How much is destroyed with a mid-sized nuke?

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

This is a particuarly good link, will explain the whole process from launch, flight, detonation procedure (air burst, ground burst, fizzle) effect out at given ranges etc...

Oh, and I do remember reading somewhere that a 75megatone bomb like Russia or the US might have, would pretty much be able to melt steel at 50 miles...

Originally posted by Solarity


Oh, and I do remember reading somewhere that a 75megatone bomb like Russia or the US might have, would pretty much be able to melt steel at 50 miles...

That sounds a bit extreme. Can anyone confirm this? 50 miles away seems way off.

Originally posted by Solarity
www.johnstonsarchive.net...

This is a particuarly good link, will explain the whole process from launch, flight, detonation procedure (air burst, ground burst, fizzle) effect out at given ranges etc...

Oh, and I do remember reading somewhere that a 75megatone bomb like Russia or the US might have, would pretty much be able to melt steel at 50 miles...

you dont have to worry a 75 megatone nuke is not going to go off in New York any time soon thats around 300 times bigger then what we used on japan. If you say its a 25kt blast if you go by 1Mt then still 75 times bigger.


The largest H-bombs ever made where in the 400Mt range and those babys where killers....

the largest H bomb ever tested was the russian `tsar bomb` which was only 2/3rds loaded and had a yield of 57 MT

there isn`t any realy need for huge bombs , the damage capability of 9MT weapon to , say a 20MT weapon doesn`t increase the blast effects significantly - yes the fireball gets hotter , and yes more within the fireball `area of effect` is totally destroyed , the area of effect isn`t much bigger.

Arent the bigger bombs more cleaner, or is that the other way around?

Smaller, "tactical" nukes are "cleaner"....(relatively speaking of course)

One thing that needs to be studied more is the idea of smaller (10-20kt) nukes being used in an encirclement pattern. In fact, the devestation of such a strategy would create destruction on par with the largest of nukes. As Ike Jeanes says:

In the book, Life After Nuclear War, Arthur Katz in 1982 wrote [p. 29]:

"The accumulated impact of weapons in urban areas, where boundaries for significant damage produced by one weapon overlap and intrude into the area of damage of others is not normally discussed. Thus, the potential devastation from this type of attack is significantly understated. No serious modeling or analysis of this type of problem is associated with discussions in the open literature."

Katz wrote the above fully 37 years after the first detonation of a nuclear weapon. Let me reiterate the point, "No serious modeling or analysis of this type of problem is associated with discussions in the open literature." And this occurred in a society with freedom of speech and great technological advancements, well capable of analyzing the problem. Why?

These matters are important, for without understanding both the limitations and capabilities of these weapons, we cannot hope to control them. The use of multiple nuclear weapons are the key features of war plans in nuclear weapon nations. We have long since past the era when most nations would tend to use one or two nuclear weapons, as at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Let's start with what is widely known [when detonation occurs at an altitude to maximize 3.5+ psi destruction]. A single 20 Kt nuclear weapon would produce 8.04 square miles of 3+ psi destruction. From this we can easily calculate that detonating eight individual 20 Kt weapons would produce 64 square miles of 3+ psi destruction [64.3=8x8.04]. This is the same area of 3+ psi destruction that would occur upon detonating one 475 Kt thermonuclear weapon.

On this basis, we are able to know that, at the absolute minimum, eight individual low-tech 20 Kt nuclear weapons are capable of producing a level a level of destruction equal to a large thermonuclear weapon (475 Kt). Parenthetically, it is well to note that 58% of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons are of about this size (500-550 Kt), and 87% of the thermonuclear weapons in the U.S. strategic arsenal are smaller than 475 Kt.

Now let's go a step further and consider the potential consequences of SIMULTANEOUSLY DETONATING a pattern of eight nuclear weapons. I have not seen simultaneous nuclear air bursts discussed, or even hinted at, in the open literature, but too many of their effects are too obvious to ignore them, as can be seen in the "M" (Multiple Blasts) command in Nukefix.

When eight low-tech 20 Kt nuclear weapons are detonated simultaneously in an encirclement pattern (5 mile radius, 4.3 miles between zero points in a circle) in a high population density urban area, at least as much destruction would tend to be produced as with a single one megaton thermonuclear weapon. The reason for this is firestorms and the interaction of blast forces.

A one megaton weapon would cause 105 square miles of 3+ psi destruction. With firestorms, the 20 Kt encirclement pattern can readily envelope 105 square miles in total destruction, leaving no escape for the inhabitants. At a population density of 12,000 per square mile the 20 Kt encirclement pattern might well produce 53% more deaths than a single one megaton weapon, which is to say, approximately 1,082,884 deaths with 20 Kt encirclement versus approximately 708,426 deaths with a one-megaton blast. [This can be calculated with the "M" command in the downloadable computer program Nukefix]

With the simultaneous detonation of eight 20 Kt weapons on a day with 35 mile visibility, the thermal energy from the initial blast throughout the 105 square miles would be sufficient to ignite items having the same degree of flammability as thin black rubber at every point that was in line of sight of the contributing weapons. At Hiroshima (12.5 Kt), the approximate area characterized here by the flammability of rubber was involved in a firestorm.

While every flammable item of such characteristics would not ignite, a sufficient number would tend to burn that the entire area would be immediately subject to creation of firestorms, and the whole area would eventually tend to be subject to firestorms as fires from the hottest areas coalesced. Upholstery and other similarly flammable interior items near windows in homes would have a potential to start fires.

Ike Jeanes' program "Nukefix" is an excellent tool for understanding the destructive power of nuclear weapons and their propensity for use, both willful and accidental. It is available at www.nukefix.org...

Depending on the 'yield' or size and depending whether or not the weapon is detonated below, on or above ground, casualties and damage to structures would vary immensely.

I remember from my training as an NBC instructor that the old Warsaw Pact were supposed to have some sort of 'Doomsday' device up in the artic circle. This was reputed to be in excess of 500 Megatons. If used, this would almost have certainly melted the polar ice cap and destroyed most of the known world. Did it exist? Did we or the Americans have our own versions of the 'Doomsday' device? I'm not too sure but, perhaps that is what was threatened as Mutually Assured Destruction.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s, nuclear warheads tended to be quite big. The Russian ones had to be because their guidance systems were not all that accurate. Why detail pinpoint accuracy when a 100 Megaton weapon will do the same just, albeit slightly more messy?

In the 90s, accuracy became the byword in missile technology. Cruise missiles could be posted through somebody's letterbox if need be, so nuclear weapons went small.

These days, a sub-kiloton terrorist bomb [i.e dirty bomb] detonated within a densley populated area [as you suggest] would achieve much the same as a 'conventional' nuclear weapon.

People at GZ would simply be vapourised, as would buildings and vehicles.

E=MC2 for sure, but there is also the 7 & 10 Rule. Never heard of it? Briefly,
if a terrorist weapon 'yields' 1M centigreys, rads or rontgens an hour, then by using the 7 & 10 Rule, we can calculate amount of radiation. That is, as Time increases by a factor of 7, Radiation decreases by a factor of 10, irrespective of irradiated materiel used. Calculations are based on the Centigray = UN Model.

IF:-

H Hour = 1M cGys per hour [military measurement]
H + 7 hours = 100,000 cGys per hour
H + 49 hours = 10,000 cGys per hour
H + 14 Days = 1,000 cGys per hour
H + 7 Months = radiation would have decreased to a factor of 1 cGy per hour.

What the above table means, is that people would have to remain in 'shelter' for roughly 7 months, before it would be considered 'safe' to come out into the open.

The human body can withstand a Doserate of 400 cGys per hour.MAXIMUM! This dose can only be tolerated for 1 hour, once in 14 days and will almost certainly result in chronic diahorrea, stomach cramps, giddiness, nausea and vomiting but, most healthy adults would survive and the body would make a full recovery.

IM cGys per hour could be considered a 'worst case scenario', as even the most sophisticated of terrorists cannot have access to large amounts of weapon grade fisionable material and a couple of grams would not produce anywhere near 1M cGys per hour radiation.

Commercially available NBC suits and Respirators would be next to useless as after contamination, you would have to do a complete decontamination and there is no way that you could wear the same suit twice and the filter on your respirator would have to be changed. Where would you get supplies from?

'Forced air environments' [FAE] in a civilian context do not exist. They are far to costly for we mere mortals. No. They are probably reserved for the Head Sheds.

Have I missed anything? Over to you.

The largest weapon ever built was the 57 MT test in 1961 on Novaya Zemlya. Anyone stating that ther were larger bombs such as 400, 500 MT is quite simply making it up. There is no evidence of weapons ever being built this size and if they were, they would be so large that they couldn't be moved by air and would probably require a ship to mpove them anywhere.

Also a 500Mt weapon would be nowhere near enough to melt the Artic ice sheets,

a 100 megaton blast would produce a fireball roughly the size of the US state of maryland

thankfully the largest detonation was the 57 megaton "tsar" bomb by russia, and this was used as a propaganda tool... nothing more.

The explosion from this bomb destroyed building hundreds of kilometers from ground zero and it has been estimated that the ground beneath the blast (it was an airburst bomb) was hit with over 300lb per square inch of preasure

In other words... absolutely nothing for many many miles would have survived such a powerfull shockwave.

INcidentaly it was also the cleanest bomb ever exploded with less than 20% of the explosion caused by fission and the remaining % a pure fusion reaction.

This was because most of the fissionable material was removed to allow for a smaller explosion than the original 100 megaton prediction.

Thank you all for some very knowledgable replies. I guess being an hour away from NY isn't enough.

try and watch `trinity and beyond` - the atomic bomb movie

very good footage of alot of bomb tests - including the tsar bomba , during the parachute retarded drop - and the last airburst , fired from a nike-hercules.

Originally posted by Lucretius

INcidentaly it was also the cleanest bomb ever exploded with less than 20% of the explosion caused by fission and the remaining % a pure fusion reaction.

This was because most of the fissionable material was removed to allow for a smaller explosion than the original 100 megaton prediction.

It was the cleanest bomb because the 3rd stage ( U-238 or DU ) was replaced with a lead tamper, which effectivley absorbed much of the radiation. If it had been a fully fledged test the U-238 tamper would have doubled the yield of the bomb to somewhere near its rated 100MT power. It would have been far dirtier as well.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
An air burst would be much, much more devastating, but that technology is far from accesible, if we're talking about terrorists.

Since we're talkng air bursts, what if a suitcase nuke was detonated on the top of a skyscraper? Is that high enough?

Originally posted by Skibum

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Godservant says:

"Reason I asked - I live about 70 miles east of NY city."

Are you a fish?

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps he meant west.

70 mile East = Long Island

Originally posted by godservant
When I say a mid-sized nike, I mean something that syria or north krea would use. Something less than the US's biggest nuke.

Thanks for the links.

Are you planning for a totally hypothetical attack, or are you just fear mongering?

In artillery terms, I'd say the (immediate) kill zone of a small nuke like you describe, would be around 500 meters in diameter. Radiation would do away with a much larger diameter area in not too many hours (or minutes.)



What will be used in america, would be very small, so as not to create too big casualty numbers and PROPERTY DAMAGE, unless it's insured... but just big enough to be recognized as a real nuclear weapon, in order to set the presedence of the use of nuclear weapons in the next war, perhaps operation "find the presidents mind".

Maybe one or a few kilotons.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Christian IX]

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Christian IX]