Ground Zero: Damage Radii of Various Nukes...On Google Maps

[roo_ster]

Because everyone would like to know if the nearest high-values target to Russkies, Red Chinese, Norks, or your nuke-armed Mad Bomber Mohammedian leaves you open to thermal effects from a nuke.

http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/200712B/GroundZero.html

This mapplet shows the thermal damage caused by a nuclear explosion.
Search for a place, pick a suitable weapon and press "Nuke It!"

[Gowen]

Here is an interesting site on nuke effects and preparedness:
(scroll down the side to nuclear)
http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/Hollys.html

Here is a map of fallout:



Granted the map is from the 70's, but I would think effects would increase rather than decrease.

[Scout26]

This mapplet shows the thermal damage caused by a nuclear explosion.
Search for a place, pick a suitable weapon and press "Nuke It!"

I selected Chicago, Mk28 and click on the button.  I then went to my window and looked east.   Still no flash.....How long does it take ??

  :rolleyes:

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

so long as they don't miss south of dc too far i might be ok   now gotta see about the nuke plant to the south

[Balog]

I saw that a few weeks ago on a post-apocalyptic webcomics site. Interesting little program.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I got nothin' to worry about unless some 'tard gets a Tsar Bomba or an asteroid. How big a suitcase would you need for a Tsar B?

[Ryan in Maine]

That Tsar Bomba is an evil one. 

[Regolith]

I got nothin' to worry about unless some 'tard gets a Tsar Bomba or an asteroid. How big a suitcase would you need for a Tsar B?

Probably one the size of a small car. I don't think it was a very small weapon.

[MicroBalrog]

Probably one the size of a small car. I don't think it was a very small weapon.

They had to cut the bottom of a bomber out to even make it fit. It was north of 30 tons, I think.

[Firethorn]

Probably one the size of a small carlarge truck. I don't think it was a very small weapon.

Fixed it for you

[Antibubba]

If you depress easily, don't click on "Asteroid".   

Basically, if it's bigger than a Baghdad car bomb, I'm screwed.

[erictank]

If you depress easily, don't click on "Asteroid".   

Basically, if it's bigger than a Baghdad car bomb, I'm screwed.

Just for giggles, I hit my townhouse just off the Capitol Beltway with about half of the weapons listed, in sequence.  The last one, the asteroid, MAY have been overkill.  Looks like pretty much all of North America pretty much gets written off for that one.

There was a different site, an asteroid-impact site, which allowed you to set the material composition of the impactor, angle of impact, and the speed.  You could generate a new asteroid belt with a fast-enough hit.

[Gewehr98]

That fallout map is just a time-captured example - a snapshot, if you will.

We ran much more detailed versions, using global weather data compiled every 6 hours, modeled at different altitudes for plume intercept by the fleet of WC-130s, WC-135s, B-52s, and U-2s. Using that variety of airframes, collection was planned from essentially 1,500 feet to the operational limits of the U-2/TR-1.  Even the old BUFF could stairstep up to 50K ft, but it protested mightily enroute. NASA had their two WB-57 Canberras that could also assist to 60K+ feet, if needed.

Once intercept was established, we reported plume size, heading, altitude, and intensity.  They took that data and updated the models and forecasts, with particular emphasis given to population centers in the projected path.

IOW, if Wright-Patterson got nuked, how soon would the greater Chicago area be at risk, etc.

[drewtam]

Anybody find that standard nukes don't seem that big? It seems that to wipe out an average american city would take at least 4-6 ICBM or standoff rocket bombs.

4-6 is a lot more efficient than thousands of high explosive bombs, but 1 hit doesn't have the end of the world effect I would expect.

This tool doesn't have any accounting for terrain. In hilly areas, this has a big affect on photonic and particle energy direction and spread.

[Jamisjockey]

According to that, I'm far enough outside DC for all but the biggest one.   

[buzz_knox]

Anybody find that standard nukes don't seem that big? It seems that to wipe out an average american city would take at least 4-6 ICBM or standoff rocket bombs.

4-6 is a lot more efficient than thousands of high explosive bombs, but 1 hit doesn't have the end of the world effect I would expect.

This tool doesn't have any accounting for terrain. In hilly areas, this has a big affect on photonic and particle energy direction and spread.

Nuclear warhead size was driven by the target and the accuracy.  Russians tended to target cities as that is where the US positioned most of its bases.  The Russian nukes weren't very accurate so they were large.  The anti-NORAD nukes carried by the SS-18s were massive.

The US started off targeting cities with inaccurate warheads so the nukes were large (culminating in the multi-megaton load for the Titan II).  As we began targeting bases (located further from towns) and smaller targets with more accurate warheads, the size dropped.  The Russians have also largely gone to a counterforce strategy (attacking ICBM silos, airbases and sub pens) with improved accuracy, so their nukes have dropped in yield as well. 

The side "benefit" is that strikes by multiple "moderate" nukes on a city is more efficient than hitting it with one large nuke.  I don't recall the formula but damage and yield don't go hand in hand.  You have to quadruple the yield to double the damage, I believe.  So, a big nuke in the center of a city will carve out the center and devastate the surrounding area.  An even more massive nuke in the center will basically bounce the rubble even more.  But a few smaller nukes dropped towards the middle "ring" of the city will have overlapping blast patterns so that the center, middle and outer areas are taken out.  Additionally, you can get 8-10 modern warheads on the same platform that will carry one massive nuke.  So, if the choice is two cities (4-5 nukes each) or one city (with the big nuke) per missile, it becomes basic economics to go "smaller caliber."

[zahc]

Not to mention redundancy in the case of failure.

[coppertales]

If Wright-Pat got hit, Chicago would not be affected due to the prevailing winds flowing from west to east.  Look at the morning weather forcasts to see which way the jet stream flows.

The bombs of today are much smaller due to the increased accuracy of today's rockets.  In my day, the missile I worked on had an accuracy radius of 1000 ft, on average.  Now days, it is much smaller.  The nuke my missile carried, an AGM 28 Houndog, was 1.1 meg.  It was about 4 ft long and about 2 ft in diameter.....chris3

[Gewehr98]

Coppertales, you're partially correct.

The jet stream at 35K ft goes West to East, yes.  That's a certain altitude.

Surface layer winds, and those between the surface and 35K feet, don't always flow West to East between Chicago and Dayton. 

[AJ Dual]

Nuclear warhead size was driven by the target and the accuracy.  Russians tended to target cities as that is where the US positioned most of its bases.  The Russian nukes weren't very accurate so they were large.  The anti-NORAD nukes carried by the SS-18s were massive.

The US started off targeting cities with inaccurate warheads so the nukes were large (culminating in the multi-megaton load for the Titan II).  As we began targeting bases (located further from towns) and smaller targets with more accurate warheads, the size dropped.  The Russians have also largely gone to a counterforce strategy (attacking ICBM silos, airbases and sub pens) with improved accuracy, so their nukes have dropped in yield as well. 

The side "benefit" is that strikes by multiple "moderate" nukes on a city is more efficient than hitting it with one large nuke.  I don't recall the formula but damage and yield don't go hand in hand.  You have to quadruple the yield to double the damage, I believe.  So, a big nuke in the center of a city will carve out the center and devastate the surrounding area.  An even more massive nuke in the center will basically bounce the rubble even more.  But a few smaller nukes dropped towards the middle "ring" of the city will have overlapping blast patterns so that the center, middle and outer areas are taken out.  Additionally, you can get 8-10 modern warheads on the same platform that will carry one massive nuke.  So, if the choice is two cities (4-5 nukes each) or one city (with the big nuke) per missile, it becomes basic economics to go "smaller caliber."

This is almost precisely what I was going to argue. Other than to add yields also went down as we went from "bomber doctrine" to ICBM doctrine, because over-megatonnage was factored in against estimated bomber losses to interceptors. And to double the yield is something like four times the cost/effort or worse is dead-on too. Not to add there may be lifetime/storage issues with tritium half-lives, and increasingly exotic reflector/tamper materials, and the effects of neutron exposure to the various parts.

As time went on and technology improved, yields went down, as did collateral damage and fallout.

That's not to say a full exchange would still not be very much "teh suck" to end all sucks...  But one in 1980 onward would have been potentialy more survivable for the U.S. population as a whole than one from 1949-1970'ish timeframe. I would expect that if one were to take a tally a decade afterward, I think that death from infrastructure collapse would outweigh death attributable directly to blasts and fallout.

One needs to look at Cheyrnobyl, and the "forbidden zone" to see what a post-nuclear apocolyptic future would be like. (and it bears out my death numbers too, more have died from stress and illnesses from the upheaval than actual radiation...) The dusty dry imagery of games like Fallout, or the Mad Max series, nor the nuclear winter scenario pushed by the likes of Carl Sagan is just not accurate. The fires/dust of even a full exchange just does not compare to even singular volcanic eruptions in recorded history.  Aside from localized hot-spots, such a future is very lush with vegetation and wildlife, because removing the impact of human activity from a region is much more significant than the temporary devastation from bombs or nuclear accidents.

[Gewehr98]

Chernobyl has been something of a surprise to a lot of former "nuclear winter" types.

That Life After People History Channel special visited Chernobyl, and it was amazing how the local flora and fauna rebounded.

Trees growing in the soccer stadium, so forth.

[mtnbkr]

There was a photo essay done a few years ago by a Russian girl who did a motorcycle tour of the area.  It was surprising to see how well things had rebounded.

Chris

[coppertales]

Look at the two cities in Japan.  It did not take them long to recover.  However, those were small nukes.......With Chernobal, the "pile" radiated for a long time where with a bomb, it is bang and it is over with just the residual to contend with....chris3

[just Warren]

There's no "Rosie O'Donnell breaks wind" option.

[Boomhauer]

There's no "Rosie O'Donnell breaks wind" option.

Warren wins the thread.