Nuclear Blasts
 

I was just reading though "Armies of the Night" and realized something.

The strike hitting Linden was listed at 1.25MT. So damage radius should be MUCH smaller then what the maps included show.

I am using this as a guide... http://sc-ems.com/ems/blastICT/blastICT.htm

Is this example accurate?

Obviously radiation and subsequent fires and such would cause more damage. But the maps in the module show complete destruction for 10-12miles out.

I am actually working on what I hope will be the definitive blast mapping system as part of my gaming site. I am hoping it will be ready shortly.

This is the best currently available IMO.

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16

They have a 1.4 MT option (eventually mine will be totally selectable :) )

From Wiki...
1MT at 2km burst height

BLAST
urban leveled (20psi) 2.4km
most destroyed (5psi) 6.2km
moderate damage 17 km
ry car thrown and crushed ~4 km

THERMAL
conflaration 10 km
3deg burns 12 km
2deg burns 15 km
1deg burns 19 km

RADIATION
(slant range)
Lethal 2.3 km
ARS (absorbed) 2.9 km

As you can tell, radiation is the LEAST of the worries near ground zero. Your either crushed by the blast or crisped by the thermal well away from the inital radiation hazard zone. Now I don't have my other books to look in, but this figure is about right for ~1 MT yield. Do a little googling and .............

From the map in the module, radiation goes out over 10KM...and complete
destruction about 15km.

I think the module ranges are bout double reasonable effects...2PSI is light to moderate damage on concrete/commercial buildings. Leaving alot of the area with good potential for salvage.

Have you looked at the numbers below the pictures on that page you linked? A 1 MT bomb has an effect out to a range of 38 miles. While I haven't seen the maps in "Armies of the Night", a 38 mile radius is a mighty hefty amount of area. And sure, not everything out to 38 miles is going to be destroyed, like the stuff out to 2.81 miles (for a 1 MT, not a 1.25 MT) but there will be damage. And with a nuclear bomb going off, do you think a lot of people are going to be sticking around to repair the damage that is done, the fires that were started? Not likely.

So unless the Armies of the Night is suggesting that the explosion of the bomb was 100 miles or something of the sort, I don't think they were likely too far off the mark.

If you have the module look at the map on page 6.

The description says other then a few broken windows neither Manhattan or Brooklyn got ANY blast damage. But Brooklyn got some minor radiation fallout due to prevailing winds that day.

But the map shows the general condition over everything from Linden out to Jersey City as "rubble". Thats roughly 15KM out from Linden, and farther if you think perhaps the attack would have centered around the refinery section of Linden versus the population center.

Perhaps I am wrong, just seem like its a few "clicks" off from what would really happen...

Rubble could be from the fire storms after the nukes went off and not necessarily from the blast itself.

The most damage by far would be from fires after the initial blast.
You can count on almost no efforts being made to fight the fires, firstly because there wouldn't be anyone in physical shape to do so close in, secondly rubble would close roads, thirdly, fires in multistory buildings are DAMN HARD to fight (look at the world trade centre for a prime example), and fourthly, who'd be stupid enough to move towards a rapidly expanding mushroom cloud from the relatively lightly damaged surrounding areas?

9/11 generated a hell of a lot of heroism, but that was really just one small area and it didn't glow in the dark. I can't see more than a handful of EXTREMELY dedicated or just plain foolhardy emergency workers doing anything beyond getting the hell out of the area as best they could.

Something else that might have had a major impact is the pretty much standard tactic of dispersing emergency vehicles at the first threat of nuclear attack. If that occurred, any response would only really entail picking at the fringes of the devastation with the aim to restrict the spread of fires rather than attack them directly.

I'd bet on that.

I forgot to add in EMP effects on the electrical systems of emergency vehicles and communications which would effectively shut down any attempts to react to the blast and after effects even before they started!

What were your calculations on range from Ground zero? I was under the impression that for every factor of ten increase in tonnage the radius only increased by two in which case the difference in radius between a 1 kt vs a 1mt weapon is from 3.8 to 30.4(origianally posted as 15.2) miles NOT 3.8 to 38 miles(I read this a long time ago and suffer from CRS(can't remember Sh....what was I saying?:))) ooops missed a doubleing...... carry on. nothing to see here..... the result is close to yours. did good....... sorry bowing out:rolleyes: ....of course the difference between a 100mt weapon, my way versus your way gives a 20 mile closer safe area.

From a math perspective since since a explosion is in three dimensions you would need an 8 fold increase in power to double the radius. This might be adjusted a little downward as the ground might redirect some of the blast. As I am researching this I'll post some formulas as I find them.

Did anyone consult the 1977 Effects of Nuclear Weapons study at http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/pu.../effects.shtml ?

And this site has a calculator, based off the 1962 version of that same study.

Well if I am reading that chart correctly Chico, then ordinary houses 10 miles away from that blast would only receive slight damage and concrete building wouldn't even receive light.

For me, that seem to say the range in the first versions are way off.

And remember guys... a fire doesn't turn a concrete building to rubble.

It can depending on the amount of heat. A regular fire won't but a high temperature fire will. It will act on the metal inside the concrete pillars. If the concrete itself doesn't suffer much the action from the distorted metal will make it explode and the building will collapse. Else, it can collapse under a blowing or earthquake-like effect. If anyone as a doubt, just take a look at Ground Zero, NYC; that's probably how the entire area collapsed.

I'm not a specialist but that's how my stepfather would explain it (more or less) and he is one, and one I trust.

Yep, Glastone etal were THE source and the book I have buried in storage, but NOW thanks to you I have it on the flash drive :D

I stand corrected, it can cause rubble. Just not from a 1.25 mt blast at 15miles away. :)

Okay, I dug up information that T.R. and I had collected regarding nuke blasts. Here's a basis for a rough breakdown.

Vaporization Point
------------------
Everything is vaporized by the atomic blast. 98% fatalities.
Overpress=25 psi. Wind velocity=320 mph.

Total Destruction
-----------------
All structures above ground are destroyed. 90% fatalities.
Overpress=17 psi. Wind velocity=290 mph.

Severe Blast Damage
-------------------
Factories and other large-scale building collapse. Severe damage
to highway bridges. Rivers sometimes flow countercurrent.
65% fatalities, 30% injured.
Overpress=9 psi. Wind velocity=260 mph.

Severe Heat Damage
------------------
Everything flammable burns. People in the area suffocate due to
the fact that most available oxygen is consumed by the fires.
50% fatalities, 45% injured.
Overpress=6 psi. Wind velocity=140 mph.

Severe Fire & Wind Damage
-------------------------
Residency structures are severely damaged. People are blown
around. 2nd and 3rd-degree burns suffered by most survivors.
15% dead. 50% injured.
Overpress=3 psi. Wind velocity=98 mph.

For a 1 MT airburst of 8,000 feet, we have the following ranges for those 5 zones.

Zone 1: 2.5 mile radius
zone 2: 3.75 mile radius
Zone 3: 6.5 mile radius
Zone 4: 7.75 mile radius
Zone 5: 10 mile radius

Now considering that things are undergoing 98 mile per hour winds at 10 miles from the blast, it's not too hard of a stretch to say that things 15 miles away would be subjected to high winds. You're probably looking at 30-50 mile per hour winds at that distance. Likewise, since 2nd and 3rd degree burns will be occuring at 10 miles, it's safe to assume you'll have enough heat to ignite some things at 15 miles as well. Sure it won't be conflagrations, but a fire here and there that isn't dealt with by emergency responders soon develop into bigger and nastier fires. One house that catches fire catches another house, and another house, and an office building and so on. Throw wind into the mix, and those fires get pushed for miles more.

So looking at damage 15 miles from the point of detonation isn't that much of a stretch. There will still be some structures standing at that range, but there's also going to be burnt out buildings, collapsed buildings from fire, scorched vehicles that go caught in the path of a fire, and so on.

Hopefully this helps some.

Ahem!(with nose stuck in air and tounge in cheek) I have it in my TW2000 book shelf.:) didn't look at it before I posted earlier. I need a friggen magnifying glass to read the durn thing.:mad:

I concur on the magnifying glass, and a PhD in physics wouldn't hurt either to understand it all. LOL

Well I guess another question I havent really found an answer too...

How long does radiation contamination last in an urban area? Say like the south western 1/3rd of Staten Island?

Way, way longer than it's implied in T2K.
Half-life, contamination, etc was scaled way back so as to make the world even remotely livable for PCs.

Depends on where the radiation is/was. Fallout in exposed areas that are well drained would be washed away by the rain over time (of course the fallout would just be deposited somewhere else). Metal objects that were exposed to hard radiation during the blasts would themselves stay radioactive for decades or even centuries. Off the coast of my state, Western Australia, there were nuclear tests at the Monte Bello Islands and it is forbidden for visitors there to pick up any bits of metal they find because they are radioactive.

True but we might be more resilient to it that we currently think. Anyway, in T2K nobody would care anymore about cancer... Everything will be about survival, and survival only. Currently, farmers in Ukraine are back around Tchernobyl and they have gone back there for years already. They plow, the harvest, and they live. What is there motivation: There are plenty of free lands overthere that can sustain them. Only the most contaminated areas are left alone.

In a world such as T2K you don't really care about dying at 50 or 80, your only concern is about tomorrow and may be the day after tomorrow (if you are lucky). Dying at old age is a luxury and nothing more.

This might be of interest if you've got a week to read it....

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/pu.../effects.shtml

Glassstone
 

Just a note the '77 edition was redacted from early versions some of the data was removed and or changed the better ver is the mid 60's it's on the web some where i just cant seem to find it try surfing this site heavy duty data

http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/0...ear-space.html

This page has three sections from the 1964 edition that were not included in the 1977 version linked to above. I found the full 1964 version online somewhere, I just can't remember where now. There is a .pdf on my hard drive somewhere now.

Just wondering...would blast radious be the same for fusion and fission. BTW, Sanchez on this here board has some indepth info about nukes.

Its irrelevant. The megatonnage is all that matters.

I think the only difference between fission and fusion would be the amount of fallout. A pure fission bomb would have proportionally more radioactivity as the unfissled Uranium and Plutonium would be more dangerous than the deuterium.

I don't think there would be much overlap in fission and fusion bombs being the same size though. But you might be able to make a 100kt version of both. Of course all fusion bombs will have a fission core.