The destructive power of a nuclear bomb

This is a discussion on The destructive power of a nuclear bomb within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Very good read, you wont be disappointed. The Destructive Power Of A Nuclear Bomb (Just in case you didnít know) ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    494

    The destructive power of a nuclear bomb

    Very good read, you wont be disappointed.

    The Destructive Power Of A Nuclear Bomb
    (Just in case you didnít know)

    A "megaton" is the explosive power of one million tons of TNT (1). A "kiloton" is the power of one thousand tons of TNT. Bombs likely to be available to terrorist organizations or governments other than the great military powers would be in the 10- to 100-kiloton range. Bombs made by amateurs might not explode with the full power they were designed for.
    The two bombs that have been exploded over cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in August 1945, were in the ten- to twenty-kiloton range. Pakistan and India currently possess 100-200 kiloton type nuclear bombs.

    A ONE-MEGATON BOMB DETONATED IN THE AIR

    First, we will look at the result of a single bomb of one megaton detonated at an altitude of 2,500 meters above a city, to cause maximum blast effects.

    Flash and fireball
    The first effect of a nuclear explosion in the air is an intense flash of light, as quick as a lightning flash but a thousand times as bright. It is accompanied by a powerful pulse of heat radiation, sufficient to set fire to light combustible material out to a distance of fourteen km., and to paint or wood at half that distance. There is also an intense pulse of X-rays, sufficient to be lethal at a distance of three km.; in fact that would be a rather small factor, since people that close would all or nearly all be killed by the blast that follows.
    Immediately after the flash, a "fireball" forms in the air and rises for several seconds, blindingly bright and radiating much heat. On a clear day or night, people up to eighty km. away who happened to be facing that way, or who turned their eyes to look where the flash came from, would be temporarily or permanently blinded.
    Within ten km. of "ground zero" (which is the point directly under the explosion) all parts of the body exposed to the flash would be burned deeply into the flesh. Superficial burns would be caused at greater distances, out to fifteen km. at least. Clothing that caught fire would cause many more burns. The weather conditions prevailing, and the time of day the bomb exploded, would both influence the degrees of damage. For example, the radii for skin burns and blindness would depend on the weather. Mist or fog reduces the range of the heat and light rays; on the other hand, darkness dilates the pupils of the eyes increasing the probability of severe eye damage from the flash.

    Blast
    Starting at the same instant, but traveling more slowly (like the sound of thunder following a lightning flash) is an enormously powerful blast wave. It would destroy even reinforced concrete buildings for a radius of two km., and ordinary brick or timber frame houses out to eight km. Major damage to houses would extend out to fourteen km., and windows would be broken at twenty or thirty km. People at a distance, if they realized what had happened when they saw the flash, would have a few seconds to lie down, or even to dive into a ditch or hollow, before the blast hit.
    Within three km., almost everyone would be killed, either directly by the blast or by collapsing or flying masonry. At eight km., it is estimated that about fifty per cent of people would be killed by the effects of the blast.
    Immediately following the blast wave would be hurricane force winds, first outwards from the explosion, and many seconds later inwards to replace the air that went out. Within four km., the wind would be of tornado force, six hundred km. /hr., sufficient to drive straws into wooden utility poles or glass splinters into people, but of course over a much wider area than a tornado. People in the open would be picked up and hurled into any object strong enough to be still standing.

    Firestorm
    Many fires would have been started by the first flash. Burst fuel tanks, gas mains, and collapsed buildings would provide more fuel, and it is likely that confluent fires would cause a "firestorm". This is when coalescent fires cause sufficient updraft to form their own wind, blowing inwards from all sides and thereby increasing the intensity of the fire. The temperature even in basements and bomb shelters rises above lethal levels, and all available oxygen is used by the fire.
    The wind blowing inwards is of gale force, so that even strong uninjured people would have difficulty walking or trying to run outwards away from the fire.
    Delayed Radiation ("fallout")
    A nuclear explosion, as well as giving off a great pulse of radiation at the time, leaves everything in the vicinity radioactive. In the case of an "air-burst" as just described, most of the radioactive products would be gaseous, or completely vaporized, and would rise with the fireball and come down slowly, if at all. There might be a rainstorm containing radioactivity, as there was at Hiroshima; and the rubble within a kilometer or two of the ground zero would be radioactive. This might hamper later rescue efforts, and affect the very few survivors from that central area, but would not be a major factor.
    In any nuclear bomb explosion, a large fraction (a minimum of one-third) of the original fissile material (plutonium or U-235) does not get destroyed. This would result in widespread contamination, increasing the late risk of cancer for those who survived ten to twenty years. (These amounts of plutonium and uranium would have no immediate toxic effects.)

    Rescue Problems
    If the bomb exploded squarely over the centre of a city, no rescue services within the area of major structural damage would be able to function. All down-town hospitals would be destroyed, and there would be no electricity, water, or telephone communication in the area served by city utilities.
    Rescue services from outside would be hampered by impassable roads and the central area of severe damage would be inaccessible. The number of injured in the peripheral area would be so great that emergency services of surrounding cities would be completely overloaded, as would be any surviving suburban hospitals and all the hospitals of neighboring cities. Even to be seen by a doctor and given analgesics, the injured from one city would need to be distributed among all the hospitals of North America.
    The destroyed city would be radioactive. Decisions to attempt rescue work would depend first on a survey of the area by a specialist team with appropriate protection, and then on a policy decision as to how much radiation the rescue teams should be permitted. Willingness of the team members and their unions to accept the risk would be a final factor.

    Medical Problems
    The estimates for a city of one million or two million struck by a single one-megaton bomb are that around one third of the inhabitants would be killed instantly or fatally injured, one third seriously injured, and the rest uninjured or only slightly injured. That number of injured, if they could be distributed throughout the hospitals of North America, would occupy something like a third of the total number of beds; and of course no hospital can deal adequately with such an influx of urgent cases within a few days.
    There might be fifty times as many cases of severe burns as there are burn beds in the whole of North America. A whole year's supply of blood for transfusion would be needed immediately, and of course is not available in storage nor could it be collected from volunteers in a few days.
    The injured who reached hospitals would have to be assayed for radioactivity, for the safety of the staff, which would cause a serious bottle-neck and delay in most hospitals.
    The result of this huge overload of cases is that most of the injured would die, even though prompt treatment might have saved them. Relatively few would even get reached by rescue teams before they were moribund or dead; the majority would probably die in hours or days without any analgesic, and without food, water, or any assistance.

    A ONE-MEGATON BOMB DETONATED AT GROUND LEVEL
    If the bomb exploded at ground level instead of high above the city, the main difference would be an enormous crater four hundred meters across and seventy meters deep. All the dirt, rock, or masonry excavated would be made into radioactive dust and small debris. The larger particles would quickly descend in the immediate vicinity, and the finer particles and dust would descend in minutes or hours, mainly downwind from the site of the explosion.
    The radiation dose to people exposed to this fallout would depend upon many factors, and would be enough to be lethal to anyone in the open or in a frame house for several hundred kilometers downwind. A simple basement "fallout shelter" would afford good protection. It would be necessary to spend a week or more in a fall-out shelter, and it would be impossible to judge when it would be safe to leave without a radiation survey meter or advice from public health authorities.
    The area of blast damage would be smaller by perhaps a half, compared with an air-burst, though an earthquake effect would add to structural damage to buildings. The number of immediate deaths might be about half of those from an air-burst, but unless survivors could find protection from fall-out there would be many deaths from radiation sickness days or weeks after the bomb.

    A TEN-KILOTON BOMB DETONATED AT GROUND LEVEL
    If a bomb in the 10- to 20-kiloton range (the likeliest terrorist bomb) were to be exploded near ground level or in a ship in the harbor, the areas of blast, heat, and burn damage would be much smaller, perhaps reaching out to only one-tenth of the distances estimated for the one-megaton air-burst. The numbers of immediately killed and severely injured people would be counted in thousands, not hundreds of thousands.
    Exploded on land, the bomb would vaporize all people and buildings in the immediate vicinity, and make a crater that might be as much as one hundred meters in diameter. If in the harbor, there would be a crater in the harbor floor and a tidal wave. The outstanding feature would be a radioactive downpour because much of the water in the harbor would be made radioactive and thrown high into the air as fine and coarse spray.
    The explosion at ground level of this type of bomb would probably not cause a firestorm, so rescue operations for the injured might have some degree of success.
    In either case, radioactive fallout would be serious, and might make the city, and an area of countryside stretching tens of kilometers downwind, uninhabitable for weeks or years. There would be a number of deaths from radiation sickness, for which there is really no effective medical treatment. The total amount of radioactivity might be comparable with the Chernobyl disaster, more or less depending on many circumstances.

    THE ENHANCED RADIATION WEAPON OR "NEUTRON BOMB"
    This is a small 'hydrogen bomb' in the 1- to 10-kiloton range without the outer casing of depleted uranium, which in an ordinary hydrogen bomb stops the neutrons that are formed and converts them into additional explosive power. The result is a spray of neutrons that is lethal for a distance of a few hundred meters. These neutrons, unlike the X-rays from the explosion, penetrate a considerable thickness of concrete or steel protection, like defense posts or the sides of a tank. They are designed for 'battle-field' use, not for use against cities. It is commonly said that neutron bombs spare buildings, but we believe this is a misconception. The blast effect would be reduced by half, and would still be enormous.

    HOW COULD THIS SORT OF "ONE-BOMB" SCENARIO DEVELOP?
    It is worth considering what circumstances might result in one or just a few nuclear bombs exploding, as opposed to a major nuclear war.
    We hope, but we cannot be sure, that a nuclear attack by one of the "great powers" against a smaller country (which has been threatened several times since 1945) would never be carried out for any reason whatever.
    There have been serious risks of war involving smaller military powers with nuclear weapons, such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. Clear or veiled threats of nuclear attack have been made by these countries, and might be again. Such use would most probably be directed at cities, and the bombs delivered by aircraft or relatively short-range rocket. It might be air-burst or ground-burst, with bombs in the ten- to one-hundred kiloton range.
    Accidental or unauthorized launch of an intercontinental missile or a submarine-launched missile from one of the big nuclear arsenals might destroy a city with a bomb in the range of 100 kilotons to 1 megaton.
    A terrorist type of attack is perhaps the most likely risk, and might be done by criminals for blackmail or ransom, or might be directed by an unidentified hostile government against a country too powerful for a declaration of war to be considered. It is possible that a 'hydrogen bomb' might be acquired from one of the superpower arsenals, and delivered by ship to the harbor of a port. More likely is a bomb in the ten-kiloton range exploded at ground level in a city, or in a ship.
    An accident to a nuclear weapon, such as dropping it down a silo or from an aircraft, would not cause a full-scale nuclear explosion, but could scatter kilograms of plutonium by detonation of the high-explosive charge. To cause a nuclear explosion, the charge has to be detonated absolutely simultaneously all round the nuclear core, which is done by special electric circuits. Accidental detonation by a shock would not do this, but one wonders whether an electrical fault or a lightning stroke could ever do it.

    FINAL COMMENTS
    The above description was set in the context of a North American city. As proliferation of nuclear weapons continues, there is a greater risk that a tropical city may be attacked.
    In such circumstances, the deaths and injuries from firestorms and flash burns would be higher than in the North American context, because many of the dwellings would be of light construction, and a higher proportion of the population would be likely to be in the open at the time of the explosion.
    The distances quoted from ground zero are derived from a number of secondary sources, which not all agree. Basically the numbers are derived from United States government measurements made during the years before 1963, when test nuclear explosions were permitted in the atmosphere.
    It does not really matter if some of these distances are not accurate. Similarly, even if the estimates of deaths and injuries are considerably over-stated, the consequences of exploding a nuclear bomb and giving rise to a disaster even approaching this magnitude - anywhere on earth - remain completely unacceptable.
    The only way to abolish this risk is to get rid of all the nuclear bombs in the world.
    When no one helps you out. Call google();

  2. #2
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    This is a really informative thread. Thanks for posting it.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    India
    Posts
    515
    This is a really informative thread. Thanks for posting it
    its scary too !
    Code:
    >+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++[<++++>-]<+.+++++++..+++.[-]>++++++++[<++++>-] <.>+++++++++++[<++++++++>-]<-.--------.+++.------.--------.[-]>++++++++[<++++>- ]<+.[-]++++++++++.

  4. #4
    Let's do some coding! Welshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Staffordshire University, UK
    Posts
    168
    scary to think the countrys argueing in the middle east have the power to annihilate each other, literally

  5. #5
    Has a Masters in B.S.
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,267
    Graphical Illustrations:


    http://media.exbyte.net/media/videos...47fc1299e.mpeg

    underground detonation.
    http://www.big-boys.com/articles/nuketest.html


    and just to clarify... 1 Megaton Nukes are nothing

    http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/...recordid=53275

    and there are more effects from a nuclear detonation than those listed...
    Last edited by no-one; 03-22-2005 at 04:04 PM.
    ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    580
    But hey, George Bush is the devil for not wanting terrorists to have this stuff to play with.
    See you in 13

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    India
    Posts
    515
    But hey, George Bush is the devil for not wanting terrorists to have this stuff to play with
    yeah, but i heard that north korea is developing 2 nukes and some paki scientist was selling the secrets of nukes to iran n some other countries !
    Code:
    >+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++[<++++>-]<+.+++++++..+++.[-]>++++++++[<++++>-] <.>+++++++++++[<++++++++>-]<-.--------.+++.------.--------.[-]>++++++++[<++++>- ]<+.[-]++++++++++.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    250
    I really doubt the terrorists will detonate a nuclear weapon on a north american city it wont further thier cause and the likly consequences of this would be a full out nuclear "counter-strike" against the middle-east.
    After 9/11 2 countries were invaded and hundred's of thousands were killed because of 3thousand american dead imagine what it would do if the casulties were 100 times higher.

  9. #9
    Software Developer jverkoey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    University of Waterloo
    Posts
    1,903
    imagine what it would do if the casulties were 100 times higher.
    A whole-out nuclear war would be started, the Earth would be knocked off its axis and we'd shoot in to the sun.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    250
    I hate to say jeff but your guess is probly close to the truth with religous fanatics like bush who knows what would happen.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    India
    Posts
    515
    A whole-out nuclear war would be started, the Earth would be knocked off its axis and we'd shoot in to the sun.
    not exactly, the recent earthquake in indonesia, which caused the tsunami was a real strong one, and released a considerable amount of energy, but the earth was just displaced by some 2.5 inches..so i dont guess that we would shoot into the sun as such, but yes, most of us wont be alive to see what happens, if a nuclear war does occur..lets hope for the best
    Code:
    >+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++[<++++>-]<+.+++++++..+++.[-]>++++++++[<++++>-] <.>+++++++++++[<++++++++>-]<-.--------.+++.------.--------.[-]>++++++++[<++++>- ]<+.[-]++++++++++.

  12. #12
    the hat of redundancy hat nvoigt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    3,139
    But hey, George Bush is the devil for not wanting terrorists to have this stuff to play with.
    He's more devilish for invading a country that he accused of having WMDs without proof and without even finding them after conquering said country. As far as WMDs go, this war is waged on the wrong battlefield.

    I really doubt the terrorists will detonate a nuclear weapon on a north american city it wont further thier cause and the likly consequences of this would be a full out nuclear "counter-strike" against the middle-east.
    Terrorist don't care much for their cause. I don't think killing children is especially good for their cause and they still do. If you go out to kill yourself and take 3K people with you, I guess you would also go kill yourself when you can take 300K with you.

    Why would the US nuke the middle east ? The terrorist itself is probably dead by then. Who do you nuke ? The guys who sold the bomb ? Very convincing, I don't think even Bush would nuke the former USSR or India or even Israel or France. It's not like you can build a bomb in a tent at night right between a goat and a camel.

    BTW: I read "Debt of Honor" by Clancy in school. Back then, crashing an airliner into a capital building was considered fiction. "The sum of all fears" isn't that bad either. Watch the movie if you have to, for a 90 minutes movie of a 500 pages book it's quite ok.
    hth
    -nv

    She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."

    When in doubt, read the FAQ.
    Then ask a smart question.

  13. #13
    Registered User major_small's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,787
    I would hope even a religious fanatic like Bush would recognize the danger in launching a "full out nuclear counter-strike". I don't think there is a country in the world that would back that move. if that did happen, I think the UN would (hopefully) invade the USA, and the empire would crumble.
    Join is in our Unofficial Cprog IRC channel
    Server: irc.phoenixradio.org
    Channel: #Tech


    Team Cprog Folding@Home: Team #43476
    Download it Here
    Detailed Stats Here
    More Detailed Stats
    52 Members so far, are YOU a member?
    Current team score: 1223226 (ranked 374 of 45152)

    The CBoard team is doing better than 99.16% of the other teams
    Top 5 Members: Xterria(518175), pianorain(118517), Bennet(64957), JaWiB(55610), alphaoide(44374)

    Last Updated on: Wed, 30 Aug, 2006 @ 2:30 PM EDT

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    580
    He's more devilish for invading a country that he accused of having WMDs without proof and without even finding them after conquering said country. As far as WMDs go, this war is waged on the wrong battlefield.
    I do not condone hijacking threads especially when the manifestation of it is political, however Bush was in a particularly difficult situation: do we invade the country of a brutal dictator who has used WMDs in the past and likely wants to develop them in the future, or do we do nothing but take the chance that sometime in the future terrorists *might* be able to get a WMD? Well, the latter option was not something the administration was willing to chance on. As I have said in another thread, if a WMD was used against us it would make the number of deaths incurred in Sept11, Afghanistan, and Iraq look like a turkey shoot...am I the only one that thinks this way and appreciates that?

    Also, I actually disagreed with the war and voted for Kerry...I highly preferred to just increase the number of weapons inspectors by about %1000 (a theoretical invasion but with UN support), but, I'm just tired of unfair leftist BS arguments...the way our society works we have someone in charge, they make decisions, and we do what they say even if it's on a 'gut' feeling. Why? Because otherwise we would never get anything done, if we needed to wait for a vote from Congress to use the military (we need one to declare war however) we could be invaded by Cuba over the weekend.
    I'm sure I'm going to get flamed, rated down, and shot down with conspiracy theories, but I don't see how any of what I've said is irrational, unfair, or unrealistic.
    See you in 13

  15. #15
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    I do not condone hijacking threads especially when the manifestation of it is political, however Bush was in a particularly difficult situation: do we invade the country of a brutal dictator who has used WMDs in the past and likely wants to develop them in the future, or do we do nothing but take the chance that sometime in the future terrorists *might* be able to get a WMD?
    Well, in that case it's a good thing we went after Saddam. After all, we had all that evidence that he still had WMDs and was still developing them. I mean, it's not like we fabricated or twisted what little evidence there was so we could justify the war.

    It's certainly obvious that there are no other countries in the world that hate the US and actually possess WMDs (Iran, NK, etc). Thank God for Bush!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Problem With My Box
    By HaVoX in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-15-2005, 07:38 AM
  2. No Power, but power being supplied.
    By jrahhali in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-11-2005, 02:50 AM
  3. Power supplies and demanding processors
    By Liger86 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-17-2005, 10:56 AM
  4. Paks (Hungary) Nuclear Power Plant - fuel damage occurred on 10 Ė 11 April 2003
    By Carlos in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-17-2003, 05:49 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21