Nukemap - Interactive map showing what Happens If A Nuke Explodes In Your Neighborhood?

page: 2
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by johncarter
 


Just stay upwind




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
For anyone interested or who hasn't yet seen it, I highly recommend finding and watching Rain of Ruin: The Bombing of Nagasaki.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

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



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
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!



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   

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


Sure, and cherry trees blooms on the moon every time it´s May.
edit on 18-7-2013 by johncarter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   

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.



I am glad I could be of help.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   

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.



The overall effect of hitting a nuclear power plant with a nuclear weapon can best be summed up by the marginally vulgar phrase "one more fart in the breeze". One of the limiting factors in the yield of a fission device is that, past a certain size, the physics package tends to get blown apart before all of its fissile material has a chance to contribute to the yield (there's a similar problem with large stacks of conventional explosives...they tend to scatter rather than detonate completely). That means that the 'extra' fissile material simply becomes extra fallout...the device gets dirtier, rather than more powerful.

That's what's going to happen with the nuclear fuel in a nuclear power plant as well...it's going to get pulverized / vaporized / scattered by various effects of the initiation long before it has a chance to contribute to the yield of the blast, and turn into extra fallout...but given the amount of fallout already generated by a ground burst, the 'extra' isn't going to be that significant an addition. If the plant gets hit by an air burst, its nuclear material is more than likely going to get buried under the wreckage of the plant, becoming, at worst, a local 'hot spot'. Not a good thing by any measure, but compared to the after-effects of a nuclear initiation, probably not particularly noticeable.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
One Tsar to wipe out Toronto,and Kitchener is safe.

schweet!

I wonder if these are air detonations or ground.
edit on 18-7-2013 by canDarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
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...



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   

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.

the map says it completely ignores any effects from fallout



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

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.


my father was an MP at Eniwetok and saw that test. I remember him telling the story of the time the bomb was bigger than they had expected.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

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)


TY for the vid! It is utter madness to even test these devices! I wonder will we some day realize the utter futility
of not only building these weapons but of all war or will we continue to build and test until we annihilate any humanity we have left?



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


Detroit has already been nuked. Haven't you seen the remnants?



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

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.


Perhaps you should try something lighter. A couple of 1 megaton mirvs is a more plausable scenario. Might send your mayor E. Rahm straight to hell, where he belongs, and save the rest of you.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

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!


If you drop a W-76 tactical nuke over the EU parliament, during a voting session on a major issue (when everybody is present, how many tons of politcal bacon do you roast and how many unfortunate souls surrounding that parliament would die as collateral damage in such an attempt to free Europe from these professional liars?
edit on 18-7-2013 by johncarter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

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...


It's a real tragedy that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still, sixty years later, still desolate, barren wastelands totally unsuitable for human life. I almost included the state of Nevada in that list, since it's been nuked far more heavily than Japan ever was, but that really *does* describe most of Nevada, which really would have undercut my point.


Nuclear weapons aren't magical devices that eliminate all life with a line of sight to the mushroom cloud. They are horribly destructive weapons, with some really ugly after-effects, but over-stating their impact doesn't produce dramatic emphasis, it just adds an element of hysteria.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   

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.

Er... no. That is not correct.

From the City of Hiroshima's own webpage:
City of Hiroshima FAQ (in English)

Question 12


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.

Nagasaki Peace Park marks the center of the blast

Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum
edit on 20-7-2013 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join