What are the differences between Chernobyl and a modern nuclear weapon in terms of radioactivity?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: dontneedaname

Even a limited nuclear exchange would throw enough dust into the upper atmosphere thus block sunlight and lower global temperatures by at least one degree Celsius chances are the result being a nuclear winter that could last decades.

As to the radioactivity released that can depend on a few factors blast height and yield of the device being two of them.

They produce a complex mix around 300 different isotopes of dozens of elements, with half-life's ranging from fractions of a second to millions of years.

You may find this article interesting.

www.britannica.com...

How many atomic bombs are some volcanic explosions equivalent to?

www.quora.com...

Very large volcanic eruptions are vastly more powerful than nuclear explosions. Mt. St. Helens was a VEI 5 eruption - significant but not large. The usual figure supplied is that is was equal to a 24 megaton nuclear explosion. That is a very very large nuclear blast, but the Tsar Bomba was larger at 50 megatons. Pinatubo was VEI 6 and is usually rated around 70 megatons, or larger than any nuclear blast to date.

--
if that explanation is anywhere near right....your answer is fiction.

Never mind the NY Times video I've posted.

Nuclear winter = fiction.


---
further down in the quora answers:

"No nuclear explosion in history ever had a measurable effect on the planet’s climate."

--

Of course, in a war there would be more than just 1 bomb....but right now there are many volcanoes erupting..in various states. Maybe there is a local climate effect, but global?



B83 - 1.2 megatons. Largest in US arsenal.

originally posted by: Randomname2
They have continent killers, 1,000 mega ton nukes, To dangerous to test fire, either underground or in space, this is what happens when endless resources are thrown at nuclear warhead technology, theoretically tested, built and above top secret as in Presidents eyes only, these continent killers exist, and thank God, for if Satan seeks to destroy Gods kingdom, this will cause the least suffering, as no where in any state or province will you escape it’s instant obliteration of billions of lives into light.

Tsar Bomba’s yield was 50 megatons: ten times more powerful than all of the ordnance exploded during the whole of World War II. The mushroom cloud was 25 miles wide at its base and almost 60 miles wide at its top. At 40 miles high, it penetrated the stratosphere. Everything within three dozen miles of the impact was vaporized, but severe damage extended to 150 miles radius—enough to entirely annihilate any modern major city, including suburbs. Windows in faraway Norway and Finland were shattered by the force of the blast.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: dontneedaname

Even a limited nuclear exchange would throw enough dust into the upper atmosphere thus block sunlight and lower global temperatures by at least one degree Celsius chances are the result being a nuclear winter that could last decades.

As to the radioactivity released that can depend on a few factors blast height and yield of the device being two of them.

They produce a complex mix around 300 different isotopes of dozens of elements, with half-life's ranging from fractions of a second to millions of years.

You may find this article interesting.

www.britannica.com...

I have serious doubts about a limited exchange altering global temperatures. There were literally s couple thousand nuclear explosion detonated by several countries between 1945 and 1977.

Many of each were conducted in a dusty/rocky area which would have been perfect for throwing up dust (Nevada desert).

To my knowledge they detected dust and fallout in everything from top soil and well water to the upper atmosphere. I don't believe they measured much of a difference in global temperatures either way (heating or cooling).

An interesting comparison I've found. (I was near enough when Mount saint Helens erupted, that our town went dark for 2 days. We had several inches of Ash powder that had fallen like snow. It was completely dark (24hr night) for those two days it took for it to precipitate out of the air.

"Mount St. Helens released 24 megatons of thermal energy, 7 of which was a direct result of the blast. This is equivalent to 1,600 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima"

The difference being, that the explosive energy was released from inside the mountain, which turned the entire top of the mountain (hard Rock) into fine particulate. That's a lot of sand!

A nuclear bomb detonated above or at ground level, would not pulverize enough bedrock or rock to even fractionally compared to a nuclear bomb. I understand it may have had a slight effect on the global atmosphere, but I don't believe even 20 or so nuclear detonations would come close enough to alter the world's temperature.

a reply to: andy06shake

Hundreds of nuclewr bombs were detonated in tests for nearly half a century on two differemt continents and thrre oceans. Why have we not suffered any nuckear winters as a result??

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Not at the one time they were not.

Simple as that really.

a reply to: Skyman65

It don't matter what you believe.

To my knowledge and any sane persons, Nuclear war, of any sorts, is a bad idea.

For very obvious reasonings.

a reply to: dontneedaname

Well a super-eruption would equal the force of 1,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs exploding every second.

What does "some" mean?

Again its the cumulative effect that's of worry, not just the odd atomic test, which is still bad enough depending on if you happen to be down wind of the thing or within the blast radius.

a reply to: andy06shake

Not just some odd atomic test here and there.

2,476 detonated atomic bombs.

294 detonated with unknown yields due to elements accidentally added to the original donation.

With over 1100 tested by the U.S.
Operation plowshare detonated several at once, investigate the peacetime use of nuclear weapons for engineering use (creating lakes etc.) During that time the largest man-made Creator on in the U.S. was created.

I agree to detonating any nuclear device is probably a bad idea. However there's no you need to use hyperbole to describe the climate effects of a minor nuclear exchange. The effects are bad enough all by themselves.

Being the son of a lifetime atomic/nuclear worker, I've had an interest since I was a kid.

My father inhaled a large dose of strontium-90 in what was called a mistake. He suffered the effects ever since. I know all too well the dangers exposed to radiation. Although I will say he is ticking along at 78yrs old despite both his exposure to radiation, and internal deposition of radioactive elements.

a reply to: Skyman65

Well good luck to your wee Da anyroad.

I don't think there is much "probably" about it being a bad idea.

I live on an island buddy where just one Russian ICBM plus accompanying warhead payload could blanket the entire nation from one end to the other in nuclear fire, and that's not hyperbole just physics and geography.

Testing nukes and using them in anger amounts to sheer madness, because once a conflict materialises it not going to stop at the use of tactical devices and is pretty much guaranteed to graduate to the use of city busting ICBM as soon as one player loses something important.

Its a fools game Skyman65 testing them or using them in anger because the end result is apt to be determinantal to all no matter which way we care to spell it.

Fact of the matter is we have super computers that can simulate and model nuclear weapons yield and destructive force well enough that testing them in this day of age amounts to nothing more than sabre rattling imho.

If they wish to test nukes, i recommend Venus. that place could be doing with cooling down, put them to good use.

a reply to: Skyman65

You're not factoring in the burning cities and all the resources nearby that supply it.

The closest comparisons we have is two Japanese towns and probably Dresden, they're nothing compared to a modern city of 5 million+ citizens.

a reply to: RAY1990

Imagine a city like London or New York burning for a start and the debris that would be kicked up into our atmosphere.

It does not bear thinking about really and it only stops when when the fire runs out of fuel.

originally posted by: Skyman65

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: dontneedaname

Even a limited nuclear exchange would throw enough dust into the upper atmosphere thus block sunlight and lower global temperatures by at least one degree Celsius chances are the result being a nuclear winter that could last decades.

As to the radioactivity released that can depend on a few factors blast height and yield of the device being two of them.

They produce a complex mix around 300 different isotopes of dozens of elements, with half-life's ranging from fractions of a second to millions of years.

You may find this article interesting.

www.britannica.com...

I have serious doubts about a limited exchange altering global temperatures. There were literally s couple thousand nuclear explosion detonated by several countries between 1945 and 1977.

Many of each were conducted in a dusty/rocky area which would have been perfect for throwing up dust (Nevada desert).

To my knowledge they detected dust and fallout in everything from top soil and well water to the upper atmosphere. I don't believe they measured much of a difference in global temperatures either way (heating or cooling).

An interesting comparison I've found. (I was near enough when Mount saint Helens erupted, that our town went dark for 2 days. We had several inches of Ash powder that had fallen like snow. It was completely dark (24hr night) for those two days it took for it to precipitate out of the air.

"Mount St. Helens released 24 megatons of thermal energy, 7 of which was a direct result of the blast. This is equivalent to 1,600 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima"

The difference being, that the explosive energy was released from inside the mountain, which turned the entire top of the mountain (hard Rock) into fine particulate. That's a lot of sand!

A nuclear bomb detonated above or at ground level, would not pulverize enough bedrock or rock to even fractionally compared to a nuclear bomb. I understand it may have had a slight effect on the global atmosphere, but I don't believe even 20 or so nuclear detonations would come close enough to alter the world's temperature.

I love how the substance of this reply will be ignored by the nuclear winter myth believers. The myth just won't go away. It was based on faulty models and quasi-religious environmental doctrine. It was never based on science and fact.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Skyman65

You're not factoring in the burning cities and all the resources nearby that supply it.

The closest comparisons we have is two Japanese towns and probably Dresden, they're nothing compared to a modern city of 5 million+ citizens.

Actually yes I have factored in all of that. Studying and researching nuclear weapons and reactors from the age of 9, you not only pickup a lot, but hear and listen to things you normally wouldn't.

My first science report in 7th grade was about about the nuclear reactors, the processes that uranium and plutonium go through and its disposal after use.

My comments aren't shot from the hip. It has been an ongoing fascination and subject of my interest for years.

**
A little off topic but some might find interesting.

One thing I think it would surprise people is the amount of random radioactive waste buried in deserts across the United States.

They have a place where my dad worked they used to call the tank farms. There were hundreds of tanks the size of two story houses buried with vnothing but flanges sticking out to give away their presence.

They didn't know much about radioactive substances back then, or how mundane things could become contaminated and thus radioactive.

Those tank started to degrade and leak, part of my dad's job was figuring out how to sample those tanks to find out what was in them, and what reactions were taking place inside. They would toss in a random fluids Everything from coolant from a contaminated forklift, to contaminated oil, water and other elements.

Some tanks produced heat, some toxic fumes, and others even hydrogen. One specific tank would get hot enough to build a 2in to 3in crust on top.

With the crust on top and a reaction still going on below, that crust would form a bubble underneath and start to lift. Every so often the crust in the tank would lift crack and flop over. That's how they discovered the tank was not only producing heat, but hydrogen underneath the crust as well. The tank had been there since the 1940's.

The condition of the tank was only noticed when a worker walked by and felt the ground lift and shake as he walked over the top of it.

There were hundreds of these multi million gallon tanks buried out there. Supposedly they've all been drained and the waste stored properly.

Everything from crescent wrenches, to building sized machining equipment, even D-9 bulldozers have been wrapped in plastic and buried in the desert. "To radioactive to safely operate"

andy06shake
Thanks for the thoughts on my Dad, he's actually doing well considering. Aside from losing his thyroid, the radiation didn't cause him as much trouble as the dust from all the grinding and machine work going on around him. He ended up with COPD and 37% lung capacity, from normal metal grinding dust. He's up about and ornery as ever. I take him out to lunch every few days.

I think meaning of "probably not a good idea" may have been lost in the conversion to text. I meant that as; it's "probably not a good idea" to stick your head in a pot of boiling water either, or Jump out an airplane without a chute.

Kind of a smart ass saying around here.

" That guy made me so mad, I was thinking about running him over" , " yeah probably not a good idea haha"

Modern militsry doctrine focuses thebuse of tactical nukes for destoying places like air bases, massive armories and carrier strike groups, not necessarily cities full of civilians. Although ive no doubt that cities remain on target lists, they likely are not at the top of first strike lists. Logistics air force bases are no doubt at the top of the list. Shipyards, industrial refinery complexes the kind of places that are the size of small towns but would only need much less than a megaton device.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
Modern militsry doctrine focuses thebuse of tactical nukes for destoying places like air bases, massive armories and carrier strike groups, not necessarily cities full of civilians. Although ive no doubt that cities remain on target lists, they likely are not at the top of first strike lists. Logistics air force bases are no doubt at the top of the list. Shipyards, industrial refinery complexes the kind of places that are the size of small towns but would only need much less than a megaton device.

Agreed.

If I was China and ended up using nukes though, I would want to wipe away / destroy the idea of "imperialist dog" USA forever. That means certain large cities would have to be destroyed.

NYC, Chicago, and LAX are the top 3 cities in my mind that would be on the chopping block. Not sure if WA DC would be targeted...may want to preserve some govt structure. So Beijing and WA DC would survive. But if those are the heads of the opposing snake, maybe those would be roasted too. Probably take out NSA - Fort Meade, VA. Pentagon - Arlington, VA. CIA - Langley, VA.

China would suffer several hundred million deaths right away, but when you have 1.4 billion, knocking it down to 1 billion or 8-900 million...u still have a lot. More would die post-war though as well. China's population cut in half, prob more post-war. China would lose more in absolute numbers and a percent - as China is more dense.

Going to make a post with nuclear target maps that are floating around the net. Seems kind of macabre...but obviously...folks have done this already and gone through the reasoning. Not treading any absolute new ground here.

BTW - Love your animated shark and background. Awesome.

originally posted by: dontneedaname
If I was China and ended up using nukes though, I would want to wipe away / destroy the idea of "imperialist dog" USA forever. That means certain large cities would have to be destroyed.

Well, it really depends on what they perceive as wiping away imperialist USA. If their goal would be to eliminate us as an economic power, yes, targeting big cities would be a start, but you'd focus on industrial areas too.

NYC, Chicago, and LAX are the top 3 cities in my mind that would be on the chopping block.

Here's where it gets interesting. If they just want to destroy the US ideology, as in the military superpower that is standing up against China's aspirations and would fight tooth and nail to stop China from gaining a foothold on us and eventually taking over the US, destroying those large cities might not be in their best interest. When polls are done of US citizens about their feelings on China, that 20 or 30% that view China favorably are mostly progressives who live in big cities and want to bring socialism/communism here and admire China. Destroying those cities would destroy almost all of their supporters here in the US. Why kill the Americans who would root for China in a Sino-American war?

Not sure if WA DC would be targeted

I'm not sure they would destroy DC either. Most of DC is in their pocket. Again, not in their best interest to destroy their biggest supporters.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dontneedaname
If I was China and ended up using nukes though, I would want to wipe away / destroy the idea of "imperialist dog" USA forever. That means certain large cities would have to be destroyed.

Well, it really depends on what they perceive as wiping away imperialist USA. If their goal would be to eliminate us as an economic power, yes, targeting big cities would be a start, but you'd focus on industrial areas too.

NYC, Chicago, and LAX are the top 3 cities in my mind that would be on the chopping block.

Here's where it gets interesting. If they just want to destroy the US ideology, as in the military superpower that is standing up against China's aspirations and would fight tooth and nail to stop China from gaining a foothold on us and eventually taking over the US, destroying those large cities might not be in their best interest. When polls are done of US citizens about their feelings on China, that 20 or 30% that view China favorably are mostly progressives who live in big cities and want to bring socialism/communism here and admire China. Destroying those cities would destroy almost all of their supporters here in the US. Why kill the Americans who would root for China in a Sino-American war?

Not sure if WA DC would be targeted

I'm not sure they would destroy DC either. Most of DC is in their pocket. Again, not in their best interest to destroy their biggest supporters.

You need to destroy the IDEA of something. But u make an interesting point.

NYC and LAX are always in American movies.

You destroy NYC - you take out 8 of the top 20 largest banks in the USA. And 4 of the top 6. NY Stock Exchange...granted there are backups of data...but without the people.... most of the top INVESTMENT BANKS are HQ in NYC..

Chicago - home to CBOE and CMEC and other financial related firms.

Hate will be rampant all the way around. Forget about supporters. Since the war will start conventionally..most would know the combatants. It's not something out of the blue.

DC in China's pocket? I'm not in a position to say yay or nay...but I don't think that's a strong enough reason. I don't think 30% of America wants communism. That sounds like b/s to me. Though Democrat covid response has made me realize there are more communist wannabes than I ever imagined. Or really..too many chicken / tofu eaters and pharma captured politicians.


A lot of the nuclear target maps online are about USA-Russia. And some are from much longer ago - when stockpiles were higher. So...need some fresh analysis.


Was studying Pakistan's nuke arsenal - and lots of low yield < 40 kiloton weapons. Gotta think China would take down India too - along with Pakistan.

-- anyway back to USA

USA financial hubs

pocketsense.com...

Don't think Minnesota would be targeted. That leaves Charlotte and San Francisco. Don't think Charlotte would be targeted, but maybe some military bases around there. I don't have a good grasp of what bases are where. But Fort Bragg comes to mind. San Francisco has a lot of Asians, so maybe not targeted. San Fran doesn't stand out to me as much of a cultural icon as Los Angeles.

---
Back to military: Pacific Coast ship yards would be on the chopping block. Less concerned with East Coast I imagine.

www.shipbuildinghistory.com...

Bremerton, WA
San Diego?

Big asian population in Hawaii...so maybe not a target of a tactical nuke, but conventional munitions? But maybe too far away for conventional.
So very small tactical nukes on Pearl Harbor. But maybe Hawaii escapes...and it's just Guam, and other closer bases.
---

Just came across this. I will review.
taskandpurpose.com...

a reply to: dontneedaname

The PNW would be devastated. Between Bremerton and the Hanford nuclear reservation, fort lewis/McChord air Base, they'd pelt WA state. We made much of the plutonium for the bomb in central WA, and they wouldn't want that coming back online.

FWIW
The change from having military patrolling the handford reservation; (tanks/troops/air patrol/K-9 units etc) and huge guard houses with barracks, turn to Barb wire and a couple of rent-a-cops was strange and surreal to watch.

originally posted by: dontneedaname
I don't think 30% of America wants communism. That sounds like b/s to me.

My bad, I should have said socialism. Although socialism leads to communism, at least that was Marx's theory.

Also, I'm not sure the Asian population of a state/city would make much of a difference to them. I mean China's government doesn't seem to give much of a damn about their own people, let alone Asian Americans. Not to mention most Chinese-Americans despise the communist Chinese government.

Most of the rest of your reply I find quite reasonable and interesting.