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.

 

If a nuke detonated off shore?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I was curious as to what would happen if a nuke was detonated a mile or two offshore? Would there be a resounding "tidal wave" that would cause severe coastal damage for miles? Since the wind usually blows from the ocean inland, would there be severe fallout coming inland to follow the water. Would the shockwave knock out much of the marine life, much like a rock thrown into the water next to a fish will usually stun if not kill it. It scares me that these things could happen, as it would be quite easy for the terrorists to get a boat, and go offshore. Not like there's any security when a boat is being pulled out of a garage, hauled down the highway, and put into the water. Any thoughts?




posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Well I'm not sure but there is a nuclear power plant or something on Britains coast called Selafield and its dumping waste in the Irish Sea. So if they (terrorists) bombed there we would be all like dead. like totally!

[edit on 5/11/04 by Atomix]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
there was a post on here a while ago about a nuke being detonated in the Atlantic on July 15th...it was a Steve Quayle story about a suitcase threat being thwarted on the eastern seaboard

can't find it on the search....anyone have the link?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by superdude
I was curious as to what would happen if a nuke was detonated a mile or two offshore? Would there be a resounding "tidal wave" that would cause severe coastal damage for miles?


When I was young, I heard that Russians had a plan like that, to simultaneously detonate a chain of large nukes underwater, off the East Coast, to produce a tsunami -- in case of an all-out war.

However, a single charge (and not thermonuclear, just a fission type)
would not necessarily be effiective at this:



Since the wind usually blows from the ocean inland, would there be severe fallout coming inland to follow the water.


The wind direction is not like you describe, in New York. Second, the fallout mainly consists not of the bomb materials themselves, but of the soil that becomes radioactive due to the high initial flux during the blast.

In short, I don't think thast fallout would be a large problem with an above-water blast.

One of the major destructive factors of the blast are fires created by the intense IR radiation, which then grow into a firestorm (search the ATS for that thread). That would not be achieved with an aquatic blast.

The distance you suggest (1-2 miles) would also reduce the effect of the EMP.

In short, the scheme you propose seems suboptimal.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Actually, I am glad to hear that! Living on the coast, it was something that I'd thought of more than once. I guess I think too much.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I saw a new thread on this, but I read this one awhile back. Could this really happen?



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
It would take a crazy amount of nukes to produce a tidal wave. The energy of Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake is about 99,000,000 tons of TNT. What would be the point of making some wave thats going to be only a fraction as destructive as the nukes it would take to make. Its not like you are going to fool people into thinking its was a earthquake.

www.ceri.memphis.edu...



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Since to my knowledge tsunamis are brought about by a major shift in the under-current, I don't think the kind of devastation seen in Sumatra would be a factor using conventional nuclear weapons. It would take an anti-matter nuke to produce that much power (and they do exist). If these weapons have been test detonated it has almost certainly been in space. The release of one of these (in theory) can take out an area 100 times the size of modern conventional nukes. What the joint navy/air force project has been up in Gakona Alaska with the HAARP project could do something like that since it is capable of superheating and bending the ionisphere. It would be the same thing using the ionisphere as it has been for millions of years with the lowering and raising of tides during a moon cycle. If you can manipulate ions you can manipulate magnetism. If you can manipulate magnetism you can manipulate gravity, etc.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   


Since to my knowledge tsunamis are brought about by a major shift in the under-current


Not really a current shifting, More like rising energy waves from earthquakes rolling up the continental shelves.

Heres an animation of the sumatran one. MASS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY RELEASED check it out



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I like the animation, albeit not its real life outcome. That definitely makes sense with the energy waves. Just a question. Is it not the under-current being affected by these energy waves that changes the size of a tide? Again, just a question. One can only know more by learning more.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I believe I saw on FoxNews a scientist compare the 9.0 tsunami to 250 Nakaski bombs.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   
What you all forget is that a huge amount of energy was already built up down there, between the plates, waiting for the push to release it. It wouldn't take as great a force to stimulate the plates moving as it would to simulate their movement, get me? The amount of energy you're talking about needing was there all the time! Enormous kinetic values, built up over centuries, backed up by titans of earth, shoulder to shoulder, rugby style. Someone just came along and kicked one of the guys in the scrum square in the nethers. Now we've got a game. Have I explained this well?



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
What you all forget is that a huge amount of energy was already built up down there, between the plates, waiting for the push to release it. It wouldn't take as great a force to stimulate the plates moving as it would to simulate their movement, get me? The amount of energy you're talking about needing was there all the time! Enormous kinetic values, built up over centuries, backed up by titans of earth, shoulder to shoulder, rugby style. Someone just came along and kicked one of the guys in the scrum square in the nethers. Now we've got a game. Have I explained this well?


He wasnt asking if nukes could be used to trigger a earthquake but if using a nuke offshore could create a tidal wave. Even if you could trigger a earthquake with a nuke that would limit you to only faults where enough energy had built up. Also you would have to drill at the very bottom of the ocean not a very easy feat.

And any country that did this could not cover up the fact that they used a nuke to start the thing and would likely get a nuclear response from whatever country they tried this on. You might as well just use your nukes on cities instead of this.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Enormous kinetic values, built up over centuries, backed up by titans of earth, shoulder to shoulder, rugby style. Someone just came along and kicked one of the guys in the scrum square in the nethers. Now we've got a game. Have I explained this well?

Yes, and you have the added effect of convincing me that I never want to play rugby.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   
If a nuke detonated off shore?
Here's some information I have found on this:


Could Nuclear testing create a tsunami?

This is a difficult topic to research, because much of the information surrounding nuclear testing is classified. During the Cold War there was fear of tsunamis produced by the detonation of nuclear bombs on the continental shelf off the East Coast of the US. A nuclear bomb was never detonated on the shelf, however a huge explosion did generate a tsunami during World War I. Any large disturbance that displaces a large volume of water can be a potential cause of a tsunami.

Pacific Tsunami Museum FAQ

And this from NTS showing an actual photo and description, in detail, of an underwater nuclear test at Bikini Atoll, in the Marshall Islands:
Its copyright protected, so I can't copy and paste segments here, but here is the link (the information is about a 1/4 page down).
Underwater Nuclear Test at Bikini Atoll in 1946

Basic description is:
* The Dome of Water you see rising above the ships rose up at MACH 2.5 in speed.
* The actual water stem is 6,000 feet highat this point.
* A giant blast wave rose to an estimated 900 feet above the surface of the sea.
* The first initial wave was believed to be 43 feet high.
* The second initial wave was 90-100+ feet high.
* By the time the waves reached the shore, they were only 6 feet high.

Can't link picture because it is also copyright protected, but it is an awesome picture to see.






seekerof



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 01:11 AM
link   
here is a post I started on a nuke off shore.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
if a nuclear warhead detonated of shore let see very posiness water waves dead fish birds dieing cause of posined fish .... depends how lcose the war head was when detonated but if close anuff poeple would die



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 02:52 AM
link   
The question in this thread is whether or not a nuke offshore could create a tidal wave, and I answered that by saying that a nuke could be used to create tectonic instability. Tectonic instability can cause tidal waves. Look at the character of the fault line in question. It's the subduction of india. If someone were to detonate a bomb with a blast directly aimed at a spot on the ocean floor that is slipping under another plate, that would send a pressure wave that would assist in the subduction. Also, if you look at seismic map, like the kind at:

www.iris.edu...

You can see the lines of stress right? All up and down the western half of the plate that connects to our continent. The stress lines run in a V between SE Asia, Siberia, and America. If someone even targeted a very high frequency sound weapon along that fault, it could, over time, cause the kind of instability we're seeing. There may be many ways to affect our earth. Often it doesn't take much at all, because the evolved balance is so nearly perfect. A nuke wouldn't have to be buried at all. It would need to detonate over the plate that is being driven under. This could be accomplished by a bunker buster device. Maybe that's why russian television is reporting a possible meteor. There's only a couple nations on earth that can tell the difference between a nuke and a meteor. Literally.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Well, to begin with the energy released by the quake is hundreds if not thousands of times greater then the worlds combined nuclear armament.
As for using nukes to trigger tsunamis.... the original researched involved using nukes to cause massive rock landslides on undersea mountains. A nuclear weapon just does not displace enough water to generate anything other than very local effects.

Shot Baker was an impressive test but if your 20 km away you wouldn't really experisnce any massive waves or such.

The major fact here is that, this quake raised the sea bed 10-30 meters over 1000km ( 600 miles ). No amout of nbuclear weaponry could do that.

As for detonatong a nuke over areas of stress, well ..... this requires an understanding of the earths plate techtonics which we have not yet achieved. The nuclear weapon would also have to be extremely large to generate the energies required to casue a plate to slip... even if it is under great stress.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join