Common misconceptions about nukes

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-09-16 09:10pm

Okay, so to put this into perspective, let's say that the USA launches a nuke (one of the more powerful nukes, take your pick) into the capital city of North Korea. How much damage does the single bomb do and, roughly, how many people die?

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-09-16 09:11pm

Patrick Degan wrote:The biggest popular misconceptions are about having enough nukes to "blow up the world ten times over" and of course killing everyone and destroying everything.

Of course, it's amusing to review what the public thought of nukes years ago. In The Atomic Cafe one of the newsreel clips featured in the movie is one of Adm. W.P. Blandy, the commander of the Operation Crossroads test, having to respond to a whole pile of wrong ideas of what the Bomb would do:

"The bomb will not cause a chain reaction in the atmosphere and burn up all the oxygen. It will not blow a hole in the bottom of the ocean, causing all the water to run down and all the ships on the seas to settle on the bottom. It will not destroy gravity. I am not an atomic playboy, as one of my critics labeled me, setting off these bombs to satisfy my personal whim."

The math for the 'X times over' argument is funny too. It assumes that all deaths will be proportionate per-kiloton to the Hiroshima bombing (yeah, since a megaton kills a thousand times more than a kiloton.), and everyone on earth will gather in perfect circles with the same population density as hiroshipma (which is of course, an accurate model of the earth), and each multi-megaton weapon will be somehow made into many dozen-kiloton blasts.

So yeah. This is pretty much the same reasoning that a guy walking into a building with a box of bullets and a gun is going to walk out with as many deaths as each bullet plus however many extra people you can penetrate it through.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2006-09-16 10:23pm

Superman wrote:Okay, so to put this into perspective, let's say that the USA launches a nuke (one of the more powerful nukes, take your pick) into the capital city of North Korea. How much damage does the single bomb do and, roughly, how many people die?

Depends, take your pick of nuclear weapons, a Boeing LGM-30G Minuteman III with either a W62 17kT warhead or a W78 335 kT warhead, a Boeing LGM-118 (Ironically Named) Peacekeeper with ten W87 300kT warheads, a UGM-96A Trident with eight W76 100 kT warheads, a UGM-133A Trident II which have a maximum of sixteen warheads but normally either use eight or four of either the W76 100kT or W88 475kT warheads. You could also take a B-52H Stratofortress which carries up to 31,500 kg of ordnance (which means up to nineteen AGM-129A Advanced Cruise Missiles carrying a W-80 Mod 1 warhead with a yield of either 5kT or 150kT), but that would also mean you could use an Ohio-class with twenty-four missile tubes for Tridents. The Book I'm using (Modern American Weapons) was printed in 2002, so they may have implemented the AGM-129A in the B-2A Spirit, by now, which would allow for eleven Advanced Cruise Missiles.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-09-16 10:36pm

I think the US has a handful of MT level weapons still in service as bomber deployed.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2006-09-16 11:24pm

Strategic Nuclear Forces of the World, January 2006

Scroll down about halfway, the B-83 has dial-a-yield, maximum 1.2 MT

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2006-09-17 05:00am

Batman wrote:That'd be 1E16 calories if anything and actually, it's 4.18E15 joules.

Small but important difference, the kiloton is defined as 1e12 calories, which is approximately equal to 4.18e12 joules.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-09-17 04:39pm

Aasharu wrote:
defanatic wrote:This confused me. You use kilograms first, and then have pounds. Is that the measure of weight (so you're inconsistent), or money (which is ridiculous).
I think he meant that you need six pounds of material, (uranium, plutonium, etc.) to get the same effect as one kiloton of dynamite. A kiloton is the common measurement of the yield of a nuclear device.

6 pounds of (Material + equipment needed for detonation), at least on the lower end of things that could reasonably be stuck in a van or something. The 'inconsistancy' isn't mine, it's a weapons worker quoted on the Nuclear Weapons Archive.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-09-17 05:55pm

Xeriar wrote:
Aasharu wrote:
defanatic wrote:This confused me. You use kilograms first, and then have pounds. Is that the measure of weight (so you're inconsistent), or money (which is ridiculous).
I think he meant that you need six pounds of material, (uranium, plutonium, etc.) to get the same effect as one kiloton of dynamite. A kiloton is the common measurement of the yield of a nuclear device.
6 pounds of (Material + equipment needed for detonation), at least on the lower end of things that could reasonably be stuck in a van or something. The 'inconsistancy' isn't mine, it's a weapons worker quoted on the Nuclear Weapons Archive.

Sounds like an artifact of the dual-measurement system American scientists live with. Speaking generally, he said "Yea, neighborhood of 6lb/kiloton", but when speaking of a specific quantity of a specific material (1kg plutonium) used his science-thinky units.

Alerik the Fortunate · Post by **Alerik the Fortunate** » 2006-09-17 08:32pm

Heck. I've had engineering classes discussing various types of ship propulsion systems with units from megawatts to btu's per pound mass; unit consistency is largely not achieved here. Destination Mars anyone?

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-09-18 03:19am

I hate with a passion the morons that think a nuke is actually a quick, clean kill. They seem to believe that a properly executed airburst will have no ongoing effects as anyone who could be affected by with will be killed by the blast. I really want to slap these people hard.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-09-18 02:35pm

If you happen to know a nuke is coming, the best thing to do is run towards the fireball. Radiation sickness isn't for me, though a blastwave would do I guess.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-09-18 06:55pm

I'm a big fan of the "ZOMG EMP w1ll kill evry1!!!!!11111oneoneone" crowd. despite the fact that EMP is only a line of sight effect (practically a non-issue except in an airburst).

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-09-18 08:23pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:If you happen to know a nuke is coming, the best thing to do is run towards the fireball. Radiation sickness isn't for me, though a blastwave would do I guess.

If I remember right, the lethal blast radius on the larger strategic weapons is a great deal larger than the lethal radiation radius, and fallout is only a major problem if it's a ground-burst.

I'll take my chances and run for cover.

weemadando wrote:I hate with a passion the morons that think a nuke is actually a quick, clean kill. They seem to believe that a properly executed airburst will have no ongoing effects as anyone who could be affected by with will be killed by the blast. I really want to slap these people hard.

It'll still be messy but it probably won't leave quite as many lingering deaths as Little Boy and Fat Man did.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-09-18 10:11pm

ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:I'm a big fan of the "ZOMG EMP w1ll kill evry1!!!!!11111oneoneone" crowd. despite the fact that EMP is only a line of sight effect (practically a non-issue except in an airburst).

EMP won't kill anyone at all except through secondary effects since it only affects electronics.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-09-18 11:30pm

weemadando wrote:I hate with a passion the morons that think a nuke is actually a quick, clean kill. They seem to believe that a properly executed airburst will have no ongoing effects as anyone who could be affected by with will be killed by the blast. I really want to slap these people hard.

Is it a quick messy kill? If you dropped a nuke on someone's head, they'd die almost instantly. If the bomb detonated, there'd be a lot of collateral.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-09-18 11:31pm

that too. but the number of people who think that EMP is some 'instant dark-age' effect that would instantly destroy all the infrastructure in the U.S. is pretty staggering.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-09-19 12:34am

Douglas Nicol from SB.com should post some of the shit the UK papers have written up about Faslane and the 4 RN Boomers sitting there. Enough firepower to destory the world, enough firepower to knock the earth off its tilt, enough firepower to kill every person on the planet. All from 4 lonely submarines.

Makes me proud the USN has like 14 Ohio class ships.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-09-19 01:14am

Alyeska wrote:Douglas Nicol from SB.com should post some of the shit the UK papers have written up about Faslane and the 4 RN Boomers sitting there. Enough firepower to destory the world, enough firepower to knock the earth off its tilt, enough firepower to kill every person on the planet. All from 4 lonely submarines.

Makes me proud the USN has like 14 Ohio class ships.

Yeah, I've heard the same about B-52's having enough firepower to crack the crust of the planet. I contested that, but people bought into his appeal to authority. (Well, I worked with them for twenty years so I know what I'm talking about)

Like a landing gear mechanic is really going to be an expert on nuclear weapons...

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-09-19 01:15am

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Douglas Nicol from SB.com should post some of the shit the UK papers have written up about Faslane and the 4 RN Boomers sitting there. Enough firepower to destory the world, enough firepower to knock the earth off its tilt, enough firepower to kill every person on the planet. All from 4 lonely submarines.

Makes me proud the USN has like 14 Ohio class ships.
Yeah, I've heard the same about B-52's having enough firepower to crack the crust of the planet. I contested that, but people bought into his appeal to authority. *(Well, I worked with them for twenty years so I know what I'm talking about)*

Like a landing gear mechanic is really going to be an expert on nuclear weapons...

*That was his response to me* don't know why I didn't use quotes...

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2006-09-19 04:35am

Superman wrote:Okay, so to put this into perspective, let's say that the USA launches a nuke (one of the more powerful nukes, take your pick) into the capital city of North Korea. How much damage does the single bomb do and, roughly, how many people die?

Pick a city and have fun

Link

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2006-09-19 04:38am

Diffrent Link

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-09-19 10:38am

weemadando wrote:I hate with a passion the morons that think a nuke is actually a quick, clean kill. They seem to believe that a properly executed airburst will have no ongoing effects as anyone who could be affected by with will be killed by the blast. I really want to slap these people hard.

Assuming you are referring to radiation, and not 3rd degree burns at range, flying debris, obliterated infrastructure and stuff like that:

1: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentionally dirty bombs.
2: Temperature and blast effects go down with roughly the cube and square roots of range. Radiation effects go down with roughly the -sixth- root of range. Nuclear fallout is dramatically overplayed on more levels than making giant monsters. If you survive the blast, radiation is a minor concern. If you survive the blast and can stay cooped up for six months, it's practically of no concern at all.

Cobalt bombs are a different story, but, AFAIK no one has even bothered building one, or even put any effort into trying to convince people that there is a need for such a weapon.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-09-19 11:42am

Xeriar wrote:1: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentionally dirty bombs.

source? AFAIK their dirtiness was attributable to the inefficiency of the designs, not any deliberate attempt to spread extra fallout.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-19 11:46am

Xeriar wrote:2: Temperature and blast effects go down with roughly the cube and square roots of range. Radiation effects go down with roughly the -sixth- root of range. Nuclear fallout is dramatically overplayed on more levels than making giant monsters. If you survive the blast, radiation is a minor concern. If you survive the blast and can stay cooped up for six months, it's practically of no concern at all.

You are ignoring radioisotopes which you ingest into your lungs and other internal passages. Prompt radiation is not as serious a threat as radioactive particles.

Cobalt bombs are a different story, but, AFAIK no one has even bothered building one, or even put any effort into trying to convince people that there is a need for such a weapon.

Cobalt bombs are nothing special in terms of survivor risk. They gained a special reputation because it was theorized that they could make land uninhabitable for a long time because their radioactive byproduct half-life was just long enough to pose a serious long-term problem, but not so long that the radiation level is too low to cause noticeable widespread damage.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-09-19 05:42pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Xeriar wrote:2: Temperature and blast effects go down with roughly the cube and square roots of range. Radiation effects go down with roughly the -sixth- root of range. Nuclear fallout is dramatically overplayed on more levels than making giant monsters. If you survive the blast, radiation is a minor concern. If you survive the blast and can stay cooped up for six months, it's practically of no concern at all.
You are ignoring radioisotopes which you ingest into your lungs and other internal passages. Prompt radiation is not as serious a threat as radioactive particles.

Which is why airbursts were specified. They have very little in the way of fallout.