hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (john hall) (05/24/89)
From: john hall <hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> On the generic quality of "destroy the world n times" statements. To the best of my knowledge this was traditionally calculated as: ( Hiroshima + Nagasaki explosive power / deaths from same) * ( explosive power used in scenario / worlds population ). ----------------------- On Nuclear Winter: Ben Bova has a story where the US and USSR know the limit on nuclear winter, the USSR launches a strike just under the threshold, meaning a US retaliation kills the world.
pnelson@antares.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson) (05/26/89)
From: pnelson@antares.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson) Summary: "traditionally calculated" wrong Message-Id: <455@antares.UUCP> Date: 25 May 89 05:14:00 GMT References: <6844@cbnews.ATT.COM> Reply-To: pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) Organization: Tymnet QSATS, San Jose CA Lines: 35 In article <6844@cbnews.ATT.COM> hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (john hall) writes: >On the generic quality of "destroy the world n times" statements. > >To the best of my knowledge this was traditionally calculated as: > >( Hiroshima + Nagasaki explosive power / deaths from same) * >( explosive power used in scenario / worlds population ). > This is obviously a silly way to calculate; first, the number of deaths are unlikely to be directly related to be related to the explosive power; since the explosion occurs in cubic space, and the population is on a plane, the area of destruction is proportional to the 2/3 power of explosive force. Second, even that only applies to that part of the population in cities. So after about 1/2 the population, who knows? Of course, some may argue, and I think many unconciously assume, that everything that matters is contained within cities. Perhaps they are right, but I doubt it. >On Nuclear Winter: Ben Bova has a story where the US and USSR know >the limit on nuclear winter, the USSR launches a strike just under >the threshold, meaning a US retaliation kills the world. I have not read the story, but it occurs to me that this strategy will work if enough of the leadership of the US _believes_ the nuclear winter hypothesis, regardless of whether the hypothesis is correct (unless they decide to retaliate anyway). -- Phil Nelson at (but not speaking for) OnTyme:NSC.P/Nelson Tymnet, McDonnell Douglas Network Systems Company Voice:408-922-7508 UUCP:{pyramid|ames}oliveb!tymix!pnelson LRV:Component Station "ding ding..." -Santa Clara County Transit Company trolley car (AKA "LRV")
Brian Dickson (05/27/89)
From: Brian Dickson In article <6844@cbnews.ATT.COM> hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (john hall) writes: >>On the generic quality of "destroy the world n times" statements. >> >>To the best of my knowledge this was traditionally calculated as: >> >>( Hiroshima + Nagasaki explosive power / deaths from same) * >>( explosive power used in scenario / worlds population ). > A method of calculation which gives a more graphic representation of the destructive power of fission bombs is: (Hiroshima blast area) * (number of Hiroshima size bombs) ----------------------------------------------------------- (radius of Earth)^2 * 4 * PI * 0.3 (30% of Earth is land) which gives: (10^2 * PI) * (200000 (U.S. and U.S.S.R)) ---------------------------------------------------- (6366 kilometers)^2 * 4 * PI * 0.3 which equals about 0.4 of the surface of the Earth. In other words, a saturation bombing could place about 40% of the Earth's surface inside a lethal blast radius of a nuke. Of course, this 40% includes northern Canada, Sibera, Greenland, the Australian outback, both polar ice caps, etc. 63 000 000 square kilometers is a lot of teritory. (Before I get flamed for the 200,000 warheads number, my source was a letter to the editor of the Kingston Whig Standard from the person whose job it was to count them. Most of them are artillery-type tactical nukes.) -- Brian Dickson Disclaimer: I have no opinion, the numbers speak for themselves.
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (05/30/89)
From: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm I remember seeing an article in BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS which calculated 1000 warheads of 1 megaton each would be enough to "destroy" Europe. Their criterion was producing enough fallout to kill everybody who wasn't in a real deep shelter. They assumed ground bursts to maximize fallout. I believe the article appeared in 1978 or thereabouts.
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (05/31/89)
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) I find the calculations on "destroy the world # times" more than a little odd. How do you plan to distribute the devices? Why not just say how deep a hole they could dig? Not to mention our current reliability question. Remember, there is enough water in Lake Erie to drown every person on earth!!! All you ned to do is figure out how to get each one to inhale a teaspoon... Pretty mathematics that do not represent reality are simply that: pretty. ......................................................................... The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (john hall) (05/31/89)
From: john hall <hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> In article hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (john hall) writes: >On the generic quality of "destroy the world n times" statements. > In article pnelson@antares.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson) writes: >This is obviously a silly way to calculate; That was the point of the post. >hall >On Nuclear Winter: Ben Bova has a story where the US and USSR know >the limit on nuclear winter, the USSR launches a strike just under >the threshold, meaning a US retaliation kills the world. >Phil > ... this strategy will work if ... the US _believes_ >the nuclear winter hypothesis, regardless of whether the >hypothesis is correct (unless they >decide to retaliate anyway). Ben Bova's point. Implies the US should never accept the nuclear winter hypothesis officially. >From: Brian Dickson >A method of calculation which gives a more graphic >representation of the destructive power of fission bombs is: > which equals about 0.4 of the surface of the Earth. > In other words, a saturation bombing could place about > 40% of the Earth's surface inside a lethal blast > radius of a nuke. Of course, this 40% includes northern Canada, Sibera, > Greenland, the Australian outback, both polar ice caps, etc. > 63 000 000 square kilometers is a lot of teritory. The 200,000 warheads seems like an exageration. I think that most modern artillery shell nukes are smaller than Hiroshima. Still, considering the considering the number of warheads that can not reach most of the Earth's land mass (the shells), the warheads destroyed in action, and the warheads that overlap (multiple warheads per target) it is clear just how far we are from the destroy the world 30 times numbers. >From: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm >I remember seeing an article in BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS >which calculated 1000 warheads of 1 megaton each would be >enough to "destroy" Europe. Their criterion was producing >enough fallout to kill everybody who wasn't in a real deep shelter. >They assumed ground bursts to maximize fallout. Ground bursts, with the exception of hard targets, are a relatively stupid way to use nukes. Destruction/nuke goes way down and fallout distribution depends on the weather. Nuclear war is horrible enough without exaggerating it. John Hall
wolit@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Jan Wolitzky) (06/01/89)
From: wolit@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Jan Wolitzky) > The 200,000 warheads seems like an exageration. I think > that most modern artillery shell nukes are smaller than > Hiroshima. Some are, some aren't. The W33 warhead for the M422 8-inch (203mm) artillery-fired atomic projectile (AFAP) has a selectable yield of up to 12 Kt, which is about the same as Little Boy. As of 1983, there were about 1800 of these deployed. -- Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit (Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
nuschrei@uunet.UU.NET (wes schreiner) (06/02/89)
From: ndsuvax!nuschrei@uunet.UU.NET (wes schreiner) In article <7023@cbnews.ATT.COM> wolit@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Jan Wolitzky) writes: > From: wolit@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Jan Wolitzky) > > The 200,000 warheads seems like an exageration. I think > > that most modern artillery shell nukes are smaller than > > Hiroshima. > Some are, some aren't. The W33 warhead for the M422 8-inch (203mm) > artillery-fired atomic projectile (AFAP) has a selectable yield of up > to 12 Kt, which is about the same as Little Boy. As of 1983, there > were about 1800 of these deployed. ^^^^ There are now 700 in the stockpile. They are being replaced by the W79 1.1 Kt non-enhanced radiation warhead. Current numbers are: # whd yield 700 W33 <1 to 12 Kt variable yield 300 W79 1.1 Kt non-enhanced 40 W79 0.8 Kt enhanced rad. (being converted to non-ehanced) 900 W48 0.1 Kt 155mm (being replaced soon by W82 warhead) [source: p49, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists June '89] I don't have any data on the W82. Is it being deployed yet? By the numbers above I see a clear majority of "smaller than Hiroshima" yields. I wonder how many W33s would be set at maximum yield considering how close that 12Kt blast would be. What is a reasonable range for the W33/M422? I'm sure it's too short for me :-) -wes schreiner nuschrei@plains.nodak.edu || nuschrei@ndsuvax.UUCP
hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp (Howard J. Scrimgeour) (06/05/89)
From: hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp (Howard J. Scrimgeour) In article <6942@cbnews.ATT.COM> Brian Dickson writes: >In article <6844@cbnews.ATT.COM> hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (john hall) writes: >>>On the generic quality of "destroy the world n times" statements. >>> >>>To the best of my knowledge this was traditionally calculated as: >>> >>>( Hiroshima + Nagasaki explosive power / deaths from same) * >>>( explosive power used in scenario / worlds population ). >> >A method of calculation which gives a more graphic representation of the >destructive power of fission bombs is: > > (Hiroshima blast area) * (number of Hiroshima size bombs) > ----------------------------------------------------------- > (radius of Earth)^2 * 4 * PI * 0.3 (30% of Earth is land) > >which gives: (10^2 * PI) * (200000 (U.S. and U.S.S.R)) > ---------------------------------------------------- > (6366 kilometers)^2 * 4 * PI * 0.3 > >which equals about 0.4 of the surface of the Earth. In other words, a saturation >bombing could place about 40% of the Earth's surface inside a lethal blast >radius of a nuke. Of course, this 40% includes northern Canada, Sibera, This seems to be as good a place as any to put in my own calculations. My figures for the US nuclear arsenal came from a 1982 Sci Amer article on nuclear reduction treaties. My figures for lethal blast radius came from "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons", (3rd ed., US govt., 1977). Some devices were indicated as variable yield; for these, I assumed the maximum. 40,50l # dvcs lethal lethal total lethal area (A) radius area(B) (AxB) 1 Mt 6420 1.4mi 6mi^2 38,520 mi^2 100kt 1700 0.9 2.5 4,250 200kt 1870 1.0 3.2 5,984 300kt 900 1.0 3.2 2,880 40kt 3000 0.7 1.5 4,500 1.5Mt 450 1.4 6 2,700 9Mt 52 2.2 15.2 790 _______ 59,624 sq. mi. (5.9x10^4) The land area of the Earth is 5.7x10^7 sq. mi. 5.7x10^7 / 5.9x10^4 ~ 10^3 Q.E.D. +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Howard J. Scrimgeour, D.V.M. | | hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp CIS:75126,2744 | | uunet!{utgpu!moore,attcan!telly}!ziebmef!hjsdvm | | "We also walk dogs..." | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp (Howard J. Scrimgeour) (06/07/89)
From: hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp (Howard J. Scrimgeour) In article <6958@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: > > >From: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm >I remember seeing an article in BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS which >calculated 1000 warheads of 1 megaton each would be enough to "destroy" >Europe. Their criterion was producing enough fallout to kill everybody >who wasn't in a real deep shelter. They assumed ground bursts to maximize >fallout. I believe the article appeared in 1978 or thereabouts. What did they consider to be a "real deep shelter"? Two feet of packed earth reduces radiation by 2 orders of magnitude (99%). +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Howard J. Scrimgeour, D.V.M. | | hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp CIS:75126,2744 | | uunet!{utgpu!moore,attcan!telly}!ziebmef!hjsdvm | | "We also walk dogs..." | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (06/08/89)
From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) In article <7203@cbnews.ATT.COM>, hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp (Howard J. Scrimgeour) writes: > >Europe. Their criterion was producing enough fallout to kill everybody > >who wasn't in a real deep shelter. They assumed ground bursts to maximize > >fallout. I believe the article appeared in 1978 or thereabouts. > > What did they consider to be a "real deep shelter"? Two feet of > packed earth reduces radiation by 2 orders of magnitude (99%). I hope we're not getting too far afield, and straying into politics, but... The two feet of earth is mostly going to be useful against prompt radiation; the fallout will persist for years to come. I don't recall the half-lives of all the ``interesting'' isotopes, but strontium-90 and cobalt-60 are short-lived enough to be hazardous, and long-lived enough to hang around for long after you can hide in a shelter. And iodine-131, though much shorter-lived, would be dangerous to those without very well-stocked shelters. (Note that iodine and strontium are especially bad because of how easily they're absorbed.) --Steve Bellovin
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (06/09/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <7251@cbnews.ATT.COM>, smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes: > The two feet of earth is mostly going to be useful against prompt > radiation; the fallout will persist for years to come. I don't recall But after a few weeks the background level will have dropped low enough that you could get away with traveling to an area outside the local fallout plume. > the half-lives of all the ``interesting'' isotopes, but strontium-90 > and cobalt-60 are short-lived enough to be hazardous, and long-lived > enough to hang around for long after you can hide in a shelter. And Which is why they're such a problem. The really hot stuff will have decayed down below normal background pretty quickly. The other will get you with (most likely) cancer a few years down the road. > iodine-131, though much shorter-lived, would be dangerous to those > without very well-stocked shelters. (Note that iodine and strontium > are especially bad because of how easily they're absorbed.) You can deal with that problem (mostly) by taking iodine supplements during the period of exposure. (Taking large doses of calcium should also slow down uptake of strontium.) I'm hoping information like this forever remains trivia, but the point is that there is more to do than just sit down and wait to die.
pnelson@antares.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson) (06/10/89)
From: pnelson@antares.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson) In article <7001@cbnews.ATT.COM> hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (john hall) writes: > >In article hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (john hall) writes: > >>On the generic quality of "destroy the world n times" statements. > >In article pnelson@antares.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson) writes: >>This is obviously a silly way to calculate; > >That was the point of the post. > Oh, sorry. ... cut some about the total area destroyed, well answered elswhere. >>From: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm >>I remember seeing an article in BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS >>which calculated 1000 warheads of 1 megaton each would be >>enough to "destroy" Europe. Their criterion was producing >>enough fallout to kill everybody who wasn't in a real deep shelter. >>They assumed ground bursts to maximize fallout. > >Ground bursts, with the exception of hard targets, are a >relatively stupid way to use nukes. Destruction/nuke >goes way down and fallout distribution depends on the >weather. > Probably they meant by ground burst, that altitude that maximizes fallout, I can't find my nuke book, I think it's ~1000 feet? I repeat the question asked elswhere: how deep is "real deep"? I am curious because I have some wild calculations of my own: Suppose everyone lives in a town built under the ground, each town has ~1000 citizens and is self- sufficient. Spread all these towns evenly across the surface of the Earth, and it will take 4.5 million nukes to kill everyone. I wonder how long it would take to build 4.5 million nukes? [mod.note: I'll beat the Christmas rush by answering, "about as long as it will take to build all those underground towns and convince people to live there. " 8-) - Bill ] The 200,000 weapon number quoted elsewhere was probably in "Hiroshima equivalents", let's say 20,000 actual devices (more than the number from the Scientific American article, or from International Institute for Strategic Studies numbers, as quoted in my 1982 Hammond Almanac), divided by 4.5 million which would be required, would give us the ability to destroy the world .005 times over! (and that assuming every device was a direct hit, and large enough to kill it's target, etc...) So I conclude: We are inviting nuclear war by presenting such ideal targets, let's keep the bombs (we might need them for splitting "Meteor"s or some- thing :-), abandon the cities and rebuild with small underground towns. We could use the abandoned cities for target practice. Well, we should keep some of them, I guess, for art's sake. Think of a city as a giant modern art sculpture :-) >Nuclear war is horrible enough without exaggerating it. Then how do you explain the existance of the "Nuclear Winter" hypothesis? :-) > >John Hall -- Phil Nelson at (but not speaking for) OnTyme:NSC.P/Nelson Tymnet, McDonnell Douglas Network Systems Company Voice:408-922-7508 UUCP:{pyramid|ames}oliveb!tymix!pnelson LRV:Component Station "ding ding..." -Santa Clara County Transit Company trolley car (AKA "LRV")