Is there a clean Nuclear attack??

I sounded like you were blaming the Japanese for not taking the correct steps to reduce the impact of radiation… a bit harsh considering even the creator of the secret bomb knew very little about radiation at the time.

No, that is not my point.

For every person that died within hours of the explosions another person died later… weeks or months or years from the radiation. Further people are still effected with higher than average instances of birth defects and rates of cancer.

The years that followed showed a very small increase in cancer rates. The additional dead by cancer are in a magnitude of 1000. I have no information about birth defects.
Data of Tschernobyl showed only little to neglelible increase in cancer, too. The popular opinion that many people died of cancer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not proven and most probably wrong.

What about that insane crap the Soviets pulled off at Orenburg?

That was pretty ridiculous, eh?

Is it true that in thermonuclear explosions (Hydrogen or something like it), the radiation matters die becuase of the great heat?

Radiated material does not become safe simply from heating it.

Radiated material is material that is contaminated with radioactive material… ie has uranium dust or plutonium dust mixed in with it. Each type of material has a half life. That tells you the rate at which it decays. A Half Life of 1 billion years means if you have 1 kg now, in 1 billion years time you will have 1/2 kg. In another 1 billion years you will have 1/4 kg. The shorter the half life the more radioactive it is… but even with a long half life it is really important where it is as to what effect it has. A bar of 1kg of Uranium is less of a problem than 1/2 kg of powdered Uranium in soil, or vapourised and mixed with dust in the air.

but what do you mean by “Far from it”?

Tremendous heat turns what was solid into gas or vapour, which allows it to combine with almost anything and irradiate it.

I wanted to express that the radiation problem can be decreased with some very simple steps that are even not too expensive.

And bacteria can be controlled with penicillen, but until penicillen is invented bacteria is a real problem that is not easy to solve. Often the solution is hard to find because the problem is not well understood. When the solution is found by accident then often it is oly after a cure is found that the problem is understood.
I sounded like you were blaming the Japanese for not taking the correct steps to reduce the impact of radiation… a bit harsh considering even the creator of the secret bomb knew very little about radiation at the time.

These simple steps will drive down radiation victims and long terms effects by a magnitude.

Indeed they would. But that assumes a single attack on a modern country that understands radiation. An all out nuclear war with ground bursts etc and such measures become expotentially harder to impliment.

They were only limited number of radiation victims. In popular media every death after the explosion was “due to long term effects of radiation”. However, we should not belittle the long-term effects.

For every person that died within hours of the explosions another person died later… weeks or months or years from the radiation. Further people are still effected with higher than average instances of birth defects and rates of cancer.

German cities are completely different: less dense populated, concrete buildings. A nuclear bomb on a German city would have caused less horror than in Horishima.

The difference in bombing was that HE was dropped first to expose flamable interiors before incendiaries were dropped. For nuclear devices they would certainly have withstood an attack better, but the shape of the terrain would have more impact on the effect of a nuclear device than the materials used in making the buildings. Flat open terrain being particularly vulnerable to nuclear weapon damage. Equally stronger buildings protect better from the blast, and offer protection from radiation but again it is education and treatment that is important too… staying inside for a couple of days to avoid any rainfall or contact with freshly irradiated material would be very important… yet most would come out to observe the devastation as a natural instinct.

But I am a big supporter of nuclear energy.

I personally prefer hydro electric… 🙂

excuse me…
but what do you mean by “Far from it”?

The only primary effects that are produced from any nuclear explosion (fission or fusion) is RADIATION and a blast of Neutron particles. The radiation is produced across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, but most of it is in the form of X-rays and Gamma rays. The heat that is felt is Infra red wavelengths and the Flash is the visible wavelengths. The shockwave that is caused in any detonation inside the atmosphere (or underground or in the sea) is the effect of the radiation release rapidly heating that medium (Air, Ground or water) to a plasma,. Which expands rapidly, just like the gas produced by a chemical explosive (you would get a shock wave in space as well, but this will only be the remains of the weapon that has been turned into plasma and is expanding). The weapon only coverts a fraction of the fissionable or fusionable material, for the Little Boy A-bomb was the figure was about 6 percent of the uranium, the best figure being TSAR BOMBA at 50 percent of the Fusionable mass. The neutrons which are a product of both types of atomic reactions will also bombard the bomb remains and the medium around it, making almost all of it radioactive (also contained in the bomb debris is the fission (and fusion) products produced in the detonation, all again highly radioactive). The sphere of plasma will then expand until the pressure of the material around it stops the expansion (this is the Fireball). At this point the plasma will rise like hot air in a balloon causes the envelope to rise. This causes a vacuum underneath, which sucks up the entire moveable matter below which also becomes radioactive as it mixes with debris. As the fireball rises it cools and expands as it mixes with the lower pressure air thus forming the mushroom cloud.

The simple answer to the question of is there a radiation free nuclear weapon, is that such a device is a physical impossibility.

I wouldn’t underrate it either. Even with an airburst that doesn’t touch the ground the tremendous heat generated will suck a vortex of dirt and material up to form the mushroom cloud. That material will be irradiated and lifted up into the atmosphere and eventually come down as rain. The most dangerous radiation is also the most short lived, but the lesser radioactive materials, if they enter the food chain or water supply can “effect” people hundreds of miles from an explosion in many incidious ways… getting burned alive might sound like an easy release to the parents of a child 100kms downwind of a nuke born with no arms or legs that is unable to see or hear or speak.

I wanted to express that the radiation problem can be decreased with some very simple steps that are even not too expensive. All he burned people have very low survival rates and die a horrible death. Even most modern medicine cannnot help them. Radiation victims can be avoided by
– avoid local food and water
– iod tablets!
– wash houses, cloth
– screen radiation
– bring pregnand and young people out of hots spots
– use simple masks against dusk for a limited time
These simple steps will drive down radiation victims and long terms effects by a magnitude.

I know this might sound harsh but I think the radiation probably caused less suffering than the frightful flash burns from the actual detonation. Considering the Japanese cities were large concentrations of paper and wood, which was exploited with incendiary bombs, I really don’t think a nuclear weapon was really a greater evil.

That was my point, thank you for explaining it further. The people that died shortly after the explosion were mostly burned victims and otherwise injured. They were only limited number of radiation victims. In popular media every death after the explosion was “due to long term effects of radiation”. However, we should not belittle the long-term effects. They were there and Japanese society was sometimes unable to deal with it. Many people were discriminated due to radiation/bomb injuries.

In a time of war at the end of a desperate campaign I doubt either germany or japan could have had evacuation + water and food storages that would be protected from radiation or transportable enough to be deployed to whichever city was hit, and a citywide catastrophy like a nuclear attach will always stretch medical systems as I think you will find the hospital in most cities would be close to the centre and likely hit by the blast itself.

German cities are completely different: less dense populated, concrete buildings. A nuclear bomb on a German city would have caused less horror than in Horishima.

I am definitely against any usage of nuclear bombs and will not deny the many victims due to their use, test and production (which includes victims of nuclear accidents in bomb facilities). But I am a big supporter of nuclear energy.

Far from it.

excuse me…
but what do you mean by “Far from it”?

Is it true that in thermonuclear explosions (Hydrogen or something like it), the radiation matters die becuase of the great heat?

Far from it.

Is it true that in thermonuclear explosions (Hydrogen or something like it), the radiation matters die becuase of the great heat?

What do you mean radiation matters?Radioactive particles?

Is it true that in thermonuclear explosions (Hydrogen or something like it), the radiation matters die becuase of the great heat?

The fall out is often overrated.

I wouldn’t underrate it either. Even with an airburst that doesn’t touch the ground the tremendous heat generated will suck a vortex of dirt and material up to form the mushroom cloud. That material will be irradiated and lifted up into the atmosphere and eventually come down as rain. The most dangerous radiation is also the most short lived, but the lesser radioactive materials, if they enter the food chain or water supply can “effect” people hundreds of miles from an explosion in many incidious ways… getting burned alive might sound like an easy release to the parents of a child 100kms downwind of a nuke born with no arms or legs that is unable to see or hear or speak.

This is not an excuse, it is actually more an accusation of the USAF to especially seek a city with exposed people.

It is hard to blame the USAF in particular and the US in general for radiation deaths. Radiation was still very much an unknown factor, and they certainly wanted to end the war quickly so the Soviets didn’t get too much real estate in Asia… of course if they had waited a little and let them capture all of Korea we could have avoided a war and the Koreans could have had 15 years or so of democracy as one country instead of still being divided… but hind sight is 20/20 isn’t it.

I know this might sound harsh but I think the radiation probably caused less suffering than the frightful flash burns from the actual detonation. Considering the Japanese cities were large concentrations of paper and wood, which was exploited with incendiary bombs, I really don’t think a nuclear weapon was really a greater evil. It was much easier to deliver than incendiarys but the latter killed 200,000 in one raid on Tokyo so I am led to believe… this exceeds the deaths in Nagasaki or Hiroshima (though not exceeding both of them together).
With the previous incendiary attacks the use of bunkers or basements would be unlikely as in a firestorm created by an incendiary attack a bunker or basement turns into an oven and kills anyway.
In a time of war at the end of a desperate campaign I doubt either germany or japan could have had evacuation + water and food storages that would be protected from radiation or transportable enough to be deployed to whichever city was hit, and a citywide catastrophy like a nuclear attach will always stretch medical systems as I think you will find the hospital in most cities would be close to the centre and likely hit by the blast itself.
I do think I understand what you are trying to say though… these are terrifying weapons and it is a good thing they are not used very often.

Edit: In other words what I am saying is the power of a nuclear weapon is measured in tons of TNT equivelent. In other words when you increase the size of the bomb from 1kt to 1MT you are increasing its explosive power 1,000 times, but not the amount of radiation it emits 1,000 times. Explosive power increases quicker than radiation levels.

You can even say that radiation levels stay constant. Modern bombs are less dirty than Hiroshima bombs. A single air detonated bomb would not cause extreme causulties due to radiation. The long term effects are small. Hiroshima is as example always limited, as it used the unawareness of the people as weapon.
If in Hiroshima:
– people were inside shelter or basements during explosion
– basic precautions like evacuation, water and food storages were in place
– a more efficient medic aid (esp. for lightly injured people)
the amount of people would have dropped to 10% or less. This is not an excuse, it is actually more an accusation of the USAF to especially seek a city with exposed people.

The fall out is often overrated. If the bomb is air detonated most of the fission products will quickly divert to the upper atmosphere. Contamination is limited. The true nuclear consequences very much depend on weather, terrain and target chracteristics.
For some scenarios a nuclear bomb would be a reasonable weapon. For example a little fleet of ships can effectively destroyed or a “military installation” far of bigger cities (of course, some casualties will occur, but it won’t fit the common Doomsday scenario).

However, the possible abuse of them makes them unacceptable as weapon of war, especially for western countries. Threatening is also on the edge.

Sometimes called Neutron bombs these are the opposite of the topic here… though interesting nonetheless.

A bit of an eggageration. In fact no really big nukes are made these days as unless there is a particularly hard target to take out like a bunker deeply buried in a grannite mountain range then a single powerful bomb is often less effective than a lot of smaller bombs, particularly when used against area targets like cities.

For instance three 3kt warheads equally spaced around a city would do more damage to that city than one 15kt weapon detonated in the centre. Because the blast disperses in three dimensions the effect of the blast rapidly diminishes with distance. With three blasts you get multiple shockwaves and three centres of total anhialation, whereas with one blast… even though it is more than the combined force of the three smaller weapoins and one larger centre of destruction it is not three times bigger. The buildings under the one explosion would be destroyed more than if they were under one of the three smaller explosions but after a certain point adding more explosive power just shifts around rubble more…

Im not exagerating here where talking of a weapon which if detonated would of had a yield of over 100 megatons!

If detonated in the European theatre of operations the area of destruction would of covered most of Germany. I am of course adding the area covered by firestorm and shock wave in this. The less powerful Tsar bomb would of left an area of total destruction 30 miles wide itself.

What about an enhaced radiation device of ~5kt detonated at ~ 10,000ft. The fireball is very small, but the radiation would kill most anything in it’s effective radius while producing very little fallout or damage to structures.

I read about them in a couple of fiction books (Chains of Command) and looked into them on FAS.org.

Sometimes called Neutron bombs these are the opposite of the topic here… though interesting nonetheless.

If the weapon had been built to its full potential (ie 100 Megatons) it could of destroyed a country the size of Germany.

A bit of an eggageration. In fact no really big nukes are made these days as unless there is a particularly hard target to take out like a bunker deeply buried in a grannite mountain range then a single powerful bomb is often less effective than a lot of smaller bombs, particularly when used against area targets like cities.

For instance three 3kt warheads equally spaced around a city would do more damage to that city than one 15kt weapon detonated in the centre. Because the blast disperses in three dimensions the effect of the blast rapidly diminishes with distance. With three blasts you get multiple shockwaves and three centres of total anhialation, whereas with one blast… even though it is more than the combined force of the three smaller weapoins and one larger centre of destruction it is not three times bigger. The buildings under the one explosion would be destroyed more than if they were under one of the three smaller explosions but after a certain point adding more explosive power just shifts around rubble more…

The cleanest bomb ever tested is ironically also the most powerful ever tested!

The Russian Tsar bomb of 1961 was based on a scaled down 100 megaton design. It had a design yield of approximately 50 megatons achieved by removing the uranium fusion tamper of the teritiary (and probably secondary) stage(s) by one made of lead to eliminate fast fission by the fusion neutrons.

A side effect of this was it made the weapon very clean with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions. It was still the most powerful bomb ever with an achieved yield of 57 to 60 Megatons.

This weapon was developed in a remarkably short time. On 10 July 1961 Nikita Khruschev met with Sakharov, then the senior weapon designer, and directed him to develop a 100 megaton bomb. This device had to be ready for a test series due to begin in September so that the series would create maximum political impact (a bomb this size is virtually useless militarily). Sakharov returned to Arzamas-16, and selected a design team consisting of Victor Adamskii, Yuri Babaev, Yuri Trunev, and Yuri Smirnov (who later oversaw the transformation of this design into a fielded weapon). The bomb was tested only 14 weeks after the initiation of its design.

The effect of this bomb at full yield on global fallout would have been tremendous. It would have increased the world’s total fission fallout since the invention of the atomic bomb by 25%. The fabrication of the massive parachute disrupted the Soviet nylon hosiery industry. It weighed 27 metric tons. Some were actually stockpiled.

The bomb was air dropped by a Tu-95 strategic bomber piloted by A. E. Durnovtsev (made Hero of the Soviet Union).

If the weapon had been built to its full potential (ie 100 Megatons) it could of destroyed a country the size of Germany.

Here is a couple of links to some videos and a picture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y2yGjbquRY&search=tsar%20bomb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXOKz1QRlvQ&search=tsar%20bomb

What about an enhaced radiation device of ~5kt detonated at ~ 10,000ft. The fireball is very small, but the radiation would kill most anything in it’s effective radius while producing very little fallout or damage to structures.

I read about them in a couple of fiction books (Chains of Command) and looked into them on FAS.org.

I am not sure if it was some kind of FAE bomb.

Technically yes, it would be. Any type of bomb that tries to use the air around the target instead of generating it itself would count. Any powder that if mixed correctly with air that explodes… coal dust, flour, or liquids which are explosive in gas form like petrol is technically an FAE. The problem is getting the air to fuel mix just right… not enough air and the fuel wont detonate in places, reducing its power. Too much air and the fuel will burn instead of detonate (like the surface of petrol burns rather than detonates if you light it). In most hollywood explosions that look fiery the fuel is burning rather than detonating.

Didn’t the Germans try a similar FAE approach during the Second World War as a method of defending against bomber attacks? I seem to recall it involved using coal dust as the fuel.

They did indeed try and and use bombs against the bombers.Namely Me-109s would try and get about 500 feet above the enemy bombers and drop the bombs that were set to detonate at specific altitude difference. These had limited results and when the Allies started sending fighter escorts,the idea was scrapped as they would have decimated the bomb loaded Me-109s and Fw-190s. I am not sure if it was some kind of FAE bomb.

Didn’t the Germans try a similar FAE approach during the Second World War as a method of defending against bomber attacks? I seem to recall it involved using coal dust as the fuel.

Thank you very much
but, what is the “FAEs” ???

Fuel/Air Explosives. One of the simplest FAEs is petrol. If you spread it around as a vapour so that the fuel and air mix together and then detonate the mixture you create a very powerful explosion. Roughly 4/5ths of normal explosive is used to generate plenty of oxygen so that the remaining 1/5th which is fuel can burn supersonically. A fuel air explosive is all fuel by weight and uses oxygen near the target for the detonation. Obviously that means an FAE wont work in space or at high altitudes or in water, but by weight it is generally 2-3 times more powerful than other explosive types. Generally the explosion is not as rapid, but it is of longer duration and it generates more heat damage.

The exception would be FAEs but then they have nothing to do with nuclear weapons except in the minds of the worlds media.
.

Thank you very much
but, what is the “FAEs” ???