Page 3 of 4

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:32 pm
by JohnStone
Could be useful, aside from the fact that looking at the flash would likely blind a person. But if they're that close, they're either going to be dead or not a happy camper anyway.

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:57 am
by Zanting
JohnStone wrote:Could be useful, aside from the fact that looking at the flash would likely blind a person. But if they're that close, they're either going to be dead or not a happy camper anyway.
I may be wrong but a welding helmet or shield could possibly allow you to view the flash, you can look at the flash from the side too, like in the corner of a room for example. Depends on how much it's blocked by the environment and horizon as well.

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:02 am
by JohnStone
Zanting wrote:
JohnStone wrote:Could be useful, aside from the fact that looking at the flash would likely blind a person. But if they're that close, they're either going to be dead or not a happy camper anyway.
I may be wrong but a welding helmet or shield could possibly allow you to view the flash, you can look at the flash from the side too, like in the corner of a room for example. Depends on how much it's blocked by the environment and horizon as well.
Maybe, but I doubt I'd say, "Honey, get the helmet! I need to start counting!" during a nuclear attack.

Survive = Low Yield

Don't Survive = Doesn't matter

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:07 am
by Zanting
JohnStone wrote:Maybe, but I doubt I'd say, "Honey, get the helmet! I need to start counting!" during a nuclear attack.

Survive = Low Yield

Don't Survive = Doesn't matter
Where I live and where the closest possible target to me is I'd only die if it was anywhere from a 20 to 40 Mt warhead; akin to the SS-18 Satan, or newer RS-28 Sarmat.

Although due to atmospheric refraction I might die anyway.

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:35 am
by JohnStone
Zanting wrote:
JohnStone wrote:Maybe, but I doubt I'd say, "Honey, get the helmet! I need to start counting!" during a nuclear attack.

Survive = Low Yield

Don't Survive = Doesn't matter
Where I live and where the closest possible target to me is I'd only die if it was anywhere from a 20 to 40 Mt warhead; akin to the SS-18 Satan, or newer RS-28 Sarmat.

Although due to atmospheric refraction I might die anyway.
I'm nowhere near a major city nor any military bases. Nearest city doesn't seem to have any strategic value, kind of small...population about 100k. Oakridge may be a target, it's about 150 miles away, the winds would hopefully go north of us from there. We do need to worry about the winds from Atlanta, depending on the yield and weather at the time I guess. That website that lets you test nuke ranges and stuff says we'd be okay, but I don't know. I'm surrounded by the great smokies, so I'm hoping that will offer some protection. I doubt I'd see any flashes, other than maybe seeing the sky lit up. As for a direct hit, they'd have to accidently drop one of those bad boys on top of us...there is nothing here of value. But I'm not anxious to find out.

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:37 am
by Zanting
JohnStone wrote:I'm nowhere near a major city nor any military bases. Nearest city doesn't seem to have any strategic value, kind of small...population about 100k. Oakridge may be a target, it's about 150 miles away, the winds would hopefully go north of us from there. We do need to worry about the winds from Atlanta, depending on the yield and weather at the time I guess. That website that lets you test nuke ranges and stuff says we'd be okay, but I don't know. I'm surrounded by the great smokies, so I'm hoping that will offer some protection. I doubt I'd see any flashes, other than maybe seeing the sky lit up. As for a direct hit, they'd have to accidently drop one of those bad boys on top of us...there is nothing here of value. But I'm not anxious to find out.
I'm near Halifax which as you probably know had significant strategic importance during both World Wars as a harbor port, although I think I've mentioned this before, in any case I'd actually see the flash and mushroom cloud(s) from where I'm sitting if it hit the city itself.

All of the potential fallout from the Atlantic coast of the United States moving up here would be my primary concern to be honest.

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:16 am
by JohnStone
If I drove up to the highest mountain about 40 miles away, I'd probably see clouds all over the East coast. Not something that I'd be looking forward to though.

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:21 am
by jayfeather31
JohnStone wrote:If I drove up to the highest mountain about 40 miles away, I'd probably see clouds all over the East coast. Not something that I'd be looking forward to though.
Crazy thing is, I'd find it somewhat beautiful. Now don't get me wrong, having millions, possibly billions, of people dying in an instant flash of light would be terrible, but being able to view it from such a far away distance, seeing the end of a civilization from such a position, would be almost poetic, seeing the clouds rise from the destroyed cities, signaling the end of one world, and the beginning of another. Whether that new world would be terrible or not would come with time, but just seeing the clouds might be terror turned into beauty.

After all... if you're viewing a nuclear explosion from far away, the light might be the most beautiful light you could see, even if it entails death and destruction.

(And that's probably the most optimistic thing I've ever posted on this site.)

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:40 am
by Mason Ireton
I live in Pittsburgh, guess gathering supplies is pretty pointless?

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:54 am
by Ruffinput
I'm actually very suprised at the amount of targets in Connecticut, CT doesn't seem very strategic. Looks like I'm shot if shit hits the fan