7 ms·

Hundreds of nuclear blast videos show explosions in the ocean and Nevada desert

80 points by dsr12 8y ago

mynameishere 8y ago
Any with audio? To this day I'm only aware of one video where you actually hear the detonation, albeit with whatever equipment they could grab out of the dumpster behind the nearest Radioshack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwkTYeukE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwkTYeukE4
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hymen0ptera 8y ago
  I think, in most cases, the sound is omitted, since it's often the least interesting aspect of the event, and being a little underwhelming, almost detracts from the visuals. They aren't like loud, irregular rolling thunderclaps, with interesting sweet spots and curious deviations or oddities. They don't rumble and crackle or anything. One bang, a trail off of distant reverberation, and not much else. You have to figure audio equipment doesn't do the explosions much justice during playback either, in terms of volume and possibly seismic effects. It's just a single report, detached and delayed by the speed of sound, and the mandatory distance from the blast itself. The accuracy of this depiction is valuable, because it informs the viewer of what it would be like to witness a test first-hand, but as entertaining media that demonstrates the noises that relate to the visuals, the timing delay leaves an impatient gap between cause and effect. To provide improved legibility, the videos would probably want to synchronize the auditory report of the bang with the imagery of the explosion, and push the sound backwards by a number of seconds to remove the delay between sight and sound, due to distance.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    The truth is that the only way to really appreciate the sound of a nuclear detonation is to be blown away by it. Literally. When you see tanks being flipped over, and bridges being collapsed, that’s the “sound” in the form of a mach stem trashing it. If you’re close enough to really appreciate it, you’re already dead.
    - kryogen1c 8y ago
      I don't think this is actually true. As long as you don't get vaporized in the immediate detonation radius or killed by shrapnel, the acute survival rate is actually very good (that's why cold war PSAs always show people getting under blankets and desks; if you're alive after the blast, you have to worry about flying glass).
    - kryogen1c 8y ago
      Lots of people survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including this poor fucker that survived both: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi?wprov=sfla...
- jcims 8y ago
  I always wondered if that odd vibration at the beginning was due to some electromagnetic effect of the detonation.
  - jakeogh 8y ago
    I experienced something similar ~15 years ago, some friends and I got between Phoenix and Vegas (via darksky.org's map) to watch the Leonids. As we were setting up in the late afternoon, two big fireballs crossed right over us - horizon to horizon - one slightly trailing the other, they had blue ion tails right behind them which were visible in the daylight, and everything around us made a buzzing sound, it's desert, so it's dry leaves etc. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/23/research.highereducation1 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/23/research.h...
    - jcims 8y ago
      Yes! I had the same thing happen probably about the same time. Was sitting in a hot tub watching whichever ones happen in August and started to notice that the aluminum flashing on the deck would make a hissing/sizzling sound when the bigger ones hit. It was also the first time I noticed a greenish trail glowing after the meteor.
jcims 8y ago
I’m sure lots of folks have already seen this, but the aftermath is still visible from the air. https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2 https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  I spent a summer (intern) working at the Nevada Test Site and visited the Sedan crater when I was there (my supervisor gave me the 'nickel tour' as he called it). He said that one of the goals of the Sedan test was to test the feasibility of using nuclear weapons to create a replacement for the Panama canal across the lower part of Mexico "in a hurry." I don't know what their conclusion was but I remain skeptical that such a plan had any merit. I read that in the early 2000's NASA went back over this test as part of an effort to evaluate what the impact of a nuclear weapon would be as an asteroid defense. And caveat the issue of turning one asteroid into a dozen, they concluded that significant delta-V could be added to an asteroid in this way.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare Among other things, they were investigating the use of nuclear bombs to create artificial harbors (probably a lot more feasible than digging a canal across Mexico, but it sure would make one hell of a mess.) The Soviets had their own version of this program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nat...
    - King-Aaron 8y ago
      Interestingly, the plan to create harbours using nuclear detonations was seriously considered by Lang Hancock (The mining magnate) in Australia during the 70's, as well as a method for extracting Iron Ore... http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3533473.htm http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3533473.htm
  - sameyolo 8y ago
    Might seem crazy but there was a huge effort around repurposing these weapons for construction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
mdb333 8y ago
For the macro-perspective: https://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/ https://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/ Everyone should see this if you haven't already!
- luke0016 8y ago
  This includes underground tests, right?
apo 8y ago
Not all of the blasts were supposed to be big. This one yielded about 80 times less energy than the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima. https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall That may be the most provocative of them all today. What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships. Escalation to the level of H-bombs would mean WWIII. No response demonstrates "weakness." Tit-for-tat seems the most likely outcome, with gradual escalation along the way. It's far from clear how long that gradual escalation phase could last, but it could be a long time indeed. The first use of low-yield nuclear weapons in combat lays the groundwork for their use in the next conflict.
- JackCh 8y ago
  > "What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships." Look up "Escalate to De-Escalate." The apparent Russian nuclear doctrine involves small-scale nuclear devices (escalation) used in a regional capacity. Their theory, supposedly, is that if only a small nuclear weapon is used in a limited capacity against a military target, a full-scale nuclear response against civilian populations (aka nuclear Armageddon) would be completely unreasonable and consequently the other side would choose to back down (de-escalation). Now, whether or not Russia actually believes this or merely wants America to believe that Russia believes this is something of an open question. It could be the case that Russia wouldn't actually dare put Escalate to De-Escalate into practice, but merely claim they think it's a good idea as part of their deterrent strategy.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I believe a few times the US has also alluded to low yeild strikes as a possible action to take to against rouge states if they felt a nuclear strike against an ally or the us was about to happen. At least before the things deteriorated between the US and Russia, Russia was silent in response. I suspect both sides are pretty pragmatic as far as a strike on regarding non NATO or non Russian targets goes, at least in terms of weighing the outcome rather than going full MAD... or even responding at all. Granted the US scenarios IIRC were hypothetical posed by reporters (or off the record policy talk) involving N. Korea and Iran and they were obviously military targets and the goal was prevent their use of nukes. Facing a nightmare scenery I suspect both nations expect the other would act to defend their people, and while not approve, wouldn't feel the need to respond with military action. Those situations seem tailor made to a limited smaller scale nuclear strikes.
spiderPig 8y ago
As a non-American, while I do see the need for such tests during the Cold War, the way America ruined pristine pacific islands just saddens me. They should’ve been held accountable for that but alas better them than the USSR
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- phendrenad2 8y ago
  If you’re just talking about the islands themselves, I’d say that falls under the umbrella of aesthetics: are the islands more or less beautiful now? We’ll never have an aesthetics court to argue such things, sadly.
  - brokenmachine 8y ago
    I expect most people would agree that an unbombed island is more aesthetically appealing than a bombed one. I don't need a court to decide which one I prefer.
  - Fej 8y ago
    There are a couple islands which have massive holes in them now. We're not talking about small craters. You can see them on Google Maps.
    - phendrenad2 8y ago
      Holes in islands are natural. A meteorite could easily have made the crater instead. Humans didn't do anything abnormal to the islands, really.
      - brokenmachine 8y ago
        Can't tell if trolling or serious.
Bucephalus355 8y ago
FYI, there is no sound on any of these videos. However it’s very interesting. With the smaller explosions, I’m really shocked by just how small they are. We tend to think of better nuclear weapons as “bigger”, getting into the double digits in terms of megaton yield. However, the trend over he last 40 years, as computers has shown is, is miniaturization. Most likely, nuclear weapons will follow a similar law, particular if war forces them back into active development.
tmkbry 8y ago
The most impressive video I've seen so far, just insane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84

80 points by dsr12 8y ago

Any with audio? To this day I'm only aware of one video where you actually hear the detonation, albeit with whatever equipment they could grab out of the dumpster behind the nearest Radioshack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwkTYeukE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwkTYeukE4

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hymen0ptera 8y ago
I think, in most cases, the sound is omitted, since it's often the least interesting aspect of the event, and being a little underwhelming, almost detracts from the visuals. They aren't like loud, irregular rolling thunderclaps, with interesting sweet spots and curious deviations or oddities. They don't rumble and crackle or anything. One bang, a trail off of distant reverberation, and not much else. You have to figure audio equipment doesn't do the explosions much justice during playback either, in terms of volume and possibly seismic effects. It's just a single report, detached and delayed by the speed of sound, and the mandatory distance from the blast itself. The accuracy of this depiction is valuable, because it informs the viewer of what it would be like to witness a test first-hand, but as entertaining media that demonstrates the noises that relate to the visuals, the timing delay leaves an impatient gap between cause and effect. To provide improved legibility, the videos would probably want to synchronize the auditory report of the bang with the imagery of the explosion, and push the sound backwards by a number of seconds to remove the delay between sight and sound, due to distance.
- GW150914 8y ago
  The truth is that the only way to really appreciate the sound of a nuclear detonation is to be blown away by it. Literally. When you see tanks being flipped over, and bridges being collapsed, that’s the “sound” in the form of a mach stem trashing it. If you’re close enough to really appreciate it, you’re already dead.
  - kryogen1c 8y ago
    I don't think this is actually true. As long as you don't get vaporized in the immediate detonation radius or killed by shrapnel, the acute survival rate is actually very good (that's why cold war PSAs always show people getting under blankets and desks; if you're alive after the blast, you have to worry about flying glass).
  - kryogen1c 8y ago
    Lots of people survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including this poor fucker that survived both: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi?wprov=sfla...
jcims 8y ago
I always wondered if that odd vibration at the beginning was due to some electromagnetic effect of the detonation.
- jakeogh 8y ago
  I experienced something similar ~15 years ago, some friends and I got between Phoenix and Vegas (via darksky.org's map) to watch the Leonids. As we were setting up in the late afternoon, two big fireballs crossed right over us - horizon to horizon - one slightly trailing the other, they had blue ion tails right behind them which were visible in the daylight, and everything around us made a buzzing sound, it's desert, so it's dry leaves etc. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/23/research.highereducation1 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/23/research.h...
  - jcims 8y ago
    Yes! I had the same thing happen probably about the same time. Was sitting in a hot tub watching whichever ones happen in August and started to notice that the aluminum flashing on the deck would make a hissing/sizzling sound when the bigger ones hit. It was also the first time I noticed a greenish trail glowing after the meteor.

jcims 8y ago

I’m sure lots of folks have already seen this, but the aftermath is still visible from the air. https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2 https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2

ChuckMcM 8y ago
I spent a summer (intern) working at the Nevada Test Site and visited the Sedan crater when I was there (my supervisor gave me the 'nickel tour' as he called it). He said that one of the goals of the Sedan test was to test the feasibility of using nuclear weapons to create a replacement for the Panama canal across the lower part of Mexico "in a hurry." I don't know what their conclusion was but I remain skeptical that such a plan had any merit. I read that in the early 2000's NASA went back over this test as part of an effort to evaluate what the impact of a nuclear weapon would be as an asteroid defense. And caveat the issue of turning one asteroid into a dozen, they concluded that significant delta-V could be added to an asteroid in this way.
- JackCh 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare Among other things, they were investigating the use of nuclear bombs to create artificial harbors (probably a lot more feasible than digging a canal across Mexico, but it sure would make one hell of a mess.) The Soviets had their own version of this program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nat...
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    Interestingly, the plan to create harbours using nuclear detonations was seriously considered by Lang Hancock (The mining magnate) in Australia during the 70's, as well as a method for extracting Iron Ore... http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3533473.htm http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3533473.htm
- sameyolo 8y ago
  Might seem crazy but there was a huge effort around repurposing these weapons for construction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare

mdb333 8y ago

For the macro-perspective: https://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/ https://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/ Everyone should see this if you haven't already!

luke0016 8y ago
This includes underground tests, right?

apo 8y ago

Not all of the blasts were supposed to be big. This one yielded about 80 times less energy than the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima. https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall That may be the most provocative of them all today. What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships. Escalation to the level of H-bombs would mean WWIII. No response demonstrates "weakness." Tit-for-tat seems the most likely outcome, with gradual escalation along the way. It's far from clear how long that gradual escalation phase could last, but it could be a long time indeed. The first use of low-yield nuclear weapons in combat lays the groundwork for their use in the next conflict.

JackCh 8y ago
> "What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships." Look up "Escalate to De-Escalate." The apparent Russian nuclear doctrine involves small-scale nuclear devices (escalation) used in a regional capacity. Their theory, supposedly, is that if only a small nuclear weapon is used in a limited capacity against a military target, a full-scale nuclear response against civilian populations (aka nuclear Armageddon) would be completely unreasonable and consequently the other side would choose to back down (de-escalation). Now, whether or not Russia actually believes this or merely wants America to believe that Russia believes this is something of an open question. It could be the case that Russia wouldn't actually dare put Escalate to De-Escalate into practice, but merely claim they think it's a good idea as part of their deterrent strategy.
- duxup 8y ago
  I believe a few times the US has also alluded to low yeild strikes as a possible action to take to against rouge states if they felt a nuclear strike against an ally or the us was about to happen. At least before the things deteriorated between the US and Russia, Russia was silent in response. I suspect both sides are pretty pragmatic as far as a strike on regarding non NATO or non Russian targets goes, at least in terms of weighing the outcome rather than going full MAD... or even responding at all. Granted the US scenarios IIRC were hypothetical posed by reporters (or off the record policy talk) involving N. Korea and Iran and they were obviously military targets and the goal was prevent their use of nukes. Facing a nightmare scenery I suspect both nations expect the other would act to defend their people, and while not approve, wouldn't feel the need to respond with military action. Those situations seem tailor made to a limited smaller scale nuclear strikes.

spiderPig 8y ago

As a non-American, while I do see the need for such tests during the Cold War, the way America ruined pristine pacific islands just saddens me. They should’ve been held accountable for that but alas better them than the USSR

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
phendrenad2 8y ago
If you’re just talking about the islands themselves, I’d say that falls under the umbrella of aesthetics: are the islands more or less beautiful now? We’ll never have an aesthetics court to argue such things, sadly.
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  I expect most people would agree that an unbombed island is more aesthetically appealing than a bombed one. I don't need a court to decide which one I prefer.
- Fej 8y ago
  There are a couple islands which have massive holes in them now. We're not talking about small craters. You can see them on Google Maps.
  - phendrenad2 8y ago
    Holes in islands are natural. A meteorite could easily have made the crater instead. Humans didn't do anything abnormal to the islands, really.
    - brokenmachine 8y ago
      Can't tell if trolling or serious.

Bucephalus355 8y ago

FYI, there is no sound on any of these videos. However it’s very interesting. With the smaller explosions, I’m really shocked by just how small they are. We tend to think of better nuclear weapons as “bigger”, getting into the double digits in terms of megaton yield. However, the trend over he last 40 years, as computers has shown is, is miniaturization. Most likely, nuclear weapons will follow a similar law, particular if war forces them back into active development.

tmkbry 8y ago

The most impressive video I've seen so far, just insane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84