Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 7:38 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #26

mikeash wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The probability of being in a location where it would make a difference was high. Huge parts of major cities would be in that zone. Duck and cover dates from the 1950s, where the US's end of nuclear war would have looked much closer to a strangelovian "hair mussed" than the total apocalypse you describe. The Soviet Union didn't have the capability to cause that level of damage to the US until the mid 1960s or so.

> Duck and cover dates from the 1950s The bad reputation of duck and cover does not, however. > The Soviet Union didn't have the capability to cause that level of damage to the US until the mid 1960s or so. The bad reputation dates from later than the 60s, AFAICT. It's not like duck and cover went away then: we were doing duck and cover drills in my elementary school in the 1980s, and classrooms in community colleges…

The bad reputation applied retroactively, though. People think it's stupid it was ever taught.

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 7:40 AM UTC

daxfohl wrote: post #22

mikeash wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thermal pulse lasts several seconds for a large bomb. If you can immediately throw yourself into a ditch or behind a wall or otherwise shelter from it, you may greatly reduce the burns you receive. What kills the most people depends on the size of the bomb. For really small ones (like the US Army's nuclear bazooka from the 50s) the prompt radiation has the greatest lethal radius. For medium sized ones like Hirosh…

In the latter, do you mean thermal radiation or thermal conduction? I guess it doesn't make a huge difference because radiation hits you before you cam do anything about it, and conduction is impossible to get away from. But curious anyway.

Radiation. I assume you men conduction through the air? That's basically what the fireball is, and it covers a much smaller area.

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper