What If We Cut Earth in Half?
What If We Cut Earth in Half?
If Earth were to be cut in half, it would have catastrophic consequences and would be an apocalyptic scenario. The planet's structure and delicate balance are fundamental to supporting life as we know it. Here's what would likely happen if such an event were to occur:
Destruction of Earth's Ecosystem:What causes the destruction of ecosystem? Pollution is one of the main causes of ecosystem destruction. Pollution can deplete resources and drive away local animal populations. Significant sources of pollution include trash, carbon emissions, oil spills and pesticides. Cutting the Earth in half would disrupt its ecosystem on an unimaginable scale. The delicate interplay of organisms, from microorganisms to large mammals, would be severely affected. Countless species would go extinct, disrupting food chains and ecological balance.
Loss of Atmosphere:Atmospheric escape is the loss of planetary atmospheric gases to outer space. A number of different mechanisms can be responsible for atmospheric escape; these processes can be divided into thermal escape, non-thermal (or suprathermal) escape, and impact erosion. The Earth's atmosphere is held in place by gravity and the planet's magnetic field. If Earth were cut in half, the atmosphere would quickly escape into space from the exposed surfaces, leading to a loss of air pressure and the ability to sustain life.
Catastrophic Weather Changes:Catastrophic weather events include hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, and droughts, among others. With the planet's protective atmosphere gone, there would be no protection from solar radiation, leading to intense heating on the exposed side and extreme cold on the unexposed side. This temperature disparity would create powerful winds and storms, causing devastation on both sides of the split.
Mass Extinctions: A mass extinction event is when species vanish much faster than they are replaced. This is usually defined as about 75% of the world's species being lost in a short period of geological time - less than 2.8 million years.The combined effects of habitat destruction, loss of atmosphere, and extreme weather events would lead to mass extinctions of plant and animal species across the planet.
Fragmentation of the Earth's Core: The earth's crust is fragmented by tectonic processes involving faults, fractures, and joint sets. Rocks are further fragmented by weathering processes. Rocks are also fragmented by explosive processes, both natural and man made. Volcanic eruptions are an example of a natural explosive process.The Earth's core, which plays a crucial role in generating the magnetic field, would also be affected by the catastrophic event. It could lead to the fragmentation of the core, potentially disrupting the planet's magnetic field, which shields us from harmful solar radiation.
Disintegration of the Moon: A weak explosion with larger pieces of debris might create new moons around the Earth. Instead of one large moon, we might have several smaller moons. A large explosion might cause the debris to scatter away from the Earth, or the debris would fall towards us and create meteors that could hit the surface of our planet.The Moon's orbit is intrinsically tied to the Earth's gravity. If the Earth were split in half, the gravitational forces on the Moon would be severely disrupted, possibly leading to the disintegration of the Moon or a significant shift in its orbit.
Global Tsunamis:In addition to loss of life and mass injuries, other potential impacts include damage to and destruction of homes and businesses, ports and harbors, cultural resources, utilities, and critical infrastructure and facilities. There may be loss of access to basic services such as power, sewer, and water The cutting of the Earth would likely trigger colossal global tsunamis as massive volumes of water rush to fill the void left by the cut.
It's important to note that this scenario is purely hypothetical and not feasible in reality. The forces and energy required to cut a planet like Earth in half would be far beyond the capabilities of any technology or natural process currently known to us. The consequences described above are based on scientific principles and an understanding of Earth's fundamental processes but are not based on any real-life observation. Thankfully, Earth's natural processes and systems maintain its integrity and stability, ensuring that such catastrophic events do not occur.
About the Creator
JHAY EM
Why working out is great for health, but not for weight loss, explained in five minutes.
Are you ready to start losing weight at home?
Ways to Lose Weight Without Exercise.
Britain in Talks With NATO to Boost Arctic Security
The Arctic Is No Longer a Frozen Backwater For decades, the Arctic sat quietly on the margins of global politics—remote, frozen, and largely ignored. That era is over. Britain is now in talks with NATO to strengthen Arctic security, acknowledging growing risks posed by Russia and China. In a notable shift, London’s assessment aligns closely with warnings long emphasized by Donald Trump, particularly as he continues to express strategic interest in Greenland. What once sounded like an eccentric fixation has evolved into a serious geopolitical conversation. The Arctic is rapidly becoming one of the world’s most contested regions, and Britain is positioning itself to play a larger role. Why Britain Is Paying Attention Now Although the UK is not an Arctic nation, it is an Arctic-adjacent power with significant strategic interests. British officials increasingly view the High North as critical to national and allied security. Melting ice is opening new shipping routes, exposing untapped natural resources, and making military movement easier than ever before. Britain’s talks with NATO focus on intelligence sharing, joint exercises, surveillance capabilities, and protecting undersea infrastructure such as communication cables and energy pipelines. These are not abstract concerns. Any disruption in the Arctic could have immediate consequences for European security and global trade. In short, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. Russia’s Expanding Arctic Footprint Russia is the dominant military power in the Arctic, and it is not slowing down. Moscow has reopened Soviet-era bases, deployed advanced missile systems, expanded its icebreaker fleet, and increased patrols across the region. The Arctic coastline represents a core part of Russia’s nuclear deterrent, making it strategically vital to the Kremlin. From NATO’s perspective, this military buildup creates both risk and uncertainty. Britain, which has long been vocal about Russian aggression—from Ukraine to cyber warfare—sees the Arctic as another front where deterrence must be strengthened before tensions spiral. The concern is not necessarily an immediate conflict, but miscalculation. In a region with harsh conditions and limited communication infrastructure, even minor incidents could escalate rapidly. China’s Quiet but Steady Arctic Ambitions While Russia’s presence is overt, China’s Arctic strategy is more subtle—and equally concerning to Western planners. Beijing calls itself a “near-Arctic state,” a label that has raised eyebrows in Europe and North America. Through investments, research stations, and partnerships, China is laying the groundwork for long-term influence. Britain shares NATO’s concern that China could use civilian projects for dual-use purposes, blending scientific research with intelligence gathering and infrastructure control. As Arctic shipping routes become commercially viable, China’s interest in controlling parts of the supply chain only grows. London’s alignment with these concerns reflects a broader shift in UK foreign policy: China is no longer viewed solely as an economic partner, but as a strategic competitor. Trump, Greenland, and Strategic Reality Donald Trump’s repeated interest in Greenland—most famously his suggestion that the United States should buy it—was widely mocked at the time. Yet behind the headlines was a strategic logic that many Western governments now openly acknowledge. Greenland sits at the heart of the Arctic, hosting vital air and naval routes between North America and Europe. It is also rich in rare earth minerals critical for modern technology and defense systems. As ice recedes, Greenland’s strategic value only increases. Britain’s current position, which aligns with Trump’s warnings about Arctic vulnerabilities, shows how quickly political perceptions can change. What once seemed unconventional now appears prescient. NATO’s Arctic Awakening NATO has traditionally focused on Eastern Europe and the North Atlantic. The Arctic, despite its importance, received less coordinated attention. That is changing. Britain’s talks with NATO reflect a broader alliance effort to integrate Arctic defense into its core strategy. This includes: Increased joint military exercises in cold-weather environments Enhanced monitoring of Russian and Chinese activity Strengthening cooperation with Arctic nations like Norway, Canada, and Denmark Protecting critical undersea and satellite infrastructure For Britain, this is also about credibility. As a leading NATO member and a key military power, the UK wants to demonstrate that it can contribute meaningfully beyond its immediate geography. Climate Change as a Security Multiplier One of the most striking aspects of Arctic security is how closely it is tied to climate change. Melting ice is not just an environmental issue—it is a strategic one. New sea lanes shorten travel between Asia and Europe, while access to oil, gas, and minerals becomes easier. This transformation increases competition and reduces natural barriers that once limited military movement. Britain’s involvement reflects recognition that climate-driven changes are reshaping the security landscape faster than traditional institutions were designed to handle. In this sense, Arctic security is a preview of future global challenges where environmental change and geopolitics collide. Domestic and Diplomatic Balancing Acts Britain’s Arctic engagement is not without challenges. Increased military involvement raises questions about defense spending, priorities, and escalation risks. Diplomatically, London must balance deterrence with dialogue, avoiding actions that could unnecessarily provoke Russia while still protecting allied interests. There is also the question of public awareness. Arctic security lacks the visibility of conflicts like Ukraine, making it harder to sustain political attention. Yet policymakers increasingly argue that prevention is cheaper—and safer—than crisis response. What This Means Going Forward Britain’s talks with NATO mark an important shift in how the Arctic is viewed: not as a distant frontier, but as a central arena in 21st-century security. Agreement with Trump-era assessments on Russia, China, and Greenland underscores how geopolitical realities can outlast political controversies. As competition intensifies, the Arctic will likely become a testing ground for cooperation, deterrence, and strategic foresight. Britain’s involvement signals that mid-sized powers are no longer content to watch from the sidelines. Final Thoughts The Arctic is warming faster than any other region on Earth—and so are the geopolitical tensions surrounding it. Britain’s move to boost Arctic security with NATO reflects a growing consensus that ignoring the High North is no longer an option. Whether driven by Russia’s militarization, China’s quiet expansion, or lessons drawn from Trump’s blunt warnings, one truth stands out: the future of global security may well be shaped at the top of the world, where ice, ambition, and power now intersect.
By Muhammad Hassan6 days ago in Earth
Miss Persephone's Manual to a Seemingly Ordinary Life
Miss Persephone was found at the dining table, her blue eyes swollen, her tears arriving and retreating like the tides of the ocean. Earlier that day, her family had visited her in the retirement home where she had lived for eight years. It was her eightieth birthday.
By Imola Tóth3 days ago in Fiction
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.