4 ms·

> "in a full scale war, the consequences are more significant" The specific point being discussed was a local disaster -- a 9 megaton bomb which was damaged by

> "in a full scale war, the consequences are more significant" The specific point being discussed was a local disaster -- a 9 megaton bomb which was damaged by somebody dropping a tool on it -- not an all-out war scenario. Which is why I responded the way I did. In that scenario, I don't see any realistic case in which the entire state of Arkansas would be "wiped out". Possibly fallout would have rendered a fraction of the state uninhabitable for several weeks, and possibly some long-term effects would render a smaller fraction of the state uninhabitable for much longer, but the whole state "wiped out" is just sloppy journalism.

acqq 12y ago
No, see the answer from aeturnum: use the online calculator, enable falout. You'll have to zoom out the map: the area of the effects is approximately as big as the state. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=9000&lat=34.7464809&lng=-92.2895948&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&ff=50&zm=7 http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=9000&lat=34.7464809&l...
- lotharbot 12y ago
  I did in fact already run this scenario. The fallout area is large if you set the threshold low enough. But from what I understand, the largest rings do not render the area uninhabitable by any means. Perhaps the smallest inner ring does. Fallout is also generally a short-term effect -- weeks, not decades. Also be aware that fallout from an underground blast (as in a silo) is going to spread much differently from fallout from an airburst.
  - acqq 12y ago
    Contrary to what you assume, the fallout increases in the underground burst compared to the burst in the air as the surface is reached see: http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm
    - lotharbot 12y ago
      I'm not trying to assume. I'm trying to research. I read that page, and several others. From what I understand, the local fallout (ie, within a few mile radius) is much higher in subsurface bursts, but the longer-range fallout is substantially less. Thus, I am unconvinced by the argument that the longer-range fallout would "wipe out" something the size of Arkansas.

acqq 12y ago

No, see the answer from aeturnum: use the online calculator, enable falout. You'll have to zoom out the map: the area of the effects is approximately as big as the state. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=9000&lat=34.7464809&lng=-92.2895948&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&ff=50&zm=7 http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=9000&lat=34.7464809&l...

lotharbot 12y ago
I did in fact already run this scenario. The fallout area is large if you set the threshold low enough. But from what I understand, the largest rings do not render the area uninhabitable by any means. Perhaps the smallest inner ring does. Fallout is also generally a short-term effect -- weeks, not decades. Also be aware that fallout from an underground blast (as in a silo) is going to spread much differently from fallout from an airburst.
- acqq 12y ago
  Contrary to what you assume, the fallout increases in the underground burst compared to the burst in the air as the surface is reached see: http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    I'm not trying to assume. I'm trying to research. I read that page, and several others. From what I understand, the local fallout (ie, within a few mile radius) is much higher in subsurface bursts, but the longer-range fallout is substantially less. Thus, I am unconvinced by the argument that the longer-range fallout would "wipe out" something the size of Arkansas.