Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How Bad Would One Nuke Hitting US Would Be?
TheDelta    11/27/2003 8:46:37 PM
If China or Russia ever fires its nuke at US, how bad would the after effect be?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Darth Squirrel    RE:Read this: extensive analysis of a 300kt blast over the Pentagon   2/15/2004 3:20:52 PM
During the Cold War, though I was a child, I made extensive study of nuclear weapons and their effects. From ground zero, there are distances at which it is possible to survive the actual blast, yet still be in grave danger of other effects of a nuclear detonation. Without a doubt, one of these is fire - and fire on a grand scale. One overlooked effect of nuclear blasts that particularly concerns me is this: if you happen to be looking in the right direction when it goes off, a nuclear detonation is capable of permanently blinding you at a distance far greater than you would otherwise be injured. Talk about confounding - imagine surviving a nuclear event but being blind in the aftermath.
 
Quote    Reply

Perfection Incarnate    RE:Read this: extensive analysis of a 300kt blast over the Pentagon   2/21/2004 2:40:46 PM
Well if China hit us with a nuke... < 30 minutes later there would be a very strong stench of extra fried rice seeping over the border into Russia, North Korea, etc...
 
Quote    Reply

sooner    RE:How Bad Would One Nuke Hitting US Would Be?   2/22/2004 2:09:22 PM
Nuking the United States would be suicide. There is no doubt that Russia contains enough nukes to destroy the world. To answer the question someone asked, yes, there are "nuke" interceptors. If it were that easy-nuke and destroy the Americans- then someone would have already done it. I, being American, think that the Russian people are beautiful people. No offense, I still don't trust them. [email protected]
 
Quote    Reply

sooner    RE:How Bad Would One Nuke Hitting US Would Be?   2/22/2004 2:10:44 PM
Let me clarify one thing--I don't trust the Russian government. The Russian people have very little to do with the government of course.
 
Quote    Reply

ghettovet    RE:How Bad Would One Nuke Hitting US Would Be?   2/25/2004 5:39:47 PM
Alot of what has been said already has been true. However, some things need to be clarified. To start, "a nuke hitting the US" is an awful broad topic. There are many factors which would come into play. First of all, the size of the nuke. I have seen mention of a 300kt and a 750kt blast. These are two different animals altogether. Generally speaking, any warhead with a 300kt yield, will be accompanied by several (2-10) more from the same missile. These are MIRV'S(multiple independently targeted reentry vehicle). In other words, a single missile containing several warheads with each one able to strike seperate targets. The Salt 2 treaty limits ground based missiles to no more than 10.(No more than 14 for an SLBM) MIRV warheads are relatively low yield (150-350kt) These missiles are city killers. Overlapping circles of damage from several warheads over one area to create maximum damage. Larger warheads were not targeted at cities. They are used for hard targets. Missile silos, and bunkers and the like. These missiles usually only carry a single warhead. The Soviets put warheads of 1mt plus on some of it's ICBMS. That is an awful big boom. Second is the nature of the blast. A ground burst is again, a hard target tactic. A ground burst in the heart of a major city would have MUCH less effect than an air burst (aprox. 2000ft) In a ground burst the large buildings will absorb a great deal of the blast energy. While ground zero ( would recieve total destruction,
 
Quote    Reply

ghettovet    RE:How Bad Would One Nuke Hitting US Would Be?   2/25/2004 5:39:48 PM
Alot of what has been said already has been true. However, some things need to be clarified. To start, "a nuke hitting the US" is an awful broad topic. There are many factors which would come into play. First of all, the size of the nuke. I have seen mention of a 300kt and a 750kt blast. These are two different animals altogether. Generally speaking, any warhead with a 300kt yield, will be accompanied by several (2-10) more from the same missile. These are MIRV'S(multiple independently targeted reentry vehicle). In other words, a single missile containing several warheads with each one able to strike seperate targets. The Salt 2 treaty limits ground based missiles to no more than 10.(No more than 14 for an SLBM) MIRV warheads are relatively low yield (150-350kt) These missiles are city killers. Overlapping circles of damage from several warheads over one area to create maximum damage. Larger warheads were not targeted at cities. They are used for hard targets. Missile silos, and bunkers and the like. These missiles usually only carry a single warhead. The Soviets put warheads of 1mt plus on some of it's ICBMS. That is an awful big boom. Second is the nature of the blast. A ground burst is again, a hard target tactic. A ground burst in the heart of a major city would have MUCH less effect than an air burst (aprox. 2000ft) In a ground burst the large buildings will absorb a great deal of the blast energy. While ground zero ( would recieve total destruction,
 
Quote    Reply

ghettovet    RE:How Bad Would One Nuke Hitting US Would Be?   2/25/2004 6:01:32 PM
Sorry about the cut off post. I hit the wrong button. As i was saying, while ground zero would still have complete destruction, the size of ground zero would almost be cut in half by a ground burst. In order for a single warhead to take out an entire city it would have to be at least Megaton in size and would have to be an air shot. Third, and most important i think, is this cold war boogie man about destroying the whole world. This is crazy. Any person who thinks this is possible has severely underestimated mother earth. It takes an extreme level of arrogance by any man to believe that human beings have the power to destroy the earth. This planet will be here long after man is just a memory. Life will continue regardless of what man does. Any person who wants do discuss this subject is welcome to e mail me at tms_7100 at yahoo.
 
Quote    Reply

Tracer_Tong    RE:How Bad Would One Nuke Hitting US Would Be?   6/14/2004 1:08:16 PM
While the loss of life would be horrible, taking out one or two cities is not going to detroy the country. Look at Japan. I do not think nations like North Korea would even try. If they nuked one of our cities, the US would nuke the entire enemy country.
 
Quote    Reply

Warhammer    RE:How Bad Would One Nuke Hitting US Would Be?   6/14/2004 2:59:53 PM
There would definitely be a temporary setback to the economy(world and US) as the shock of the event raced around the world. The world might even go into a depression. However, such a depression would be short lived in the United States when defense spending quadrupled, as the US goes out of its way to destroy and conquer the nations AND ideaologies behind the attack.(if radical Islam nukes one of our cities, expect the obliteration of several islamic cities, AND the conquering of all strategic resources in the middle east) Two scenarios for a single nuke detonating in the US. 1)Rogue state such as Korea or Iran launches one at us, or detonates one in a city and actually takes credit for the act. 2)Nuke just shows up and explodes, mass chaos, etc. Scenario 1, a nation is completely wiped off the map and the US takes a FAR more active role in world affairs.(ie. we conquer every little craphole of a nation that crosses us, and any nation that has it in mind to sell any kind of weapon to a third world country that we don't approve of) Scenario 2, we might still wipe a nation(or several) off the map if we think they might be the ones responsible, or had any part in the event. If you thought Iraq and Afghanistan were bad, wait till we lose an entire city and THEN see who we will destroy and conquer. Both cases, the United States enters end game with the world. 300 million pissed off americans have a new outlook on life and the world. They only want to prevent another nuke from destroying another city, at all costs. You can count on full support for war, and a President and Congress(if they survived the nuke, if not, the ones elected 3-6 months later) that would be willing to do what it takes to preserve and extend US power. Either case, it would not be good for any nation with a disagreement with the US for many years after the event. It would be a make or break period for western civilization as the US expands territory, and its influence over much of the world. Any plans a nation might have for a single nuke bringing america to its knees would have the opposite effect. Bringing the US up close and personal into everyones business. It wouldn't be pretty.
 
Quote    Reply

phantom887       4/17/2010 9:40:35 PM

Nuking the United States would be suicide. There is no doubt that Russia contains enough nukes to destroy the world. To answer the question someone asked, yes, there are "nuke" interceptors. If it were that easy-nuke and destroy the Americans- then someone would have already done it. I, being American, think that the Russian people are beautiful people. No offense, I still don't trust them.
[email protected]


I think you are exaggerating the potency of "nuke intercepters". To start with, an immidiate, surprise nuclear assault would get almost completely through the nuke's "going up" phase before we even realized that there was a nuclear threat. Unfortuatly, the "going up" phase is the only phase in which a nuclear interception missile can have any small chance of hitting the nuke. A nuke is moving much to fast during it's "coming down" phase to be hit.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics