Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Blast Radius
Topic Started: Dec 25 2008, 03:01 PM (451 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I came across this site yesterday: http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/200712B/GroundZero.html

Check out the radius of the 50 megaton, Tsar Bomba... It'll blow your socks off.

all puns intended
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Oldly enough if one were dropped on Buckingham Palace the radius is almost exactly the requirement to take out the whole of Greater London.

Watch out for the asteroid impact though.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Yo-Yo
Member Avatar
Captain
asteroid impacts can hurt
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
Yo-Yo
Dec 25 2008, 05:45 PM
asteroid impacts can hurt
An asteroid hit could mean game over for all of us. :no:
Edited by fireh8er, Dec 25 2008, 08:37 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
Thanx. Cool.
Edited by Sgt. Jaggs, Dec 28 2008, 03:56 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
One thing that really surprised me when viewing the site was the relatively small footprint or blast radius of the devices used in World War 2. As well, the modern devices appear to have a rather smallish blast radius too.

Now don't get me wrong, the radiation and damage would be unimaginable, but when compared to an asteroid impact, all the sudden a nuclear Armageddon seems a bit more survivable and Fallout 3 seems a whole lot more realistic.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
There's another site out there that also shows damage down by the overpressure wave caused by the blast. Just 3 psi overpressure moving at the speed of sound will also destroy most homes. 2 psi will do significant damage, on a par with a major hurricane.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Yes, the air shockwave coming from a nuke would surely destroy as much as the thermal wave.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
rowskid86
Member Avatar
Suck my Spock
looking at the blast radius of the smaller devices used in ww2, and the much lower amout of fallout. We should use some of those smaller "Little boy" 15KT Bombs on our enemies. it's low enough to not cause a little if not no colateral damage to us or allies. They should have been used in the war on terror, or on Iran.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I don't oppose a non-nuclear device with that power, but nuclear radiation makes the blast area an no-go zone for too long.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I think this video is appropriate for this thread.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
That is a good video Dwayne. Horrific, yet beautiful.

I think, if something of that size hit us, it would probably shift the Earth's orbit. As for the tectonic stress, well I doubt those buildings would be standing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Some may have wondered why I put this on the politics page. Well, I have a point I wanted to turn this conversation toward, because the blast radius site graphically demostrates that even the most powerful devices man has made pale in comparision to the destructive power of an asteroid of that size... And according to that Discovery Channel piece, the Earth has withstood such a strike at least 6 times in its past.

And that all brings me back to how psuedo-science and the idiocy of politicians is causing all of humanity's advanced nations to waste untold number of resources on a theory that has not passed the rigors of the scientific method, all on the promise that if we don't do something, it will destroy the world. Yet, getting hit by an asteroid of sufficient size to kill most all life on the planet isn't some made up theory without demonstratable evidence, it is a part of Earth's geologic history. Such an event killed off all the great reptiles.

If mankind does not collectively develop the means to detect such objects in time to nudge it out of our path, then we truly are doomed.
Edited by Dwayne, Dec 28 2008, 01:38 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
^^^

I hear what you're saying :yes:

That said, I think risk analysis comes into this.

What is the likelihood, in any given year, of being hit by an asteroid/comet of the magnitude of an extinction-level-event? The answer is, a very small probability. In addition, even if we diverted resources into earlier identification of potential threats, what would our effectiveness in dealing with such a threat be, given our current level of technology?

Hence, another argument is that perhaps it is more efficient to use resources to address those threats and problems that we can deal with, such as climate change, resource depletion etc.
Edited by STC, Dec 28 2008, 01:43 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
In reality, technologically we have the ability to deal with such an object if we find it in time. And in fact, at our current technological state, our chances of successfully dealing with such an object are increased the further out from Earth that we detect it.

We wouldn't vaporize this object with some sort of laser or something. What we would do is use simple kinetic energy to push the object a small amount... maybe a degree at the most. Over the course of the million plus miles it would take to reach Earth, that 1 degree change in trajectory would translate into a very, very large change in direction over time. Consequently, the further out you find the object, a less of a change in trajectory that is required to divert the object from hitting Earth. Hence less energy is necessary to make the change and the less energy required the more a low tech solution is viable.

And if we're talking risk analysis, if you think global warming is a bigger risk than an asteroid strike, then you're not properly judging the risk. There is plenty of evidence in support of the fact that the Earth has been catastrophically damaged from objects striking it, but no evidence to support that higher levels of CO2 than currently exist will result in anything similar to an object striking it, if any destruction occurs at all.
Edited by Dwayne, Dec 29 2008, 08:48 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus