How many nukes do you REALLY need to destroy the world?

Hi guys, here is a question for the experts . . . .

What would happen if a nuclear weapon exploded in close proximity to a working nuclear power plant?

Would the result be the same as just letting off the bomb?

Or would the bomb detonation combined with the presence of functioning nuclear reactors, fuel rods, radioactive waste, etc., cause a bigger explosion? Chain reaction or dispersion? Fukushima times ten? Or a hundred?

Now what about a nuke going off where other nukes are located? Say a submarine in dock with a dozen nukes on board?

One would think that scientists and the military would have figured this out by now; the effects of a direct nuke strike on a functioning nuclear power plant. Yet I have never heard of this being discussed.

Thoughts?


If North Korea gets to the point of selling nukes to say, an oil rich country with a grudge. How much damage can one small nuke delivered to a nuclear installation cause?

The arguement that one needs a working delivery system such as ICBMs and sophisticated guidence systems does not quite make sense when, to my thinking anyway, a cellphone GPS and a truck would do the job. Don't have a truck? NK has submarines and a lot of nuclear power plants are located on the coast.

Think about it . . .

You wouldn't get a chain reaction, I wouldn't think. It's not easy to set off a nuke, and they use different material than nuke plants.

You would, however, spew nuclear material around. Doesn't take much to destroy the world- just ask Japan, who is about to destroy the ocean.

What would happen if a nuclear weapon exploded in close proximity to a working nuclear power plant?

Depends what type it was and megatons.

Tactical nukes not much.

As they are hardened structures to contain radiation(somewhat), and are suppose to be able with withstand earthquakes.

Although I don't know just exactly how far I would trust anything built by the lowest bidder.

Then we got to talk about airburst or ground detonations.

Lot of variables to give a real answer to.

As far as I'm aware, a nuclear detonation is a very precise matter that has to happen in stages. Without the finetuned warhead there is no detonation.

I believe you could blow up a nuke with a grenade and nothing would happen.

But I might be wrong... I wouldn't test it personally

Just one is enough. I just read that modern nukes are up to 50 times stronger than those that exploded in Hiroshima. And several times dangerous than Chernobyl disaster. And look how is life in Chernobyl now.

a reply to: saadad

Life is thriving there now.. even fish in the reactors pool...

National Geographic special "Life after Chernobyl " was just on. Check it out.. *

*of course radioactive levels high but..

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

What would happen if a nuclear weapon exploded in close proximity to a working nuclear power plant?

The power plant would add nuclear waste being spread along with the radiation and EMP effects of the blast.

How many nukes do you REALLY need to destroy the world?

It would require less than what the world powers that have them have.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Yeah I know there is life, but no human life. I just saw some video filmed by drone from Chernobyl and it is seen through the camera that radioactivity is extremely high.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

They have figured it out you have to have weapons grade materials for a nuclear explosion to occur so aside from causing more radiation, actually probably not more radiation, detonating a nuke at a nuclear power plant would do absolutely nothing. In fact, not only do you need to have weapons grade materials, it needs to be compressed to a very strong degree, meaning it has to be completely surrounded by he that is detonated simultaneously.


Jaden

a reply to: saadad

Lol you would need to fire off thousands or tens of thousands of the biggest nukes to end life on the planet and it still would likely return.

Jaden

a reply to: InhaleExhale

The power plant would add nuclear waste being spread along with the radiation and EMP effects of the blast.

Wouldn't count on emp effecting it.

Radiation screws up electronics.

So they would be hardened.

a reply to: neo96

Wouldn't count on emp effecting it.

effecting what?

I'll tell you how many. Just wait for Yellowstone to bulge, meaning high pressure in the magma chamber, drop 1 on top and stand back and watch a volcano destroy the world.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: saadad

Lol you would need to fire off thousands or tens of thousands of the biggest nukes to end life on the planet and it still would likely return.

Jaden

Well if we look at that way then that is not true because there were thousands of thousand nukes already used on earth, yet no consequences. I was thinking of one nuke that is thrown on strategic objects, like for example Wall Street or something like that, something that would change the way we live. Then one nuke is enough. But if you blow nukes 1000 meters below earth that has zero impact on life above the surface.

The best way to destroy most life on Earth would be to build a massive thermonuclear bomb (with an explosive force many hundreds of times the magnitude of the largest bombs ever tested) and make it even dirtier than normal in terms of radioactive fallout.

One way would be to surround the bomb with thousands of tons of Cobalt, which would be converted by the bomb's explosion into a radioactive isotope called Cobalt 60. This substance is particularly deadly, with a half life of 5 years. It would be carried high into the atmosphere and then it'll come back down as fallout. The winds could spread it out over the planet. That should be enough to kill most reptiles, mammals and birds. I'm unsure how creatures in the seas would be affected. I doubt whether everything would die.

But that one bomb would have to be monstrous to do that. It'd be more efficient to use dozens of smaller but similar bombs placed in the right places around the globe. Technically it's completely do-able.

Cheery stuff.

a reply to: saadad

But if you blow nukes 1000 meters below earth that has zero impact on life above the surface.

You sure about that.

Would you like to test that out?

Stand on ground here there is nuclear device being detonated under you.

Depending on the size, you will either die from from the ground collapsing under you or if the wield is high enough you may just disintegrate.

Well if we look at that way then that is not true because there were thousands of thousand nukes already used on earth, yet no consequences.

So why have there numerous bans banning nuclear testing?

If there were no consequences then there would be no stopping.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen
I have seen the suggestion (I don't know enough to comment on the science) that a single explosion of a modern nuclear weapon could muck up the whole atmosphere with side-effects, like puncturing a ballon.

Without reading any part of your post, and simply providing a knee-jerk reaction to the title alone:

I would say all of them

A nuclear weapon striking a nuclear power plant wouldn't necessarily be that much a bigger deal than the nuclear weapon going off itself.


But if you wanted to destroy the world, there have actually been studies done into this. Try Carl Sagan's excellent book 'A Path Where No Man Thought', which specifically set out to answer this question.


The answer is actually not that many. The trick is to think about the combustables in a modern city. And you only need maybe 30 or 40 strikes on cities to ignite enough stuff that will put sufficient particulates into the upper atmosphere to trigger a nuclear winter.

And once you've got a nuclear winter, that pretty much kills us all.


Weirdly, the radiation isn't the biggest thing to worry about.

a reply to: neo96

Here's the thing, the cooling towers stop working. and no one will come take a look for some time . . .