Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

by john21wall » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:43 pm

No… I hope not. If you read part one of this post, there has been a non-trivial number of people suggesting that “Explosion X was a nuclear weapon” and this post is part of an effort to combat some of the silliness out there

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

by krzepice1976 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:55 pm

FreeThinker wrote:From what I gather if it isn't the so called Satan2 missile that Russia claims can destroy an entire US State, usually the blast is seen first (never look directly at it). Then you have less than 30 secs from the sound & blast wave which will exceed 600mph and knock down almost any building structure (level it so almost every home in the US would be destroyed if inside the blast range).
Then the heat, and nuclear radiation hits you. Two kinds the black falling on your skin kind and the one that you can't breathe or you die kind.
If you can survive that (48 hours at min in shelter do not leave or perish), you have to worry about Nuclear fall out - contaminated earth & water.
If you prepared an adequate nuclear fall out shelter you might not have a worry, but almost 95% or greater in USA will not be prepared and are at risk of death.

The sad thing is we have a social sense that it is crazy to prepare for this event, yet I ask again are we not closer to Nuclear war this month of November 2016 then ever before in history?
At this moment informator about this missile abilitiies are speculayion. Missle design schedule is behind plan (delay). First test w
First stage engine węże executed in August 2016. Russia płatnej more test but they met kind of problem.

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

by FreeThinker » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:16 am

From what I gather if it isn't the so called Satan2 missile that Russia claims can destroy an entire US State, usually the blast is seen first (never look directly at it). Then you have less than 30 secs from the sound & blast wave which will exceed 600mph and knock down almost any building structure (level it so almost every home in the US would be destroyed if inside the blast range).
Then the heat, and nuclear radiation hits you. Two kinds the black falling on your skin kind and the one that you can't breathe or you die kind.
If you can survive that (48 hours at min in shelter do not leave or perish), you have to worry about Nuclear fall out - contaminated earth & water.
If you prepared an adequate nuclear fall out shelter you might not have a worry, but almost 95% or greater in USA will not be prepared and are at risk of death.

The sad thing is we have a social sense that it is crazy to prepare for this event, yet I ask again are we not closer to Nuclear war this month of November 2016 then ever before in history?

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

by Ruffinput » Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:54 am

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

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

by Mason Ireton » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:40 am

I live in Pittsburgh, guess gathering supplies is pretty pointless?

Re: Nuclear Flash duration as a yield indicator.

by jayfeather31 » Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:21 am

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.

by JohnStone » Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:16 am

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.

by Zanting » Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:37 am

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.

by JohnStone » Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:35 am

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.

by Zanting » Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:07 am

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.

Top