MovieChat Forums > Special Bulletin (1983) Discussion > When a reporter talks of the scenario of...

When a reporter talks of the scenario of a detonation


In the scene when a reporter was talking about a scenario of a detonation of the nuclear device that was on the boat. He compared it to a Soviet nuke on an ICBM. If i remember right, there was no mention of how large a potential yield the bomb would have. We were led to believe that 5 miles away, the reporter would be safe. Then, when the bomb detonated, they still were injured by the blast and radiation, even at 5 miles away. Back in the 80's, i am sure nuclear bombs were hundreds of pounds, while these days, all it would take would be 10 pounds of weapons grade plutonium, or highly enriched uranium, to vaporize a city 10 times larger than Hiroshima.

This was quite a moving event when i first saw it back in 1983. I watched it again the other night on youtube. They had very good cgi effects in this movie, especially when the bomb detonated and everything was burning. It had better acting, and more horror going on, than in "The Sum of All Fears", especially when the bomb detonates. In that movie, Ben Affleck's character was walk thru the city of Baltimore after the nuclear device exploded. Everything was on fire! There was radiation everywhere in the area, but he was walking through the various triage centers, looking for his girlfriend. Would NOT happen in real life, where he doesn't feel the slightest bit sick from all the radioactive dust raining down on him.

reply

Actually you are victim to the same sort of urban myth surrounding Nuclear Weapons as most people are (hence it being urban myth and not simply a mistake on your part). Much like the idea that police have to "read you your rights" when they arrest you. They dont, thats a product of Hollywood.

Ben Affleck's character was walk thru the city of Baltimore after the nuclear device exploded. Everything was on fire! There was radiation everywhere in the area, but he was walking through the various triage centers, looking for his girlfriend. Would NOT happen in real life, where he doesn't feel the slightest bit sick from all the radioactive dust raining down on him.


Now lets look at a typical blast and its effects.
The energy of a nuclear explosion is transferred to the surrounding medium in three distinct forms: blast; thermal radiation; and nuclear radiation. The distribution of energy among these three forms will depend on the yield of the weapon, the location of the burst, and the characteristics of the environment. For a low altitude atmospheric detonation of a moderate sized weapon in the kiloton range, the energy is distributed roughly as follows:


50% as blast;

35% as thermal radiation; made up of a wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum, including infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light and some soft x-ray emitted at the time of the explosion; and

15% as nuclear radiation; including 5% as initial ionizing radiation consisting chiefly of neutrons and gamma rays emitted within the first minute after detonation, and 10% as residual nuclear radiation. Residual nuclear radiation is the hazard in fallout.

The residual radiation or "fallout" is from debris and material sucked up into the fireball and resulting mushroom cloud. This will drift downwind to be deposited miles (even hundreds of miles) downwind.

Ben Affleck's character was IN the area of the blast. What you saw swirling about him was ash from the many fires set by the thermal pulse. NOT fallout from the Mushroom cloud. While there is some radiation from the initial pulse, it is only a small fraction (5%) of the total energy release. Also that radiation from the intitial pulse is only for a few seconds (less than a minute) after detonation.

Also keep in mind that this nuclear blast was in technical terms... a fizzle. A Dud explosion. It was designed to be a thermonuclear weapon in the 300-500 KT range, but it fizzled to only about 7 KT Far smaller than even Hiroshima (11 KT).


Also back to your first point about size and weights of nuclear weapons, not only are you off in by an order of magnitude in scale but you are also not keeping seperate the weight of the overall weapon from the weights of the "Physics Package" that is the core of the weapon.
Back in the 80's, i am sure nuclear bombs were hundreds of pounds, while these days, all it would take would be 10 pounds of weapons grade plutonium
You are mixing the 100's of lbs size of the overall weapons with the 10 lbs or so size of the core.

Older weapons weighed tons. (Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki weighed 10,000 lbs)
but their cores weighed only a few pounds.
Modern weapons weigh around a 100 lbs or so, and their cores weigh around a pound or 2.
Yes there is a reduction in the size of the weapons, both their overall size and their cores (due to refining the nuclear material)



I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Much like the idea that police have to "read you your rights" when they arrest you. They dont, thats a product of Hollywood.
I think you must have meant to say something else. Or are you distinguishing between time of arrest and prior to questioning? If so, that's a pretty fine distinction for an IMDb board. But for anyone who's interested:

The rule set forth by the Supreme Court is that suspects must be informed of their rights prior to questioning. Otherwise, anything he or she says may be legally inadmissable in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

So the safe practice - which is probably followed by every professional police department in the U.S. - is to inform supects of their rights at the time of arrest. Then there is no question whether he or she has been so informed.

Oh, my God! They're turkeys!

reply

I know exactly what the Miranda act is and it is not a typo on my part.
I know the Miranda rights are part of questioning. My point is that most people due to the influence of TV and movies, think you have be read your rights as part of the ARREST. They are wrong. My little bro is a street cop and I have regularly done ride-alongs with him. I have yet to ever see him read the rights to a subject on arrest. because he arrests on evidence, not via investigative interrogation, therefore there is no need to.

My point in mentioning that in my earlier post is that just like the false belief by many that miranda rights must be read as part of the arrest procedure, so too do many people have a false belief in the size and power of the destructive effects of nuclear weapons.

And again it is mostly a product of over-exageration on the part of TV and movies.

Take just about any movie that shows a schematic of a nuclear attack... Wargames with Matthew Broderick is a prime example. When you see the screen showing the impacting warheads you see these huge circles representing the detonations spread out. 2 or 3 covering entire states! These represent warheads with unrealistically massive blast radii of hundreds if not thousands of miles in some cases. Even the most powerful of nuclear weapons (multiple megatons)will produce little more than a sunburn (from the Thermal pulse) and a stiff breeze (what's left of the blast wave) at ranges of 20-25 miles. Your greatest danger at these ranges are blindness from looking at the nuclear flash.

Wargames footage plus real footage of nuclear test detonations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4wk6jSNZU8
watch to the end for Slim Pickens followed by the most profound statement on Nuclear War ever stated.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Also keep in mind that this nuclear blast was in technical terms... a fizzle. A Dud explosion.

A dud explosion is relative. The following pertains to Little Boy, the Hiroshmia bomb. From Chuck Hansen, "Swords of Armageddon," Vol I, p.82:

This weapon used a projectile of uranium-235 (comprising 60% of the critical mass) in the tail of the bomb. This projectile was shot through a tube in the bomb casing, into a set of collinear rings of uranium-235 (comprising the remaining 40% of the critical mass) in the nose of the weapon. This particular device reportedly fissioned about 700 grams — about 25 ounces — of a total fuel mass of 64 kilograms, for an efficiency of about 1.2% and a yield of 15 KT.


An efficiency of only 1.2%! It was SOME dud!

reply

Actually no.
Littleboy was noty a dud. It worked as designed. The inefficiency was as expected. It was a result of it being prototype technology. Many years latter and with advanced computer simulations and design, modern warheads are far more efficient.

Just because the first prototypes were not as efficient does not mean they were duds.

The Bomb in SoaF on the otherhand WAS a dud in every sense of the word.
It was DESIGNED to be a two stage THERMONUCLEAR (I.e. H-Bomb) device with a projected yield of around 500+ Kilotons. But because the terrorists killed of the weapons designer too soon, they did not know about the trouble with the Tritium. Impurities in the Tritium prevented the 2-stage reaction and in fact dampened the 1st stage atomic reaction. What happened was a Fizzle with a yield of only about 7 kilotons.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Just for the sake of clarity: it was the fictional bomb in Sum of All Fears that was refered to as a dud, not the Hiroshima bomb.

I forget how much detail the movie goes into. But in the novel, an overly zealous terrorist accidentally sabotages the bomb components during a critical stage. It is a neat little scene that, true to Tom Clancy, provides insight into the fantastically complex process required to build a nuclear bomb.

If you have any interest, I recommend the book, which has the same name as the movie. It's not Tom Clancy's best work, but it is definitely better than the movie, which I found to be disappointing.


Come back, zinc! Come back!

reply

In the scene when a reporter was talking about a scenario of a detonation of the nuclear device that was on the boat. He compared it to a Soviet nuke on an ICBM. If i remember right, there was no mention of how large a potential yield the bomb would have. We were led to believe that 5 miles away, the reporter would be safe. Then, when the bomb detonated, they still were injured by the blast and radiation, even at 5 miles away. Back in the 80's, i am sure nuclear bombs were hundreds of pounds, while these days, all it would take would be 10 pounds of weapons grade plutonium, or highly enriched uranium, to vaporize a city 10 times larger than Hiroshima.
There is a scene in which the expected yield of the terrorists' bomb is discussed. It is some number of kilotons, roughly similar to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs. The dicussion of a theoretical Soviet nuclear attack centered on a device with a one-megaton yield, as I recall.

Also, the reporters were on the fantail of a retired aircraft carrier/tourist attraction anchored across the bay, about two miles from the blast. And there was no indication that they had been poisoned by radiation. Rather the woman reporter voices her fear that they have been.

Oh, my God! They're turkeys!

reply

I have not seen this show in decades but the analyst the reporter was talking with and his response stays with me even today.
He said something to the effect of:
If a typical Soviet weapon was to be detonated over the exact same spot as the terrorist device, those same survivors five miles away would be vaporized within the first 3/10ths of a second.

While the statement has a very powerful emotional impact demonstrating the sheer power of modern nukes compared to WW2 and other early nukes (and the terrorist nuke), it is again a prime example of the urban myth surrounding Nukes and the public's penchant for overexaggeration.

The fireball, an extremely hot and highly luminous spherical mass of air and gaseous weapon residues, occurs within less than one millionth of one second of the weapon's detonation. Immediately after its formation, the fireball begins to grow in size, engulfing the surrounding air. This growth is accompanied by a decrease in temperature because of the accompanying increase in mass. At the same time the fireball rises, like a hot-air balloon. Within seven-tenths of one millisecond from the detonation, the fireball from a 1-megaton weapon is about 440 feet across, and this increases to a maximum value of about 5,700 feet in 10 seconds. It is then rising at a rate of 250 to 350 feet per second. After a minute, the fireball has cooled to such an extent that it no longer emits visible radiation. It has then risen roughly 4.5 miles from the point of burst.


5 miles from such a burst is survivable. and you will not be "vaporized"
If in an exposed position you will be likely killed and you will suffer serious burns over all of your exposed body, but you won't be "Vaporized in the first 3/10ths of a second".
A 1-megaton explosion can cause first-degree burns (a bad sunburn) at a distance of about 7 miles, second-degree burns (producing blisters and permanent scars) at distances of about 6 miles, and third-degree burns (which destroy skin tissue) at distances up to 5 miles. Third-degree burns over 24 percent of the body, or second-degree burns over 30 percent, will result in serious shock, and will probably prove fatal unless prompt, specialized medical care is available.



I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

CG, take a look at this page:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm

that page states:

Those within approximately a six square mile area (for a 1 megaton blast) will indeed be close enough to "ground zero" to be killed by the gamma rays emitting from the blast itself. Ghostly shadows of these people will be formed on any concrete or stone that lies behind them, and they will be no more. They literally won't know what hit them, since they will be vaporized before the electrical signals from their sense organs can reach their brains.

Of the many victims of a nuclear war, these are the luckiest ones, of course.

A 1 megaton nuclear bomb creates a firestorm that can cover 100 square miles. A 20 megaton blast's firestorm can cover nearly 2500 square miles. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small cities, and by today's standards the bombs dropped on them were small bombs.

The Allied firebombing of nearly 150 cities during World War Two in Germany and Japan seldom destroyed more than 25 square miles at a time, and each of those raids required upwards of 400 planes, and thousands of crew members going into harm's way. It was not done lightly. And, they did not leave a lingering legacy of lethal radioactive contamination.

also on this page http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects1.shtml
it states: Thus 1 bomb with a yield of 1 megaton would destroy 80 square miles. While 8 bombs, each with a yield of 125 kilotons, would destroy 160 square miles. This relationship is one reason for the development of delivery systems that could carry multiple warheads (MIRVs).

so an ICBM would roughly have a 100 mile blast radius. those nearest to ground zero would be vaporized almost instantly from the intense heat and energy released. a nuclear blast is essentially creating a star (like our sun). whether it be low yield or high yield, i wouldn't want to be near the area of where a nuclear detonation took place and let's all pray to God it never happens at all.

we all would like to think optimistically that it wouldn't be so bad if nuclear weapons were deployed or if there were a "limited" exchange, but yes, the sad truth is, it would be bad. it would be a nightmare. there is no escaping that fact.

reply

ROFLMAO...
You're arguing against me using some nobody off the net making up his on position and "facts" one with a decidedly Anti-Nuke bias and crappy facts, figures and no cited sources?

Number one thing right off the bat....
Please do yourself a favor and LEARN THE DIFFERENCE between miles RADIUS and miles SQUARED.
I said that those 5 miles away from a 1 megaton would not be vaporized.
You cite some guy who talks about people within a 6 SQUARE MILE area being vaporized.

You do realize that a 5 mile radius circle is 76.5 SQUARE MILES?
And that your 6 square miles is only 1.38 miles... or in other words... only 7,290 FEET from ground zero.

You go on to quote the part about Firestorms.
The area affected by a firestorm is NOT the same as the area where someone would be "vaporized".
Firestorms are created by the heat of the explosion OUTSIDE of the area where things would be vaporized. It is a secondary, not a primary effect of the detonation. This are is actually larger in area that the radius at which the detonation itself would set fire to combustible items. This is because the blast wave will spread burning material beyond the point of primary ignition.

So here we go...
A 1 megaton nuclear bomb creates a firestorm that can cover 100 square miles.
100 square miles is a just a hair over 6 miles in radius. This is for the firestorm generated by burning debris set afire by the heat pulse and scattered by the blast wave. this is NOT for the fireball or the radius where people would be vaporized.
A 20 megaton blast's firestorm can cover nearly 2500 square miles
2500 square miles is a radius of 28 miles.

Again this is for a generated firestorm, NOT the radius of which the fireball will vaporize people. Many many people at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki survived the blast itself only to die in the firestorm that came afterwards.
Though the site you are referencing shows no sources and the author himself is not credible authority, just some guy reposting what he's heard.... there is nothing there that contradicts anything I said above, yet you think it does... and all because you can't tell the difference between Miles radius and Square miles. That's Hilarious!

Lets move on to the AtomicAchive.com quotation. a more reliable source of information than the guy you first quoted.

Thus 1 bomb with a yield of 1 megaton would destroy 80 square miles.
1 Megaton bomb would destroy 5.04 Miles in radius.

While 8 bombs, each with a yield of 125 kilotons, would destroy 160 square miles.
160 square miles is 7.14 miles in radius.

Again, nothing there counteracts what I said. Yet you somehow think it does. and the proof of your failure to grasp the difference between Square Miles and Miles radius is in the next bit...

You go on then to make your own assumptions based on those above statistics and YOUR ERROR in thinking square miles and miles radius are equivalent.

so an ICBM would roughly have a 100 mile blast radius.
NOT
EVEN
CLOSE!!!!!

A 1 megaton bomb would only shatter windows at 18.6 miles away (.25 psi overpressure).

You, my friend, are a shining example of exactly what I was talking about when I said most people don't have a clue and tend to OVERESTIMATE the effects of nuclear weapons.

Your closing line...
we all would like to think optimistically that it wouldn't be so bad if nuclear weapons were deployed or if there were a "limited" exchange, but yes, the sad truth is, it would be bad. it would be a nightmare. there is no escaping that fact.

I'm not thinking optimistically that "it wouldn't be so bad"... Or that somehow a "limited exchange" is doable... Nuclear war would be bad, terrifying, a nightmare as you put it. But I am not underestimating them as you implied I am with your closing line. I know exactly what they can do. You are overestimating them.

My sources come from the Federation of American Scientists, globalsecurity.org, HYDsim calculations, and many others.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

first of all, calm the f down. do you always get so mad when someone makes a comment against your position? i don't agree with you, ok? i don't have to.

also don't tell me what i need to do. like i am going to listen to some jackass on a web forum. let me throw you some advice: do yourself a favor and learn how to have a discussion without having to resort to insults. do you know what manners are? i don't think you do. try to learn some manners because you come off like an a-hole, no offense.

secondly, don't blindly believe government propaganda. of course the government is going to tell you that nuclear weapons aren't that dangerous, they are in the business of making the bombs and they want public opinion on their side. wake up, and smell the coffee, man!!!!

remember in the early days of nuclear weapons testing, our own military tested them on US soldiers. that is a fact.

however, to make you happy the info below is provided by our government.

thirdly, yes i do remember you saying that people 5 miles away wouldn't be vaporized and you would be wrong. you see you didn't account for the blast wave which would reach speeds of up to 500 mph. speeds up to 500 mph along with intense heat will pretty much destroy anyone standing even 5 miles away.

from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/effects.html

"Effects of a Nuclear Explosion

Damage caused by nuclear explosions can vary greatly, depending on the weapon's yield (measured in kilotons or megatons), the type of nuclear fuel used, the design of the device, whether it's exploded in the air or at earth's surface, the geography surrounding the target, whether it's winter or summer, hazy or clear, night or day, windy or calm. Whatever the factors, though, the explosion will release several distinct forms of energy. One form is the explosive blast. Other forms are direct nuclear radiation and thermal radiation. And then there's radioactive fallout -- not exactly energy released by the explosion, but still a destructive result.

Much of the damage inflicted by a nuclear explosion is the result of its shock wave. There are two components to a blast's shock wave. First, there's the wall of pressure that expands outward from the explosion. It is this pressure, measured in psi (pounds per square inch), that blows away the walls from buildings. A typical two-story house subjected to 5 psi would feel the force of 180 tons on the side facing the blast. Additionally, the blast creates a 160 mile-an-hour wind. And that's only at 5 psi. The wind speed following a 20 psi blast would be 500 mph!

Direct Nuclear Radiation
A nuclear detonation creates several forms of nuclear, or ionizing, radiation. The nuclear fission (atom splitting) and nuclear fusion (atom combining) that occur to produce the explosion release, either directly or indirectly, neutrons, gamma rays, beta particles, and alpha particles. Neutrons are heavy particles that are released from atoms' nuclei. These tiny "missiles" can easily penetrate solid objects. Another penetrating form of radiation is gamma rays, which are energetic photons. Both of these types of radiation can be deadly. Beta and alpha particles are less dangerous, having ranges of several meters and several centimeters, respectively. Alpha particles can cause harm only if they are ingested.

Thermal Radiation
You don't have to be close to ground zero to view the bright flash created by the exploding bomb. The flash from a bomb has been viewed from hundreds of miles away. In addition to being intensely bright, this radiation is intensely hot (hence the name "thermal"). If you're seven miles away from a one megaton explosion, the heat emanating from the fireball will cause a first-degree burn (equivalent to a bad sunburn ) to any exposed skin facing the light. If you're six miles away, it will cause second-degree burns. And if you're five miles away, the thermal radiation will cause third-degree burns -- a much more serious injury that would require prompt medical attention.

The intense heat would also ignite a "mass fire" -- i.e., a fire that could cause large areas to simultaneously burst into flames.

Fallout
You've seen the image: a mushroom cloud created by a nuclear explosion. Produced with a detonation at or near the earth's surface, this type of explosion results in far-ranging radioactive fallout. Earth and debris -- made radioactive by the nuclear explosion -- rises up, forming the mushroom cloud's stem. Much of this material falls directly back down close to ground zero within several minutes after the explosion, but some travels high into the atmosphere. This material will be dispersed over the earth during the following hours, days, months. In fact, some of the particles rising up through the mushroom will enter the stratosphere, where they could remain for tens of years.

Wind direction, naturally, plays a significant role in how the radioactive fallout will be distributed. But so does wind speed. The Blast Mapper's fallout maps show the area where fallout would land if the wind were blowing at a steady 15 mph. Lighter winds would cause this area to be broader but not so deep. A stronger breeze would cause the fallout "plume" to be narrower and longer."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/25mtblast.html

Radius of destructive circle: 6.5 miles
12 pounds per square inch

The remains of some buildings' foundations are visible. Some of the strongest buildings -- those made of reinforced, poured concrete -- are still standing. Ninety-eight percent of the population within this area are dead.

Radius: 10.7 miles
5 psi

Virtually everything is destroyed between the 12 and 5 psi rings. The walls of typical multi-story buildings, including apartment buildings, are completely blown out. As you move from the center toward the 5 psi ring there are more structural skeletons of buildings standing. Single-family residences within this this area have been completely blown away -- only their foundations remain. Fifty percent of the population between the 12 and 5 psi rings are dead. Forty percent are injured.

Radius: 20 miles
2 psi

Any single-family residences that are not completely destroyed are heavily damaged. The windows of office buildings have been blown away, as have some of their walls. The contents of these buildings' upper floors, including the people who were working there, are scattered on the street. A substantial amount of debris clutters the entire area. Five percent of the population between the 5 and 2 psi rings are dead. Forty-five percent are injured.

Radius: 30.4 miles
1 psi

Residences are moderately damaged. Commercial buildings have sustained minimal damage. Twenty-five percent of the population between the 2 and 1 psi rings are injured, mainly by flying glass and debris. Many others have been injured from thermal radiation -- the heat generated by the blast. The remaining seventy-five percent are unhurt.

NOTE: This information has been drawn mainly from "The Effects of Nuclear War" (Washington: Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, 1979). The zones of destruction described on this page are broad generalizations and do not take into account factors such as weather and geography of the target.

you make it sound like nuclear bombs are an exact science, it just doesn't work that way. it even states on the site i found the info above: "The zones of destruction described on this page are broad generalizations and do not take into account factors such as weather and geography of the target".

if people weren't incinerated instantly by the blast, the winds generated by the blast would rip them apart instantly.

here's some more info from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/1mtblast.html

1 Megaton Surface Blast: Pressure Damage

The fission bomb detonated over Hiroshima had an explosive blast equivalent to 12,500 tons of TNT. A 1 megaton hydrogen bomb, hypothetically detonated on the earth's surface, has about 80 times the blast power of that 1945 explosion.

Radius of destructive circle: 1.7 miles
12 pounds per square inch

At the center lies a crater 200 feet deep and 1000 feet in diameter. The rim of this crater is 1,000 feet wide and is composed of highly radioactive soil and debris. Nothing recognizable remains within about 3,200 feet (0.6 miles) from the center, except, perhaps, the remains of some buildings' foundations. At 1.7 miles, only some of the strongest buildings -- those made of reinforced, poured concrete -- are still standing. Ninety-eight percent of the population in this area are dead.

Radius: 2.7 miles
5 psi

Virtually everything is destroyed between the 12 and 5 psi rings. The walls of typical multi-story buildings, including apartment buildings, have been completely blown out. The bare, structural skeletons of more and more buildings rise above the debris as you approach the 5 psi ring. Single-family residences within this this area have been completely blown away -- only their foundations remain. Fifty percent of the population between the 12 and 5 psi rings are dead. Forty percent are injured.

Radius: 4.7 miles
2 psi

Any single-family residences that have not been completely destroyed are heavily damaged. The windows of office buildings have been blown away, as have some of their walls. The contents of these buildings' upper floors, including the people who were working there, are scattered on the street. A substantial amount of debris clutters the entire area. Five percent of the population between the 5 and 2 psi rings are dead. Forty-five percent are injured.

Radius: 7.4 miles
1 psi

Residences are moderately damaged. Commercial buildings have sustained minimal damage. Twenty-five percent of the population between the 2 and 1 psi rings have been injured, mainly by flying glass and debris. Many others have been injured from thermal radiation -- the heat generated by the blast. The remaining seventy-five percent are unhurt.

NOTE: This information has been drawn mainly from "The Effects of Nuclear War" (Washington: Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, 1979). The zones of destruction described on this page are broad generalizations and do not take into account factors such as weather and geography of the target.

by the way i meant to ask, have you ever been in the middle of a nuclear explosion? if you haven't, and i am betting you haven't otherwise you wouldn't be here, how do you know for certain what you state as fact?

reply

first of all, calm the f down. do you always get so mad when someone makes a comment against your position?

Who said I was Angry? Oh wait.. You did. Guess it must be true then.
NOPE.
I was laughing at how inane your position was. You don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about.

i don't agree with you, ok? i don't have to.

OK OK... enjoy your right to remain ignorant. You have that right. I wore the uniform to defend your right to choose to be stupid.
Keep in mind this is not an opinion vs opinion argument.
this is a fact vs opinion argument. Not "my" facts... just facts... everyone's facts.


secondly, don't blindly believe government propaganda. of course the government is going to tell you that nuclear weapons aren't that dangerous, they are in the business of making the bombs and they want public opinion on their side. wake up, and smell the coffee, man!!!!

Oh here we goooo down the conspiracy lunatic train of thought. If it is the gubberment sayin so, it must be false crap.
FAS and Security.org are NOT governmental agencies you dumbass.
I do NOT blindly swallow whatever the government says.. Especially not THIS current administration (Obama)
And nothing of what I wrote was "propaganda"

You cannot defend your position with facts because facts don't support it.
Therefore you go into attack the poster mode. You cant attack my position so you attack me. with your BS about me blindly believing everything the government says and needing to wake up.

remember in the early days of nuclear weapons testing, our own military tested them on US soldiers. that is a fact

Did I deny it?
In fact there is a very good movie about it starring Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez both playing the same character, an older and younger version of the same guy. Look up the film "Night Breaker"

Not only your last post but even more so in this post you keep bringing up stuff that I have NOT claimed to be false. You cannot argue logically. You argue against points I have not made. You might want to look up "Strawman argument" it is a fallacious (that means false) argument. ergo.. you lose.



Lets move on to the next part... Your citation of undergroundbombshelter.com

Really I am shocked at how you can pick and chose and take OUT OF CONTEXT to fit what you WANT it to sound like to support your argument rather than what it really is.

Is that why you made the link unclickable? hoping that others reading this thread would be too lazy to copy paste and go check the link. rather you would just accept your word on it?

http://www.undergroundbombshelter.com/nuclear-bomb-facts.htm

notice the first thing in Big Bold type is:
Fact - You can survive a nuclear attack
and a bit further down is:
Fact - Radioactive fallout loses lethality after a few days

Sounds a bit like gubbermint propaganda there doesn't it?
but you cherry pick out of it what you want to hear.
this whole discussion was about people being incinerated instantly

The whole conversation is NOT about people being incinerated instantly, its about while some will die instantly, MOST (90% was there figure) will survive only to die later due to unpreparedness.

and yes, there would be people who would get incinerated instantly. speeds up to 2,000 mph along with intense heat will pretty much destroy anyone standing at ground zero. i still stand by that fact.

NEWSFLASH there for you Moron... SO DO I.
I never said that nobody would be incinerated. I fully agree that Many thousands would be instantly incinerated. Again, you FAIL to argue logically because you are using a strawman. What I was arguing was at what range, certain effects and levels of damage take place at. Not that they DON'T happen. My position is that people are uneducated about weapon effects and tend to over exaggerate them. And you are offering yourself up as absolute proof that my position is correct.

even if the initial blast isn't 100 miles wide, let's say for the sake of argument the blast is only 50 miles. do you think that it is an exact science? so if a nuclear bomb went off in some city (god forbid) and i stand exactly 51 miles away from the blast, i won't feel any effect whatsoever? is that what you are saying?

Again you are showing yourself to be unable to grasp the argument or to argue logically.

"even if it's not 100 miles wide"... Even Tsar Bomba was not a 100 mile wide circle of destruction and that was the biggest device ever detonated (FACT)
"let's say for the sake of argument the blast is only 50 miles."
LMAO.. sure... OK. whatever... Just for the sake of argument.. lets go with your 50 mile radius of destruction.
do you think that it is an exact science? so if a nuclear bomb went off in some city (god forbid) and i stand exactly 51 miles away from the blast, i won't feel any effect whatsoever? is that what you are saying?
That is NOT what I am saying at all. again, proof of your inability to grasp a logical argument. I have never said that complete destruction will reach out X amount of distance and then just stop. like some sort of solid wall. stand on one side you are safe, stand on the other side you are vaporized. That would be what YOU claim my position to be and it is not. again... Seriously.. Look up strawman argument.
sorry but you are full of it.
Full of what? Facts? then you are correct.
BS? then you can only be referring to yourself.

Lets take blast wave for example.
The Blast wave does not travel out at full intensity to some exact range then stop. Past that range you don't even get your hair mussed. That IS bullsh!t.

As the blast wave spreads out it gets weaker and weaker, doing less and less damage as it gets further and further from ground zero.
The shockwave is measured in terms called Overpressure.
That is.. a sudden shark spike in pressure over the normal atmospheric pressure.
Scientists (not the government) can calculate at what overpressure that typical structures can withstand. not only do they calculate it but they confirm those calculations with empirical evidence (In otherwords, they go out and TEST it)

typical Overpressures used for damage calcuations are as follows:


15 psi
Complete destruction of reinforced concrete structures, such as skyscrapers, will occur within this ring. Between 7 psi and 15 psi, there will be severe to total damage to these types of structures.

7 psi
Severe damage to complete destruction of reinforced concrete structures, such as skyscrapers, will occur within this ring.

5 psi
Complete destruction of ordinary houses, and moderate to severe damage to reinforced concrete structures, will occur within this ring.

2 psi
Severe damage to ordinary houses, and light to moderate damage to reinforced concrete structures, will occur within this ring.

1 psi
Light damage to all structures, and light to moderate damage to ordinary houses, will occur within this ring.

0.25 psi
Most glass surfaces, such as windows, will shatter within this ring, some with enough force to cause injury.


As the blast spreads out it will get weaker and weaker, passing through each of these values as it goes.
And just so you know. Nuclear bombs ARE an exact science.

A 1 Megaton bomb would have range values for the above overpressures at...

15 psi: 1.53 miles
7 psi: 2.3 miles
5 psi: 2.81 miles
2 psi: 4.92 miles
1 psi: 7.25 miles
0.25 psi: 18.6 miles
0.1 psi: 38.1 miles



.1 psi is what one feels at a major fireworks display when the really big bangs go off and you feel a thump in your chest.

now to address your "not an exact science".
the above ranges are what is called "idealized"; that is, no account is taken of terrain, urban density, ground type, weather conditions, and so on. They can be, but that is beyond the scope of my ability to do so and vary from specific point to specific point. Even the actual scientists need cray super computers to crunch all the detail numbers... but it CAN be done.

Also note that each of those factors not taken into account... if they WERE to be taken into account, would serve only to LESSEN, NOT increase the ranges.

you make it sound like nuclear bombs are an exact science, it just doesn't work that way. if the initial blast covers 50 miles (not the square mile crap),
Nuclear bombs are probably the most EXACT things ever built by man. And NOW it is square mile crap? After YOU screwed it up. the whole Square mile fiasco was YOUR failure, not mine. It was YOUR mistake that I simply pointed out. It was YOU who assumed that 6 square miles was anything akin to being six miles away from the blast, rather than somewhere inside of 1.38 miles.
But now that YOUR failure and mistake was exposed for all to see just what a dufus you were, NOW it is crap.
You must be a Liberal.
You sure as hell argue like one.

there is still the wind generated as well as flames carried with the wind. in the end it will still probably reach roughly, 100 miles in destruction.
Those ranges I quoted above was for the "winds" i.e. the blast radius of the shockwave. Take note that even at just over 17 miles from a 1 MEGAton blast, all it would do is break windows.
in the end it will still probably reach roughly, 100 miles in destruction..
probably?
roughly?
Not a chance in hell.
You are a moron. That's not mean or rude, just stating. you are proving it yourself.
You must be related to Wendi14501 and her 100knot submarine....
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052151/board/nest/187831842

Again, you are arguing your opinion. and your opinion is NOT based in any facts in evidence.
That opinion of yours does NOT hold true. though you have a right to believe in it all you want, don't argue with a man who DOES have FACTS on his side.

Then again, several elements of your argument does smack of conspiracy theory and liberals, neither group is known for letting little things like facts or reality get in their way.

so we are back to square (no pun intended) one: roughly 100 mile radius of destruction as well as spreading of radioactive material.


No, we are not. I have fully shown that your idea of 100 mile radius of destruction is utter and complete bullsh!t. Just because YOU refuse to acknowledge it does not make it so.

if people weren't incinerated instantly by the blast, the winds generated by the blast would rip them apart instantly.

The "Blast" is the winds you moron. The heat is the thermal pulse. And with larger bombs the Thermal pulse does travel further than the blast does damage, but again. it is not the sort to totally vaporize you at that range, rather it would give you a severe sunburn like effect. The area of total vaporization is entirely within the fireball itself.


And now that I have answered your post, you have gone and totally altered your post to something else even more bizzare. Good thing this happened while I was in the middle of responding.
Your original post I was responding to in it's entirety:

first of all, calm the f down. do you always get so mad when someone makes a comment against your position? i don't agree with you, ok? i don't have to.

secondly, don't blindly believe government propaganda. of course the government is going to tell you that nuclear weapons aren't that dangerous, they are in the business of making the bombs and they want public opinion on their side. wake up, and smell the coffee, man!!!!

remember in the early days of nuclear weapons testing, our own military tested them on US soldiers. that is a fact.

this is from http://www.undergroundbombshelter.com/nuclear-bomb-facts.htm

"A few moments later, the blast wind will plow through at speeds up to 2,000 mph. Many will die instantly. Those further away will fair better, but many will still die out of curiosity. After the detonation, thousands of people will succumb after just an hour from radioactive fallout. Within two days tens of thousands more will die from exposure from fallout.

Take a city like Charlotte, NC, where the metro population of 600,000 and a Mecklenburg County population of 750,000. If a 50 kiloton bomb explodes in downtown during a work day, 50,000 would be incinerated immediately. The radioactive mushroom cloud would reach 40,000 feet in less than 15 minutes. Leaving a 100-yard wide crater up to 130 feet deep, another 50,000 would probably perish from the blast wave and thermal burns. In general, everyone within a half-mile wide circle will perish within seconds."

this whole discussion was about people being incinerated instantly, and yes, there would be people who would get incinerated instantly. speeds up to 2,000 mph along with intense heat will pretty much destroy anyone standing at ground zero. i still stand by that fact.

even if the initial blast isn't 100 miles wide, let's say for the sake of argument the blast is only 50 miles. do you think that it is an exact science? so if a nuclear bomb went off in some city (god forbid) and i stand exactly 51 miles away from the blast, i won't feel any effect whatsoever? is that what you are saying? sorry but you are full of it.

you make it sound like nuclear bombs are an exact science, it just doesn't work that way. if the initial blast covers 50 miles (not the square mile crap), there is still the wind generated as well as flames carried with the wind. in the end it will still probably reach roughly, 100 miles in destruction. so we are back to square (no pun intended) one: roughly 100 mile radius of destruction as well as spreading of radioactive material.

if people weren't incinerated instantly by the blast, the winds generated by the blast would rip them apart instantly.




I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

OK,
now to address the changes/additions to your post since I responded to your original post.

also don't tell me what i need to do. like i am going to listen to some jackass on a web forum. let me throw you some advice: do yourself a favor and learn how to have a discussion without having to resort to insults. do you know what manners are? i don't think you do. try to learn some manners because you come off like an a-hole, no offense.

my first response to you was nothing of the sort. This and my first response to "this" post was, but by then, YOU had already set the tone.
Fault.. yours.

You stray even further into fantasy land and more detached from reality with this next bit:
thirdly, yes i do remember you saying that people 5 miles away wouldn't be vaporized and you would be wrong. you see you didn't account for the blast wave which would reach speeds of up to 500 mph. speeds up to 500 mph along with intense heat will pretty much destroy anyone standing even 5 miles away.

Can anyone else point out how ignorant that statement is? Really, you are beginning to bore me now with just how stupid you can be.

Of course I did not take into account the blast wave. It has nothing to do with a person getting vaporized or not. the blast wave is the physical shockwave that IMPACTS the person. Blunt force trauma. NOT heat.
What vaporizes people is the Thermal Pulse. and at 5 miles would NOT be strong enough to vaporize people. Closer in at the fireball, yes. Not at 5 miles. At 5 miles you'd be getting 2nd and 3rd degree burns.
From YOUR OWN POST AND SOURCES BELOW...
Thermal Radiation
You don't have to be close to ground zero to view the bright flash created by the exploding bomb. The flash from a bomb has been viewed from hundreds of miles away. In addition to being intensely bright, this radiation is intensely hot (hence the name "thermal"). If you're seven miles away from a one megaton explosion, the heat emanating from the fireball will cause a first-degree burn (equivalent to a bad sunburn ) to any exposed skin facing the light. If you're six miles away, it will cause second-degree burns. And if you're five miles away, the thermal radiation will cause third-degree burns -- a much more serious injury that would require prompt medical attention.


BUT NOT VAPORIZED!
Seriously, do you see how much a moron you are now?
No offense...


Lets get back to your..."which would reach speeds of up to 500 mph. speeds up to 500 mph along with intense heat will pretty much destroy anyone standing even 5 miles away. Other than your say-so, what facts you got to back that up.

Can the blast wave reach speeds of 500 mph? sure. Closer in. But at 5 miles from a 1 megaton detonation? not so much.
AGAIN! From YOUR OWN POST further down the page....
Radius: 4.7 miles
2 psi

Any single-family residences that have not been completely destroyed are heavily damaged. The windows of office buildings have been blown away, as have some of their walls. The contents of these buildings' upper floors, including the people who were working there, are scattered on the street. A substantial amount of debris clutters the entire area. Five percent of the population between the 5 and 2 psi rings are dead. Forty-five percent are injured.

2 psi at 4.7 miles and only 5% dead between the 5 psi and 2 psi rings...
Point Mine.
oh and a further thing.
The calculations I quoted, has the 2 psi ring at 4.92 miles rather than 4.7
Inconsequential to be sure, but for the point that Your calculations are even better in proving my argument than my own.

You quote two sets of ranges versus destructive PSI. the first des not count for anything because it is the range for a 25 megaton blast, which we are not discussing, we are discussing a 1 megaton blast. Naturally a 25 megaton blast will have a wider area of destruction, But also realistically there really were not any warheads that big. I'm talking about in stock weapons, not bomb designs for testing.

The second agrees with my figures. +/- a few tens of feet. (hundredths of a mile)

by the way i meant to ask, have you ever been in the middle of a nuclear explosion? if you haven't, and i am betting you haven't otherwise you wouldn't be here, how do you know for certain what you state as fact?


MORON. Seriously you are a fraking moron.
Where did I ever state that in the middle of a nuclear blast (Ground Zero) that people would be just fine?
STRAWMAN again, you fraking Moron. OK NOW I am pissed because you are such a damn moron and yet you are telling ME that I'm wrong. and you don't get it.
They say ignorance is bliss, I guess you are that proof. You're too stupid to know just how stupid you are.

BTW, Have you? been in a nuclear blast? How do you know your ideas are correct?

I know because of empirical evidence gather over years of testing nuclear devices that took place in the marshals and at the Nevada Test Site by hundreds of scientists.

You "know"(if you can call that knowing) based on your incorrectly abstracting information you think you know from other sources.
Proof of that is your constantly citing sources that fail to prove your points but rather, backs up what I was saying all along.

Oh, I have stood at ground zero. Not while the bomb was going off, of course. But I bet that's far more than you can say.
Nagasaki. 1994

If you want to continue proving to the world just what kind of idiot you are, go right ahead. I do have work in the morning so it will be some time before I respond again. but if you want to post crap easily rebutted, be my guest.
I'd rather be an a-hole than a dumbass.





I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

the bottom line of all of this is: there are many factors involved with an explosion of a nuclear device and it is NOT an exact science. no one can say that 5 miles you will be completely safe and that if you stand 4.9 miles you will be in danger. even if you stand 5 miles away, the blast wave will tear you apart. essentially the force of the winds would rip a person apart that it would seem like vaporization. before i have to hear from someone (who shall remain nameless) 500 mph winds wouldn't lose it's momentum before reaching only 5 miles.

reply

[deleted]

he always has to get the last word.

just watch he will post here again so he can get the last word, and that will prove i am right about him.

now that i think about it, he was probably kicked out of the navy because nobody can stand him.

ROTFL!!!!

reply

see, what did i tell you

the dude needs some serious psychiatric help

reply

Kolchak,

I will say that yes, I have firsthand knowledge that CG can be a bit testy.

The thing is, though, he's generally willing to concede if he's wrong. In this case, though, he's absolutely right: about both nuclear weapons and your worthlessness.

You
-obviously don't understand the science involved in nuclear weapons, nor the math.
-are resorting to incredibly immature tactics to you own disadvantage

By all means, anyone with half a brain should be blocking you, but for the sake of the general populace some people are going to correct your nonsense so people don't get false impressions about this topic.

If his credentials don't impress you, let me add mine:
-B.S. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, USNA
-Nuclear Deterrence Patrol Insignia
-Served on nuclear missile submarine USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN-730)
-As a result have considerable knowledge of the effects, power, and limitations of nuclear weaponry, radiation, etc.

What is your knowledge on the subject? besides citing information that you don't even understand?




"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

here's the thing, why do you even care? this has nothing to do with you. also if i don't like how i am treated i am going to say so. to be honest i didn't bother to waste my time reading your response. i figured it is some stupid senseless drivel. oh and it appears i am right, as usual.

reply

LMAO.
You are so pathetic. The more you are called on it the more you rant and scream and cry. EVERYONE knows you to be a loser.
The smartest thing you could do is delete all your posts and hope everyone forgets "whatsyourname"
But no. You can't do that. You "Have" to be right, even when you are clueless.

How YOU were treated?
Yes, I do have a penchant for going off on displayed stupidity. but Your's, I did not do so. Yes I thought your mistake in Area measurements was amusing, but all I did was point it out so you would understand the error. But nooo. you HAD to be right even when proven wrong. you kept coming back for more and kept digging your own hole, til I was annoyed with your "willful ignorance" Then... Yes. I did get nasty with you. But by that time you were already being nasty yourself and these latest posts of yours are just far in excess over the top of anything you "imagined" that I said to you.
Grow up child.



I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Anyone who reads yours and Mine's posts will know exactly who the loser and who is the child.

This last spout of tantrums from you has sealed the deal, and likely your IMDB account as well.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

The Affleck scene in The Sum of All Fears reminded me of the scene in the recent Indiana Jones movie when Indy found himself in the middle of a atomic bomb test site where the bomb was about to explode and he survived the blast by climbing inside a refrigerator. Sure, he might survive the initial blast by doing that, but he should have been dead of radiation poisoning within 24-36 hours.

I thought in Special Bulletin the female reporter on the ship was about 2-3 miles away. Even at that distance she would start getting very sick within several hours after the blast.

reply

[deleted]

and most importantly, he always has to get the last word.

just watch he will post here again so he can get the last word, and that will prove i am right about him.

now that i think about it, he was probably kicked out of the navy because nobody can stand him.

reply

CGSailor and anyone else of his ilk, are rude and ignorant. i just get so sick of those type of people on the web.

all of this started simply because i gave an intelligent counter point to his post (and apparently he can't take it). it isn't so much what he said but how he said it. actually, no i also didn't care for what he said too, some parts of it at least.

God, i wonder how old he is? well, that is a rhetorical question since i don't really care. when will some people learn to have manners. people like this give Americans a bad name.

reply

Funny,
Everything you say applies to you.

You did NOT give an "intelligent counterpoint" to my post. You clearly demonstrated your own ignorance.

Rude and ignorant?
We've established your ignorance. And just who is it that's rude in constantly attacking me personally. I attacked your position, not you. You attacked NOT my position, but me personally. over and over. Even stalking me to other pages posting crap as well as abusive PMs.

As to those who b!tch about someone having the last word... That's because the one complaining wants the last word and can't have it. LOL
Sad pathetic little kid. Grow up.



I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Stumbled across this movie on YouTube this morning. Haven't seen it since it aired in 1983. Still a very powerful movie not only about nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism, but the behavior of news media as well. Decided to come to IMDB to look at the forums and found this particular thread. I found myself shaking my head at this lengthy exchange between CGSailor (whom I have seen on several other boards and found to be a very informed and knowledgeable individual with a quite understandably low tolerance for idiocy and willful ignorance) and kolchak-thenightstalker. Now, I have spent a fair amount of time myself over the past 30 years studying the effects of nuclear weapons and warfare, and have a better than average understanding of these weapons and their effects. My verdict on this exchange: Game, Set, and Match to CGSailor. Wasn't even close.

reply




I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Stumbled across this movie on YouTube this morning. Haven't seen it since it aired in 1983. Still a very powerful movie not only about nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism, but the behavior of news media as well. Decided to come to IMDB to look at the forums and found this particular thread. I found myself shaking my head at this lengthy exchange between CGSailor (whom I have seen on several other boards and found to be a very informed and knowledgeable individual with a quite understandably low tolerance for idiocy and willful ignorance) and kolchak-thenightstalker. Now, I have spent a fair amount of time myself over the past 30 years studying the effects of nuclear weapons and warfare, and have a better than average understanding of these weapons and their effects. My verdict on this exchange: Game, Set, and Match to CGSailor. Wasn't even close.
As someone who has had a little DoD training, (not much, I admit, but enough to give me an idea how to survive a nuclear attack) I agree with you: not even close.

Like you, I am interested in the effects of nuclear weapons and I have taken some time to study them. The popular media has exaggerated the effects and the destructive power of them so much that the public believes the scenario in On The Beach would happen in real life. One film, This Is Not a Test has a blast radius of 200 miles. I just did the figures and that works out to a bit less than 126,000 square miles. That is an area slightly smaller than New Mexico and no weapon in either the American or the Soviet arsenals had that kind of power.

Still, it is fun to poke holes in movies and it is a ghastly, but interesting subject.

reply