How big is a 20 kiloton nuclear blast?

Started by Darren Dirt, February 28, 2007, 02:39:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Darren Dirt

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?ll=-113.49835,53.53&yd=20&z=12

Interesting, how little of our fair city would receive direct damage from a bomb the size of the ones in the fictional "Jericho" universe...

And here's NYC, for comparison, same size...
http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?ll=-73.9971,40.7223&yd=20&z=12
...I guess that also gives you an idea how (comparably) big the Big Apple really is.

btw, Hiroshimoa was 15 kilotons.

_____________________

Strive for progress. Not perfection.
_____________________

Ustauk

Quote from: Darren Dirt on February 28, 2007, 02:39:50 PM
Interesting, how little of our fair city would receive direct damage from a bomb the size of the ones in the fictional "Jericho" universe...

Quote
HYDESim maps overpressure radii generated by a ground-level detonation; these radii are an indicator of structural damage to buildings. No other effects, such as thermal damage or fallout levels, are included in this tool
The indirect damage would be quite extensive.   Thermal effects will usually cause a firestorm that will sleep beyond the primary blast zone.  Radiation would reach well beyond the overpressure wave.  And fallout from a ground level blast would extensively contaminate sectors of the city, most likely the east side of Edmonton considering the prevailing winds.

Lazybones

It isn't not the Physical damage that everyone worries about.

Darren Dirt

Agreed... Just all those scenes from "The Day After" or "Threads" that haunt many of us who were so damn impressionable when they aired on network TV in the 80s... The bright glow as families are vaporized, it's good to know that only a few dozen blocks in each direction would receive that kind of instant death -- the rest of us would slowly vomit away our life force :(

Here's hoping president Baralary Obinton or whoever continues this streak of non-usage of the most obvious* kind of nukes...

* as opposed to DU, which is really a less obvious (to the sheeple, anyway) kind of "nuclear warfare" :'(

_____________________

Strive for progress. Not perfection.
_____________________

Thorin

Quote from: Darren Dirt on February 28, 2007, 04:09:20 PM
Here's hoping president Baralary Obinton or whoever continues this streak of non-usage of the most obvious* kind of nukes...

Yeah.  Also Putin + Fradkov, Blair, Chirac + de Villepin, Jintao + Jiabao, Kalam + Singh, Musharraf + Aziz, Jong-il + Pong-ju, and Katsav + Olmert.  It's not like the US is the only country with nukes.  Hell, we had them until 1984 (13 years after Trudeau said he wanted them out).

If you think about it, there's quite a few countries that could probably have usable nuclear armaments within a year, including Canada, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Japan, Australia, South Africa, and Brazil.  They all have access to the materials and knowledge required.
Prayin' for a 20!

gcc thorin.c -pedantic -o Thorin
compile successful

Mr. Analog

By Grabthar's Hammer