"
If a ground blast missile was used would the curvature of the earth be of any help and an air blast used to destroy a target how high up would the blast need be for a 1-2 punch, Destruction and EMP?
This nuke map shows destruction but doesn't mention EMP effect.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
I hope I made sense. My wife and I are 76 years old so many of the actions that are needed to be taken would be either very hard or impossible for us to do.
Thanks
Jojo "
part 2 ( let me know if this answers your question):
first lets discuss the modeling software that is freely available:
As a long time modeler let me give you some information/guidance that will help you use this program better for your own curiosities as preppers.
While Even now with North Korea in the news I dont see a Nuclear Armaggedon coming anytime soon, the sheer brutality of such explosions if/when they do occur make them a natural subject of interest for us.
I think how to use it it simple enough so I will talk about a couple things you may not know:
- The primary modeling software used by Response and modeling professionals is HPAC. I will only reference the unclassified version of HPAC here.
HPAC has a lot more granularity and mapping options (and works for non Nuke hazards too) than Nuke map .. but for Nuclear detonations the differences are actually kinda small.
- I have actually used Nukemap at work before when I was on the road and my HPAC computer took a dump and I needed a product RIGHT NOW. So its good enough for many situations.
- Most of the yields listed to choose from are fairly large rooted in the tradition of the cold war with Nation States throwing huge sums of money lobbing large warheads with inaccurate guidance systems (which means large warheads needed).
Modern Nuclear explosions if they ever do occur you can expect to be much smaller. because Nations states now have so accurate delivery systems that they can afford to use/build the lower yield devices. ...and as for terrorists they simply will struggle to get the materials and as soon as they have enough for a functioning device, any size device, you can plausibly expect them to start building .
They will not plausibly have to patience to wait another year and another year to make a device bigger when they already have enough. So from Terrorists expect even smaller than from modern nation states.
The extreme upper limit for a terrorist built device would likely be in the Hiroshima bomb range 15kt.
And frankly I expect much smaller. Remember how NoKo was struggling for a long time to even get out of the single digit KTs and they are a Nation State with much more resources in expertise and material than any terrorist group can be plausibly possess.
- Nukemap , like many ( but not all) other modeling sources does NOT account for hills or solid concrete buildings shielding people from blast and also assume that everyone is in the open.
...this creates dramatically increased casualties for those models to publish those figures (which Nukemap thankfully does not, as they are so incredibly misleading)
- Modern American concrete buildings have a tremendous ability to attenuate and even shield folks downrange from the blast. People remember the moonscape of Hiroshima but forget that those houses were almost all built out of pressed cardboard.
Modern steel reinforced concrete structures are at even a modicum of distance, ( depending o(yield depending of course) are surprisingly resilient.
Depending on yield you may see significant protection much closer than most PPL think. I encourage to play around w/ the program and look at the 20psi line which is building collapse line for modern steel reinforced concrete.
if you are past that and the house is between line-of-sight of u and the event you will enjoy significant advantage.
For example a 15kt Hiroshima style device set off on street level in lower Manhattan would probably topple adjacent skyscrapers but likely not topple all or even most buildings in lower Manhatten.. almost exclusively those within a few blocks of the device.
And just one remaining standing between you and an event would exert a tremendous shielding effect from blast, thermal and even prompt radiation for you.
(This all holds best for a terrorist device in a van at street level or in a not too tall parking garage).
To illustrate this point a modern concrete bridge in Hiroshima that was only 270 feet from ground zero remained standing and usable.
- This is a huge limitation when trying to adjudicate risk in a modern american built up area.
Even so with all these limitations listed above Nukemap is a valuable tool... but more so outside of major urban areas where the plot can be expected to be a bit more accurate for some of the reasons listed above.
Anyone here is welcome to give me a location they want to comment on how applicable and accurate it can be expected to be in their particular terrain.
So in summary: Curvature of Earth would not have much effect because Nuclear weapons effects (except fallout) generally do not act far enough to be affected by it.
They generally act much less far than PPL tend to think.
Building and hills in the way between you and a (relatively) nearby explosion can be quite effective at protecting you and yours.
For aground burst the EMP effect only travels not much further than the airblast radius.
Depending on weather conditions you are only looking at a few blocks range of EMP (for a ground burst!)
An airburst depending on the size of the device and altitude could send EMP anywhere from a few miles ( smaller warhead, lower altitude ) to a couple thousand miles (huge warhead huge altitude)
Above a certain altitude a nuclear explosions ONLY effect on the ground is EMP.
Tests during cold war had some unprotected men stand at ground zero under a nuclear explosion that just just high enough to not affect them.
I do not know if folks wanting to cause us harm would want to double up on such a irreplaceable and rare assets as a nuclear device to attack a single spot.
The only players that could "afford" such largesse are the United States and Russia. even France, UK and Israel (all said to have in the neighborhood of 200 warheads) are unlikely to do this .
Even thought both the Soviets and the US are said to have toyed with such an approach against hardened enemy missile sites in the height of the Cold War....NoKos or terrorists are extremely unlikely to have an excess of redundant deployable assets to do a double whammy as u describe.
I hope this answered your questions.
keep 'em coming fellas.
I am sick at home on the computer, now is the time
PS: Thanks for the kind words pkeazy
