16 ms·

The Tonga explosion is more powerful than a fission bomb but the same magnitude as many thermonuclear bombs. Imagine multiple Tonga explosions over major popula

The Tonga explosion is more powerful than a fission bomb but the same magnitude as many thermonuclear bombs. Imagine multiple Tonga explosions over major population centers, and you begin to understand the horrors of these weapons

chii 5y ago
but the tonga explosion doesn't release radioactive fallout - just ash fallout which disappear after a "while". So nuclear weapons are still worse.
- cryptodan 5y ago
  Imagine that kind of explosion next to an island like that if Taiwan. Remember water was used when above ground tests were banned.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  Nukes also: * Create EMP blasts potentially disabling electronics over larger areas. * Start fires in every direction for miles beyond the blast zone. * Delegitimize nuclear energy. Sort of indirect but fear of nukes is why we don't invest heavily in safe fission alternatives with no weapons path. * Have no real theoretical limit. 50MT has been donated. Designs have been shown up to 10GT.
  - themodelplumber 5y ago
    Was there any news about EMP this time? I thought I read that this was theoretically possible with volcanoes.
    - zaarn 5y ago
      I don't think Vulcanoes usually produce an EMP, however, we did record quite a number of lightning strikes around the vulcano. If memory serves, the area around the vulcano was struck in excess of 200'000 times per minute at the height of the ejecta's activity.
    - Someone 5y ago
      https://wildfiretoday.com/2022/01/17/hunga-tonga-volcano-triggered-nearly-400000-lightning-strikes/ https://wildfiretoday.com/2022/01/17/hunga-tonga-volcano-tri...: “a ground-based lightning detection system recorded nearly 400,000 strikes with 200,000 occurring in a one-hour period.” Lightning causes EMPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Transient_currents_during_flash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Transient_currents_d...) , so there were EMPs. I think/guess each one was a lot less powerful than that of a nuclear explosion, though.
- vastinfest 5y ago
  Nuclear weapons are much much worse, I'm not trying to argue that. But something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer would be devastating, if I read it right - Tonga might have been related too (there was a "mystery eruption" somewhere in the pacific).
- kzrdude 5y ago
  Air pollution, the particles, are its own poison in the air; it's a slow killer in its own right, even if it's nothing like radiation.
ipnon 5y ago
It was a pretty damn big explosion nonetheless. The US strategic warheads max out at around 1.3 megatons these days. It's hard to imagine a blast 9 times stronger than what even the US military deems excessive in an Armageddon scenario.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  They used to be bigger though. I think around 20 megatons.
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    Tsar Bomba, probably the largest nuke ever used was ~50MT (1). (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
    - Victerius 5y ago
      And the Davy Crockett, the smallest nuke ever, could go as low as 10 tons :3
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    Yea, the US arsenal downsized the weapons in keeping with the tonnage restrictions in the various arms reduction agreements. However, they compensated by increasing the accuracy of the weapons so that fewer bombs per target will be needed, increasing the hard kill power of the arsenal without violating the agreements. This is important because "in theory" no one is allowed to explicitly target civilians, which don't require much accuracy, per the laws of war. Military targets are often in reinforced concrete or buried and so require a precise high pressure hit to crack. In practice, aiming points are chosen of military targets that are quite close to civilians.
    - masklinn 5y ago
      Also because a single large blast wastes a lot of energy, and is easier to intercept. You’ll do way more damage way more reliably with 20 1MT warheads than with a single 20MT bomb. But it required reliable ballistic missiles and M(I)RV. If your delivery mechanism is bombers, then at equiv-tech you have to account for high attrition rates, and thus need large payloads to ensure even low success rates will do the necessary damage to the target.
rootusrootus 5y ago
AFAIK there aren't any fission bombs any more. At least not in the US arsenal. Everything is thermonuclear now. More efficient.
- bunabhucan 5y ago
  The "low yield" bombs ordered by the last president are 5-100kt. It's basically the "trigger" from the thermonuclear bomb without the subsequent stages. The adjustment comes from the amount of tritium added. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/28/us-nuclear-weapons-first-low-yield-warheads-roll-off-the-production-line https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/28/us-nuclear-wea...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
runarberg 5y ago
This is as good a time as any to pitch the UN Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons which aims to the total elimination of this weapons of terror with a comprehensive set of prohibitions on participating in any nuclear weapon activities. This treaty has been in effect since January 22 last year and has been ratified by 59 countries and signed by 17 more including big and powerful states such as Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, Ireland, the Philippines and Malaysia. Armies of nation states are responsible for the greatest of all human tragedies. None of us are safe as long as these weapons belong in the arsenal of some of the biggest and most dangerous armies in the world. The safest option of avoiding a terrible attack or a major accidents involving these weapons is a total elimination, and currently our best hope is with international agreements such as these. International agreements have proven to be effective in other comprehensive prohibitions of dangerous materials and it is time we act to eliminate the most dangerous weapons of them all. https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/
- post_from_work 5y ago
  >>>Armies of nation states are responsible for the greatest of all human tragedies. Yes. So why advocate for a return to the pre-nuclear status quo: major powers use their large armies to influence each other, with millions dead. The threat of MAD between the world's powers is why global casualties from warfare have been in steady decline since the end of WW2. >>>The safest option of avoiding a terrible attack or a major accidents involving these weapons is a total elimination What is the contingency plan for when every country except ONE agrees, and then the last country, as the only nuclear-armed state, then has free reign to impose its will on the world with now-overwhelming force?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - CaptArmchair 5y ago
    Really? First, history of the past 80 years casts doubts on your claims: The USSR-Afghanistan left an estimated 2 million dead. Nigerian Civil War between 1 and 3 million. France-Algeria War about 1 million. Korean War between 1.5 and 4.5 million dead. Vietnam between 1.3 and 4.5 million. I could go on really. MAD doesn't stop wars from happening. It only stops nuclear powers from using nuclear weapons. And it stops major powers from targeting each other directly. That's the extent of MAD. Even that's a contentious claim to make: Pakistan vs. India over Kashmir comes to mind. Even more so, MAD isn't the only incentive for not going to War. After World War II, the World got profoundly reshaped with new economic and geo-strategic treaties and alliances. Bretton Woods, United Nations, NATO, European Union,... come to mind. In fact, after 1945, European integration was considered as an antidote against extreme nationalism in Europe and was heavily advocated for by Churchill. Second, "global casualties from warfare being in decline" doesn't imply that no casualties of war, or atrocities, have been committed since 1945. Neither does it imply that things can take a turn for the worst without resorting to nuclear weaponry. For instance, the Syrian Civil War sits at about .5 million dead currently, and it has essentially been a proxy war between regional as well as global powers. And let's not forget the Ukraine situation that's currently playing out. Third, the "lack of a contingency plan" is essentially part of the Prisoner's dilemma which the arms race during the Cold War was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#International_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Internati... But that doesn't render the argument moot: objectively, casting nuclear weapons out of this world is the best outcome for everyone involved. But rationally, that's not possible as you end up in a situation where owning nuclear weapons while everyone doesn't is the better option from the perspective of a single nation. Albert Einstein was well aware of this dilemma and said he wouldn't have participated in the Manhattan Project if he had known that the German bomb was a figment of imagination. The main reason why MAD has become a thing is because a chunk of humanity just wants to see the rest of the world burn. No matter how rational and bent on peace between nations you are yourself, you can't possibly predict whether the other side has equally rational leaders or, as it turns, absolute mad men behind the buttons who are very much willing to use them when push comes to shove. And that's absolutely not a great outlook for humanity in the long term. We're extremely lucky to not have had a war between major powers over the past 80 years; it's been a close shave a few times as well (e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis).
the_only_law 5y ago
Scary part is I’ve started to see people openly call for nuclear war.
- grey-area 5y ago
  Including the former and probable future president of the US.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The Tonga explosion is more powerful than a fission bomb but the same magnitude as many thermonuclear bombs Well, less powerful than several tested thermonuclear weapons, and maybe a very few that were deployed (largely to deal with low accuracy of early weapons and dealing with hard targets.) But more powerful than any currently known to be deployed (the biggest current is a ~5MT Russian strategic warhead.)
techdragon 5y ago
Not that it would be good… but it really makes me wish we had the kinds of observation satellites during the era of above ground nuclear testing. Himawari time lapse footage of the Bikini Atoll Castle Bravo test? The Tzar Bomba test? Operation Ploughshare tests… it’s hard to really get a feel for how large those mushroom clouds are when you always seem to get phots from angles that don’t convey the extent to which these explosions can be truly “planet scale” events.

chii 5y ago

but the tonga explosion doesn't release radioactive fallout - just ash fallout which disappear after a "while". So nuclear weapons are still worse.

cryptodan 5y ago
Imagine that kind of explosion next to an island like that if Taiwan. Remember water was used when above ground tests were banned.
dumbfoundded 5y ago
Nukes also: * Create EMP blasts potentially disabling electronics over larger areas. * Start fires in every direction for miles beyond the blast zone. * Delegitimize nuclear energy. Sort of indirect but fear of nukes is why we don't invest heavily in safe fission alternatives with no weapons path. * Have no real theoretical limit. 50MT has been donated. Designs have been shown up to 10GT.
- themodelplumber 5y ago
  Was there any news about EMP this time? I thought I read that this was theoretically possible with volcanoes.
  - zaarn 5y ago
    I don't think Vulcanoes usually produce an EMP, however, we did record quite a number of lightning strikes around the vulcano. If memory serves, the area around the vulcano was struck in excess of 200'000 times per minute at the height of the ejecta's activity.
  - Someone 5y ago
    https://wildfiretoday.com/2022/01/17/hunga-tonga-volcano-triggered-nearly-400000-lightning-strikes/ https://wildfiretoday.com/2022/01/17/hunga-tonga-volcano-tri...: “a ground-based lightning detection system recorded nearly 400,000 strikes with 200,000 occurring in a one-hour period.” Lightning causes EMPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Transient_currents_during_flash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Transient_currents_d...) , so there were EMPs. I think/guess each one was a lot less powerful than that of a nuclear explosion, though.
vastinfest 5y ago
Nuclear weapons are much much worse, I'm not trying to argue that. But something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer would be devastating, if I read it right - Tonga might have been related too (there was a "mystery eruption" somewhere in the pacific).
kzrdude 5y ago
Air pollution, the particles, are its own poison in the air; it's a slow killer in its own right, even if it's nothing like radiation.

ipnon 5y ago

It was a pretty damn big explosion nonetheless. The US strategic warheads max out at around 1.3 megatons these days. It's hard to imagine a blast 9 times stronger than what even the US military deems excessive in an Armageddon scenario.

spaetzleesser 5y ago
They used to be bigger though. I think around 20 megatons.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  Tsar Bomba, probably the largest nuke ever used was ~50MT (1). (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
  - Victerius 5y ago
    And the Davy Crockett, the smallest nuke ever, could go as low as 10 tons :3
- tehjoker 5y ago
  Yea, the US arsenal downsized the weapons in keeping with the tonnage restrictions in the various arms reduction agreements. However, they compensated by increasing the accuracy of the weapons so that fewer bombs per target will be needed, increasing the hard kill power of the arsenal without violating the agreements. This is important because "in theory" no one is allowed to explicitly target civilians, which don't require much accuracy, per the laws of war. Military targets are often in reinforced concrete or buried and so require a precise high pressure hit to crack. In practice, aiming points are chosen of military targets that are quite close to civilians.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    Also because a single large blast wastes a lot of energy, and is easier to intercept. You’ll do way more damage way more reliably with 20 1MT warheads than with a single 20MT bomb. But it required reliable ballistic missiles and M(I)RV. If your delivery mechanism is bombers, then at equiv-tech you have to account for high attrition rates, and thus need large payloads to ensure even low success rates will do the necessary damage to the target.

rootusrootus 5y ago

AFAIK there aren't any fission bombs any more. At least not in the US arsenal. Everything is thermonuclear now. More efficient.

bunabhucan 5y ago
The "low yield" bombs ordered by the last president are 5-100kt. It's basically the "trigger" from the thermonuclear bomb without the subsequent stages. The adjustment comes from the amount of tritium added. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/28/us-nuclear-weapons-first-low-yield-warheads-roll-off-the-production-line https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/28/us-nuclear-wea...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

runarberg 5y ago

This is as good a time as any to pitch the UN Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons which aims to the total elimination of this weapons of terror with a comprehensive set of prohibitions on participating in any nuclear weapon activities. This treaty has been in effect since January 22 last year and has been ratified by 59 countries and signed by 17 more including big and powerful states such as Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, Ireland, the Philippines and Malaysia. Armies of nation states are responsible for the greatest of all human tragedies. None of us are safe as long as these weapons belong in the arsenal of some of the biggest and most dangerous armies in the world. The safest option of avoiding a terrible attack or a major accidents involving these weapons is a total elimination, and currently our best hope is with international agreements such as these. International agreements have proven to be effective in other comprehensive prohibitions of dangerous materials and it is time we act to eliminate the most dangerous weapons of them all. https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

post_from_work 5y ago
>>>Armies of nation states are responsible for the greatest of all human tragedies. Yes. So why advocate for a return to the pre-nuclear status quo: major powers use their large armies to influence each other, with millions dead. The threat of MAD between the world's powers is why global casualties from warfare have been in steady decline since the end of WW2. >>>The safest option of avoiding a terrible attack or a major accidents involving these weapons is a total elimination What is the contingency plan for when every country except ONE agrees, and then the last country, as the only nuclear-armed state, then has free reign to impose its will on the world with now-overwhelming force?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- CaptArmchair 5y ago
  Really? First, history of the past 80 years casts doubts on your claims: The USSR-Afghanistan left an estimated 2 million dead. Nigerian Civil War between 1 and 3 million. France-Algeria War about 1 million. Korean War between 1.5 and 4.5 million dead. Vietnam between 1.3 and 4.5 million. I could go on really. MAD doesn't stop wars from happening. It only stops nuclear powers from using nuclear weapons. And it stops major powers from targeting each other directly. That's the extent of MAD. Even that's a contentious claim to make: Pakistan vs. India over Kashmir comes to mind. Even more so, MAD isn't the only incentive for not going to War. After World War II, the World got profoundly reshaped with new economic and geo-strategic treaties and alliances. Bretton Woods, United Nations, NATO, European Union,... come to mind. In fact, after 1945, European integration was considered as an antidote against extreme nationalism in Europe and was heavily advocated for by Churchill. Second, "global casualties from warfare being in decline" doesn't imply that no casualties of war, or atrocities, have been committed since 1945. Neither does it imply that things can take a turn for the worst without resorting to nuclear weaponry. For instance, the Syrian Civil War sits at about .5 million dead currently, and it has essentially been a proxy war between regional as well as global powers. And let's not forget the Ukraine situation that's currently playing out. Third, the "lack of a contingency plan" is essentially part of the Prisoner's dilemma which the arms race during the Cold War was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#International_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Internati... But that doesn't render the argument moot: objectively, casting nuclear weapons out of this world is the best outcome for everyone involved. But rationally, that's not possible as you end up in a situation where owning nuclear weapons while everyone doesn't is the better option from the perspective of a single nation. Albert Einstein was well aware of this dilemma and said he wouldn't have participated in the Manhattan Project if he had known that the German bomb was a figment of imagination. The main reason why MAD has become a thing is because a chunk of humanity just wants to see the rest of the world burn. No matter how rational and bent on peace between nations you are yourself, you can't possibly predict whether the other side has equally rational leaders or, as it turns, absolute mad men behind the buttons who are very much willing to use them when push comes to shove. And that's absolutely not a great outlook for humanity in the long term. We're extremely lucky to not have had a war between major powers over the past 80 years; it's been a close shave a few times as well (e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis).

the_only_law 5y ago

Scary part is I’ve started to see people openly call for nuclear war.

grey-area 5y ago
Including the former and probable future president of the US.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The Tonga explosion is more powerful than a fission bomb but the same magnitude as many thermonuclear bombs Well, less powerful than several tested thermonuclear weapons, and maybe a very few that were deployed (largely to deal with low accuracy of early weapons and dealing with hard targets.) But more powerful than any currently known to be deployed (the biggest current is a ~5MT Russian strategic warhead.)

techdragon 5y ago

Not that it would be good… but it really makes me wish we had the kinds of observation satellites during the era of above ground nuclear testing. Himawari time lapse footage of the Bikini Atoll Castle Bravo test? The Tzar Bomba test? Operation Ploughshare tests… it’s hard to really get a feel for how large those mushroom clouds are when you always seem to get phots from angles that don’t convey the extent to which these explosions can be truly “planet scale” events.