The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Undersea Nuclear Detonation  (Read 11755 times)

Offline eddirichard

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« on: 14/01/2005 20:50:04 »
Could a nuclear bomb exploding under the ocean cause a tsunami?[:I]


 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #1 on: 14/01/2005 21:10:08 »
I'm not an expert, but I reckon if it was detonated deep enough, then probably yes....but lets see if an ' underwater nuclear detonation ' expert can elucidate with more detail than I could hopelessly ever give you.

good question though.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #2 on: 14/01/2005 21:51:35 »
All those tests were conducted by the nuclear powers years ago. Three tests come to mind, Able, Baker, and Charlie. Able was an airburst over a fleet of decommissioned ships. Baker was placed 90 feet under the water at Bikini atol's bay. Charlie was about a thousand feet depth (if I remember). Able did the usual. Baker was incredibly destructive, forcing up water and mud from the bottom of the bay about a thousand feet in the air, and then dropping it in the fleet. Most ships were crushed by Baker's wave. Charlie was not run for years, because Baker made such a mess.

However, we must remember the scale of this test. Baker's wave was confined to the bay at Bikini atol. The tsunami in question traveled the length and breadth of the Indian Ocean. The energy released by the 9.0 earthquake was equivalent to a million nuclear explosions.
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #3 on: 15/01/2005 02:46:37 »
quote:
Originally posted by gsmollin


However, we must remember the scale of this test. Baker's wave was confined to the bay at Bikini atol. The tsunami in question traveled the length and breadth of the Indian Ocean. The energy released by the 9.0 earthquake was equivalent to a million nuclear explosions.



Cripes !! If that amount of energy was released above ground, I presume I might not be typing this eh ?  Would have the shockwave traversed the globe ?

Though I gather that figure of a million nuclear explosions was the accumulative/cumulative energy for the duration of the earthquake, in contrast to an instantaneous burst from a bomb explosion eh ?


'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'
 

Offline Ultima

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
    • My Homepage
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #4 on: 15/01/2005 13:10:31 »
The problem is a tsunami is more destructive as it doesn't loose much energy as it travels, until it hits land.

wOw the world spins?
 

Offline Mr. Blonde

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #5 on: 15/01/2005 21:41:48 »
I posted this on numerous forums some time ago:

The earthquake that struck the Indian Ocean on December 26, triggering a series of huge waves called tsunami, "was possibly" caused by an Indian nuclear experiment in which "Israeli and American nuclear experts participated," an Egyptian weekly magazine reported Thursday.

According to Al-Osboa', India, in its heated nuclear race with Pakistan, has lately received sophisticated nuclear know-how from the United States and Israel, both of which "showed readiness to cooperate with India in experiments to exterminate humankind." Since 1992, the magazine argued, leading geological centers in Britain, Turkey and other countries, warned of the need "not to hold nuclear experiments in the region of the Indian Ocean known as 'the Fire Belt,' in which the epicenter of the earthquake lies.

Geologists labeled that region 'The Fire Belt' for being "a dangerous terrain that can move at anytime, without human intervention," Al-Osboa' wrote.

Despite warnings not to carry out nuclear experiments in and around the 'Fire Belt', "Israel and India continue to conduct nuclear tests in the Indian Ocean, and the United States has recently decided to carry out similar tests in the Australian deserts, which is included in the 'Fire Belt', the Egyptian weekly magazine wrote.

"Last year only, Arab and Islamic states have asked the United States to stop its nuclear activities in that region, and to urge Israel and India to follow suite," Al-Osboa' reported.

Although Al-Osboa' does not rule out the possibility that the tsunami could have been caused by a natural earthquake it speculates however that, "while it has not been proved yet, there has been a joint Israeli-Indian secret nuclear experiment [conducted on December 26] that caused the earthquake."

The Egyptian weekly magazine concludes in its report that "the exchange of nuclear experts between Israel and India, and US pressure on Pakistan which is exerted by supplying India with state-of-the-art nuclear technology and preventing Islamabad from cooperating with Asian and Islamic states in the nuclear field, pose a big question mark on the causes behind the violent Asian earthquake."

It was taken from a conspiracy theory website, but it has since updated and removed that idea. It has been prooven false numerous times. They said on the news the earthquake was more powerful than 1000 A-BOMBS. The earthquake occured in the ring of fire. Well known earthquake zone.
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #6 on: 16/01/2005 02:38:04 »
quote:
Originally posted by neilep

quote:
Originally posted by gsmollin


However, we must remember the scale of this test. Baker's wave was confined to the bay at Bikini atol. The tsunami in question traveled the length and breadth of the Indian Ocean. The energy released by the 9.0 earthquake was equivalent to a million nuclear explosions.



Cripes !! If that amount of energy was released above ground, I presume I might not be typing this eh ?  Would have the shockwave traversed the globe ?

Though I gather that figure of a million nuclear explosions was the accumulative/cumulative energy for the duration of the earthquake, in contrast to an instantaneous burst from a bomb explosion eh ?


'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'



Yes, the energy of a nuclear explosion is released in microseconds. The earthquake shook for minutes. However, it radiated a lot of energy. A magnitude 9.0 earthquake releases the energy of 32 billion tons of TNT. That would be 1 million 32 kiloton nuclear explosions.
 

Offline eddirichard

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #7 on: 19/01/2005 17:56:39 »
The reason I asked this is that it just hit me when I watched the news. What if it was man made? The earthquake may not be a direct result of an undersea nuclear blast but the result of years of nuclear tests in that area. You mentioned also that it lies in a region called the Fire Belt. Think about it. All those explosions might have loosened something down there.

Man is getting better at destroying his own planet and mother nature will fight back!
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #8 on: 20/01/2005 04:06:30 »
I think this effect is minimal. It would have to be an underground test, right in a fault zone. Underground tests are conducted well inside the continental plates, not because of fear of an earthquake being triggered, but fear of an earthquake spreading radioactivity.
 

Offline Morpheus

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #9 on: 23/01/2005 17:25:27 »
Taking into account that there have been around 2050 nuclear tests conducted since 1945, with about 1500 of them being subterranean, it
bears some consideration that there could be some cummulative seismic effect of that much mantle concussion. Tectonic plate tension release could have been facilitated by all these kicks to Mother Earth's belly so to speak. While proof that secret undersea detonations cause tsunamis would be a conspiracy theorist's wet dream, I don't think it is any stretch of fact or fancy to theorize at least that while maybe a nuclear detonation did not cause the tsunami, that cummulative historical global detonations could increase the probabilities, frequency or magnitude of earth quakes, and the resultant tsunamis.


Pi-R-Round
 

Offline eddirichard

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #10 on: 24/01/2005 17:20:00 »
Just how thick is the Earth's crust in that area anyway?
 

Offline Ultima

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
    • My Homepage
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #11 on: 24/01/2005 23:07:55 »
The oceanic crust is much thinner than continental anyway...

http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/crust.htm

wOw the world spins?
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #12 on: 25/01/2005 02:46:37 »
OK guys, this is supposed to be facts, not fiction. An undersea nuclear test is just plain stupid, and any country that does nuclear tests these days, does them underground, well within their own territory. Most nuclear powers have signed the test ban treaty anyway, so there is little or no testing going on now. The only exceptions are "rogue" states, and they are not going to do a nuclear test in international ocean!

The Pacific atols recieved the brunt of the nuclear tests. U. S., and France did quite a few. U. K., actually I don't know, however, nobody does these tests in international territory, because there would be spies everywhere.

Any undereground nuclear test can be picked up on seismographs, so there is an easy record for where and when the underground tests took place. If somebody wants to find a list of that and post it here, it would be interesting. The stories circulating about the tsunami being caused by a nuclear test are groundless, and about as intelligent as the stories that the tsunami was sent by Allah to punish Indonesia because the people were bad.
 

Offline Ercole

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #13 on: 26/01/2005 06:52:21 »
Personnally, I'm pretty sure it was caused by Titanians because Huygens disturbed their afternoon nap...

Atomic explosions have caused some islands to move 20 meters from their original places ? Well, that sounds more anti-israeli/indian propaganda from islamic Egyptian/Pakistan suckers... Everything that went wrong on this planet is caused by Israel, tsunamis, twin towers attack, ozone hole, 1929 crack, the fall of Rome, the poor taste of beer in some bars, Brad Pitt leaving Jennifer, soon-to-come peak oil, end of dinosaurs and women harder to lay on these times...

That's scientific dear - at least in Egypt !!!
« Last Edit: 26/01/2005 06:53:32 by Ercole »
 

Offline Morpheus

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #14 on: 28/01/2005 14:21:36 »
I was not suggesting that there was some undersea detonation immediately before the earthquake or tsunami, but rather that what  occurs naturally, may have be facilitated to some degree by the cummulative effect of years of testing. What is the global consequence of 1500 nuclear tests? Would it matter if most of the tests were done on land instead of undersea? Concussive force travels through solid rock for great distances.  
If global warming and the resultant catastrophic weather can be caused simply by the cummulative effects of human-generated CO2 emmissions etc, then why wouldn't it be plausible to believe that 1500 or so nuclear detonations, over time, could have some negative influence on the earth's mantle in areas where it is prone to siesmic activity already? No conspiracy, just simple cause and effect to whatever degree! Who can say whether underground nuclear testing is 2% responsible, or 85% for that matter? While it may be conjecture to assume any of it, it ain't fiction to believe it plausible.

Pi-R-Round
 

Offline DrPhil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #15 on: 28/01/2005 16:22:38 »
Beyond a few tens of kilometers from the shot point the strains induced by the passage of the seismic wave generated by an underground nuclear test is several orders of magnitude smaller than the strains produced by the gravitational fields of the Moon and the Sun every 12 hours.

If 1500 underground nuclear tests spread out over a 50 year period did have some cumulative negative influence on the earth's mantle then it would represent only a tiny fraction of what the mantle experiences on a daily basis. It would only take a handful of medium sized earthquakes, which occur globally at a rate of several per day, to release the same amount of energy as all 1500 of those tests.

I might accept a cause-effect relationship if all 1500 tests were detonated within a relatively small geographical area and then an increase in seismic active was observed in that same general area.
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #16 on: 28/01/2005 16:46:45 »
I suppose it may be difficult to keep proper perspective in these things. It's all in the numbers. For instance, the amount of CFCs released into the atmosphere must be compared to the amount of ozone present in the stratosphere, to get a perspective for how sensitive it is. Since there is very little ozone to start with, and the CFC's degrade at a rate measure in decades, significant amounts can get into the ozone layer and degrade it.

The relationship between CO2 and global climate is at a scale thousands of times larger and more complicated. There are natural sources and sinks for CO2 that are large compared to man's emissions. There are also other climate influences besides that. So there is controversy over what is actually causing the global warming, although the evidence for global warming is pretty good.

Now when it comes to underground nuclear testing, and the earth's mantle, the nuclear forces are dwarfed by the natural forces. I can't remember any competent scientist claiming that the underground nuclear tests were responsible for worldwide earthquakes. The concerns were more subtle: Fault lines exist in most rock formations, and allow radioactivity to spread underground outside the test area. Ground water can be the carrier. Also, there is usually a small release of radioactivity into the atmosphere when the subsidence crater forms.
 

Offline Ultima

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
    • My Homepage
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #17 on: 28/01/2005 20:05:47 »
???? Surely a nuclear detonation would help to release any stored energy in a fault??? Sort of like tipping something over the edge of a table, I some how doubt that it would be stored up? This is pure speculation though :D. Plus this sort of thing would have been considered before any tests?

wOw the world spins?
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #18 on: 28/01/2005 21:54:33 »
.....hmm considering the 4 billion years (give or take a day !)that this planets been around , it has been subject to impacts and explosions on a catastrophic level many times over....I would have thought that despite there being 1500 or so nuclear detonations, when you look at the grand scale of things, it still does not add up to the cause of a tragedy on the scale of the tsunami....but....I suppose you just never know......would it have not had to be the ' mother ' of all nuclear detonations to cause such a tidal wave to that degree ?

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #19 on: 31/01/2005 18:42:43 »
quote:
Originally posted by Ultima

???? Surely a nuclear detonation would help to release any stored energy in a fault??? Sort of like tipping something over the edge of a table, I some how doubt that it would be stored up? This is pure speculation though :D. Plus this sort of thing would have been considered before any tests?

wOw the world spins?



Yes, a nuclear detonation could release the stored energy in a fault. If the weapon were placed in a fault that was ready to fail, then the extra energy of the weapon could conceivably trigger an earthquake. This has probably happened, but on a small scale. Small faults are everywhere, so it should have occurred. The earthquake would be too small to be serious. The real issue with the fault is the spread of radioactivity through it. Underground testing is carried out well within the continental plates to prevent the release of radioactivity into a major fault. As a bonus, the chances of triggering a major earthquake are greatly reduced. I did not say "causing" a major earthquake, because the hypothetical earthquake  would occur anyway, soon after.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Undersea Nuclear Detonation
« Reply #19 on: 31/01/2005 18:42:43 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums