View Full Version : Map of every nuclear detonation in 5 minutes
This is pretty mesmerizing, during the 60's you can't keep track of the flashes.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/222180-video-every-nuclear-blast-50-years/
JBecker 72
12-25-14, 23:47
We're number one!
MountainRaven
12-25-14, 23:48
I feel like we have a new metric in establishing that the US is the greatest country on earth: We've nuked ourselves more than everybody else!
That was enlightening. I was actually unaware that we still did detonations into the late 80s.
Hilarious France tested their crap in Africa.
MountainRaven
12-26-14, 00:31
That was enlightening. I was actually unaware that we still did detonations into the late 80s.
Hilarious France tested their crap in Africa.
Somebody needs to set off nukes in Antarctica. I feel like it has been left out....
SilverBullet432
12-26-14, 09:44
Antartica is untouchable until at least 2048.
BrigandTwoFour
12-26-14, 10:59
That was enlightening. I was actually unaware that we still did detonations into the late 80s.
Hilarious France tested their crap in Africa.
We did tests all the way up until '92.
We've also never ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty, which means we are legally allowed to test whenever we want. We just haven't.
That's largely because we have not designed or built a new warhead since 1987. In fact, we [literally] bulldozed our ability to build nuclear weapons almost twenty years ago. The only thing we do now is test all the supporting systems all the way up to the moment the nuclear device would go supercritical.
The Russians and us didn't need to nuke each other......we both nuked the hell out of ourselves.
BrigandTwoFour
12-26-14, 11:02
The Russians and us didn't need to nuke each other......we both nuked the hell out of ourselves.
Which is why I laugh a little bit every time someone says that a nuclear exchange would end the world. Clearly they've never seen how many we've already blown up.
Which is why I laugh a little bit every time someone says that a nuclear exchange would end the world. Clearly they've never seen how many we've already blown up.
Look at Chernobyl/Pripyat. Initially the word was the entire area would be un-inhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years. People are moving back now, and wild-life is going strong. You can take a tourist's trip through the area now.
BrigandTwoFour
12-26-14, 11:15
Look at Chernobyl/Pripyat. Initially the word was the entire area would be un-inhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years. People are moving back now, and wild-life is going strong. You can take a tourist's trip through the area now.
I still wouldn't want to live there. The radioactive materials embedded in the soil and water table aren't going to cause any immediate problems, but do have an effect on long term health. But we're talking about a nuclear reactor meltdown in that case. Nuclear weapons are a different ball game entirely.
Most modern weapons, and by that I mean ones designed after the 1960s by major powers, use a fission-fusion reaction that is relatively clean. Depending on how one employs the weapon, fallout is of very little concern. Most of a nuke's energy is dispersed as a blast wave and infrared heat, with a little as EMP. The smallest chunk is radiation.
I still wouldn't want to live there. The radioactive materials embedded in the soil and water table aren't going to cause any immediate problems, but do have an effect on long term health. But we're talking about a nuclear reactor meltdown in that case. Nuclear weapons are a different ball game entirely.
Most modern weapons, and by that I mean ones designed after the 1960s by major powers, use a fission-fusion reaction that is relatively clean. Depending on how one employs the weapon, fallout is of very little concern. Most of a nuke's energy is dispersed as a blast wave and infrared heat, with a little as EMP. The smallest chunk is radiation.
I was always to understand that a massive nuclear war would raise so much debris into the atmosphere that it would cause a "nuclear winter". I have no idea if that is a viable idea.
BrigandTwoFour
12-26-14, 11:36
I was always to understand that a massive nuclear war would raise so much debris into the atmosphere that it would cause a "nuclear winter". I have no idea if that is a viable idea.
That's the assumption if all detonations were on the surface. If I detonate a nuke on the surface, then I will irradiate and eject a lot of dust/rock/debris into the atmosphere- which lines up with what you're saying.
But detonating on the surface is actually pretty limiting. Since a nuke's energy is mostly blast wave and heat, if I detonate one at a couple thousand feet then I spread the effects over a much wider area.
Every time a blast wave passes through an obstacle, it loses energy. In a straight two dimensional field, if I had a lot of tall structures surrounding ground zero, the blast effect grows weaker and weaker as it spreads out.
But if I detonate well above those buildings, then the effect is less about knocking them over and more about flattening them. And since the blast only has to travel down, there is much less interference from obstacles. And that's only if I wanted to flatten things. If I want to light everything on fire, then I can detonate even higher and not flatten anything at all, but use infrared heat to "cook" everything in a given radius. If I go even higher then I can just use the EMP to fry electrical grids. And since we're talking thousands of feet up, there is no dust/dirt/rock to eject into the atmosphere and spread fallout.
The only practical use for a surface burst is to unbury hardened underground structures. But, given the advancements in ground penetrating conventional weapons ("bunker busters") in the last thirty years, using a nuke for that job is just not as practical.
Here's a fun little tool to tinker with:
Nukemap (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/)
Pick a city of your choice, and play with the altitude that you detonate. You can see the relationship that altitude has on how much of an area you affect.
Anyway, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a nuclear war would be "easy." There would be a lot of other terrible effects. But a nuclear weapon is not the city-ending event that popular culture has lead most of us to believe.
*I just want to note that I am NOT going to talk about how we (the US) actually employ nuclear weapons, or what kind of targets that we would use them against. I'm just talking general principles of nuclear weapons*
ShortytheFirefighter
12-26-14, 12:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbxeolK27b4
Anytime something like this comes up I always flash back to George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove...
And there went all of my free time. That is a very entertaining and educating site to visit. It's amazing to play with the Tsar Bomba with the airburst setting, you would get 3rd degree burn from 50 miles away from ground zero.
That's the assumption if all detonations were on the surface. If I detonate a nuke on the surface, then I will irradiate and eject a lot of dust/rock/debris into the atmosphere- which lines up with what you're saying.
But detonating on the surface is actually pretty limiting. Since a nuke's energy is mostly blast wave and heat, if I detonate one at a couple thousand feet then I spread the effects over a much wider area.
Every time a blast wave passes through an obstacle, it loses energy. In a straight two dimensional field, if I had a lot of tall structures surrounding ground zero, the blast effect grows weaker and weaker as it spreads out.
But if I detonate well above those buildings, then the effect is less about knocking them over and more about flattening them. And since the blast only has to travel down, there is much less interference from obstacles. And that's only if I wanted to flatten things. If I want to light everything on fire, then I can detonate even higher and not flatten anything at all, but use infrared heat to "cook" everything in a given radius. If I go even higher then I can just use the EMP to fry electrical grids. And since we're talking thousands of feet up, there is no dust/dirt/rock to eject into the atmosphere and spread fallout.
The only practical use for a surface burst is to unbury hardened underground structures. But, given the advancements in ground penetrating conventional weapons ("bunker busters") in the last thirty years, using a nuke for that job is just not as practical.
Here's a fun little tool to tinker with:
Nukemap (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/)
Pick a city of your choice, and play with the altitude that you detonate. You can see the relationship that altitude has on how much of an area you affect.
Anyway, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a nuclear war would be "easy." There would be a lot of other terrible effects. But a nuclear weapon is not the city-ending event that popular culture has lead most of us to believe.
*I just want to note that I am NOT going to talk about how we (the US) actually employ nuclear weapons, or what kind of targets that we would use them against. I'm just talking general principles of nuclear weapons*
Which is why I laugh a little bit every time someone says that a nuclear exchange would end the world. Clearly they've never seen how many we've already blown up.
While I understand you dismissing the "On the Beach" concept, there is a huge difference between pounding the same vast desert over and over and hitting agricultural centers and cities. If we really wanted to do it, I think we could probably have made the planet uninhabitable for man. We should also remember that early on we stopped doing above the ground tests. When Russia popped their 50 Megaton device in the most remote area they could find, they still x rayed a LOT of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
Windows were broken as far away as Norway and Finland. If everyone built enough of these we could have really gone at it. The theoretical yield was 100MT vs. the actual yield in the 55-60MT range. The design was limited in an attempt to control fallout and threats to distant populations.
BrigandTwoFour
12-26-14, 15:32
While I understand you dismissing the "On the Beach" concept, there is a huge difference between pounding the same vast desert over and over and hitting agricultural centers and cities. If we really wanted to do it, I think we could probably have made the planet uninhabitable for man. We should also remember that early on we stopped doing above the ground tests. When Russia popped their 50 Megaton device in the most remote area they could find, they still x rayed a LOT of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
Windows were broken as far away as Norway and Finland. If everyone built enough of these we could have really gone at it. The theoretical yield was 100MT vs. the actual yield in the 55-60MT range. The design was limited in an attempt to control fallout and threats to distant populations.
Oh, I have no doubt that if anyone really wanted to, we could build something that would be absolutely terrible. But the general assumption, and underlying principle of deterrence, was that if you developed such a weapon and then used it- you still have to live in the world after.
El Pistolero
12-26-14, 15:33
That's the assumption if all detonations were on the surface. If I detonate a nuke on the surface, then I will irradiate and eject a lot of dust/rock/debris into the atmosphere- which lines up with what you're saying.
But detonating on the surface is actually pretty limiting. Since a nuke's energy is mostly blast wave and heat, if I detonate one at a couple thousand feet then I spread the effects over a much wider area.
Every time a blast wave passes through an obstacle, it loses energy. In a straight two dimensional field, if I had a lot of tall structures surrounding ground zero, the blast effect grows weaker and weaker as it spreads out.
But if I detonate well above those buildings, then the effect is less about knocking them over and more about flattening them. And since the blast only has to travel down, there is much less interference from obstacles. And that's only if I wanted to flatten things. If I want to light everything on fire, then I can detonate even higher and not flatten anything at all, but use infrared heat to "cook" everything in a given radius. If I go even higher then I can just use the EMP to fry electrical grids. And since we're talking thousands of feet up, there is no dust/dirt/rock to eject into the atmosphere and spread fallout.
The only practical use for a surface burst is to unbury hardened underground structures. But, given the advancements in ground penetrating conventional weapons ("bunker busters") in the last thirty years, using a nuke for that job is just not as practical.
Here's a fun little tool to tinker with:
Nukemap (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/)
Pick a city of your choice, and play with the altitude that you detonate. You can see the relationship that altitude has on how much of an area you affect.
Anyway, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a nuclear war would be "easy." There would be a lot of other terrible effects. But a nuclear weapon is not the city-ending event that popular culture has lead most of us to believe.
*I just want to note that I am NOT going to talk about how we (the US) actually employ nuclear weapons, or what kind of targets that we would use them against. I'm just talking general principles of nuclear weapons*
That site was pretty interesting, thanks.
Eurodriver
12-26-14, 18:32
And there went all of my free time. That is a very entertaining and educating site to visit. It's amazing to play with the Tsar Bomba with the airburst setting, you would get 3rd degree burn from 50 miles away from ground zero.
I immediately did the same thing.
I placed it in NYC, and you would have to be in Massachussetts or Maryland to be far enough away to be 100% sure of no injury.
Placing it in Tokyo resulted in over 14,000,000 fatalaties and even more injuries.
Ridiculous.
With that said, the "normal" nuclear weapons are pretty tame looking.
If your guys have the time, Netflix has some great movies. Radio bikini and worlds largest bomb (czar bomba) are great shows if that is your fancy. My old lady wouldn't watch with me....lol
BrigandTwoFour
12-26-14, 20:20
I immediately did the same thing.
I placed it in NYC, and you would have to be in Massachussetts or Maryland to be far enough away to be 100% sure of no injury.
Placing it in Tokyo resulted in over 14,000,000 fatalaties and even more injuries.
Ridiculous.
With that said, the "normal" nuclear weapons are pretty tame looking.
You have to keep in mind that the Tsar was never meant to have a practical use. It was a political show to demonstrate the Soviet Union's scientific and engineering prowess. It was the same for us and the moon landings (at first, that is...the later missions had more scientific purposes).
If your guys have the time, Netflix has some great movies. Radio bikini and worlds largest bomb (czar bomba) are great shows if that is your fancy. My old lady wouldn't watch with me....lol
Trinity is one of my all time fav documentaries.
You have to keep in mind that the Tsar was never meant to have a practical use. It was a political show to demonstrate the Soviet Union's scientific and engineering prowess. It was the same for us and the moon landings (at first, that is...the later missions had more scientific purposes).
The amazing thing about the Tsar is that it is air deliverable. At the time the US had nothing that could produce even close to that yield that was air deliverable.
The destruction of mankind aside I'm a bit disappointed we'll never see the gigaton bomb. Short of an impending alien invasion anyway. And again assuming we'll ever have to capacity to produce new weapons.
...
Most modern weapons, and by that I mean ones designed after the 1960s by major powers, use a fission-fusion reaction that is relatively clean. Depending on how one employs the weapon, fallout is of very little concern. Most of a nuke's energy is dispersed as a blast wave and infrared heat, with a little as EMP. The smallest chunk is radiation.
Thank goodness we have a "green" bomb.
Oh, I have no doubt that if anyone really wanted to, we could build something that would be absolutely terrible. But the general assumption, and underlying principle of deterrence, was that if you developed such a weapon and then used it- you still have to live in the world after.
Well the Russians did plan to build doomsday ships which were literally huge floating bombs with yields far above the Czar Bomb. The plan was they would have sensors on them and if they detected enough radiation to indicate the Soviet Union was subject to a large scale nuclear attack they would detonate making the Earth basically uninhabitable. The only thing that prevented Kruschev from going forward is he wouldn't have any direct control over the doomsday armada.
Just when you thought Stalin's "gorilla soldier" hybrids were the most insane thing the Soviets actually tried to do.
On czar bomb, the designer talks about the fact that he scaled it from the original 100 mt to 50 mt, because he was afraid that 100 mt might be too big[emoji15]
Well the Russians did plan to build doomsday ships which were literally huge floating bombs with yields far above the Czar Bomb. The plan was they would have sensors on them and if they detected enough radiation to indicate the Soviet Union was subject to a large scale nuclear attack they would detonate making the Earth basically uninhabitable. The only thing that prevented Kruschev from going forward is he wouldn't have any direct control over the doomsday armada.
Just when you thought Stalin's "gorilla soldier" hybrids were the most insane thing the Soviets actually tried to do.
We were on the way to building this bad boy and the plan was to have it orbit the USSR after dropping its hydrogen bombs to irradiate the land.
http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html
We were on the way to building this bad boy and the plan was to have it orbit the USSR after dropping its hydrogen bombs to irradiate the land.
http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html
Still a long way off from having weapon laden ships docked in your own harbors that would auto detonate if you started to lose the war with the express purpose of making sure nobody on the planet survives.
Still a long way off from having weapon laden ships docked in your own harbors that would auto detonate if you started to lose the war with the express purpose of making sure nobody on the planet survives.
Yep, but I think the end result would have been similar, those cruise missiles would fly until they had a mechanical failure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb0LOHMuovA
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.