4 ms·
I wonder if an artificial tsunami of the same scale can be achieved my setting off a nuclear bomb underwater? This seems to be more damaging (infrastructure-wis
by znt 16y ago
I wonder if an artificial tsunami of the same scale can be achieved my setting off a nuclear bomb underwater? This seems to be more damaging (infrastructure-wise) than a direct nuke hit.
- icegreentea 16y agoIt's been tried (kinda). Doesn't really work apparently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Seal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Seal
- janzer 16y agoAccording to wikipedia scale an 8.8 magnitude earthquake has approximately the same energy release as a 288 megaton nuke. Since the largest nuclear bomb ever was 100 megaton and a 35km radius for the zone of total destruction, direct bombing is almost certainly more damaging.
- jarek 16y agoI (morbidly) wonder if it would be possible to set off a tsunami with just the explosion, without necessarily the ground movement. It would seem to me that a lot of the earthquake's energy release would go into shaking the ground. Anyway, the story of that bomb is interesting too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
- rbanffy 16y agoYou could, perhaps, trigger an underwater quake by bombing a fault zone with a large enough nuke (or sequence them as to compound the shock)
- grivitz 16y agoCan you post the link? The USGS says 25,000 nukes would be needed to match the power of a 9.0 earthquake. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=33 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=33