2500 nukes? yeah right you're so well informed, how many nukes does it take to destroy the whole world...a lot less than 2500 say 1600
Um, no. That would be grossly inaccurate. A 500 kiloton airburst has a destructive footprint of approximately 16 square miles, based on an overpressure wave of 5 psi or higher. Doubling the yield does not double the destructive radius, so a 1,000 kiloton airburst will not destroy 32 square miles, but closer to 22 square miles.
There are approximately 13,000 total nuclear warheads combined between all of the nuclear-armed powers. Most of them are well below 1 megaton, but overestimating each warhead at 1 MT, that's 13,000 total megatons capable of destroying 286,000 square miles, which is roughly the size of Texas.
Now, I am only factoring in actual blast damage and not any land damaged by radioactive fallout, but modern nuclear weapons actually produce very little in the way of lethal fallout when airburst over their targets. In short, even a total global exchange of every single nuclear warhead in existence would be insufficient to "destroy the world" as most people imagine it.
Do not misunderstand me. The detonation of 13,000 nuclear warheads across the world would be horrific beyond comprehension and casualties would be tallied in hundreds of millions, perhaps even as high as 25% of the global population vaporized instantly, with another 25% dead within a month from secondary factors. The entire planet would be knocked back to medieval times in less time that it takes to have a pizza delivered.
However, it is a common misconception that the entire planet can be wiped out by a global nuclear war. We're just not there yet. If mankind ever harnesses the power of antimatter, we will literally be able to turn the planet into a second asteroid belt orbiting the sun. Hopefully, we never get to that point.