Nuclear Weapons Effects

[Ghost of BiB]

Effects of Nuclear Weapons

 

Blast radii calculator

 

 

 

Reference one is one of the definitives, used for a long time. If you really want to understand nuclear weapons, read.

 

Reference 2 is just something to play with, and based on the math reference one. At a guess, I would imagine a terrorist device to be somewhere in the 6-8 up to maybe the 12-15 kt range, obviously detonated as a surface burst. That will seriously cut down on the blast, thermal and prompt radiation effects, but will also create residual radiation that will go through the roof.

 

(edit-fixed second link)

Edited May 3, 2006 by Ghost of BiB

[Ghost of BiB]

BTW, Buffalo is at 42°54'17" N 78°50'58" W

[stuckincincy]

Thanks for the reference.

 

I recall in the early '60's, a CBS tv documentary of the effect of an explosion in St. Louis, MO. No memory of the yield.

 

I'd like to see them dig it up out of their archives and re-broadcast it. They wouldn't, though - it would be counter to their current leanings.

[Ghost of BiB]

Thanks for the reference.

 

I recall in the early '60's, a CBS tv documentary of the effect of an explosion in St. Louis, MO. No memory of the yield.

 

I'd like to see them dig it up out of their archives and re-broadcast it. They wouldn't, though - it would be counter to their current leanings.

682377[/snapback]

 

I was playing with the thing discussed in the other thread, but effects really depend a lot on where one is detonating one. Urban terrain is specific to itself by city and really skews effects tables. Thought this might of use to those with an interest.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I was playing with the thing discussed in the other thread, but effects really depend a lot on where one is detonating one. Urban terrain is specific to itself by city and really skews effects tables. Thought this might of use to those with an interest.

682391[/snapback]

 

That second link only considers ground bursts, too. An air burst over Manhattan would have a significantly wider damage radius.

 

And like they say, the radii are "idealized", not taking in to account terrain effects (which can have a big effect; for those who don't know, Nagasaki suffered less damage than Hiroshima from a larger bomb in part because the blast wave at Nagasaki reflected off terrain features...and in part because they missed their aim point by a couple miles.) It's probably accurate for a relatively small yield in a relatively flat area like Manhattan...

[ExiledInIllinois]

That second link only considers ground bursts, too.  An air burst over Manhattan would have a significantly wider damage radius.

 

And like they say, the radii are "idealized", not taking in to account terrain effects (which can have a big effect; for those who don't know, Nagasaki suffered less damage than Hiroshima from a larger bomb in part because the blast wave at Nagasaki reflected off terrain features...and in part because they missed their aim point by a couple miles.)  It's probably accurate for a relatively small yield in a relatively flat area like Manhattan...

682408[/snapback]

 

Interesting... I have heard idea of a water burst years ago... I wonder how that would play out?

[Ghost of BiB]

Interesting... I have heard idea of a water burst years ago... I wonder how that would play out?

682415[/snapback]

 

It's been tested, and also modeled. I believe the data is in reference one.

 

Technical Aspects of Underwater Bursts. 268

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Interesting... I have heard idea of a water burst years ago... I wonder how that would play out?

682415[/snapback]

 

As in underwater? Many years ago, DoD wanted to try an underwater burst of a large-ish warhead (multi-kt range, I think. Not as big as a megaton) off the coast somewhere. NOAA (or its equivalent at the time) basically told them "No, you really don't want to do that." Apparently, even a moderate sized warhead will create severe coastal surf conditions (basically, not-too-severe tsunami conditions).

 

I tried doing the math about a year ago, to see what kind of waves it would create. I gave up, mostly because the Indian Ocean tsunami hit and I said to myself "Whatever result I get, it sure as hell isn't going to be as bad as that," and lost interest.

[Ghost of BiB]

As in underwater?  Many years ago, DoD wanted to try an underwater burst of a large-ish warhead (multi-kt range, I think.  Not as big as a megaton) off the coast somewhere.  NOAA (or its equivalent at the time) basically told them "No, you really don't want to do that."  Apparently, even a moderate sized warhead will create severe coastal surf conditions (basically, not-too-severe tsunami conditions). 

 

I tried doing the math about a year ago, to see what kind of waves it would create.  I gave up, mostly because the Indian Ocean tsunami hit and I said to myself  "Whatever result I get, it sure as hell isn't going to be as bad as that," and lost interest.

682430[/snapback]

 

Baker test at Bikini atoll.

[ExiledInIllinois]

As in underwater?  Many years ago, DoD wanted to try an underwater burst of a large-ish warhead (multi-kt range, I think.  Not as big as a megaton) off the coast somewhere.  NOAA (or its equivalent at the time) basically told them "No, you really don't want to do that."  Apparently, even a moderate sized warhead will create severe coastal surf conditions (basically, not-too-severe tsunami conditions). 

 

I tried doing the math about a year ago, to see what kind of waves it would create.  I gave up, mostly because the Indian Ocean tsunami hit and I said to myself  "Whatever result I get, it sure as hell isn't going to be as bad as that," and lost interest.

682430[/snapback]

 

New York Harbor... They plunk one down there, I can't imagine what the effect would be on Manhattan Island... What about the effect of the water lingering about?... Kinda like the gift that would keeps on giving?

 

Not sure?