4 ms·
> ...skyscraper that someone tried to make nuclear-bomb-proof (...) That's fantastic. Given the state-of-art nuclear weapons in the early 70s, it's fantastic i
by j1vms 10y ago
> ...skyscraper that someone tried to make nuclear-bomb-proof (...) That's fantastic.
Given the state-of-art nuclear weapons in the early 70s, it's fantastic in the unbelievable sense as the thing would stick out like a sore thumb from the sky for just about any missile. And if zero point had been chosen somewhere above the structure, there very likely would really be no building left. Whatever was so important within would have to be to be dug down deep far, far below -- makes the whole thing pointless unless as a diversion from something else. And anyway if it was the real deal, then as of at least a couple years now, probably no longer.
- azernik 10y agoWell, in midtown Manhattan it wouldn't stand out that will. I'm equally skeptical of its durability against a close hit. Although in any case, I think Cold War ICBM accuracy (CEPs on the order of half a mile to several miles, depending on period) would be more of an issue than target identification.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dingaling 10y agoI'm sceptical of its supposed 'nuclear proofing'. There are no apparent channels for blast pass-through or dissipation so the full force would act against the entire exposed face of the building. In that case it would act as a giant lever on its foundations. It looks more like a hugely scaled-up traditional 'bomb-proof' bunker. As an example of a structure that did survive a much lesser nuclear blast, the Fukoku building in Hiroshima was 270 metres from groud-zero and remained structurally intact as the blast blew through all the aligned windows: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8adFNycaanI/TQlhoXfPW0I/AAAAAAAABto/fy9BDqLj7fQ/s400/Dirkwood%2Bx101%2BFukoku%2Bbuilding%2BHiroshima.JPG http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8adFNycaanI/TQlhoXfPW0I/AAAAAAAABt...