What a nuke can do to your city - must see!

G

George Hill

Staff Alumnus
Whoa. Provo, Orem... Just plain ERASED. Salt Lake... Just Gone.
Scary.
Not quite as scary as staying up late watching "EVENT HORIZON" by your self with all the lights off... but still scary.
 
N

NINE

New member
Yep.. that 25MEG air det over my town would just plain ruin my weekend... at least there'd still be a BBQ...
 
B

Balddog

New member
Ok well im buggered if something big lands on London...I really need to get further away from cities.

Seeing as how the most likely nuke we are going to be hit by is one of those fancy suitcase nukes, does anyone know what kind of size they are?
 
C

citizen

New member
Nukes.....

I've given this some prior thought, and my conclusion is to be as close as possible to ground zero.:eek:

What's the point of hangin' around on the perimeter, and sufferin'
'til you and your loved ones die?:confused:
 
Y

yankytrash

New member
Using major targets as my ground-zeroes, looks like I'll be a temporary puking skin-head if we're having some really odd ball wind-direction, like due north or due south, which is rare to never.

Thank God for the jetstream.

:)
 
J

Jeff OTMG

New member
Balddog, the smallest blast on that site is 1 Megaton. A nuclear armed U.S. Tomahawk cruise missle is only 200 kilotons. This site is for thermonuclear devices. A suitcase size homemade bomb would be atomic on the order of a few kilotons. 'Little Boy', dropped on Hiroshima, was 15 Kt. 'Fat Man', using a difficult to obtain plutonium core, was dropped on Nagasaki and had a 22 Kt yeild. These bombs were detonated about 1600 feet (I think) above the ground for improved effect. They weighed over 4 tons!!! Hardly suitcase sized. For a weight of under 100 pounds the U.S. has the W-82 with a less than 2 Kt yeild, but even an earlier under 200 pound warhead using a spherical implosion plutonium warhead yeilds only 10-20 tons. A suitcase size device using available materials, generally uranium, would only yield a few tons. About the power of a Ryder truck packed full of fertilizer.
 
T

Tankist

New member
These are all megaton range nukes (H-Bombs). I doubt that you could pack one of those babies into a suitcase. The Russian suitcase bombs were all tactical nukes of 1-3 kiloton range. One of those would still do a lot of damage to any city, but it's definitely no H-Bomb.
 
C

CastleBravo

New member
It is amazing how much you learn from the internet... I have a nuclear engineering degree and I didn't know all this stuff about suitcase nukes... :rolleyes:

With perfect engineering, incredibly hard-to-obtain materials and an unlimited budget you can make nuclear weapons arbitrarily small. The problem, of course is that small nukes are, uh, SMALLER. Alot smaller. The nukes we put in 155mm artillery shells up to the early 1990s weighed 120 lbs and produced something like .072 Kilotons.

I also have the sneaking suspicion that, contrary to what you heard on CNN, the KGB were quite security conscious and didn't leave their mini-nukes sitting in the lobby next to the stolen distilling process for Absolut vodka. :D
 
H

Herr Walther

New member
I was stationed at Whiteman, ' 81-'87. Worked on the Minuteman II LGM30F.

Just as a reference, the warheads that were on the MMII and the warhead on the MMIII had/have a yield of 355KT. Mk12C's. The MMIII will fit up to three of these on the MIRV buss. Due to STARTII, only one is allowed.:D
 
D

Dead

New member
According to the map, even a 1megaton ground brust in NYC would not look to good for me :/

Oh well, I think I will go into NYC tonight, just incase. :)
 
K

Kaylee

New member
Times like this I'm glad to be away from the metropolis places. Boise may not be small as I like, but there sure ain't much worth bombing round here. :)

Still.. anyone know how much good potassium iodine/iodate is? I know the NRC and FEMA are supposed to be stocking it, which is a good sign.. but is it really a help, or more of a "security blanket" in the event of a dirty nuke?

(One way or the other.. I bought a bottle anyhow.. better safe than sorry)

info: http://www.ki4u.com
cheaper places to order it though.

-K
 
O

orlando5

New member
If I had to pick my death I go with nuke 10 out of 10 time. At least you die fast with nuke. Bio-Chem take a long time and very painful.

A friend of my once said that he thank god that he live in the Hampton Roads area because it was the top 10 city/area that will get nuke first by the Soviet. Reason? He rather dies fast then live through the nuker winter. I agree with him.
 
4

4thHorseman

New member
Hey guys, anyone know the zip code of Kabul? Can't seem to find a way to enter a 25 megga tonner there..... I'm with you 71Hoss.
 
S

Skibane

New member
Jeff OTMG has it right:

" A suitcase size device using available materials, generally uranium, would only yield a few tons. About the power of a Ryder truck packed full of fertilizer."

For the typical terrorist scenario, a suitcase nuke might be handy for taking out a dam or part of an air base, but it would hardly be a city-buster. Most people located more than half mile away or so would easily survive the blast (and probably most of the fallout if they took minor precautions).

The nice(?) thing about nukes is that they leave little doubt about what has happened after the explosion. Unlike chemical or BW agents, many folks will have sufficient warning to evacuate or take shelter before being exposed to much radiation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top