of thermonuclear devices.

Even if the entire Earth was made up of C4, it wouldn't be enough to overcome gravity. You need about 4*10^7 J/Kg to disperse the Earth beyond the reach of gravity. (see link about death star above).
This is more energy than any chemical explosive can provide. TNT gives 4.2 * 10^6 J/Kg
 


Which one are you looking at?

"Oh, I'm going to blow it up; it obstructs my view of Venus." - Marvin the Martian
 
  • #10


Dr Lots-o'watts said:
Which one are you looking at?

"Oh, I'm going to blow it up; it obstructs my view of Venus." - Marvin the Martian

Oh, crap, but I miss that little bastard!

Willem, I agree with you in the way that you expressed it. I was referring more toward rendering a planet unfit for life as we know it, rather than utterly eliminating any history of it from the universe. I have learned, through bitter experience, to set my sights low.
 
  • #11


Someone beat me to it. If you want to blow up the Earth you want to use a small stick of Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
PS That is my favourite bugs bunny cartoon EVAR.


EDIT: It's also why the Core is such an annoying film (not counting the awful plot and acting). Let's get a nuke to restart to core spinning... pffft.
 
  • #12


xxChrisxx said:
Someone beat me to it. If you want to blow up the Earth you want to use a small stick of Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

That so pissed me off when I was a kid. I ordered one from an ad in the back of a comic book, and all that I got was a damned firecracker. I was already playing with 12-gauges and C4, so you can imagine what a disappointment that was.
 
  • #13


harp AP 2010 said:
Could we "blow up" a planet with our current technology?

It should be possible to "blow up" a planet with our current technology. The more difficult question is whether or not we have the necessary supply of that tech to blow a planet up. I personally would not like to experiment this on any neighboring planets though.
 
  • #14


hidlAP2010 said:
I personally would not like to experiment this on any neighboring planets though.
Well you aren't going to get to be emperor with that kind of defeatist attitude
 
  • #15


why would you want to, it just seems a little dangerous...and I think that even if we tried we couldn't
 
  • #16


I don't want to, I was just curious of what we can do and the response I would get. Yes it is dangerous, that's why warning labels are on all over explosives. From the results it would seem we cannot blow up a planet.
 
  • #17


harp AP 2010 said:
I don't want to, I was just curious of what we can do and the response I would get. Yes it is dangerous, that's why warning labels are on all over explosives. From the results it would seem we cannot blow up a planet.

Are there really warning labels on explosives? What do they say?

"Do not dispose of in fireplace." :bugeye:
 

Similar threads

High School (Electric) current is not a vector quantity
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Undergrad Question about the current through a strong insulator
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Map of a 4D planet
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Help me come up with shock effect preventing technology (sci-fi book)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Red Dwarf Star Systems -- Could they support life?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
High School Does Time Pass at Different Rates on Other Planets?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Undergrad Does current decrease inside a wire or does it increase it's velocity?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
We needed a backstory for our Traveller sci-fi RPG ...
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
469
How could a colony of machines/robots affect a planet's atmosphere?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Why do we even need the term 'conventional current'?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K