3 ms·

Well, yes, though a nuke would not detonate at ground level which would make it more destructive for most purposes (apart from bunker destruction). Plus 1kt is

Well, yes, though a nuke would not detonate at ground level which would make it more destructive for most purposes (apart from bunker destruction). Plus 1kt is very very small for a nuke.

pedalpete 6y ago
Is there any reason a nuke could not detonate at ground level? Or are you saying to inflict the most damage, you "would not/should not" detonate a nuke at ground level.
- nkrisc 6y ago
  They would not detonate at ground level to maximize destructive potential. To contrast, the US actually has different bombs that penetrate into the ground before detonating in order to effectively destroy buried bunkers. For example, I believe the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonated at about 500m above the ground.
- nradov 6y ago
  Some nuclear bombs were specifically designed to detonate at ground level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laydown_delivery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laydown_delivery
  - catalogia 6y ago
    Also these "backpack bombs": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Muni... > It was also intended that the munition could be used against targets in coastal and near-coastal locations. One person carrying the weapon package would parachute from an aircraft and place the device in a harbor or other strategic location that was accessible from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed. The two-man team would place the weapon package in the target location, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean, where they would be retrieved by a submarine or a high-speed surface water craft.
- net2net2net 6y ago
  The logic is that at a certain point (altitude wise) you're just wasting energy by blowing a bigger hole in the ground, rather than detonating slightly higher and getting more bang for your buck (widespread target destruction).

Well, yes, though a nuke would not detonate at ground level which would make it more destructive for most purposes (apart from bunker destruction). Plus 1kt is very very small for a nuke.

pedalpete 6y ago

Is there any reason a nuke could not detonate at ground level? Or are you saying to inflict the most damage, you "would not/should not" detonate a nuke at ground level.

nkrisc 6y ago
They would not detonate at ground level to maximize destructive potential. To contrast, the US actually has different bombs that penetrate into the ground before detonating in order to effectively destroy buried bunkers. For example, I believe the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonated at about 500m above the ground.
nradov 6y ago
Some nuclear bombs were specifically designed to detonate at ground level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laydown_delivery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laydown_delivery
- catalogia 6y ago
  Also these "backpack bombs": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Muni... > It was also intended that the munition could be used against targets in coastal and near-coastal locations. One person carrying the weapon package would parachute from an aircraft and place the device in a harbor or other strategic location that was accessible from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed. The two-man team would place the weapon package in the target location, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean, where they would be retrieved by a submarine or a high-speed surface water craft.
net2net2net 6y ago
The logic is that at a certain point (altitude wise) you're just wasting energy by blowing a bigger hole in the ground, rather than detonating slightly higher and getting more bang for your buck (widespread target destruction).