Author Topic: WW3? Syrian, Iranian Officials Say Israel Will Be “Set On Fire” If US Strikes  (Read 4104 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oceander

  • Guest
You might find this site both interesting and instructive: http://www.nuclearterror.org/blastmaps.html

It wouldn't just be the blast itself, though that is devastating enough. Think of the millions of gallons of (now radioactive) water vapor suddenly in the air and at the mercy of the wind.

Does that webpage use the assumption of an air burst or a ground burst?

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
I think it assumes airburst at 10k feet. Ground burst - on the surface but not underground -  as you rightly said, would be a smaller radius of effect, but a larger radius of total destruction.

It is still instructive and thought you would enjoy playing around with it!  :laugh:

I use it for novels and articles. It is pretty accurate.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Oceander

  • Guest
I think it assumes airburst at 10k feet. Ground burst - on the surface but not underground -  as you rightly said, would be a smaller radius of effect, but a larger radius of total destruction.

It is still instructive and thought you would enjoy playing around with it!  :laugh:

I use it for novels and articles. It is pretty accurate.

It is interesting.  It also brings to the fore the fact that even a ground burst in lower NY harbor would spread a lot of fallout across Long Island - possibly more than on NYC itself, albeit in a less concentrated form.  That would cause a true tragedy because there isn't any way off the island - excepting boats - other than the bridges that are located in NYC itself.  Also, any attempt to flee - other than by boat - would require people to move toward the location of the blast, rather than away from it, which would just increase the dimensions of the disaster.  Long Island might end up suffering more than NYC, even though NYC was closest to the blast.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 07:29:18 pm by Oceander »

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Of course, it ignores wind effects. That is a bad failing of the site, but it is more for fun and curiosity than anything else. Set of a nuke in the harbour while the wind is in the right direction, and the fallout would cover most of Manhattan.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
... detonating a nuclear gadget, even a modest one, in the hold of a cargo ship sitting in NY harbor would have serious consequences to NYC and the surrounding areas of NJ (in fact, since it looks as if most cargo traffic passes only through the lower NY harbor area, and goes into areas closer to NJ, like Newark, for offloading, the worst of the damage would be in NJ).
Hey, don't forget Staten Island. I'm right across the channel from Carteret, Woodbridge, and Perth Amboy. Of course, since Staten Island is already a toxic dump, I don't think we'd notice.