Russia unveils first image of its Satan 2 super-nuke

Crni Vuk said:
Russia is a bit bigger then France though, how many nukes does France have? Enough to cover all of Russia? I am pretty sure Russia has enough to cover all of France ...
Click to expand...
Why would they need to "cover all of Russia"? They need to wipe the large cities and industrial areas off the map and preferrably most known military bases.

Roughly estimated France has ~290 active warheads.
Brits ~150. Israel probably between 50 and 400.

But if Russia goes nuclear, you can bet your ass the USA joins in. And they have 1750 active warheads.

There would not be a major Russian city left standing and all major military bases would be nuclear dust. Even if the americans don't join in.
 
Yeah, like I was super serious to begin with :P.

I just remember a survey from the 50s, what effect nukes would have in a war with the Soviets, and it turned out, relatively little as they could rebuild their economy required for the military in a very short time to full strength again. Of course that's the early 50s when nukes havn't been really extremly common. Today with thousands of them? Yeah. A whole different kind of game.

But if it was JUST a war between Russia and France, I am just sayin no one could ever repopulate France after Russia dumped down all their nukes on it, where as Russia is so fucking huge that you could still find some areas that are safe to live in. That's what I mean. How many nukes would you need to make Russia uninhabitable?
 
Last edited:
Even if Russia dumped all its nukes on France, it would still be habitable after a fairly short while.
Not hugely healthy near the actual ground zeroes, but still manageable.

Take a look at Hiroshima & Nagasaki. (obviously the scale of destruction would be magnitudes greater)
 
Both bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonated in high altitudes though. That's the best scenario in terms of long term contamination, since any residual particles are being carried straight to the stratosphere and fall down far away from ground zero. Ground explosions are much more dangerous, since the radioactive particles are sticking on dust and debris sucked up in the air, falling down along with irradiated debris, and covering local area with blanket of radioactive fallout in a span of few hours.

Anyway, I think these big players would likely stick with biological warfare instead of nuclear.
 
I think there is only one way to find out for sure, Sua, let us test it! You call Hollande, I contact Putin.
 
valcik said:
Both bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonated in high altitudes though. That's the best scenario in terms of long term contamination, since any residual particles are being carried straight to the stratosphere and fall down far away from ground zero. Ground explosions are much more dangerous, since the radioactive particles are sticking on dust and debris sucked up in the air, falling down along with irradiated debris, and covering local area with blanket of radioactive fallout in a span of few hours.

Anyway, I think these big players would likely stick with biological warfare instead of nuclear.
Click to expand...
Most nukes against cities would be exploded above ground, to maximize the effect of the shockwave. Only hardened targets require ground or underground explosions. Fallout isn't actually desirable, as the wind isn't all that controllable :D
 
Yep, I'm well aware that most the warheads are set to detonate above ground.
I think that in case of global nuclear war every big city would have been hit by several warheads though, some of them set to detonate in air and some on ground. Or perhaps one or two earth penetrating too! Russkies know that there is a huge fallout shelter beneath most of the big hospitals in any huge city for instance, with enough food, water, and medical supplies to support hundreds or thousands of people for months. For example, there was enough of these shelters to provide safety for a half of citizens in Czechoslovakia - more than 7.5 million people, so they'll try to render them unusable or damage these underground structures enough to make them unsafe/inoperable.
 
valcik said:
Nope. Tsar bomb was ten megaton stronger and we're still here.
Click to expand...

There has been over 2000 nuclear detonations since the first test, granted hundreds of these have been underground, atmospheric or oceanic, still, a good number of nuclear blasts, so yeah, the world is pretty big, most nuclear bombs are barely blips in the landscape.
Volcanos and such natural forces are still way stronger than most human made weapons
 
Crni Vuk said:
Well, you could always use this, to look how your town would fare against nuclear detonations.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Click to expand...

SO bookmarked!!!

With a Tsar Bomba I am completely dead, and obviously, the population of Trondheim is wiped out to the last person. Due to my distance from the city centre, I have a faint chance of survival, but would likely spend the rest of my life in agony, with skin grafts and such. There is a tall hill between here and the city, that this simulation does not account for, so I might actually make it.
*celebrates*
Most of my family would certainly die though...
*stops celebrating*
 
Yeah, it definetly isn't a simulation, just a very rough guess that probably assumes a flat surface for most things. However, the fact that the Tzarbomba had a what? 4 km fireball ... is pretty ... impressive ... to say the least. It's also awesome to throw it at Brussel, because half of Belgium would be kinda on fire ...
 
Crni Vuk said:
Yeah, it definetly isn't a simulation, just a very rough guess that probably assumes a flat surface for most things. However, the fact that the Tzarbomba had a what? 4 km fireball ... is pretty ... impressive ... to say the least. It's also awesome to throw it at Brussel, because half of Belgium would be kinda on fire ...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was kinda disappointed in the range of anything smaller than the Tzar bomb...

It's interesting to consider what locations would actually be bombed though. Don't really know what would be interesting targets in Sweden besides Stockholm and Gottland.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Yeah, it definetly isn't a simulation, just a very rough guess that probably assumes a flat surface for most things. However, the fact that the Tzarbomba had a what? 4 km fireball ... is pretty ... impressive ... to say the least. It's also awesome to throw it at Brussel, because half of Belgium would be kinda on fire ...
Click to expand...

Tried the "Little Boy" now, and it is surprisingly small. Well, still bigger than a hand-grenade, I guess, the fireball "merely" burns up a few inner city blocks, even the air-blast doesn't cover the whole city centre, which is not even that big, it's a fairly small city. Norway, after all. The total affected area is still roughly how I have imagined, if not still a bit smaller.

I guess we are so used to the idea of nuclear bombs being so all-destructive, we forget they are "simply" meant to be bigger than most conventional bombs.
For example, the Brits and the Germans took turns dropping bombs here. Bombs fell a lot, bombs fell here, they fell there, they bombed in the harbor-area a lot. Stray bombs landed in neighborhoods, and so on - for the duration of the war.
Maybe a coupld of thousand bombs in all?

That is where even a "small" nuke like "Little Boy" shows its real power - it only takes one!
 
Nagasaki and Hiroshima had a pretty densely populated city centres for them to cause so many deaths. Of cause there's the long term effects too, dying later from wounds, burns and radiation. Truly messed up and unpleasant to even think about.
 
MutantScalper said:
Nagasaki and Hiroshima had a pretty densely populated city centres for them to cause so many deaths. Of cause there's the long term effects too, dying later from wounds, burns and radiation. Truly messed up and unpleasant to even think about.
Click to expand...

Again, it's all about perspective. Trondheim recieved a lot of bombs during WW2, but the civilian death toll is negligible. Drop a "Little Boy" down on our city - which indeed is composed by a lot of traditional wooden buildings, we'd see a similar kind of wipe-out situation

The blast radius just seems small, compared to our modern expectation of nukes, mostly due to a lot of pop culture depictions of it
My first impression was "Aw, it only obliterates about a fifth of the city centre!" but damn, that is quite a destructive power, that's several city blocks turned to gravel, not to mention the entire region radiated, we're probably talking 100 000 dead in the long run
 
zegh8578 said:
Again, it's all about perspective. Trondheim recieved a lot of bombs during WW2, but the civilian death toll is negligible. Drop a "Little Boy" down on our city - which indeed is composed by a lot of traditional wooden buildings, we'd see a similar kind of wipe-out situation

The blast radius just seems small, compared to our modern expectation of nukes, mostly due to a lot of pop culture depictions of it
My first impression was "Aw, it only obliterates about a fifth of the city centre!" but damn, that is quite a destructive power, that's several city blocks turned to gravel, not to mention the entire region radiated, we're probably talking 100 000 dead in the long run
Click to expand...

I live in a small town and Little Boy would certainly destroy the center but the suburbs might actually mostly survive. Can't say for sure. I live in a mostly wooden house so the heat blast might light it up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top