Forums
Home
Misc.
Rules
Satire
Users
Report User
Store
Main Forum
Forums » Technology » Are nukes as dangerous as they are thought to be
Page
of 2

Are nukes as dangerous as they are thought to be

11 replies
Vellerofon
Posts:
13
Votes:
+4
An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States would be the worst catastrophe in history, a tragedy so huge it is difficult to comprehend. Even so, it would be far from the end of human life on earth(as many would think)

The dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated for many reasons
These exaggerations have become demoralizing myths believed by millions of people.

Myth:
Fallout radiation from a nuclear war would poison the air and all parts of the environment. It would kill everyone.

Fact:
When a nuclear weapon explodes near enough to the ground for its fireball to touch the ground, it forms a crater

nw011.jpg

Here is some footage taken from the Prelinger Archive that shows US troops observing an Atomic blast from a close distance:


Myth: Fallout radiation penetrates everything, there is no way to escape its' deadly effects

Fact: the radiation dose that the occupants of an excellent shelter would receive while inside this shelter can be reduced to a dose smaller than the average American receives during his lifetime from X rays and other radiation exposures normal in America today. Gamma rays are like X rays, but more penetrating. Picture bellow shows how rapidly gamma rays are reduced in number by layers of packed earth. A halving thickness is the thickness of a material which reduces by half the dose of radiation that passes through it.

nw014.jpg

Myth: Because some modern H-bombs are over 1000 times as powerful as the A-bomb that destroyed most of Hiroshima, these H-bombs are 1000 times as deadly and destructive.

Fact: A nuclear weapon 1000 times as powerful as the one that blasted Hiroshima, if exploded under comparable conditions, produces equally serious blast damage to wood-frame houses over an area up to about 130 times as large not 1000 times as large. (Note that people don't build houses from wood anymore)

Discuss.
236033d103c54993aa8a9a17e04fdb38.png
Posted Jan 24, 16 · OP · Last edited Jan 25, 16
пингвин226
Posts:
39
Votes:
+6
Vellerofon
wrote:
An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States would be the worst catastrophe in history, a tragedy so huge it is difficult to comprehend. Even so, it would be far from the end of human life on earth(as many would think)

The dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated for many reasons
These exaggerations have become demoralizing myths believed by millions of people.

Myth:
Fallout radiation from a nuclear war would poison the air and all parts of the environment. It would kill everyone.

Depends on what height the bomb exploded

Fact:
When a nuclear weapon explodes near enough to the ground for its fireball to touch the ground, it forms a crater

nw011.jpg

Here is some footage taken from the Prelinger Archive that shows US troops observing an Atomic blast from a close distance:


Myth: Fallout radiation penetrates everything, there is no way to escape its' deadly effects

Fact: the radiation dose that the occupants of an excellent shelter would receive while inside this shelter can be reduced to a dose smaller than the average American receives during his lifetime from X rays and other radiation exposures normal in America today. Gamma rays are like X rays, but more penetrating. Picture bellow shows how rapidly gamma rays are reduced in number by layers of packed earth. A halving thickness is the thickness of a material which reduces by half the dose of radiation that passes through it.

Because everyone will definitely be in a deep shelter!

nw014.jpg

Myth: Because some modern H-bombs are over 1000 times as powerful as the A-bomb that destroyed most of Hiroshima, these H-bombs are 1000 times as deadly and destructive.

Fact: A nuclear weapon 1000 times as powerful as the one that blasted Hiroshima, if exploded under comparable conditions, produces equally serious blast damage to wood-frame houses over an area up to about 130 times as large not 1000 times as large. (Note that people don't build houses from wood anymore)

How many tests have we done with thermonuclear weapons as of recent and how they affect infrastructure? Oh right, none.

Discuss.
Posted Jan 25, 16
Vellerofon
Posts:
13
Votes:
+4
пингвин226
wrote:
-snip-

Depends on what height the bomb exploded

nw015a.jpg

Undamaged earth-covered family shelter in Nagasaki
nw015.jpg

In Nagasaki, some people survived uninjured who were far inside tunnel shelters built for conventional air raids and located as close as one-third mile from ground zero. This was true even though these long large shelters lacked blast doors and were deep inside the zone within which all buildings were destroyed.
236033d103c54993aa8a9a17e04fdb38.png
Posted Jan 26, 16 · OP
пингвин226
Posts:
39
Votes:
+6
Vellerofon
wrote:
пингвин226
wrote:
-snip-

Depends on what height the bomb exploded

nw015a.jpg

Undamaged earth-covered family shelter in Nagasaki
nw015.jpg

In Nagasaki, some people survived uninjured who were far inside tunnel shelters built for conventional air raids and located as close as one-third mile from ground zero. This was true even though these long large shelters lacked blast doors and were deep inside the zone within which all buildings were destroyed.
This was for the Nagasaki bomb, not for modern ones.
Posted Jan 26, 16
Vellerofon
Posts:
13
Votes:
+4
пингвин226
wrote:
This was for the Nagasaki bomb, not for modern ones.

Did you read the original post?
Also, what makes the difference? They work pretty much the same way. (Other that they're ICBM warheads now)
The only thing more power is a hydrogen bomb and I explained that too.
236033d103c54993aa8a9a17e04fdb38.png
Posted Jan 26, 16 · OP
пингвин226
Posts:
39
Votes:
+6
Vellerofon
wrote:
пингвин226
wrote:
This was for the Nagasaki bomb, not for modern ones.

Did you read the original post?
Also, what makes the difference? They work pretty much the same way. (Other that they're ICBM warheads now)
The only thing more power is a hydrogen bomb and I explained that too.
No no no, even modern atomic bombs are much more powerful than the Nagasaki one.
Posted Jan 27, 16
Dread AOwner
Posts:
25
Votes:
+5
Admins
Owner
The issue is the lingering effects of the radiation.
(I understand OP did mention this, but OP did not refute this in specific.)
пингвин226
wrote:
No no no, even modern atomic bombs are much more powerful than the Nagasaki one.
[Citation Needed]
da59ff1e768b5b311a44bef5c65c5dfb.png
I think we all knew this day would come.....
Posted Jan 28, 16 · Last edited Jan 28, 16
пингвин226
Posts:
39
Votes:
+6
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053179/US-dismantles-B53-nuclear-weapon-600-times-powerful-Hiroshima.html
image.jpg[img][/img]
Posted Jan 28, 16 · Last edited Jan 29, 16
StillNoNumber
Posts:
19
Votes:
+2
Vellerofon
wrote:
Myth:
Fallout radiation from a nuclear war would poison the air and all parts of the environment. It would kill everyone.

Fact:
When a nuclear weapon explodes near enough to the ground for its fireball to touch the ground, it forms a crater
The problem is that particles and smoke (especially from burning oil from cities) would darken the atmosphere, causing a global decrease in sunlight and multiple ozone holes.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout

Quote:
Myth: Fallout radiation penetrates everything, there is no way to escape its' deadly effects

Fact: the radiation dose that the occupants of an excellent shelter would receive while inside this shelter can be reduced to a dose smaller than the average American receives during his lifetime from X rays and other radiation exposures normal in America today. Gamma rays are like X rays, but more penetrating. Picture bellow shows how rapidly gamma rays are reduced in number by layers of packed earth. A halving thickness is the thickness of a material which reduces by half the dose of radiation that passes through it.
But have you got an excellent shelter? Pretty certain you haven't. And I bet that you wouldn't want to live in one for the rest of your life either. Also, there are more effects than just radiation.
Quote:
Myth: Because some modern H-bombs are over 1000 times as powerful as the A-bomb that destroyed most of Hiroshima, these H-bombs are 1000 times as deadly and destructive.

Fact: A nuclear weapon 1000 times as powerful as the one that blasted Hiroshima, if exploded under comparable conditions, produces equally serious blast damage to wood-frame houses over an area up to about 130 times as large not 1000 times as large. (Note that people don't build houses from wood anymore)
An area that is one-hundred-and-thirty-times as large? Considering that even that bomb was entirely destructive, destroyed everything that was around and killed hundreds of thousands people, a area 130-times as large would completely annihilate any country. Now, remember that Tsar Bomba, a weapon designed by the USSR in 1961 already had 7000 times the power of Little Boy (the Hiroshima bomb) source. With today's techniques, one country could easily destroy another with a single bomb, not to mention what they could do with a few more.

And honestly, an atomic bomb, its radiation and all the other effects don't really care whether a house is built out of wood or something more stable. All the oil and electric devices today would probably benefit the destruction, causing fires and explosions.
^.^
Posted Feb 10, 16 · Last edited Feb 10, 16
Kian
[quote= SouthParkTJ 2236555]
Vellerofon
wrote:
Myth:
Fallout radiation from a nuclear war would poison the air and all parts of the environment. It would kill everyone.

Fact:
When a nuclear weapon explodes near enough to the ground for its fireball to touch the ground, it forms a crater
The problem is that particles and smoke (especially from burning oil from cities) would darken the atmosphere, causing a global decrease in sunlight and multiple ozone holes.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout

Quote:
Myth: Fallout radiation penetrates everything, there is no way to escape its' deadly effects

Fact: the radiation dose that the occupants of an excellent shelter would receive while inside this shelter can be reduced to a dose smaller than the average American receives during his lifetime from X rays and other radiation exposures normal in America today. Gamma rays are like X rays, but more penetrating. Picture bellow shows how rapidly gamma rays are reduced in number by layers of packed earth. A halving thickness is the thickness of a material which reduces by half the dose of radiation that passes through it.
But have you got an excellent shelter? Pretty certain you haven't. And I bet that you wouldn't want to live in one for the rest of your life either. Also, there are more effects than just radiation.
Quote:
Myth: Because some modern H-bombs are over 1000 times as powerful as the A-bomb that destroyed most of Hiroshima, these H-bombs are 1000 times as deadly and destructive.

Fact: A nuclear weapon 1000 times as powerful as the one that blasted Hiroshima, if exploded under comparable conditions, produces equally serious blast damage to wood-frame houses over an area up to about 130 times as large not 1000 times as large. (Note that people don't build houses from wood anymore)
An area that is one-hundred-and-thirty-times as large? Considering that even that bomb was entirely destructive, destroyed everything that was around and killed hundreds of thousands people, a area 130-times as large would completely annihilate any country. Now, remember that Tsar Bomba, a weapon designed by the USSR in 1961 already had 7000 times the power of Little Boy (the Hiroshima bomb) source. With today's techniques, one country could easily destroy another with a single bomb, not to mention what they could do with a few more.

And honestly, an atomic bomb, its radiation and all the other effects don't really care whether a house is built out of wood or something more stable. All the oil and electric devices today would probably benefit the destruction, causing fires and explosions.[/quote]
"But have you got an excellent shelter? Pretty certain you haven't. And I bet that you wouldn't want to live in one for the rest of your life either."
A couple meters of packed earth would probably cut radiation down to manageable levels. Also, the most radioactive fallout decays first (because that's how chemistry works), so you wouldn't actually have to stay in your shelter for an enormous period of time. When more energy is released, more radioactive decay is occurring, so after even a few days, the amount of radiation from fallout has enormously decreased.

You are somewhat overestimating the area of effect of nuclear weapons. Since we seem to be using Wikipedia as a valid source here, exhibit A:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
The thermal pulse was, at 170 miles away, non-damaging, it would seem, and could cause third degree burns at ~60 miles away - my best guess for the maximum damaging radius is 100 miles; the blast is described as destroying a village 34 miles away from Ground Zero, but the blast (to my knowledge of nuclear weapons) radius was probably about the same as that of the thermal pulse. (#Speculation) This is, of course, a huge distance.

This is not actually a huge portion of a country such as the United States; in Washington state, where I live, this would be less than half the area of Washington. Most of the energy of such a weapon would be wasted on empty or sparsely inhabited land in any country, which means that the weapon would not be very practical in any case.

"area 130-times as large would completely annihilate any country."
Only if you lived in one of those 10x10 mile 'countries'.
Area increases by the square of the radius; if you increase the radius by 3, the area increases by 9. Consequently, the increase in radius is the square root of the increase in area. There would be about an 11x increase in the radius, and I believe that the blast radius of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were such that the 11 times increase in blast radius would not be enough to even cover countries like Luxembourg.

"causing a global decrease in sunlight"
Nuclear winter has been generally discredited.
Here's a decent article: http://www.wnd.com/1999/05/6341/

"With today's techniques, one country could easily destroy another with a single bomb, not to mention what they could do with a few more."
An EMP attack COULD POSSIBLY cripple a country, but the blast itself would have almost no chance whatsoever of destroying a country unless it were hitting one of the aforementioned minuscule countries.

"And honestly, an atomic bomb, its radiation and all the other effects don't really care whether a house is built out of wood or something more stable. All the oil and electric devices today would probably benefit the destruction, causing fires and explosions."
Ignition =/= explosion. Furthermore, one of the primary effects of a nuclear blast is the thermal pulse; a house made of a fireproof or fire resistant material is going to be far more likely to survive than a wood house.

In general, you are overestimating the destructive potential of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weaponry IS extremely powerful, and a large arsenal of nuclear weapons could destroy a country's military, political, and population centers. However, a single nuclear weapon could not "annihilate any country".
"Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances." -Thomas Jefferson
Posted Feb 25, 16
Page
of 2
Login or Register
Online users (0)
No users online.
Latest Threads
Community website by guild hosting
© 2021 Enjin
NoticeNotices
Announcement of