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.

 

100 MT Nuclear Bomb Damage

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJDOHBOY
I like the "just drop 25 ICBM's" idea
, somehow I think a 1 to 25 warhead ratio is a better deal



really counting on one missile and trying to deliver a 100mt nuke is hard you have a much better chance with bigger numbers wt if the missile goes wrong




posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
It was always my understanding that the 100MT thermonuclear weapon developed by the Soviet Union-now Russia-was to be able to distroy Norad, inside a solid granite moutain. It was to show that all US bases could be hit and distroyed, no matter where they were. It ment the US did not have a safe haven, anywhere in the event of nuclear war-ie the US won't servive a first strike on Russia. Smaller ICBM's could take out the cities.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
It was always my understanding that the 100MT thermonuclear weapon developed by the Soviet Union-now Russia-was to be able to distroy Norad, inside a solid granite moutain. It was to show that all US bases could be hit and distroyed, no matter where they were. It ment the US did not have a safe haven, anywhere in the event of nuclear war-ie the US won't servive a first strike on Russia. Smaller ICBM's could take out the cities.


A simple, accurate 500 kiloton warhead could take out NORAD. The only concievable use for a 50 Megaton+ weapon would be if you needed to destroy a carrier battle group - and could only locate it to within 50 miles or so. Becuase of it's size - it would not be practically delivered by a missile, so something deep inside the US (even if it was neccisary) would not be a real target for such a weapon.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
They made only one for the test and then one replica for a museum. Something that size is just not a practical weapon to be used. It was 8 meters long, 2 meters wide and weighed about 27 tons, they had to modify a TU-95 to be able to do the test.


E_T

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
A 100MT nuclear bomb would kill everyone in the British Isles not just of the blast but of radiation, and it will also spread to ther close by nations like France.

It would cause lethal fallout much more farther in that direction where wind blows. (also depending of materials of bomb)


I just posted this on other thread but guess I have to put it here also:
nuclearweaponarchive.org...

And amount of fallout depend more from what materials are in bomb, not just yield because fission is that which produces most of these radioactive (by)products.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   
100mt bomb the true doomsday wepon thats all we need these days.God help us all if these Doctor strange love types ever made a lot of these.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJDOHBOY
I like the "just drop 25 ICBM's" idea
, somehow I think a 1 to 25 warhead ratio is a better deal



Is it more efficient to use lots of small nukes rather than one great big one because of fuel not being used?



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen

Originally posted by DJDOHBOY
I like the "just drop 25 ICBM's" idea
, somehow I think a 1 to 25 warhead ratio is a better deal



Is it more efficient to use lots of small nukes rather than one great big one because of fuel not being used?


That is but one of the advantages. Smaller missiles are cheaper, more flexible (you can spread out the damage), more reliable, and use smaller (use less fuel). There really is NO advantage to using very large yield weapons. If there were - they would have been used/deployed - which they weren't.

For example - take a US Minuteman missile field. They typically cover somewhere around 10,000 square miles and have 15 or 20 launch control centers. Whereas one 100 Megaton weapon would take out at most a few launch control centers (they are miles apart and very well hardened) - 1 300 kiloton ICBM could destroy 1 LCC (if it was accurate enough). So 15 small ICBM may have many times more strategic value than 1 (or even seveal) 100 Megaton ones - despite much lower yield. They just don't make sense.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   
also having greater number is better for survivability what if the bomber delivering the 100mt bomb was destroyed or the nuke was intercepted in space in number you don't have to fear that some will always get through.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
100M will trigger a fusion reaction of sea water… so please remind me , what gonna to happened and Lamanche would yield?



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
OMG fusion reaction of sea water!

were all dooomed i tell you dooomed!



ok , cough , reality check


www.johnstonsarchive.net...

have a read and thats the sort of effects of a nuke going bang.

do a search for the WAHOO test (500 feet depth) , part of Operation Hardtack or Operation WIGWAM test of 1955 (2000 feet depth) for nukes underwater - in wigwam the radiation escaping the sea was barely above back ground.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
You know what would be worse?

Getting hit by a burst of Gamma radiation. Now that's some scary stuff, even coming from a collapsed supernova 1000 light years away, a direct hit would completely incinerate everything in the atmosphere wiping out almost all life on Earth.

I'm sorry, I just had to take a stray from "These nukes are better than those" scenario.

A 100MT nuke really in the grand scheme of things, isn't really all that powerful. Although if you want a habitable planet afterwards, indeed a smaller yield would be sufficient.

It's true though, large yield weapons really have no true application because they're simply too large and expensive to use in one shot, what if something goes wrong? Like Westpoint said, just spread out a bunch of ICBMs.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Wow..some of you folks are really out there in the ozone on this.

Have you been watching closely what has been going on since the first Gulf war.

Large powerful bombs ..conventional are not even being used much anymore, with the exception of custom tailored applications...ie..special hardened targets.

Standard heavy weight bombs now days are 250 and 500 lb conventional bombs. What has made this possible is the advance of precision guidance systems. To place a conventional bomb into the X ring of a target from 20,000 feet up or higher is not that big a deal anymore. This is done through laser guidance where the bomb tracks to the target after the target is painted with a beam or by precision GPS coordinates.

Do you folks think for one minute that this is not possible with a nuclear warhead. This too would negate the need for these huge warheads.

The reason these huge warheads became fashionable is that the guidance systems were only capable of getting within some 5 to 10 miles in the early days. Especially from missles. The only other variable was whether a ground or air burst was prefered on a particular target.

Now that precision delivery systems are available huge warheads are no longer needed. One can literally get the weapon in the X-ring so to speak.
Once again the other option is whether a ground or air burst is needed or prefered.

Do not think for one minute that nuclear bunker busters have not been developed. I know that there was talk and studys done in the early days of using nuclear devices as construction tools. None or very little dirt to evacuate.

The guidance systems available today make all the difference ..both in conventional or nuclear devices.

Some of you folks have been watching to much history channel and buying into alot of this stuff without thinking it through.

Dont get me wrong here. I am not for war period. I just know that there have been very significant changes in the state of the art.

Another factor for some of you to look up is the "Dial a yeild" feature. This is not new. I am sure it has only been updated to make it more reliable and less expensive to install in a nuclear device...where the power or yeild can be dialed up or down or customized so to speak.

Howard Moreland "The Secret that Exploded"

How Hydrogen bombs are built. This book is out of date as to the materieal and designs....but it forms a foundation or baseline for the design end of your thinking. This book made it to the US Supreme court in order to stop its publishing and the court said ...publish it. It makes for some intresting reading even if the material is out of date. I am certain tha the current designs are way in advance of Howard's outlines.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I think I had better move to a larger country. lol I think the Russians have still got the tzar bomb in storage!



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I would like to refer the original poster and all you other gys to my thread,

'Characteristics and Effects of a Nuclear Explosion' posted over a year ago on the Weaponry pages.

Try researching ATS Weaponry threads before dragging up old subjects.

Please do not ask for a link. I have already done so twice.

On the subject of radiation, the effects are comulative BUT, just as E=MC2, there is the opposite.

This is called the 7 & 10 Rule. This equation states that as Time increases (multiplys) by a fact or 7, then Radiation decreases (decays) by a factor of 10.

Thus at 'H-Hour' if a weapon detonated and produces 1,000,000 cGys an hour, 7 hours later the radiation has reduced to 100,00 cGys an hour.

After 49 hours (2 1/2 days) radiation is reduced to 10,000 cGys an hour. A further 2 years on, and radiation has been reduced to 1,000 cGys an hour and so on.

Incidentally, a volcano such as Mount Saint Helens pushes out more debris in to the atmosphere than all the nuclear weapons on earth would. It is also radioactive but obviously on a much reduced scale.



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

A graph comparing the size of the Tsar bomb (the scaled down one) to other bombs. Hiroshima and Trinity are specs in the lower left corner.




The bomb you see explode is a scaled down version of the tsar bomb...during the video it shows a animation/map of the london area] that shows the fireball diameter (around 110 miles)of the actual Tsar bomb.

[edit on 17/6/07 by Pfeil]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I'm sure that I remember something being published about a Soviet bomb in the 100MT range and the name was the Tzar Bomba. If I recall correctly when it detonated it's yield was in the 50 to 60MT range.
It would probably be more feasable to launch multiple small tactical nukes and employ a TOT (Time on Target) strategy to eliminate a target. I wonder if multiple bunker buster nukes detonated at the same time could cause a veritable "earthquake" to destroy a bunker that they did not reach...



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   
The Tsar Bomba was originally planned to be 100MT, but its yield was decreased to reduce fallout. It's actual yield was between 50 and 55 megatons. And incidentally, the largest nuke produced by the US (Castle Bravo), had a planned yield of only 5 megatons, however a previously unknown reaction occurred in the lithium-deuteride, which resulted in the creation of much more tritium than planned, and tripled the yield of the bomb.



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   
If I remember correctly, the Russians used to build their warheads a lot bigger early on than they did towards the end of the Cold War. I can't say for certain if the US employed a similar policy or not, but it would make sense. You see, back then targeting systems were a lot less accurate than they are today. So the warheads were bigger so that they could destroy the intended target even if it was a near miss. So if you got your warhead within say a mile of the target it still accomplishes the goal. Of course these days such warheads aren't needed as badly since ICBM's are so accurate that you could practically drop one in a plastic cup.

Of course, the Tsar Bomba was an exception to this. That bomb in particular wasn't actually meant to be used, it was nothing more than a psychological weapon. And needless to say, it worked.



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   
A 100 MT bomb is not the best option if you wanted max destruction, lets face it thats what nukes were built for.

The force of the explosion will fall off as per the inverse square rule - Imagine conctric rings around ground zero. If you put a figure of 256 (units) in the centre ring, the next ring out would have a value of 16 and the outer one a value of 4.

Now say 4 units will result in a flattened city - you've wasted a lot of your potential destructive force in the areas that recieved 16 and 256 units.

If I had 100MT of potential (and I were so inclined!) I would have say 5 20MT devices instead - apart from more options - I could then overlap the areas that recieve a value of 4 thus causing far more damage.

That is the reason most stratagic nuke delivery systems are designed with multiple smaller warheads.

Peace (one hopes
)



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join