Hundreds of nuclear blast videos show explosions in the ocean and Nevada desert(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Hundreds of nuclear blast videos show explosions in the ocean and Nevada desert
https://businessinsider.com/new-nuclear-blast-videos-2017-3
33 comments
I always wondered if that odd vibration at the beginning was due to some electromagnetic effect of the detonation.
I experienced something similar ~15 years ago, some friends and I got between Phoenix and Vegas (via darksky.org's map) to watch the Leonids. As we were setting up in the late afternoon, two big fireballs crossed right over us - horizon to horizon - one slightly trailing the other, they had blue ion tails right behind them which were visible in the daylight, and everything around us made a buzzing sound, it's desert, so it's dry leaves etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/23/research.h...
Yes! I had the same thing happen probably about the same time. Was sitting in a hot tub watching whichever ones happen in August and started to notice that the aluminum flashing on the deck would make a hissing/sizzling sound when the bigger ones hit.
It was also the first time I noticed a greenish trail glowing after the meteor.
It was also the first time I noticed a greenish trail glowing after the meteor.
[deleted]
I think, in most cases, the sound is omitted, since it's often the least interesting aspect of the event, and being a little underwhelming, almost detracts from the visuals.
They aren't like loud, irregular rolling thunderclaps, with interesting sweet spots and curious deviations or oddities. They don't rumble and crackle or anything. One bang, a trail off of distant reverberation, and not much else. You have to figure audio equipment doesn't do the explosions much justice during playback either, in terms of volume and possibly seismic effects.
It's just a single report, detached and delayed by the speed of sound, and the mandatory distance from the blast itself. The accuracy of this depiction is valuable, because it informs the viewer of what it would be like to witness a test first-hand, but as entertaining media that demonstrates the noises that relate to the visuals, the timing delay leaves an impatient gap between cause and effect.
To provide improved legibility, the videos would probably want to synchronize the auditory report of the bang with the imagery of the explosion, and push the sound backwards by a number of seconds to remove the delay between sight and sound, due to distance.
They aren't like loud, irregular rolling thunderclaps, with interesting sweet spots and curious deviations or oddities. They don't rumble and crackle or anything. One bang, a trail off of distant reverberation, and not much else. You have to figure audio equipment doesn't do the explosions much justice during playback either, in terms of volume and possibly seismic effects.
It's just a single report, detached and delayed by the speed of sound, and the mandatory distance from the blast itself. The accuracy of this depiction is valuable, because it informs the viewer of what it would be like to witness a test first-hand, but as entertaining media that demonstrates the noises that relate to the visuals, the timing delay leaves an impatient gap between cause and effect.
To provide improved legibility, the videos would probably want to synchronize the auditory report of the bang with the imagery of the explosion, and push the sound backwards by a number of seconds to remove the delay between sight and sound, due to distance.
The truth is that the only way to really appreciate the sound of a nuclear detonation is to be blown away by it. Literally. When you see tanks being flipped over, and bridges being collapsed, that’s the “sound” in the form of a mach stem trashing it. If you’re close enough to really appreciate it, you’re already dead.
I don't think this is actually true. As long as you don't get vaporized in the immediate detonation radius or killed by shrapnel, the acute survival rate is actually very good (that's why cold war PSAs always show people getting under blankets and desks; if you're alive after the blast, you have to worry about flying glass).
Lots of people survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including this poor fucker that survived both: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi?wprov=sfla...
As a non-American, while I do see the need for such tests during the Cold War, the way America ruined pristine pacific islands just saddens me. They should’ve been held accountable for that but alas better them than the USSR
If you’re just talking about the islands themselves, I’d say that falls under the umbrella of aesthetics: are the islands more or less beautiful now? We’ll never have an aesthetics court to argue such things, sadly.
I expect most people would agree that an unbombed island is more aesthetically appealing than a bombed one. I don't need a court to decide which one I prefer.
There are a couple islands which have massive holes in them now. We're not talking about small craters. You can see them on Google Maps.
Holes in islands are natural. A meteorite could easily have made the crater instead. Humans didn't do anything abnormal to the islands, really.
Can't tell if trolling or serious.
[deleted]
FYI, there is no sound on any of these videos.
However it’s very interesting. With the smaller explosions, I’m really shocked by just how small they are.
We tend to think of better nuclear weapons as “bigger”, getting into the double digits in terms of megaton yield. However, the trend over he last 40 years, as computers has shown is, is miniaturization.
Most likely, nuclear weapons will follow a similar law, particular if war forces them back into active development.
However it’s very interesting. With the smaller explosions, I’m really shocked by just how small they are.
We tend to think of better nuclear weapons as “bigger”, getting into the double digits in terms of megaton yield. However, the trend over he last 40 years, as computers has shown is, is miniaturization.
Most likely, nuclear weapons will follow a similar law, particular if war forces them back into active development.
The most impressive video I've seen so far, just insane:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84
I’m sure lots of folks have already seen this, but the aftermath is still visible from the air.
https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2
https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2
I spent a summer (intern) working at the Nevada Test Site and visited the Sedan crater when I was there (my supervisor gave me the 'nickel tour' as he called it).
He said that one of the goals of the Sedan test was to test the feasibility of using nuclear weapons to create a replacement for the Panama canal across the lower part of Mexico "in a hurry." I don't know what their conclusion was but I remain skeptical that such a plan had any merit.
I read that in the early 2000's NASA went back over this test as part of an effort to evaluate what the impact of a nuclear weapon would be as an asteroid defense. And caveat the issue of turning one asteroid into a dozen, they concluded that significant delta-V could be added to an asteroid in this way.
He said that one of the goals of the Sedan test was to test the feasibility of using nuclear weapons to create a replacement for the Panama canal across the lower part of Mexico "in a hurry." I don't know what their conclusion was but I remain skeptical that such a plan had any merit.
I read that in the early 2000's NASA went back over this test as part of an effort to evaluate what the impact of a nuclear weapon would be as an asteroid defense. And caveat the issue of turning one asteroid into a dozen, they concluded that significant delta-V could be added to an asteroid in this way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
Among other things, they were investigating the use of nuclear bombs to create artificial harbors (probably a lot more feasible than digging a canal across Mexico, but it sure would make one hell of a mess.)
The Soviets had their own version of this program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nat...
Among other things, they were investigating the use of nuclear bombs to create artificial harbors (probably a lot more feasible than digging a canal across Mexico, but it sure would make one hell of a mess.)
The Soviets had their own version of this program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nat...
Interestingly, the plan to create harbours using nuclear detonations was seriously considered by Lang Hancock (The mining magnate) in Australia during the 70's, as well as a method for extracting Iron Ore...
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3533473.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3533473.htm
Might seem crazy but there was a huge effort around repurposing these weapons for construction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
For the macro-perspective: https://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/
Everyone should see this if you haven't already!
Everyone should see this if you haven't already!
This includes underground tests, right?
Not all of the blasts were supposed to be big. This one yielded about 80 times less energy than the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima.
https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall
That may be the most provocative of them all today.
What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships.
Escalation to the level of H-bombs would mean WWIII. No response demonstrates "weakness." Tit-for-tat seems the most likely outcome, with gradual escalation along the way.
It's far from clear how long that gradual escalation phase could last, but it could be a long time indeed. The first use of low-yield nuclear weapons in combat lays the groundwork for their use in the next conflict.
https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall
That may be the most provocative of them all today.
What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships.
Escalation to the level of H-bombs would mean WWIII. No response demonstrates "weakness." Tit-for-tat seems the most likely outcome, with gradual escalation along the way.
It's far from clear how long that gradual escalation phase could last, but it could be a long time indeed. The first use of low-yield nuclear weapons in combat lays the groundwork for their use in the next conflict.
You might be interested in reading more about "Davy Crockett" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_devic...) and the Fulda Gap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap).
In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage over NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold off a full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of tactical nukes.
As you rightly point out, MAD strategy doesn't quite apply here. Yes, the Davy Crockett is a nuclear weapon. However, the fact that it only would've leveled the playing field probably means that the USSR wouldn't have immediately responded in kind. That said, a world of tactical nukes is definitely a scary one (Frank Herbert was rather prescient in this regard), and I'm glad we've never had to find out what it would look like.
In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage over NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold off a full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of tactical nukes.
As you rightly point out, MAD strategy doesn't quite apply here. Yes, the Davy Crockett is a nuclear weapon. However, the fact that it only would've leveled the playing field probably means that the USSR wouldn't have immediately responded in kind. That said, a world of tactical nukes is definitely a scary one (Frank Herbert was rather prescient in this regard), and I'm glad we've never had to find out what it would look like.
> In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage over NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold off a full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of tactical nukes.
Would it be effective against a tank invasion? I would have thought tanks were solid enough that you'd almost need a direct strike to destroy them, if the tanks were spread out it wouldn't be more effective than conventional weapons. I'm not sure about the soviet era one's but the current Russian ones are designed to operate on an irradiated battlefield.
Would it be effective against a tank invasion? I would have thought tanks were solid enough that you'd almost need a direct strike to destroy them, if the tanks were spread out it wouldn't be more effective than conventional weapons. I'm not sure about the soviet era one's but the current Russian ones are designed to operate on an irradiated battlefield.
The Davy Crockett was deployed from 1961 to 1971, so we're talking '60s era tanks. There's a reason that modern tanks are radiation shielded, and similarly why tactical nukes are no longer considered part of tank warfare.
Thanks, I didn't know about these ones:
> The second category, no longer in use, were low-yield weapons that produced high doses of radiation that would incapacitate the crews of the tanks. The Enhanced Radiation (ER) warheads, commonly referred to as ‘neutron bombs’ were a sub-category. Four 1 kt ER warheads would incapacitate the crews of the battalion.
It's scary that humanity ever actually produced devices like that.
> The second category, no longer in use, were low-yield weapons that produced high doses of radiation that would incapacitate the crews of the tanks. The Enhanced Radiation (ER) warheads, commonly referred to as ‘neutron bombs’ were a sub-category. Four 1 kt ER warheads would incapacitate the crews of the battalion.
It's scary that humanity ever actually produced devices like that.
> "What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships."
Look up "Escalate to De-Escalate." The apparent Russian nuclear doctrine involves small-scale nuclear devices (escalation) used in a regional capacity. Their theory, supposedly, is that if only a small nuclear weapon is used in a limited capacity against a military target, a full-scale nuclear response against civilian populations (aka nuclear Armageddon) would be completely unreasonable and consequently the other side would choose to back down (de-escalation).
Now, whether or not Russia actually believes this or merely wants America to believe that Russia believes this is something of an open question. It could be the case that Russia wouldn't actually dare put Escalate to De-Escalate into practice, but merely claim they think it's a good idea as part of their deterrent strategy.
Look up "Escalate to De-Escalate." The apparent Russian nuclear doctrine involves small-scale nuclear devices (escalation) used in a regional capacity. Their theory, supposedly, is that if only a small nuclear weapon is used in a limited capacity against a military target, a full-scale nuclear response against civilian populations (aka nuclear Armageddon) would be completely unreasonable and consequently the other side would choose to back down (de-escalation).
Now, whether or not Russia actually believes this or merely wants America to believe that Russia believes this is something of an open question. It could be the case that Russia wouldn't actually dare put Escalate to De-Escalate into practice, but merely claim they think it's a good idea as part of their deterrent strategy.
I believe a few times the US has also alluded to low yeild strikes as a possible action to take to against rouge states if they felt a nuclear strike against an ally or the us was about to happen.
At least before the things deteriorated between the US and Russia, Russia was silent in response.
I suspect both sides are pretty pragmatic as far as a strike on regarding non NATO or non Russian targets goes, at least in terms of weighing the outcome rather than going full MAD... or even responding at all.
Granted the US scenarios IIRC were hypothetical posed by reporters (or off the record policy talk) involving N. Korea and Iran and they were obviously military targets and the goal was prevent their use of nukes. Facing a nightmare scenery I suspect both nations expect the other would act to defend their people, and while not approve, wouldn't feel the need to respond with military action. Those situations seem tailor made to a limited smaller scale nuclear strikes.
At least before the things deteriorated between the US and Russia, Russia was silent in response.
I suspect both sides are pretty pragmatic as far as a strike on regarding non NATO or non Russian targets goes, at least in terms of weighing the outcome rather than going full MAD... or even responding at all.
Granted the US scenarios IIRC were hypothetical posed by reporters (or off the record policy talk) involving N. Korea and Iran and they were obviously military targets and the goal was prevent their use of nukes. Facing a nightmare scenery I suspect both nations expect the other would act to defend their people, and while not approve, wouldn't feel the need to respond with military action. Those situations seem tailor made to a limited smaller scale nuclear strikes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwkTYeukE4