Reply to If DC or Arlington are hit with a nuclear bomb

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "If DC or Arlington are hit with a nuclear bomb"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So I actually looked into this at one point.  I think our idea of [b]the huge bomb from WW2[/b] is what is stuck in our head.  But nuclear weapons have changed.  A dirty bomb is much more likely, that only instantly effects a small area.  But the lasting radiation will do WAY MORE DAMAGE, especially because we are all stupid.  If you stay inside for 48 hours (hard to do if you are sheltering in your workplace) you have a much higher change of survival.  But if you go outside, deadly radiation will ensure a painful death over the course of some time.  Then the radiation lingers of course, and will cause many more slower deaths afterwards as people wander outside.

So it does depend on the half life of whatever is used.

I remember reading some DC preparedness document and being kind of upset I might not be killed in the initial blast.  [/quote]

The WWII bombs were anything BUT “huge”. They were incredibly small in terms of yield.

Most strategic nuclear warheads today are in the 300-500 kiloton range - making them 20 to 50 times more powerful than the WWII bombs.

And this level of power is actually far smaller than previous generations of early/mid Cold War weapons, which had yields in the megatons, instead of kilotons. But as missiles and other delivery systems became more accurate, the size of the warheads was down-sized for better efficiency. No need for a 30 megaton aircraft-deployed bomb when a 300 kiloton missile-delivered weapon is more accurate.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics