It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Please Explain Nuclear/Atomic Weapons To Me

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Hey guys,

I recently purchased a Science mag with interesting facts etc in, as I was ill in bed and just wanted to read. Anyway... I came across an article in the magazine which shows "Huge asteroid/meteor impacts in recent history".


North Atlantic - An asteroid exploded with half the energy of an atomic bomb over the North Atlantic on 30 April 2013.

Chelyabinsk, Russia - A 20 metre impactor roared through the sky on 15 February 2013. It's kinetic energy before it hit our atmosphere was the equivalent of 500 kilotons of TNT.

Tunguska, Russia - Either an asteroid or comet exploded between five and ten kilometres above the Tunguska River in Siberia on 30th June 1908 with as much energy as 1,000 atomic bombs. It was only the remoteness of the area that meant there were no fatalities.

Mediterranean - On 6 June 2002 an asteroid exploded high in the atmosphere above the Mediterranean, between Libya & Crete. With energy levels similar to a nuclear bomb, no fragments were recovered.



My question is, how is this even possible? ONE THOUSAND atomic bombs in 1908, etc etc? I've grown up scared of nuclear/atomic war, having seen how it's portrayed in movies, and having seen footage of nuclear/atomic bombs online over the past several years. I always believed that these bombs were one of, if not THE most destructive man made weapons. But if an asteroid can hit us with the power of 1,000 atomic bombs, and leave NO fatalities... I don't understand how that's possible.

And finally, this magazine I'm reading says "500 kilotons of TNT, 1,000 Atomic Bombs, 1 Nuclear Bomb" etc. Are Nuclear bombs more powerful than Atomic bombs? I always assumed they were the same thing, ha ha. I'm probably wrong.



Would love some insight into this, thanks.




posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I believe they mean "releasing the energy of ONE THOUSAND atomic bombs" (which is a terrible metric to use, like using horsepower when describing rocket engines). The bombs would have lots of radiation and fallout that an asteroid impact won't necessarily have...



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

True in your last sentence. We don't contend with radiation from an asteroid. The comparison only relates to the effects of the blast. And we have no other metric by which to describe the two types of blasts at present in an easily understandable way. Even at that, they defy imagination even when we look at movies of nuclear blasts.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vanchatron
My question is, how is this even possible? ONE THOUSAND atomic bombs in 1908, etc etc?


They are most likely referencing Fat Man or Little Boy which had relatively small yields at 21 and 16 kilotons.


But if an asteroid can hit us with the power of 1,000 atomic bombs, and leave NO fatalities... I don't understand how that's possible.


If it strikes an unpopulated area there will be no fatalities.


And finally, this magazine I'm reading says "500 kilotons of TNT, 1,000 Atomic Bombs, 1 Nuclear Bomb" etc. Are Nuclear bombs more powerful than Atomic bombs? I always assumed they were the same thing, ha ha. I'm probably wrong.


That is an interchangeable term. There are two types of weapons manufactured: the lower yield single stage device and the much higher yield thermonuclear device or hydrogen bomb.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Here's a link to an ATS thread I did some time ago to an awesome website. It allows you to nuke any city you want and shows you the effects, range etc.
You can use small atomic munitions, thermal nuclear devices, Tsar Bomba and an asteroid hit!

Have at it, AB

ATS Link to Carlos Labs

Atomic Bombs are at the bottom.
Hydrogen Bombs are thermal nuclear devices and stronger then atomic weapons.
Asteroids/Comets are more damaging due to kinetic energy released from tremendous speeds they travel.
edit on 9/7/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Vanchatron


Are Nuclear bombs more powerful than Atomic bombs? I always assumed they were the same thing, ha ha. I'm probably wrong.

You aren't mistaken. I think the first booms were called Atomic and later Nuclear. The differences between weapons themselves developed in the design, too. The first Atom booms were fission, [splitting atoms) then fusion, (Fusing atoms together). Fission and fusion are more apt descriptions. Whats in a name, they are all the most destructive "man made" devices.

Comparing "nukes" to the energy release equivalent of space bodies is so we get a feel for the destructive force involved. The world is waiting for a bullseye event. If one of these little rocks comes in at just the right angle and detonates just above a major population center… POW!.

It would be an exceedingly rare event. Like a Solar Flare. They happen all the time on the sun but are rarely pointed directly at the earth.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
If something the size of the Tunguska event happened in a heavily populated area say London/Paris/LA etc...9/11 would be but a distant memory. The buildings would mostly stay intact...Mostly, anyone on the ground without cover....Game over.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Nuclear and atomic bombs go BOOM! Does that 'splain it Lucy?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
We need a new measurement scale,

May I propose the....


How many White Houses being blown up did it make?

For example...

The asteroid was so close, however, if it did impact it would have had the energy of 1000 white houses being blown to smithereens.


Or perhaps the NATO scale..

How many NATO bombings it would have caused.



Or the liberation scale...


How many countries an asteroid impact would have liberated to their freedoms.



We could add this to the American Core Cirriculum in schools. SInce they like to do math in idioic ways, this should be easy.


edit on 7-9-2014 by jajaja because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

There's not currently a pure fusion device in service. A hydrogen bomb is a combination of fusion and fission, which is as close as there currently is. The trigger is a fission device, and it's boosted by a fusion reaction between deuterium and tritium.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
That clears a lot up, thank you for the explanations guys.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum

I like that link. I just dropped the Tsar Bomba on South Plainfield.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Your assertion that if a Tunguska event happened over a populated area, that the buildings would remain even slightly intact, is an utter nonsense. If the Tunguska event happened over a populated, built up and urban area, it would flatten every structure within a great many miles of the centre of the effect, all life in the effected area would be extinguished by heat and overpressure...

Nothing would survive it intact. Not cars, not buildings, not the water mains or gas pipes under the ground... The only thing that would be more violent, would be if the Yellowstone area decided that today is the day to release the magma based fury underneath the ground there. That would be good night sweet heart for most things on the planet.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
The only thing that would be more violent, would be if the Yellowstone area decided that today is the day to release the magma based fury underneath the ground there. That would be good night sweet heart for most things on the planet.


My liver would survive.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
@TS

You might be surprised what we (earth) hade already to endure from ourselfs:


edit on 7-9-2014 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

An Atomic enema would have been more appropriate!


a reply to: TrueBrit

What are you drinking?
Please share?
edit on 9/7/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnteBellum
An Atomic enema would have been more appropriate!


I thought you guys get that when it rains too hard.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Didn't seem to effect the Mosquitos much as you can see from any videos of the team who went out to investigate, As no-one was in the area at the time how would anyone know how big a blast it was...lots of trees knocked down yeah, but strong winds can do that sort of damage also.
Facts and figures would be nice to back up your claims......Please.
edit on 7-9-2014 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
The first nuclear bombs were extremely basic. They basically compressed a small Uranium core with high explosives, so that there was a runaway chain reaction through fission that generated intense levels of pure energy (gamma rays). Only about 10% of the Uranium was actually converted into energy according to the E= mc^2 rule.

Then in the atmosphere, Gamma rays get absorbed and reemitted as X-rays, UV light, visible and then infra-red light. The heat generates a pressure shockwave in the atmosphere that disintegrates building. This is what high-explosives do as well, create a shockwave, which is heard as a bang. That's how everything is compared.

Your asteroid hits the atmosphere at high speed, and hits the ground or ocean. That creates a shockwave and heat as before, leading to an earthquake or tsunami if it hits the ground. If there aren't any population centers, then no-one will really notice.

With the ICBM's, they have precision timers, all sorts of metal layers and rare earth elements to tune the explosion of the large Uranium core to get the desired yield.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
With the ICBM's, they have precision timers, all sorts of metal layers and rare earth elements to tune the explosion of the large Uranium core to get the desired yield.


The newer devices use a Plutonium/Uranium secondary.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join