What are muricans here thinking bout this

what are muricans here thinking bout this

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2TTCsbN33A4
nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-iran-trigger-nuclear-tsunami-wipes-out-israel-19504
space.com/35081-asteroid-impact-ocean-computer-simulations-solar-system.html
what-if.xkcd.com/15/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Holy fuck do you have the video of that interview?

nah, any russkies around that can link the vid?

Another lunatic decrepit rusky stuck in cold war paranoia.

tl;dr

Fuck you cockroach.

I am interested

I know a little russian. I'll try to dig some stuff.

youtube.com/watch?v=2TTCsbN33A4
this looks related.

i find it difficult to believe that a 200 megaton bomb detonated north of europe would cause a kilometer tall wave that would somehow make it to the midwest

I believe what he is saying is if it was put in a place for targetting America it could sweep across half the country.

The original location was probably intended more for Europe.(I doubt a wave from the North sea could reach America, but it would wipe a lot of Europe out.)

Me too. My idea of the scales of the pressures involved is that it would have to be a really REALLY REALLY REALLY big bomb to make more than a few bubbles on the surface. I'm pretty far from a nuclear physicist though.

another thing that bothers me is the geography issue. a megawave like that still wouldn't get over the rockies, the appalachians or the myriad of other smaller mountain ranges. the gulf of mexico could probably do some damage but i still somehow doubt there's enough water involved to make it 'halfway' across the country

He says it would just be to target coastal regions, not the whole country. But wiping out a few key coastal regions would essentially be wiping out the whole country eventually.

What really piqued my interest was the claim that it was done already, in 2004. I heard that tsunami was caused by an ancient fault line that had been waiting to blow for a while which is why it was so massive or something. I remember them trying to explain away it's bigness. It's bigness was apparently worth explaining away, not just another tsunami.

Intredasting not sure i buy it though.

>Indian Ocean tsunami caused by a megabomb

frightening notion to be sure. but it didn't put Indonesia out of commission for very long, and the US would be back on its feet in even less time. Given that we have so much air power stationed across the country using the wave to mask an invasion would be temporary at best; and we'd see any naval force close enough to take advantage of the lapse in coastal security assembling before the bomb could be detonated

seems like a waste of a bomb. the psycological intimidation of an ordinance that could create such a wave would be better spent as an above ground detonation, as tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and volcanoes all the time, and a tsunami caused by a nuke could be put under conspiracy theory

Biggest nuke ever built was 50 megatons. He calls for 200.
This theory provides no advantage over conventional MAD except scale of destruction for 1 nuke, but MAD already achieves 100% destruction so you can't beat that. Upon first reading this, I thought that the underwater detonation would allow a nation-state to secretly nuke someone and that would be an advantage, however, the water would carry the isotope pattern from the nuke and minutes after the wave hit we would know who did it.

Sounds like bullshit.

The idea wouldn't be to hide an invasion user.
The idea would be to utterly obliterate anything on or near the coast of the US.

Assumedly they'd use multiple bombs to hit both sides, maybe even secondary bombs that would send second waves to mop up stuff that wasn't destroyed.

Someone with a good head for science weigh in on how plausible this all is? I still feel like anything you detonate ALLL the way down at the bottom is going to do basically nothing up at the surface. There's a lot of heavy and cold.

>he psycological intimidation of an ordinance that could create such a wave would be better spent as an above ground detonation

Yeah, but I guess the whole idea is to pretend that it's not a nuclear bomb and that it is just a normal weather event. To be able to cause "natural" catastrophes on another nation is pretty crazy because you could end up totally winning a war without ever even really fighting one in the first place.

A, I'm pretty sure no major power has enough nukes around(not counting secret stores they haven't told anyone about)to completely destroy another country.

Also, interception methods are becoming more prevalent so you can expect a lot of your nukes to be shot down.

I don't see how it couldn't be used stealthily, it could be figured out what caused it but it would take a while for the finger pointing game to find anything conclusive enough to warrant return fire.

Also, the proposed damage to the coast of a nation would be ludicrous.

Doesn't water amplify the shockwave from an explosion?

200 megatons is ludicrously big, it causing a tsunami seems fairly plausible.

The advantage it provides is that its cheaper and easier to build this one powerful nuclear weapon than a large scale nuclear arsenal with higly advanced delivery systems

The 1978 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques is an international treaty ratified by 75 states, and signed by a further 17, that prohibits use of environmental modification techniques to cause earthquakes and tsunamis, amongst other phenomena

I guess they can do it since they wouldnt write that without it being possible

Lovely.

I found this

nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-iran-trigger-nuclear-tsunami-wipes-out-israel-19504

so it is possbile but it would have to be a big one ... I guess a couple of TSAR bobms would do it

international law is bs if you are strong enough to rub it off

This moron was a PHYSICIST?!!

Point-blasts like meteor impacts in the ocean don't make good tsunamis. Nor would a hydrogen bomb. The energy goes up, not out.

Tsunamis happen when a large section of the ocean floor rises or falls and the energy is spread over a huge are with no place to go but out.

space.com/35081-asteroid-impact-ocean-computer-simulations-solar-system.html

probably four tsar bombs

what-if.xkcd.com/15/ -Mariana Trench Explosion

looks like someone looked at the idea

Even a 12,000MT bomb is not going to produce a tsunami wave 1200 ft high, this is moronic

Think about how much water is shifted when the earth's tectonic plates move, yes it can cause a tsunami but not one anywhere near 1200 ft high

>Point-blasts like meteor impacts in the ocean don't make good tsunamis.
Actually depending the angle and the size they make word wiping tsunamis

Remember the huge tsunami in southern india a few years after the one in indonesia? Are huge tsunamis like that common and how do the earthquake probes not detect them?

Water does not compress like air. It transmits the power from any shock. It's how you can fish with dynamite. It's the principle behind a depth charge.

The entire article is ignoring a simple fact, we have nuclear detonation detectors on satellites blanketing the globe. If a nuke went off, we would record the EMP and be able to associate the event with a nuclear weapon. There would be no plausible deniability once we recover the radioactive traces that help us identify who made the bomb. In that event, I wonder if nuclear retaliation would even be necessary. In general, I expect that if a nuclear power "cheap shots" another country, nuclear power or not, the major countries would gang up on the culprit unless otherwise allied. Nobody wants a country acting like a thug running around risking global nuclear holocaust. Think Iran sending a suitcase nuke to NYC. There would not be a nuclear response, but Iran would be just as dead.

There is also no way to direct the force of the blast, it would go, relatively evenly, in all directions. You would have to blanket the coasts with nukes, or just near major cities. The first is too expensive and failure prone, the second is a dead giveaway ("Los Angeles, NYC and San Francisco wiped out by three simultaneous tsunamis.")

They're deep sea bombs user, detonated on the sea floor.

What about setting off an existing fault line event with a bomb?

So the idea basically is that you're mimicking the shifting of a tectonic plate's shift with the force of the bomb pushing the water instead of the force of the plate shifting, right? Tectonic plate shifts 100 ft, you get a 100ft tsunami; Nuclear bomb pushes the water up 1000ft, you get a 1000ft tsunami?

wouldnt kinetic bombardment from space be better it would be like a comet hiting earth

I think the whole idea here is to make it look like a natural event. I don't doubt that it could still be detectable, but I do think it would be more difficult and only after it already happened.

it wouldnt look natural tho considering all got space observation centers

Not really how the force would dissipate. Fault lines are huge and would spread the force out, while bombs are more 'pin point' so to speak. When a fault like cracks the water collapses in on a single line, and then is pushed out directly opposite to said line. A bomb would dissipate it's energy around a single point, causing the water to collapse from all sides. You would lose a lot of force from a circular collapse because all sides being of equal force causes them to cancel. Try pushing water with your hand flat one way. Then try to push the water in all directions equally. The cancellation of force would make the loss of energy pretty substantial.

as i understand, it's like exploding a dry ice bomb under a swimming pool + tectonic movements to accelarate the waves

its just that the underwater bomb is too unefficent since it would require insane levels of explosive yield and you would have to get close to shore so...

also can they differentiate a kinetic rod from a comet after all they cant track all of the sky ?

+ The Outer Space Treaty allows kinetic ammunition

Man.

I gotta be honest, I attended a course on fluid mechanics and heat transfer a few years ago and from what I can remember, that shit wouldn't work at all like he's describing.

Anything detonated at the sea floor - and I mean almost anyhing - would at best produce a slight bulge on the surface and some nice hot water. I guess several consecutive bombs could be used to generate overlapping expansion spheres and so amplify the effect, but we'd be talking about a good 100 bombs like that.

I'd rather bet on an artificially created microsingularity used as a weapon wiping out the USA than what that cook is trying to shill.

but they dont have the ability to watch the whole sky 24/7 some parts yes but they dont have everything covered

Yes, because a large enough tungsten rod entering the atmosphere has a very different signature than any other piece of space debris and if you think that we don't monitor nearly all airspace around earth for extremely fast-moving super dense objects, then you're in for a surprise.

>This theory provides no advantage over conventional MAD except scale of destruction for 1 nuke
That's exactly why it's so big of deal, assuming he's not full of shit. With nuclear proliferation policies in place no new nuclear power is going to emerge and amass a stockpile large enough to guarantee MAD - by the sound of it, any country with the capability to create a single bomb would be elevated to near MAD status.

>Anything detonated at the sea floor - and I mean almost anyhing - would at best produce a slight bulge on the surface and some nice hot water.

I think you're seriously underestimating how much energy would be produced by a 200 megaton bomb.

i'm not buying the tsunami bomb story. h bombs leave signatures and there are way too many fucking people that would have detected the signatures to be kept quiet. doesn't mean it couldn't be done, though.

~4.81x10^3000 joules

H-how safe would I be in Northern Middle TN?

>The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake released 9,560 gigatons TNT equivalent
>waves up to 30 metres (100 ft) high

But I'm sure a 200Mt bomb would produce 1200ft waves.....

dropping rocks from the moon is a serious potential threat.

A post-MAD world leaves many powerful industries unable to wield their power. The compromise is an eternal cold war, where trillions of dollars can be taken from the public and distributed to the government and private entities.