[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: Nuclear-Explosion.jpg (262 KB, 1600x1000)
262 KB
262 KB JPG
Is a teraton nuke enough to destroy a whole country?
>>
That depends on your definition of "destroy" and "country". Given that the radius of an explosion is roughly proportional to the square root of its power and a megaton warhead will "destroy most civilian buildings" within a 6km radius, the circle of "destruction" of a teraton nuke will extend about 60km in every direction. That's an area of a little over 11,000 square km. So if "destroy most civilian buildings" counts as "destroy" and by "country" you mean a really small one like, say, Lebanon then the answer is yes. For larger countries the answer is no.
>>
* Oops, that should say "Given that the radius of an explosion is roughly proportional to the CUBED ROOT of its power" NOT "square root".
>>
>>9863566
Destroy = vaporise
Country = indonesia
>>
>>9863572
not even close
look up what vaporise means
>>
>>9863403
Which country.
I mean you could level Luxembourg with conventional bombs while the US or russia would need something big enough to crack the planet to do it in one go.
>>
>>9863403
if you want to actually kill everyone in there sure. But realistically just one nuke in any capital would bring so much and destruction to deal with that your enemy will become a third world country for at least a century. Brotip: dont do it on other people with nukes
>>
>>9864928
>one nuke in any capital would bring so much and destruction to deal with that your enemy will become a third world country for at least a century.
>canada's long game finally pays off
>>
File: 1233243256.png (137 KB, 785x333)
137 KB
137 KB PNG
>
>>
>>9863403
>>9863566

Notice how the radius of destruction is increased tenfold, despite its yield increased a million fold? That's the realistic limiting factor in the size of nuclear weapons, their effectiveness drops off rapidly.
Anything you would want to target is within a 1km vertical range across the surface of Earth. When you have a sphere of absolute destruction with a 120km diameter, the VAST majority of that energy goes into space.

This is why we have MIRVs, because in your case you could make a million megaton nukes and carpet a massive stretch of land (about a fifth of Earth's total surface area, or the every square inch of the continents excluding Antarctica) for the same yield.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.