![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Estland
Posts: 4,330
Downloads: 3
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
Chief of the Boat
|
![]() Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Estland
Posts: 4,330
Downloads: 3
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Chief of the Boat
|
![]()
Rgr that matey
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Bosun
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 64
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
A nuclear weapon must be propery detonated or no go. Current thermonuclear warheads "must" be armed and cannot detonate by other means. Older and smaller fission weapons or A-Bombs (500 kT or less) shot one piece of sub-critical material into another (the "gun" method) using uranium or plutonium. Current Thermonuclear (Hydrogen Bomb) warheads work by using the energy of a fission bomb in order to compress and heat fusion fuel. In other words, most nukes use a small A-Bomb to create a larger (500kT-20MT) Thermonuclear explosion. Most U.S. nukes are 500kT or smaller. No worries about them going off, only that they might be duds after a while.
Nuclear weapons are not as bad as people make them out. An airburst over a large city would cause major damage but very little long term radiation and with all the concrete and steel there would be no firestorm. Mainly initial flash burns, overpressure damage, and vaporization in blast area. But nukes are not very good at takeing out hardened structures. Would take a direct ground burst of atleast 1 megaton or more to destroy the hardened reactor housing of a N-Reactor |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|