Anybody here smart enough to know about the effects of a 200MT-hydrogen bomb in front of a coastline in terms of the height of the resulting tsunami?
I do know that hydrogen bombs are
comparatively easy to build (you just need a lot of lithium deuteride, which is cheaply available everywhere)
without inherent limit in size of the bomb, we could easily built a GT-bomb, because you just need to add more lithium deuteride to make the bomb bigger, and there is no practical limit on the yield of such a bomb, only the practical limitations of weight and volume.
Germans think about this while their nation is dying.
You would need far more than 200 MT. That is fantasy.
kek, this is beyond retarded
It's from the channel where experts discuss how Nazis encountered space alien tech.
What would happen, though? Would a typical hydrogen bomb make any major impact if detonated, say, in the middle of the Atlantic?
100 MT = 500 meters
About 2004 earthquake/tsunami:
>The energy released on the Earth's surface only (ME, which is the seismic potential for damage) by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was estimated at 1.1×1017 joules, or 26 megatons of TNT. This energy is equivalent to over 1,500 times that of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, but less than that of Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated; however, the total work done MW (and thus energy) by the quake was 4.0×1022 joules (4.0×1029 ergs), the vast majority underground, which is over 360,000 times more than its ME, equivalent to 9,600 gigatons of TNT equivalent (550 million times that of Hiroshima) or about 370 years of energy use in the United States at 2005 levels of 1.08×1020 J.
>Russian quality TV
The 2011 Japanese tsunami was caused by an earthquake equivalent in power to a 480 megaton bomb. But the energy was spread out over a larger area, which may be necessary. It's something that would require some experimentation instead of just building one bomb and hoping it works.
1) Russians place their 'doomsday device' in North Atlantic
2) USA places smaller nuclear warheads between the dd and the shore
3) Russians push the button
4) American warheads are detonated in sync to dispell the wave
Easy as that.
Also the devastation wasn't that great in comparison to weeks of bombing Japan received during the last months of WWII.
you'd better off just using the nuclear weapons on us directly
>The tests revealed that a single explosion would not produce a tsunami.
Dude, exploding a nuclear bomb in water is A LOT more preferable than to explode it above water.
I guesswe have a function for the height of the resulting wave that is proportional to the instantaneous pressure gradient change, the density of the water (considering total mass of displaced water), gravity as well as sometopological function about the soil surface.
I don't know, I'm not good with math and physics.
no because then you need an expensive rocket. or even if you can afford the rockets you can save money on not targeting coastal cities.
they didn't have fusion bombs until the 50's i think and even if they did this shitty researcher would not have need to know such top secrets
Those poor fish :(
Instead you need to build a ship able to deliver a 200MT nuclear mine, then escort it with your fleet because you don't want it to be halted by the enemy, and then keep expensive underwater remote controlled delivery system with regular dangerous service missions that could easily blow your cover and give an entire world casus belli against you.
it's not expensive at all unless your a pussy lol. it making everybody a bit nervous a feature
>200 megaton explosion produces wave 1,200m tall
rofl how fucking stupid do you have to be to believe this?
No because most of the nuke's energy is heat, the pressure wave being only a small percentage.
Drag it there with a submarine
Can I say that the energy necessary to rise a give mass of water to a height H shpuld be proportional to the energy required to generate a pressure wave with enough momentum to match the mass of water displaced?
A 200 MT bomb wouldn't even make a tsunami. At best it makes a big splash. This is why Russia wants to make a cobalt bomb because it's much easier to just contaminate the water than making a tsunami.
Oh, and the water wouldn't be also displaced by the kinetic enrgy, alot would also evaporate.
You probably should not expect bydlo TV shows to present scientifically accurate information.
Sakharov's idea was abandoned after American operation "Crossroads" demonstrated relatively weak effects of underwater nuclear explosions and Korolyov's success in ICBM development.
You forgot to mention the Military-grade bungee catapult to deliver the leetle darling on target.
Hydrogen bomb caused tsunami would be childishly easy to recognize. That man is either a troll, or an idiot.
The original idea was to use a torpedo fired from the submarine. It did not even get to the dummy testing phase, because navy specialists were against the idea of removing all but two conventional torpedoes and risk sudden and potentially unrecoverable trim change when heavy nuclear torpedo is fired.
>comparatively easy to build
Lolno. Google uranium centrifuges.
>we could easily built a GT-bomb
Why bother if existing nuclear arsenal gives 900000% guarantee of global destruction?
Let me spell it out for you:
-Nobody can give a 100% guarantee that a single ICBM can be shot down.
-USA, Russia, France, Britain and China use MIRVs in each their ICBM.
-USA and Russia use MIRVs capable of maneuvering on the terminal part of their descent. Nothing but multigigawatt lasers can intercept it.
-Russia in addition to that uses active decoys numbering dozens in every ICBM. Their weigh much less than actual warhead, but they mimic their RCS, speed, trajectory, etc.
In addition to all of that keep in mind that all ICBMs since late 60s are built as self-contained systems capable of detecting hazardous radiation in front of them, capable of shutting downtheir systems till their pass these dangerous areas and turn back on to continue their flight.
Both US and Russia plan to use several ICBMs as "smoke grenades" - detonating them at 100-300km of height basically disrupting any radar of targeting equipment.
TL;DR - doesn't mean sense.