What Happens if Somebody Sets off a Nuke?

kontiki

kontiki

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
1,181
Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
OK, this is a little wild, but given the news I started wondering. Suppose someone did set off a medium size nuke above ground, someplace. Not even necessarily over a country but over an ocean. How far away would an airborne aircraft have to be to survive and complete it's flight safety? I expect massive air turbulence and EMI effects, but what are the ranges? Would anything be able to land anywhere? I have no idea what the survivability would be. Would it bring the air traffic system down completely in an instant?
 
Hopefully we never find out. But they (those w/ the weapons) do know what the results will be.
 
kontiki said:
OK, this is a little wild, but given the news I started wondering. Suppose someone did set off a medium size nuke above ground, someplace. Not even necessarily over a country but over an ocean. How far away would an airborne aircraft have to be to survive and complete it's flight safety? I expect massive air turbulence and EMI effects, but what are the ranges? Would anything be able to land anywhere? I have no idea what the survivability would be. Would it bring the air traffic system down completely in an instant?
Click to expand...
If you're talking about physical effects, probably on the order of 20 miles or so, depending on the aspect struck by the blast and the type of airplane. Remember, the first nukes were dropped by propeller-driven aircraft, so they didn't get THAT far away. Even the biggest air-dropped weapons were designed to be deployed by subsonic aircraft, so they would still have been pretty close when things went boom. Effects decrease with the cube of the distance.

The flash/radiation propagate at the speed of light, I suspect the blast propagation outside the immediate zone will be subsonic. An airliner won't be able to outrun the blast, but can probably get a pretty good start away. Fly Babies, not as much.

EMP, however, covers a LOT of ground. I'd expect computer-reliant airliners to have problems for hundreds of miles from the blast site. Fly Babies, not as much.

Ron Wanttaja
 
My question would be more into the political ramifications. You know that sooner or later someone is going to do it. Aside from the initial death and mass destruction, what will happen next? More going off? or a realization that these things are bad and should be gotten rid of except for one or two to deal with alien invader's mother craft.
I am guessing more going off.
 
Morgan3820 said:
My question would be more into the political ramifications. You know that sooner or later someone is going to do it. Aside from the initial death and mass destruction, what will happen next? More going off? or a realization that these things are bad and should be gotten rid of except for one or two to deal with alien invader's mother craft.
I am guessing more going off.
Click to expand...


I am actually 50% through a documentary on this exact thing.
I don't mean watching one. I mean making one.

I literally just pasted this video cell into my next work of art:
I should have your question answered in a few days.
DGAQShotToRememberIndependenceDay07.jpg
 
kontiki said:
OK, this is a little wild, but given the news I started wondering. Suppose someone did set off a medium size nuke above ground, someplace. Not even necessarily over a country but over an ocean. How far away would an airborne aircraft have to be to survive and complete it's flight safety? I expect massive air turbulence and EMI effects, but what are the ranges? Would anything be able to land anywhere? I have no idea what the survivability would be. Would it bring the air traffic system down completely in an instant?
Click to expand...


Well, you could probably make an educated guess. It's doubtful that the crew flying the bomber is on a suicide mission. Consider how fast the delivery bomber might be flying, what altitude he might drop from, and how long it would take the bomb to reach the ground and detonate. Details are left as an exercise for the student.

Just how far away do you think Paul Tibbets and the Enola Gay (a B-29) were when Hiroshima became a mushroom cloud?
 
How far were they from Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They both made it back, Right? According to Wikipedia, Enola Gay was 11.5miles and 31000 ft when the bomb went off at an alt of ~1900' AGL
 
Half Fast said:
Well, you could probably make an educated guess. It's doubtful that the crew flying the bomber is on a suicide mission. Consider how fast the delivery bomber might be flying, what altitude he might drop from, and how long it would take the bomb to reach the ground and detonate. Details are left as an exercise for the student.

Just how far away do you think Paul Tibbets and the Enola Gay (a B-29) were when Hiroshima became a mushroom cloud?
Click to expand...

They dropped from 31,000. The bomb took 43 seconds to fall and detonate at an altitude of 1968 ft. The B-29 is said to cruise around 290 mph. So, if my calculations are correct, they were a distance of 34243 ft or 6.48 miles away from the detonation point. Wikipedia says they had traveled 11.5 miles when they felt the shockwave, which would put them 12.75 miles from the blast. No damage to the plane, as far as we know.
 
Interesting trivia of the day:

Anyone remember the real Batman show, the one with Adam West? Remember Aunt Harriett? In real life her and her husband were very instrumental in designing the triggering device for the two atomic bombs used over Japan. Her and her husband had higher security clearances than President Truman.

http://whatac.blogspot.com/2013/04/madge-blake-1899-1969.html
 
The comparisons to the WWII bombs are very useful but I believe that which will be dropped today will be several orders of size (and effect) larger.
We discussed this on POA in the past and someone posted a YT link showing the expected effects of a nuke, should find that.
In addition to the immediate local effects, there will be far-reaching 'other' effects. Radioactive fallout could go a thousand miles, there could easily be widespread panic in other parts of any affected country and beyond, spurring of unrelated violence and crime, market crashes - untold unpleasant things.
 
Half Fast said:
Well, you could probably make an educated guess. It's doubtful that the crew flying the bomber is on a suicide mission. Consider how fast the delivery bomber might be flying, what altitude he might drop from, and how long it would take the bomb to reach the ground and detonate. Details are left as an exercise for the student.

Just how far away do you think Paul Tibbets and the Enola Gay (a B-29) were when Hiroshima became a mushroom cloud?
Click to expand...

I was originally thinking nuclear tipped missile with the OP. Actually, I was in Marine A6 and A4 squadrons years ago, and I understood they were both nuclear capable with a lob maneuver and just barely able to get away.
 
IIRC, the Army had (and field tested) nuclear artillery. Those guys would be only a few miles from ground zero, no?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
The comparisons to the WWII bombs are very useful but I believe that which will be dropped today will be several orders of size (and effect) larger.
We discussed this on POA in the past and someone posted a YT link showing the expected effects of a nuke, should find that.
In addition to the immediate local effects, there will be far-reaching 'other' effects. Radioactive fallout could go a thousand miles, there could easily be widespread panic in other parts of any affected country and beyond, spurring of unrelated violence and crime, market crashes - untold unpleasant things.
Click to expand...

On the small end of the scale, during the Cold War era in Europe, artillery fired tac nukes between 10 and 20 kilotons were a thing. And, it was a generation or two before my time, they had a man-portable recoilless rifle system called a Davey Crockett that lobbed a nuclear warhead with a yield of between 10 and 20 tons 1.5 to 2.5 miles depending on the version of the launcher used. That's about as small as a nuclear device can be made. There is no real upper size limitation (these things get stupid big, in the megaton range) but the minimum size is dictated by the critical mass of the weapons grade uranium or plutonium that is being used.

Why anybody thought artillery and infantry unit deployed tac nukes were a good idea is anyone's guess (other than the general plan for the defense of the Fulda gap consisted of nuking the region in the event of a Soviet invasion) but eventually someone else thought otherwise and they have all been decommissioned for many years.
 
With original OP, I was just thinking at peak travel times there are X thousand airplanes in the US airspace alone. Do those people get home? I'm sure GPS gets trashed, it's already below the noise floor. Do the WAAS satellites survive?
 
As an aside, if you ever have a chance to visit the Peace Museum in Hiroshima, do it. Highly recommend.
 
kontiki said:
I was originally thinking nuclear tipped missile with the OP. Actually, I was in Marine A6 and A4 squadrons years ago, and I understood they were both nuclear capable with a lob maneuver and just barely able to get away.
Click to expand...


Right. So if they can drop a nuke and get away, concerns about a nuke "bringing the air traffic system down completely in an instant" aren't realistic fears.

Even without applying that logic, bear in mind that the US and other nations have set off nukes in testing many many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests

As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megaton (Mt): 217 Mt from fission and 328 Mt from fusion,...​

520 above-ground nuke detonations in the past 24 years, and planes are still flying, phones still work, satellites are still orbiting,...
 
Half Fast said:
Right. So if they can drop a nuke and get away, concerns about a nuke "bringing the air traffic system down completely in an instant" aren't realistic fears.

Even without applying that logic, bear in mind that the US and other nations have set off nukes in testing many many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests

As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megaton (Mt): 217 Mt from fission and 328 Mt from fusion,...​

520 above-ground nuke detonations in the past 24 years, and planes are still flying, phones still work, satellites are still orbiting,...
Click to expand...

That's right. Doubling the yield does not double the radii of damage. There are diminishing returns to getting larger. Then again, the biggest devices the Russians have could take out half the continental US in a single shot.
 
Sheesh... if I can handle my flight partner launching a three day old burrito fart in the cockpit, I would certainly assume I could handle a nuke.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
The comparisons to the WWII bombs are very useful but I believe that which will be dropped today will be several orders of size (and effect) larger.
We discussed this on POA in the past and someone posted a YT link showing the expected effects of a nuke, should find that.
In addition to the immediate local effects, there will be far-reaching 'other' effects. Radioactive fallout could go a thousand miles, there could easily be widespread panic in other parts of any affected country and beyond, spurring of unrelated violence and crime, market crashes - untold unpleasant things.
Click to expand...

Various delivery methods from bombers, fighters w/ tactical nukes, cruise missiles launched from bombers, ships, and artillery, and probably a few more methods. When I was stationed in W. Germany and Korea in the 70s there were numerous bases with alert fighters loaded w/ the B61 tactical nuke. End of the Cold War was the end of nukes in Europe except for stockpiles, and they stood down alert fights w/ nukes in Korea in the 80s or 90s. There is talk about bringing back that mission in Europe w/ Russia getting bold again, and in Korea. A new version of the B61 tactical nuke is presently being tested I believe.

Then there are the ICBMs we have too.
 
Zeldman said:
Interesting trivia of the day:

Anyone remember the real Batman show, the one with Adam West? Remember Aunt Harriett? In real life her and her husband were very instrumental in designing the triggering device for the two atomic bombs used over Japan. Her and her husband had higher security clearances than President Truman.
Click to expand...

Glamorous actress Hedy Lamarr (whose former Phoenix home is just around the corner from us) was also quite the inventor. Per Wikipedia:

At the beginning of World War II, Lamarr and composer George Antheil developed a radio guidance system for Allied torpedoes, which used spread spectrum and frequency hopping technology to defeat the threat of jamming by the Axis powers. Although the US Navy did not adopt the technology until the 1960s, the principles of their work are arguably incorporated into Bluetooth technology, and are similar to methods used in legacy versions of CDMA and Wi-Fi. This work led to their induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2014.​
 
Kritchlow said:
Sheesh... if I can handle my flight partner launching a three day old burrito fart in the cockpit, I would certainly assume I could handle a nuke.
Click to expand...

Definition: Controlled airspace is how much flatus a person can release in a cockpit without rendering the other pilot unconscious....
 
Sac Arrow said:
That's right. Doubling the yield does not double the radii of damage. There are diminishing returns to getting larger. Then again, the biggest devices the Russians have could take out half the continental US in a single shot.
Click to expand...

Nuclear explosions are big,They might be able to break windows over something close to 1/2 the continental US.
if my google fu and wiki are accurate the largest bomb ever detonated was a 50megaton.

"The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62 mi) away from ground zero. A shock wave was observed in the air at Dikson settlement 700 km (430 mi) away; windowpanes were partially broken to distances of 900 kilometres (560 mi).[24] Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage at even greater distances, breaking windows in Norway and Finland. "

Brian
 
brcase said:
Nuclear explosions are big,They might be able to break windows over something close to 1/2 the continental US.
if my google fu and wiki are accurate the largest bomb ever detonated was a 50megaton.

"The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62 mi) away from ground zero. A shock wave was observed in the air at Dikson settlement 700 km (430 mi) away; windowpanes were partially broken to distances of 900 kilometres (560 mi).[24] Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage at even greater distances, breaking windows in Norway and Finland. "

Brian
Click to expand...
Damn.... I better get the extra strength poligrip.
 
kontiki said:
OK, this is a little wild, but given the news I started wondering. Suppose someone did set off a medium size nuke above ground, someplace. Not even necessarily over a country but over an ocean. How far away would an airborne aircraft have to be to survive and complete it's flight safety? I expect massive air turbulence and EMI effects, but what are the ranges? Would anything be able to land anywhere? I have no idea what the survivability would be. Would it bring the air traffic system down completely in an instant?
Click to expand...

EMP is only a problem if the device is detonated at high altitudes. A ground burst (dirtiest kind) or a low air burst isn't going to create EMP and its associated problems.
 
"Tomorrow's weather - morning fog followed by gradual warming till lunch; temps will climb to 3,000 degrees by mid-afternoon, with firestorms and wind gusts to 600 knots. Cooling off by early evening, with ionizing fallout through the night, accompanied by despair, gruesome deaths, and Mel Gibson movie re-runs".
 
brcase said:
Nuclear explosions are big,They might be able to break windows over something close to 1/2 the continental US.
if my google fu and wiki are accurate the largest bomb ever detonated was a 50megaton.

"The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62 mi) away from ground zero. A shock wave was observed in the air at Dikson settlement 700 km (430 mi) away; windowpanes were partially broken to distances of 900 kilometres (560 mi).[24] Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage at even greater distances, breaking windows in Norway and Finland. "

Brian
Click to expand...
Those were one-off scare bombs, or "yeah, we can do that!". They required tremendous resources to pull off.
most of the anti-nuke scary agit-prop stuff being endlessly repeated on the boob-tube in the late 70's was based on a single simulation of a 20 Megaton ground burst, or "city busters".

In truth, even at the height of the missile craze, both sides realized that multiple small warheads delivered over a wide area in air bursts were more efficient. ( Missile fields were spread over wide areas, to prevent any one burst from taking out the group).

In later years, the Soviets still used later warheads, because they lacked the accuracy of the Minuteman series.

In my younger years, I had cause to study this stuff...
 
kontiki said:
Suppose someone did set off a medium size nuke above ground, someplace.
Click to expand...

Well Kim Jong Un... I mean Kontiki, let's just hope they got close enough to the umpteen million idiot drivers that seem to find their way to my town every year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top