Nuclear weapon effect question, plus something similar

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-11-10 05:35pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:If it was a laser weapon, would it have similar effects?

Nope. A laser is an uni-directional weapon. You'd probably have a real big hole. And no icky radiation.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-11-10 06:21pm

Okay, now someone do this: An Acclamator transport appears over Earth, and fires one 200gt heavy turbolaser bolt dead-center into Paris. What happens?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-10 06:28pm

The Dark wrote: IIRC, even Chernobyl had effects in the US with (very minor) fallout. A 12.5GT bomb would likely produce at least minor fallout worldwide unless it was heavily jacketed due to some fallout being blasted up into the upper atmosphere, from which high level air streams like the Jet Stream would carry them. All I really know is I hope it never happens.

Chernobyl released a different kind of radiation. Reactor melt-downs are actually far more deadly than nuclear devices in terms of the health consequences from radioactivity. (And long lasting.)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-10 06:38pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Okay, now someone do this: An Acclamator transport appears over Earth, and fires one 200gt heavy turbolaser bolt dead-center into Paris. What happens?

There is much rejoicing.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2002-11-10 06:42pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:Now imagine a bomb lined with cobalt-60

Imagine a bomb lined with Cobalt/Thorium-G.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-10 09:30pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
The Dark wrote: IIRC, even Chernobyl had effects in the US with (very minor) fallout. A 12.5GT bomb would likely produce at least minor fallout worldwide unless it was heavily jacketed due to some fallout being blasted up into the upper atmosphere, from which high level air streams like the Jet Stream would carry them. All I really know is I hope it never happens.
Chernobyl released a different kind of radiation. Reactor melt-downs are actually far more deadly than nuclear devices in terms of the health consequences from radioactivity. (And long lasting.)

Ah, thanks. I was pretty sure I remembered hearing something about radioactive milk caused by the radiation of Chernobyl getting into the ground and then the grass and on through into the milk, and was wondering if a bomb would cause similar things. Guess not.

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2002-11-10 09:35pm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeat ... blast.html

Map a blast, any city you want.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-10 09:48pm

Mr. B wrote:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeat ... blast.html

Map a blast, any city you want.

Bye-bye Disney World

. Of course, my friends back home would be dead too

.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-10 10:29pm

Reactor meltdowns are worse because you're not dealing in low-level fallout generated by detonation radiation, but you're dealing with actual reactor core products being blasted into the air (well, blasted if we're talking Chernobyl explosion + meltdown), which are more radioactive and have larger half-lives and are cancerous in much smaller amounts the nuke detonation fallout.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-11-10 10:32pm

Mr. B wrote:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeat ... blast.html

Map a blast, any city you want.

*Redmond, WA explodes in a red fireball*
[Urkel]Did I do that?[/Urkel]

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-11-11 12:06pm

Mr. B wrote:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeat ... blast.html

Map a blast, any city you want.

Of course, this does assume zero wind and absolutely flat terrain along with a few other factors

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-12 04:30am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Reactor meltdowns are worse because you're not dealing in low-level fallout generated by detonation radiation, but you're dealing with actual reactor core products being blasted into the air (well, blasted if we're talking Chernobyl explosion + meltdown), which are more radioactive and have larger half-lives and are cancerous in much smaller amounts the nuke detonation fallout.

If I was a terrorist who really wanted to cause problems for a country, I'd detonate a nuke close enough to a nuclear reactor to breach the core.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-11-12 04:37am

What about a 12.5 GT nuke 1 km below surface, like say in the nuclear test range?

Or a 1 TT detonation landing on Pheonix, AZ?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-12 09:42am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What about a 12.5 GT nuke 1 km below surface, like say in the nuclear test range?

Massive ground-quake in addition to a slightly subdued flash/blast. Such a large blast at only 1km depth would EASILY breach the surface. You would have a lot of short-lived radioactive fallout in addition to the normal long-lived radioactive fallout.

Or a 1 TT detonation landing on Pheonix, AZ?

Widespread fires on a worldwide scale. After that, large global climate change from upper-atmospheric dust loading, which causes crops to freeze globally. Of course, pretty much all of Mexico and the Southwestern US would be completely destroyed. You're talking about a million megatons there; that's some serious shit.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-12 09:48am

Darth Wong wrote:
Massive ground-quake in addition to a slightly subdued flash/blast. Such a large blast at only 1km depth would EASILY breach the surface. You would have a lot of short-lived radioactive fallout in addition to the normal long-lived radioactive fallout.

Don't you mean a lot of long-lived radioactive fallout in addition to the normal short-lived radioactive fallout? The long term fallout is produced by debris being sucked into/vapourized in the fireball and then dispersed in the atmosphere; that's why an airburst is relatively clean, and a ground burst is comparatively dirty.

It seems that an underground detonation which breaches the surface would be particularly dirty.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-12 10:40am

Actually, debris sucked into the fireball is short-term fallout. The only long-term fallout is the heavy-metal radioisotopes from the bomb itself, which are of the same quantity regardless of whether it's an airburst or a groundburst. The reason airbursts are cleaner is that those products tend to be blasted into the stratosphere, so they don't come down for years (and they'll be widely dispersed when they do).

Ground debris sucked into the fireball becomes radioisotopes through neutron capture. These radioisotopes are fairly short-lived. In the case of this monster-bomb going off underground, the amount of long-term fallout is limited by the types of metals used in the bomb, and exacerbated in effect because most of it is not blown up into the stratosphere. The amount of short-term fallout would be enormous, because it would be derived from the soil around the fireball.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-12 06:30pm

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, debris sucked into the fireball is short-term fallout. The only long-term fallout is the heavy-metal radioisotopes from the bomb itself, which are of the same quantity regardless of whether it's an airburst or a groundburst. The reason airbursts are cleaner is that those products tend to be blasted into the stratosphere, so they don't come down for years (and they'll be widely dispersed when they do).

Ground debris sucked into the fireball becomes radioisotopes through neutron capture. These radioisotopes are fairly short-lived. In the case of this monster-bomb going off underground, the amount of long-term fallout is limited by the types of metals used in the bomb, and exacerbated in effect because most of it is not blown up into the stratosphere. The amount of short-term fallout would be enormous, because it would be derived from the soil around the fireball.

Ahh, thank you.