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.
Originally posted by johncarter
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I was actually quite surprised to see how little damage a North Korean nuke would have on my nearest city. Oxford England. Even their most powerful nuke wouldn't destroy the whole city or surrounding area.
A North Korean nuke is not strong in yield but certainly dirty as hell. The radioactive cloud and bad winds would certainly get you.
Originally posted by Viesczy
Originally posted by johncarter
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I was actually quite surprised to see how little damage a North Korean nuke would have on my nearest city. Oxford England. Even their most powerful nuke wouldn't destroy the whole city or surrounding area.
A North Korean nuke is not strong in yield but certainly dirty as hell. The radioactive cloud and bad winds would certainly get you.
You know NK doesn't have any nuclear capacity right?
Where was the GRB for any ONE of their tests? No GRB, no nuclear event. Gov'ts run with the seismic stuff simply to RATTLE our cages/worries.
Derek
Originally posted by new_here
reply to post by johncarter
Thanks, OP for the info.
Anybody know what might change if a nuke hit a reactor at a nuclear energy plant? Just wondering if it would set it off somehow? Those stations are... so... prevalent.
Originally posted by new_here
reply to post by johncarter
Thanks, OP for the info.
Anybody know what might change if a nuke hit a reactor at a nuclear energy plant? Just wondering if it would set it off somehow? Those stations are... so... prevalent.
Originally posted by johncarter
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I was actually quite surprised to see how little damage a North Korean nuke would have on my nearest city. Oxford England. Even their most powerful nuke wouldn't destroy the whole city or surrounding area.
A North Korean nuke is not strong in yield but certainly dirty as hell. The radioactive cloud and bad winds would certainly get you.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by new_here
That's a real good question and I'm not sure anyone knows 100% on that? Does anyone know of a test shot that simulated it? I wouldn't trust anything 'theorized' after the colossal screw up of the Castle Bravo shot where they figured a metal would be inert and irrelevant ...and it dramatically increased the yield. Nukes seem to do odd things in some of the tests.
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by johncarter
Just makes you shake your head at human beings insanity. Even testing such weapons must have devastating effect on the environment. Just think of the sick nature that would test these things in a beautiful place like Bikini Attol.
Just out of interest, when they test these things, does the radiation go into the atmosphere?
Here's a vid of every time a device has been used or tested from the very first to the latest. Interesting to see the UK and France only test in other people's countries.
edit on 17-7-2013 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)edit on 17-7-2013 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by johncarterOnly a tiny B-61? I would have used a Tsar Bomba on those hell whores from chicago. After the blast, the smell of roasted political bacon would fill the entire east coast
Originally posted by CryHavoc
Originally posted by johncarterOnly a tiny B-61? I would have used a Tsar Bomba on those hell whores from chicago. After the blast, the smell of roasted political bacon would fill the entire east coast
That's the one I did. I'm about 50 to 55 miles southwest of Chicago and I'd still get 3rd degree burns from the Tsar Bomba! It would wipe out Chicago/Cook County and most of the collar Counties.
Originally posted by thefifthcat
reply to post by johncarter
FANTASTIC! I've just nuked the whole of Scotland with 10 nukes! Brilliant! Thanks for make a dream come true. Off to France next, then Belgium!
Originally posted by SuperFrog
This truly proves that any nuclear war would kill us all, if not directly, then indirectly by radiation. Life as we knew it would end.
Thank you for sharing...
Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
It's a real tragedy that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still, sixty years later, still desolate, barren wastelands totally unsuitable for human life.
Residual radiation (Note 1) appeared as the initial radiation subsided. About 80% of the total amount of residual radiation was released within 24 hours of the bombing. One study found that a person standing at the hypocenter 24 hours after the bombing would have received only one thousandth the dose of residual radiation that would have been received by a person who was there right after the bomb exploded. One week later, the dose would be only one millionth the original dose. (Note 2) In other words, residual radiation levels fell very rapidly.
Today, the background radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the same as the average amount of natural radiation present anywhere on Earth. It is not enough to affect human health.