4 ms·
> Would each city be targeted with one warhead, or blanketed with several over a large area? It depends on your objective if you want to incinerate a target, m
by awb 5y ago
> Would each city be targeted with one warhead, or blanketed with several over a large area?
It depends on your objective if you want to incinerate a target, maximize damage or produce maximum fallout.
Basically if you want to incinerate a small, hardened underground target you need to send a few nukes to have a high confidence level of success. If you want to damage a city and are OK with detonating in any part of the city then one might suffice. If you want fallout then you want an air burst to the West and let the Easterly winds spread the fallout.
Each missile has it’s own distance and accuracy calculations.
The author has another site called Missle Map that explores these scenarios in much more detail:
https://nukemap.org/missilemap/faq/ https://nukemap.org/missilemap/faq/
- whammywon 5y ago> If you want fallout then you want an air burst to the West and let the Easterly winds spread the fallout. This might be true, but I've heard speculation that a surface burst would produce more fallout. Their reasoning is that fallout from an air burst would have considerably less dirt or debris so it would (supposedly) remain airborne for a longer period of time. On the other hand, a surface burst would darn near vaporize anything in the blast radius, and all that newly created radioactive debris would fall much quicker. My sources could be incorrect, so if you've got something that indicates otherwise I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. :-)
- yellowapple 5y agoNukemap seems to agree that a surface detonation would irradiate a much wider area than an airburst.