India's Missile Defenses Can Now Take On Decoys. That's a Really Big Deal

[Vijyes Yechury]

You know nothing about nukes and their effects @Vijyes Yechury

I am not brainwashed by liberal and cowardly media who spread lies to avoid war by causing psychological fear

 

[Ultima Thule]

I am not brainwashed by liberal and cowardly media who spread lies to avoid war by causing psychological fear

lies what lies @Vijyes Yechury nuke blast caused most most life in the form of destruction, thermal/heat death, radioactivity you lives in your falsehood/fantasy world/fairy tales @Vijyes Yechury

 

[LeGenD]

Firstly, in India, the wooden houses are almost 0 and most houses are masonry based. Even poor people live in brick houses with sheet roof. So, the destruction level of Nagasaki will be limited.

There is ample evidence of Little Boy and Fat Man ruining/destroying numerous concrete structures in Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. A small number of concrete structures looked intact from the outside but they were internally ruined and/or inhabitable. Watch this video and learn:

Little Boy and Fat Man were inefficient solid core designs, and their destructive potential was limited accordingly. US, Russia and China have developed relatively much more powerful nuclear weapons over the course of years, and these thermonuclear weapons have caught the imagination of people from all walks of life. Terminator 2 film feature a scene which portray the destructive power of a thermonuclear weapon in Los Angeles (shared with you in my previous post).

This paper is a good read: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23684865?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The ability to wipe out entire cities by just few nukes is just fantasy. Nuclear bomb, whatever power it may have, is still far less powerful than things like volcanic explosion, cyclones etc. The nukes cause more damage than other bombs but are not all destroyer

Really?

After the initial fiery blast outwards, air rushes back inwards towards the epicenter of the explosion at upwards of 200 mph. This adds fuel to the flames, which start to burn hotter. The air, superheated by the numerous fires rises quickly. This causes air to be sucked back towards the epicenter of the fires, to be heated again and perpetuate the process until the fire runs out of fuel. At its peak, a firestorm can cause hurricane force winds and level entire cities.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/furrer2/

A nuclear weapon doesn't have to level every building in a city in order to ruin it; objective is to devastate a city to a degree that it seize to contribute to a society in a meaningful way. Potential survivors are unlikely to stay in a city [subjected to nuclear strike] due to fear of catching radioactive sickness, collapse of law & order situation and dwindling supplies. You need to look beyond the realm of physical destruction to understand why nuclear weapons terrorize societies around the world.

A lone thermonuclear weapon is sufficient to ruin a large city. In its absence, 3 or 4 nuclear strikes will be sufficient.

You should not compare a nuclear weapon to natural events in terms of release of energy. A volcanic eruption and/or hurricane is really slow to materialize and devastate landscapes, and unleash destructive forces of entirely different character. A nuclear weapon is much more efficient tool to kill and destroy in comparison.

The bunker buster nukes exist but they need precision strike. Simple drop bombs or ballistic missiles will not work. So, nukes are not used for bunker busters in general due to difficulty in getting precision strike.

US have achieved the desired capability with its nuclear weapons however.

Super-fuze technology in the warheads of Trident II D5 SLBM:-

Shortly before a warhead arrives at its target, the superfuze uses radar to gauge the distance remaining on the ballistic path, taking into account any drift off track. The old technology set the detonation at a fixed height at or near the ground; course errors could shift the center of the blast away from the target (see diagram). But the new system adjusts the detonation altitude so that the blast is triggered at a higher point to keep it in the target’s so-called “lethal volume.” Within this zone, the authors say, a 100-kiloton warhead will destroy a hardened structure with 86% certainty.

Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/more-precise-us-nukes-could-raise-tensions-russia

Trident II D5 SLBM contain both 100-kiloton W76 and 485-kiloton W88 warheads, and each SLBM carry up to 8 warheads. RV of this SLBM have the CEP of 90 m which is really good for an air-burst nuclear weapon but the super-fuze modification have introduced the element of precision strike in its operation with its burst-altitude correction mechanism to maximize its chances of destroying the intended target on the surface [deeply buried or reinforced].

US is obviously more masterful than India (and Pakistan) in developing these weapons.

Nuclear bombs are very powerful compared to all other bombs, but the effects must not be exaggerated.

I am not into exaggerating this stuff at personal capacity [I do not think that a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India will be catastrophic for the world at large] but I find your views problematic as well. You assume that a place filled with concrete structures will experience less damage, and my counter is that you should not generalize about this matter due to evolution in the design [and resultant effectiveness] of nuclear weapons. You also underestimate the potential of 2 (or more) nukes to devastate a large city by virtue of multiple explosions and resultant firestorms. You are also fixated on the physical aspects of devastation and overlook the psychological implications of nuclear strike(s). You foolishly dismiss the possibility of multiple nuclear strikes [in short order] to create an environmental hazard over the affected region in spite of heaps of published material which suggest otherwise. You need to do some homework.

The radiation contamination of 11000 sqkm is a myth and that is exactly why people begin to distrust these news.

They tested a 15 MT thermonuclear weapon (among the most powerful ever produced) in the Bikini Atoll sector of the Marshall Islands, and its effects are well-documented. FYI: https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/1-march-1954-castle-bravo

One must not exaggerate things beyond a point. Atmospheric poisoning is nonsense and does not exist in real life.

Any solid argument for this or I have to take your word for it?

The radioactivity is also very limited and generally associated with the immediate bast wave. Even 10-15 minutes after blast wave, the radioactivity will be very low and sustainable levels.

FYI:

Nuclear Radiation
The release of radiation is a phenomenon unique to nuclear explosions. There are several kinds of radiation emitted; these types include gamma, neutron, and ionizing radiation, and are emitted not only at the time of detonation (initial radiation) but also for long periods of time afterward (residual radiation).

Initial Nuclear Radiation
Initial nuclear radiation is defined as the radiation that arrives during the first minute after an explosion, and is mostly gamma radiation and neutron radiation.

The level of initial nuclear radiation decreases rapidly with distance from the fireball to where less than one roentgen may be received five miles from ground zero. In addition, initial radiation lasts only as long as nuclear fission occurs in the fireball. Initial nuclear radiation represents about 3 percent of the total energy in a nuclear explosion.

Though people close to ground zero may receive lethal doses of radiation, they are concurrently being killed by the blast wave and thermal pulse. In typical nuclear weapons, only a relatively small proportion of deaths and injuries result from initial radiation.

Residual Nuclear Radiation
The residual radiation from a nuclear explosion is mostly from the radioactive fallout. This radiation comes from the weapon debris, fission products, and, in the case of a ground burst, radiated soil.

There are over 300 different fission products that may result from a fission reaction. Many of these are radioactive with widely differing half-lives. Some are very short, i.e., fractions of a second, while a few are long enough that the materials can be a hazard for months or years. Their principal mode of decay is by the emission of beta particles and gamma radiation.

Source: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects14.shtml

PS: Never give opinions, analysis of experts etc as data. They are the opinions and fantasasies of people, not actual evidence. No matter what the credentials of the writer, actual statistics is very important and is not substitutable by opinions

You should learn to respect informed opinion of people in general, and use of citations in arguments (scientific publications in particular) in order to substantiate/reinforce them.

I can type my wildest imaginations otherwise, but their credibility would be questionable.

 

[randomradio]

There is one more, however since that hasnt been released to public yet, I will leave it at that. Thanks. Btw, that site is different from the two you've mentioned above.

There is bound to be more. We need one for the West Bengal region also.

 

[randomradio]

Now imagine 100 [Little Boy type] nuclear weapons striking different parts of India. So many nuclear explosions - occurring in short order - will produce a new effect besides the usual stuff: atmospheric poisoning.

No it won't.

You have two choices if you want to destroy cities. Surface or air burst. Air burst kills people with reduced fallout. Surface burst throws more fallout, but kills less people. A combination of the two can be used on large cities like Delhi.

In either case, the nukes we have are so small that any nuclear effects will be highly localised, and it won't affect the entire city, just a few kilometres in radii along the different ground zeroes. You need hundreds of nukes with more than 1MT to create some atmospheric disturbance, but even that is quite negligible.

This is for surface burst:

You need to be able to shoot up a massive amount into the stratosphere for major effects, and even those have been exaggerated. Due to the design of cities, even firestorms are quiet muted to the point where it won't reach the stratosphere.

All this talk of poisoning air or water with nukes is a figment of the imagination. Even if the US and Russia have a big nuke war, normalcy in terms of climate and weather will be achieved in less than 6 months. Which means, even if every inch of Delhi is nuked with multiple attacks, the people in the satellite cities of Noida, Gurugram, Faisalabad and Ghaziabad will still live normal lives in less than a week, minus supply and refugee problems.

 

[LeGenD]

No it won't.

You have two choices if you want to destroy cities. Surface or air burst. Air burst kills people with reduced fallout. Surface burst throws more fallout, but kills less people. A combination of the two can be used on large cities like Delhi.

In either case, the nukes we have are so small that any nuclear effects will be highly localised, and it won't affect the entire city, just a few kilometres in radii along the different ground zeroes. You need hundreds of nukes with more than 1MT to create some atmospheric disturbance, but even that is quite negligible.

This is for surface burst:

You need to be able to shoot up a massive amount into the stratosphere for major effects, and even those have been exaggerated. Due to the design of cities, even firestorms are quiet muted to the point where it won't reach the stratosphere.

All this talk of poisoning air or water with nukes is a figment of the imagination. Even if the US and Russia have a big nuke war, normalcy in terms of climate and weather will be achieved in less than 6 months. Which means, even if every inch of Delhi is nuked with multiple attacks, the people in the satellite cities of Noida, Gurugram, Faisalabad and Ghaziabad will still live normal lives in less than a week, minus supply and refugee problems.

Explore, enjoy and learn: http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/fivemilliontonsofsmoke/

 

[randomradio]

Explore, enjoy and learn: http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/fivemilliontonsofsmoke/

Written by peace clowns. It's not reinforced in hard science.

The world has seen many times more nuclear explosions than India and Pakistan have nukes combined. And none of our nukes will reach the stratosphere anyway.

From people who have worked with nukes.
https://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

 

[LeGenD]

Written by peace clowns. It's not reinforced in hard science.

This is the source of information: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf

Jumping to conclusions?

The world has seen many times more nuclear explosions than India and Pakistan have nukes combined. And none of our nukes will reach the stratosphere anyway.

From people who have worked with nukes.
https://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

Nuclear tests are conducted in geographically remote locations, and with gaps. US and Russia weren't exploding hundreds of nukes at a time, and striking population centers on top.

There is massive difference between a full-scale nuclear war [with the intent to kill and destroy on mass scale] and calculated nuclear testing practices [safety factors]. Atmospheric implications significantly vary accordingly.

 

[randomradio]

This is the source of information: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf

Jumping to conclusions?


Nuclear tests are conducted in geographically remote locations, and with gaps. US and Russia weren't exploding hundreds of nukes at a time, and striking population centers on top.

There is massive difference between a full-scale nuclear war [with the intent to kill and destroy on mass scale] and calculated nuclear testing practices [safety factors]. Atmospheric implications significantly vary accordingly.

That study just assumes there's already that much smoke emitted, which is not true.

 

[Ultima Thule]

That study just assumes there's already that much smoke emitted, which is not true.

They done nuke test on the remote areas where is no populations centers care fully analysed climates that the fallout don't drifted on population centers by winds @randomradio