How many nukes would it take to destroy a city?

reply to post by Sliick


It doesn't look like you have even read a book on the subject but again that might not disqualify you from having been 'in the military'. Well done on being so hopelessly misinformed.

reply to post by Anderi


One blast would not be entirely enough, In cities such as Sheffied, which is one of four places that holds nuclear weapons, each facility would become a direct target, also, industry, such as steel chemicals, communications and military bases would become also prime targets, therefore a small city like Sheffield Engand with a population of roughly 610,000 would recieve a max of 6 ICBMs to destroy it completely, bearing in mind that, if Sheffield became a Russian strategic target and the four facilities housing nuclear warheads were hit, England would double their attack against the Russian federation, quickly spiralling out of control (But who's ever heard of a controlled nuclear exchange!) anyway the max amount of bombs needed to take a city within England proper, such as Sheffield, would amount to about 6.

SEATO NATO if russia hit one they would have to hit all.

They would also have to hit China to keep the chinese from just walking in to there country and taking over after we had blasted them.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Anderi

 

One blast would not be entirely enough, In cities such as Sheffied, which is one of four places that holds nuclear weapons, each facility would become a direct target, also, industry, such as steel chemicals, communications and military bases would become also prime targets, therefore a small city like Sheffield Engand with a population of roughly 610,000 would recieve a max of 6 ICBMs to destroy it completely, bearing in mind that, if Sheffield became a Russian strategic target and the four facilities housing nuclear warheads were hit, England would double their attack against the Russian federation, quickly spiralling out of control (But who's ever heard of a controlled nuclear exchange!) anyway the max amount of bombs needed to take a city within England proper, such as Sheffield, would amount to about 6.

The average Russian Nuke is 550kt yield, Hiroshima/Nagasaki were both destroyed with 10/15 kt Nukes, so 1 300-550 kt Nuke will get the job done completely.

the buildings in hioshima and nagasaki were also made of wood - the strongest building in hiroshima was also the building situated at ground zero - and it survived.

upload.wikimedia.org...

thats a picture of the peace park with the building.


anyway

www.fas.org...

an intereactive tool on FAS , choose , say , los angeles , aircraft delivered and 550KT - the city isn`t totaled

Originally posted by Harlequin

the buildings in hioshima and nagasaki were also made of wood - the strongest building in hiroshima was also the building situated at ground zero - and it survived.

upload.wikimedia.org...

thats a picture of the peace park with the building.


anyway

www.fas.org...

an intereactive tool on FAS , choose , say , los angeles , aircraft delivered and 550KT - the city isn`t totaled

Yes but we're NOW dealing with "Thermal-Nuclear" Bombs with 500+ kt yields not simple "Atomic Bombs" no buildings will be left standing for 5-7 mile radius, from the impact zone.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by wantawanta]

you said

so 1 300-550 kt Nuke will get the job done completely

whist Ivy King tested a 500kt fission weapon , nothing of that size , not only explosive potential but physical size - Ivy King was dropped from a modified B-36 and weighted close to 10 tons; this is really the reason for developing fusion weapons - bigger fission bombs are simply enourmous , and there is a finite limit to the practical use of a fission reaction (in theory its actually a fraction under 1Mt as the absolute explosive potential - but you need 10 tons of uranium on its own for that!)

fusion or hydrogen bombs are so much smaller simply as you need less material for the effect - and they can be made much much bigger potential wise, and so far the limit has never been explored - the larget fusion device was teh russian Tsar bomb with a yield of 50 megatons - and thats with a lead 3rd stage and not the orralloy (high enriched uranium) 3rd stage - it was designed to be 100Mt at full yield.


now that is you city buster - with a fireball over 5km`s in diameter compare this to the current largest US warhead (missile delivered)- the W88 as used on the Trident II (and the similar W87 used on the peacekeeper) with a usualy yield of 350KT , but can be increased to 475KT - has a fireball 2/3rd`s of a kilometer;

but the fireball isn`t what flattens everything - thats the 5psi overpressure;

buildings are built to withstand 5 psi at a given distance (well properly designed survival ones are ) as 5psi is `THE` number when used to determine overall destructive ability of a given weapon - other factors such as air temperature and rain also effect .

the nuclear tests of operation cue (eerie series) were for civil defence - they built a whole town to see the effects of a nearby blast and which buildings and materials had a higher survuvial chance.

uk.youtube.com...

if your interested have a look for the movie `trinity and beyond` - really quite good footage of tests

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


As someone who lives in Sheffield, I am curious where the nuclear weapons are stored, as far as I know there are no military establishments in Sheffield. Also, the nuclear deterrent is maintained by the Royal navy, so why they would want to store their weapons in a city that almost as far from the sea as you can get in the UK?

Originally posted by Harlequin
you said

so 1 300-550 kt Nuke will get the job done completely

whist Ivy King tested a 500kt fission weapon , nothing of that size , not only explosive potential but physical size - Ivy King was dropped from a modified B-36 and weighted close to 10 tons; this is really the reason for developing fusion weapons - bigger fission bombs are simply enourmous , and there is a finite limit to the practical use of a fission reaction (in theory its actually a fraction under 1Mt as the absolute explosive potential - but you need 10 tons of uranium on its own for that!)

fusion or hydrogen bombs are so much smaller simply as you need less material for the effect - and they can be made much much bigger potential wise, and so far the limit has never been explored - the larget fusion device was teh russian Tsar bomb with a yield of 50 megatons - and thats with a lead 3rd stage and not the orralloy (high enriched uranium) 3rd stage - it was designed to be 100Mt at full yield.


now that is you city buster - with a fireball over 5km`s in diameter compare this to the current largest US warhead (missile delivered)- the W88 as used on the Trident II (and the similar W87 used on the peacekeeper) with a usualy yield of 350KT , but can be increased to 475KT - has a fireball 2/3rd`s of a kilometer;

but the fireball isn`t what flattens everything - thats the 5psi overpressure;

buildings are built to withstand 5 psi at a given distance (well properly designed survival ones are

) as 5psi is `THE` number when used to determine overall destructive ability of a given weapon - other factors such as air temperature and rain also effect .

the nuclear tests of operation cue (eerie series) were for civil defence - they built a whole town to see the effects of a nearby blast and which buildings and materials had a higher survuvial chance.

uk.youtube.com...

if your interested have a look for the movie `trinity and beyond` - really quite good footage of tests

I've seen that movie clip, and I'll I'm saying is a 550kt bomb will get that city ruined EVEN the buildings.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

have a read - the guy is a working on his doctorate in this very field - and is really very clever.

Originally posted by Harlequin
www.johnstonsarchive.net...

have a read - the guy is a working on his doctorate in this very field - and is really very clever.

I've read that before, and all I have to say is a 550kt nuke will service L.A. for 5-7 miles.

Well it's my understanding of WMD of this type that it depends on the following.

1. are you using an ICBM or sub launched sort range weapon such as the
Tomahawk

The ICBM carries varied amounts of war heads but on average the standard configuration would be as destructive as 500 times the strike on Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. As we all know both cities where virtually laid asunder,and what was left was untenable. The remaining people had a 80 to 83% mortality rate, those who survived passed on genetic defects to their descendants or where sterile.

Now the Tomahawk the pay load is smaller but easily 100 to 150 times WW2 strike capabilities but don't forget atmospherics after the primary detonation you essentially have continued dirty bomb effects that is essentially on the wind going everywhere even over mountains.

If I'm not mistaken there is also a version of ICBM called the Trident that is like the little boy to the land based ICBM which for all intent and purposes would be the modern fatman. The Trident is Sub Launched also
and there are 2 versions with different payloads and capabilities but like the Land ICBM they leave you one option bend over and kiss it good bye.


2 The second most obvious thing that the results depend on I have already hinted to is Atmospherics. Essentially every aspect of weather compounds effects , causing my dirty bomb type analogy to be affected.

1 You have wind which carries radio active dust and ash.
Anywhere wind goes your dirty bomb affect goes.

2 Soil and Exposed water way exposure.
Anywhere you have this you have exposure to underground water ways and aquifers which can carry your dirty bomb affects over 100s of miles in some cases.

3 Walking dead and wounded cross contamination.
Anywhere a human can go they are a radioactive dirty bomb themselves, their infections also give birth to an unknown number of biological mutations in virological and parasitic pests. This as you may know goes without saying without advance samples we don't have vaccines or treatments, so they will run rampant before we can isolate treatments.


SO what I'm trying to say is PUCKER UP! for short.

In my opinion a high alt. nucler detonation a EMP would do more damage to a nation then just a nucler blow to a city.

A high alt. nucler detonation that produce a powerfull EMP would shut down everthing. And i mean everything. There will be no elektrical power, no back up generators would work. communication and transportation would shut down. You will probebely never see elektical light for manny years. Because every elektrical sercuit is burnd up by the EMP balst. Youre city would be in darkness for decades.

Just turn of all youre elektrisity and leave youre car for one weak and you will feel the isolation. A helthy person could manage a week without problems but think about when it happends to millions of people at once and that it lasts for years.

Originally posted by Beelzabub
Well it's my understanding of WMD of this type that it depends on the following.
1. are you using an ICBM or sub launched sort range weapon such as the
Tomahawk
The ICBM carries varied amounts of war heads but on average the standard configuration would be as destructive as 500 times the strike on Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.

The average warhead in the US/Russian arsenal is somewhere between 150 - 750 Kt with the average being 350 in the US and 500 in Russia. Since the Nagasaki bomb had a nominal yield of around 15 Kt these weapons are only larger by 10-50 times. I know the distinction might be lost on someone as uninformed as yourself but it's a massive margin for those doing the damage estimations.

As we all know both cities where virtually laid asunder,and what was left was untenable. The remaining people had a 80 to 83% mortality rate, those who survived passed on genetic defects to their descendants or where sterile.

As you might not know the people in normal air raid shelters DIRECTLY under the explosion ( which happened at a altitude of just a few Km's) walked away unscathed proving that nuclear weapons are by no means as as utterly devastating as popular propaganda would have us believe.

Myth: In the worst-hit parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where all buildings were demolished, everyone was killed by blast, radiation, or fire.

° Facts: In Nagasaki, some people survived uninjured who were far inside tunnel shelters built for conventional air raids and located as close as one-third mile from ground zero (the point directly below the explosion). This was true even though these long, large shelters lacked blast doors and were deep inside the zone within which all buildings were destroyed. (People far inside long, large, open shelters are better protected than are those inside small, open shelters.)

Many earth-covered family shelters were essentially undamaged in areas where blast and fire destroyed all buildings. Figure 1.5 shows a typical earth covered, backyard family shelter with a crude wooden frame. This shelter was essentially undamaged, although less than 100 yards from ground zero at Nagasaki.4 The calculated maximum overpressure (pressure above the normal air pressure) was about 65 pounds per square inch (65 psi). Persons inside so small a shelter without a blast door would have been killed by blast pressure at this distance from the explosion. However, in a recent blast test,5 an earth-covered, expedient Small-Pole Shelter equipped with blast doors was undamaged at 53 psi. The pressure rise inside was slight not even enough to have damaged occupants' eardrums. If poles are available, field tests have indicated that many families can build such shelters in a few days.

The great life-saving potential of blast-protective shelters has been proven in war and confirmed by blast tests and calculations. For example, the area in which the air bursting of a 1-megaton weapon would wreck a 50-psi shelter with blast doors in about 2.7 square miles. Within this roughly circular area, practically all them occupants of wrecked shelters would be killed by blast, carbon monoxide from fires, or radiation. The same blast effects would kill most people who were using basements affording 5 psi protection, over an area of about 58 square miles.6

www.oism.org...

Now the Tomahawk the pay load is smaller but easily 100 to 150 times WW2 strike capabilities but don't forget atmospherics after the primary detonation you essentially have continued dirty bomb effects that is essentially on the wind going everywhere even over mountains.

It really isn't and some basic research would really help you to better understand both the capabilities and limitations of nuclear weapons.

If I'm not mistaken there is also a version of ICBM called the Trident that is like the little boy to the land based ICBM which for all intent and purposes would be the modern fatman. The Trident is Sub Launched also and there are 2 versions with different payloads and capabilities but like the Land ICBM they leave you one option bend over and kiss it good bye.

Yes, sure, but the Tridents can for practically purposes carry the same warheads as the older Minutement III's and with GPS and other navigation aids they are more accurate.

2 The second most obvious thing that the results depend on I have already hinted to is Atmospherics. Essentially every aspect of weather compounds effects , causing my dirty bomb type analogy to be affected.

1 You have wind which carries radio active dust and ash.
Anywhere wind goes your dirty bomb affect goes.

Effects which dissipate very quickly especially in as much as atmospheric bursts ensures that such particle's are carried aloft to altitudes from which they may probably only descend when their effects have become relatively benign aside form inhalation damage for those who don't even bother with masks.

2 Soil and Exposed water way exposure.
Anywhere you have this you have exposure to underground water ways and aquifers which can carry your dirty bomb affects over 100s of miles in some cases.

Thousands perhaps by which time they will have once again lost much of their affect. Stored water should be used in the first few weeks (anything with a dust cover) but after that basic filtration will ensure that lasting damage does not occur.

3 Walking dead and wounded cross contamination.
Anywhere a human can go they are a radioactive dirty bomb themselves, their infections also give birth to an unknown number of biological mutations in virological and parasitic pests.

YOu have been watching too many horror movies and i suggest that you stop doing that while attempting to discuss this very serious topic!

This as you may know goes without saying without advance samples we don't have vaccines or treatments, so they will run rampant before we can isolate treatments.
SO what I'm trying to say is PUCKER UP! for short.

And while some attempt to find more excuses as to why world war three will never happen others are preparing them for a war that will surely in time come. I am fascinated by this idea that human beings will become 'dirty bombs' in themselves as if it will be contagious! What will they think up next!

Stellar

I think the answer to your question lies in history Japan was hit twice and although it killed alot of people the idea destroy means its not there anymore and as we can plainly see the two cities that were bombed are still around today I dont know that you can destroy a city with how ever many nukes its more like how far you can set a city or country back

reply to post by Anderi


Hi Anderi

Your questions have an answer I know is right for I loaded the weapons/warheads.

This is very serious here that you understand that one warhead we used could easily wipe out all life for hundreds of miles.

What the fire ball does not get the fallout and shock wave will.

Lets us pray we are never to use these weapons again if possible for there are no winners.

Look I was the guy that placed into the weapon the code for activation so I believe I do know about this so my words are true.

The nuetron bomb will wipe out animal life and leave the infrastructure still there at the target zone.

I hope we never have to use these super weapons of mass destruction.

Peace be with you and may the Light protect you

[edit on 30-9-2008 by Light2u]

reply to post by Light2u

The nuetron bomb will wipe out animal life and leave the infrastructure still there at the target zone

thats not true;

an enhanced radiation weapon is a great big nuclear bomb where the outer casing of the wrahead is made of such materials as gold to allow far more of a certain type of radiation to escape rather than be reflected back inwards to boost the reaction - a neutron bomb such as the warhead of the lance missile is designed to kill tank crews who would be alot `safer` to a conventional nuclear attack.


but its still a nuke and goes bang

reply to post by StellarX


Awesome info there my friend I am pleased to see this kind of response, not nasty but resource exposed fact......cheers mate!

I see however an atrocity is an atrocity, to many civilians were lost, but yet I have to admit the code of Hirohito pitted the US and Allies against every capable hand able to fight even some of the women and children so it was a catch 22.

reply to post by StellarX


And while some attempt to find more excuses as to why world war three will never happen others are preparing them for a war that will surely in time come. I am fascinated by this idea that human beings will become 'dirty bombs' in themselves as if it will be contagious! What will they think up next!

Stellar



By dirty bombs I in fact mean mutated forms of disease and Parasitic infections will in fact be contained in these individuals, as well as radiation, and the continued exposure to these persons makes them in fact a simple version of a dirty bomb.

Dirty Bombs are essentially depleted yet radioactive materials used to cause biological destruction. I would define the walking wounded and dying as that in a minimal relation to that type of device.

They be also a harbinger of destruction in the mutated yet unseen forms of destruction we can not yet anticipate, so again another type of bio-dirty bomb on legs wouldn't you say.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Beelzabub]

reply to post by mullet35


Actually Pearl Harbor was termed destroyed and the Pacific Fleet as well.

But in fact several support vessels and some of the larger ships were resurrected and put back into service as the continued Pacific Fleet.

And Pearl it's self was repaired and as recent as Vietnam, Pacific Fleet air craft carriers were resupplying their.

The USS Enterprise was in fact only a matter of 8-10 hours out of port when it took severe damage from a fighter designated #105 which had a multi missile pod ignite on the fan tail of the ship causing a 8 foot by 14 foot whole in the deck and fires through a lot of the hanger sections and flight deck even the bridge was a hair from being overcome by fires before a fire break was formed by moving fueled air craft to the forward area of the flight deck. Then the USS Enterprise was turn to and was escorted back 10 hours by her tenders to Pearl for a 65 day repair and debarking from Pearl for Vietnam again.

So destroyed don't mean it cant be salvaged it just means you loose more than you salvage.



[edit on 1-10-2008 by Beelzabub]