Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: wolfekeeper on 04/05/2022 00:21:12
-
Apparently in Russian state media they're threatening to do this. Is this even remotely practical? I'm doubting they've got a big enough bomb to do that, but I'm prepared to accept a worked example proving otherwise.
-
Would have to be big, and to make a tsunami in deep water that shelves towards the UK mainland. North sea would be possible, would swamp parts a little of the north, but any one that is detonated would result in harm to many other coasts at the same time, leading to the USSR getting a few replies sent to them space express.
-
Is this even remotely practical?
It would be mad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
-
Whilst much of the east of England can be covered by a high tide and a northeasterly storm (February 1953), you'd need a wave up to 3000 ft high and capable of travelling at least 100 miles to ensure that the rest of the country even got wet. Little point in dropping the bomb in the North Sea where most of the energy would flood the Netherlands (who are quite used to it) nor the Irish Sea, where it would do more damage to the flat east coast of neutral Ireland before it made much impact on Wales.
-
Not possible with a single bomb, in my humble opinion. There was discussion in the early days of nuclear weapons of a thousand megaton device but it was realised that the fireball would extend beyond the atmosphere wasting a huge amount destructive energy. To produce that degree of tsunami I would guess many thousands of megatons in multiple devices which not only sterilise the british isles, but the whole planet. Silly infantile scaremongering.
-
This was attempted at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific, by the Baker test, with an underwater blast of 23 kilotons.
- At 6km range, it produced a tsunami of 5m in height.
- It was apparently not the blast itself that caused the tsunami, but the rush of water to refill the vaporized/displaced void
- It did not manage to sink many ships, but did cover them with so much radioactive fallout that they could not be used for later target practice
- This test was conducted in fairly shallow water (a tropical atoll), so it might be a bit different than open ocean.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation:
- Presumably, a modern repeat would use a much more powerful bomb, say 23 Megatons (1000x explosive yield).
- The volume of displaced/vaporized water would be about 1000x larger
- The wave energy is proportional to the height squared.
- The tsunami might have a height of 150m at a range of 6km - certainly enough to destroy any coastal city, and severely damage a city on a river.
- The energy in the tsunami wave reduces in inverse proportion to the distance from the point source (ignoring focusing/interference effects), so perhaps 75m height at 100km.
This would certainly destroy nearby shipping, and damage coastal cities, but would not cover Ben Nevis at 1300m.
- The long-term radioactive pollution may be as bad as the short-term tsunami damage
- And the retaliation would only make it worse...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Sequence_of_blast_events
-
Which does raise the question: What, exactly, has the "nuclear deterrent" deterred? The Soviet Union was an ally of the western powers until they acquired nuclear weapons, since when there have been wars all over the world, mostly with little point and no desirable outcome.
Anyway, developing Evan's theme, there are plenty of 10 MT warheads available. The North Sea is quite shallow, and the advantage of an underwater explosion is that you can arrange sequential detonation to produce whatever focussing effect you want, in exchange for the destruction of all major Russian cities by a more conventional airburst. Hence the invasion of Ukraine - nobody dares to oppose any other nuclear power, but the lesson of the abject failure of anyone to occupy Afghanistan since 1842 is of no consequence to an unpopular dictator.
-
OK, imagine you wanted to drop a few inches of water onto Manchester. (not an unreasonable goal :-) )
That's not going to destroy the city but we have numbers for it.
"In a typical thunderstorm, approximately 5×108 kg of water vapor are lifted, and the amount of energy released when this condenses is 1015 joules."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderstorm
That's of the order of a megaton blast.
And Manchester survives those regularly (Thunderstorms, rather than bombs).
Flooding the whole country using weapons just isn't energetically plausible.
The Russians are lying- but we knew that.
What, exactly, has the "nuclear deterrent" deterred?
The use of nukes- that's the point.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power#Wave_power_formula
The 2004 Indian ocean tsunami released 24 megatons worth of energy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami#Energy_released
To flood somewhere with a wave you require the wave amplitude and length to be sufficient to achieve it in one fell swoop, otherwise the wave withdraws. Given tsunamis generally flood with sea level rise there wavelength you would need to move enough water to literally flood the land, there is not enough water in the North Sea to achieve this entirely to a height of 100m. From the Atlantic side in a circular blast radius raising roughly 500,000 km2 of water averaging height of 50m
-
I mean it's basically a tsunami bomb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami_bomb
Which does raise the question: What, exactly, has the "nuclear deterrent" deterred? The Soviet Union was an ally of the western powers until they acquired nuclear weapons, since when there have been wars all over the world, mostly with little point and no desirable outcome.
I know what it didn't deter. It didn't deter Russia from invading Ukraine. There was no deterrent, after Ukraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons they actually had to Russia, shortly after the USSR fell.
-
The 2004 Indian ocean tsunami released 24 megatons worth of energy.
During the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami, the Sunda Trench displaced water by 15m over a length of 1,300 km, displacing 30 cubic kilometers of water.
This produced a line source parallel to the coast, which doesn't attenuate much with distance, and drove a lot of water onto land.
A single explosion is a point source, which produces circular waves spreading out in all directions, and the energy reduces linearly with distance from the source. That is why the New Zealand study talked about a line of charges, to produce something like a linear source.
the total energy of the tsunami waves was equivalent to about 5 megatons of TNT (21 PJ), which is more than twice the total explosive energy used during all of World War II (including the two atomic bombs) but still a couple of orders of magnitude less than the energy released in the earthquake itself.
So the energy coupling from the earthquake into tsunami is something like 1%.
- I imagine that the energy coupling from an atomic bomb into tsunami would also be fairly low
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami#Tectonic_plates
-
The 2004 Indian ocean tsunami released 24 megatons worth of energy.
During the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami, the Sunda Trench displaced water by 15m over a length of 1,300 km, displacing 30 cubic kilometers of water.
This produced a line source parallel to the coast, which doesn't attenuate much with distance, and drove a lot of water onto land.
A single explosion is a point source, which produces circular waves spreading out in all directions, and the energy reduces linearly with distance from the source. That is why the New Zealand study talked about a line of charges, to produce something like a linear source.
I imagine so, but a straight line would also create waves in the opposite direction and will eventually round out. I imagine it is going to be somewhere in the region of 2diameter rather than PIdiameter ammount of water moved. Do it too close and the wave will run out of water. the total energy of the tsunami waves was equivalent to about 5 megatons of TNT (21 PJ), which is more than twice the total explosive energy used during all of World War II (including the two atomic bombs) but still a couple of orders of magnitude less than the energy released in the earthquake itself.
So the energy coupling from the earthquake into tsunami is something like 1%.
- I imagine that the energy coupling from an atomic bomb into tsunami would also be fairly low
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami#Tectonic_plates
Total energy involved in the quake was 400,000 times the energy released, which in turn as you quote is 5 times the energy in the waves. As a generalisation you would assume a bomb would have a bout the same wave energy conversion.
Interestingly to raise 500,000km2 of water 50m is about twice the energy in all of the nuclear weapons on earth
-
So... we have conclusively proved that the Russian State media are still telling lies- just like Pravda and Tass did in the 80s.
-
The 2004 Indian ocean tsunami released 24 megatons worth of energy.
During the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami, the Sunda Trench displaced water by 15m over a length of 1,300 km, displacing 30 cubic kilometers of water.
This produced a line source parallel to the coast, which doesn't attenuate much with distance, and drove a lot of water onto land.
A single explosion is a point source, which produces circular waves spreading out in all directions, and the energy reduces linearly with distance from the source. That is why the New Zealand study talked about a line of charges, to produce something like a linear source.
I imagine so, but a straight line would also create waves in the opposite direction and will eventually round out. I imagine it is going to be somewhere in the region of 2diameter rather than PIdiameter ammount of water moved. Do it too close and the wave will run out of water. the total energy of the tsunami waves was equivalent to about 5 megatons of TNT (21 PJ), which is more than twice the total explosive energy used during all of World War II (including the two atomic bombs) but still a couple of orders of magnitude less than the energy released in the earthquake itself.
So the energy coupling from the earthquake into tsunami is something like 1%.
- I imagine that the energy coupling from an atomic bomb into tsunami would also be fairly low
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami#Tectonic_plates
Total energy involved in the quake was 400,000 times the energy released, which in turn as you quote is 5 times the energy in the waves. As a generalisation you would assume a bomb would have a bout the same wave energy conversion.
Interestingly to raise 500,000km2 of water 50m is about twice the energy in all of the nuclear weapons on earth
I suppose if we have a 20 percent efficiency in water energy transfer, a 1% in the individual waves radiating out from the source and the world's nuclear arsenal only being 50 percent of the energy required in each wave it would take something like 1000 times the world's nuclear arsenal to flood britian
-
I don't care what the Russian media claim, and I only care what Putin thinks because just a button, and it will be bad. I am scared by this entire situation. I wonder why people don't think about the current pollution and its gravity. Then I wonder why there is even the possibility of a nuclear bomb explosion. The free papers I check for my academic assignments inform me about the negative impacts on the planet. https://studyhippo.com/essay-examples/pollution/ (https://studyhippo.com/essay-examples/pollution/) is the source that helps me understand the daily effects of thermal pollution and many other types on our Earth. So, it is hard for me to believe that humanity could be so irresponsible to make such disasters on the planet.
-
They don't use atomic bombs they use thermonuclear devices aka the h bomb.The russian missile has 10 war heads and can take out the area the size of France the American missile is similar.They could take England out with one missile.
-
hi
-
Would have to be big, and to make a tsunami in deep water that shelves towards the UK mainland. North sea would be possible, would swamp parts a little of the north, but any one that is detonated would result in harm to many other coasts at the same time, leading to the USSR getting a few replies sent to them space express.
Btw, did you know that USSR tried nuclear bombs on its soldiers?
They did an experiment when the bomb exploded. That was an imitation of an attack by the enemy. Soldiers were equipped not well and many of them died after such a terrible "testing".
-
Dorothy, USA did similar as well, though unintentionally when it irradiated a whole lot of the Marshall Islands as well during testing. The USSR also was not exactly careful with handling waste, which is why there are so many former Soviet republics with massive areas that it is lethal to go, and also large areas where the life expectancy is severely limited due to all the dumped nuclear waste there. USA also dumped waste, but at least has done a fair amount of work in both remediating and removing the waste, putting it into long term storage areas that do not allow dust to be blown away. There are ex Soviet area lakes where you can get a lethal dose of radiation within 5 minutes of approaching them, even in full NBC suits, and there even is a lake that has the dubious distinction of being ice free in Siberian winter, from all the radioactive decay there, and where approaching within 100m of the edge is lethal.
-
Dorothy, USA did similar as well, though unintentionally when it irradiated a whole lot of the Marshall Islands as well during testing. The USSR also was not exactly careful with handling waste, which is why there are so many former Soviet republics with massive areas that it is lethal to go, and also large areas where the life expectancy is severely limited due to all the dumped nuclear waste there. USA also dumped waste, but at least has done a fair amount of work in both remediating and removing the waste, putting it into long term storage areas that do not allow dust to be blown away. There are ex Soviet area lakes where you can get a lethal dose of radiation within 5 minutes of approaching them, even in full NBC suits, and there even is a lake that has the dubious distinction of being ice free in Siberian winter, from all the radioactive decay there, and where approaching within 100m of the edge is lethal.
I know about the US.
However, I recently discovered that information regarding USSR.
But what should I expect from a country that doesn't care about the disposal of nuclear waste? As they can leave them in crowded cities or near any river.
-
They have detonated thermonuclear devices in the ocean none produced a tidal wave theoreticly with a big enough bomb in the right spot it maybe possible but doubtful it could displace enough water to create a tidal wave with any lasting effect.A tidal wave is completely dependent on how much water was displaced.
-
The water would flow back into the void created by the explosion unlike an earth quake which would permanently displace water.With the bomb it temporarily displaces the water but it would flow back severly weaking any wave created.The water has to be permanently displaced to create a tidal wave.
-
The water would flow back into the void created by the explosion unlike an earth quake which would permanently displace water.With the bomb it temporarily displaces the water but it would flow back severly weaking any wave created.The water has to be permanently displaced to create a tidal wave.
It is not permanently displaced in the event of meteor strike.
-
Well your dealing with kenetic energy millions and millions of times more than a nuclear detination its not even the same level.Its ridiculous to compare the two.
-
Well your dealing with kenetic energy millions and millions of times more than a nuclear detination its not even the same level.Its ridiculous to compare the two.
It was what the op asked about. 100,000,000 megaton at the yucatan inpact.