if we were to detonate a nuke underwater...

[sao123]

or are we talking a splash in the bucket?

 

[Gibsons]

You'd need a really really big nuke, but I think it could be done in theory. You'd need a absurdly large bomb to get a tsunami like the the one in 2004... but if you spend enough money you could probably make one that big.

wiki lists a chart comparing richter scales of earthquakes to equivalent energy in tons of TNT.

 

[msparish]

From that chart, the earthquake in 2004 was 1000 times more powerful than the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated.

 

[randay]

One, Million, Dollars! Muwhahwhahaha /doctorevil

 

[dkozloski]

The 1964 Good Friday earthquake in Alaska resulted in thousands of square miles of undersea land permanently changing elevation an average of 16 feet. A nuclear bomb is nothing in comparison. A much smaller temblor and rock fall in 1958 in Lituya Bay, Alaska created a tidal wave over 1700 feet high. You can still see the evidence today. http://www.extremescience.com/BiggestWave.htm

 

[Ayah]

Nuclear weapons aren't powerful in terms of explosive force but their radiation affects.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Linky

Actually one of the most popular nuke vids was actually underwater. Bet all that steam would make for a bad hairday...

Granted that's a low yield, but even a few thousand times that wouldn't really be that big of a wave would it? Easier just to drop the bomb over them.

 

[sao123]

im not sure you can go in temrs of energy released though...
here is my thinking.

how much of the energy in an earthquake actually gets translated into the tsunami?
is really dependent on vertical upward expansion of the surface of the floor.

in a bomb such as a nuke... nearly all the energy goes into thermal expansion. The yeild may be way lower... but the effiency should be much higher.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: sao123
im not sure you can go in temrs of energy released though...
here is my thinking.

how much of the energy in an earthquake actually gets translated into the tsunami?
is really dependent on vertical upward expansion of the surface of the floor.

in a bomb such as a nuke... nearly all the energy goes into thermal expansion. The yeild may be way lower... but the effiency should be much higher.

If the goal was to heat the water i'd agree. But it's not. Heating a litre of water 1*C takes around 4801 J of energy. In comparison that much energy would shift the same KG of water 480M up.

Earthquakes release their energy in the far more potent form of kinetic energy, Nukes have to heat things up.

 

[BrownTown]

yes, most of the nukes energy will go into turning water into steam, only very little goes towards creating waves. Also, the power of a nuclear explosion is insignifigant when compared to geological events like earthquakes and volcanoes. Most people i've seen WAY overestimate the power of nuclear explosions. Thousnads of nukes have been detonated and all we have to show for it is some craters. Just look at the hundreds of nuke craters in Nevada on google earth to get a good idea of just how small the really are compared to geological formations.

 

[Gibsons]

In theory though, nuclear bombs are infinitely scalable. They can be built with as many stages as you have material (or money) for, with each stage progressively larger than the previous. Most all current weapons are small two stage designs yielding around a MT. Tsar Bomba yielded about 50MT, but could've reached its design yield of 100MT quite easily. It was "only" a three stage design. I don't think the U.S. ever built a three stage device, we never went over about 15MT in any case. Build a 4-5 stage device and you might reach multiple gigatons you'd need for a tsunami. If it isn't enough, you could build a 6 or 7 stage device. It might be the size of a large building, but it'll blow up good.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
In theory though, nuclear bombs are infinitely scalable. They can be built with as many stages as you have material (or money) for, with each stage progressively larger than the previous. Most all current weapons are small two stage designs yielding around a MT. Tsar Bomba yielded about 50MT, but could've reached its design yield of 100MT quite easily. It was "only" a three stage design. I don't think the U.S. ever built a three stage device, we never went over about 15MT in any case. Build a 4-5 stage device and you might reach multiple gigatons you'd need for a tsunami. If it isn't enough, you could build a 6 or 7 stage device. It might be the size of a large building, but it'll blow up good.

A nuke the size of a building isn't feasible to build and lift into the ocean, or even feasible to build, the proccess would be astronomicly expensive and transportation would be a nightmare. But say multiple smaller nukes, and your in buisness. Just another way we can kill ourselves. FTW

 

[BurnItDwn]

Perhaps a nuke or series of nukes strategicly positioned near a large underwater mountain, cliff, or fault line could be used to trigger an earthquake or landslide (sort of like how mini avalanches are triggered via old howitzer artillery cannons.) This earthquake and/or landslide may result in a deadly tsunami.

That being said, just sticking a bunch of nukes in the water isn't going to cause a tsunami of any measurable proportions.

 

[videogames101]

It's a matter of numbers

Anyways, in terms of a mega-tsunami, there is a volcanic island of the coast of Africa that half the island is about to come loose and fall into the ocean, we're not talking 2004 size, we're talking a wave hundreds of feet high slamming the east coast of the US, possibly even getting towards NY. One more disruption and it is possible half the island will slide into the sea. Either by volcanic eruption, or terrorist nukes. *Shudders*

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Gibsons
In theory though, nuclear bombs are infinitely scalable. They can be built with as many stages as you have material (or money) for, with each stage progressively larger than the previous. Most all current weapons are small two stage designs yielding around a MT. Tsar Bomba yielded about 50MT, but could've reached its design yield of 100MT quite easily. It was "only" a three stage design. I don't think the U.S. ever built a three stage device, we never went over about 15MT in any case. Build a 4-5 stage device and you might reach multiple gigatons you'd need for a tsunami. If it isn't enough, you could build a 6 or 7 stage device. It might be the size of a large building, but it'll blow up good.

A nuke the size of a building isn't feasible to build and lift into the ocean, or even feasible to build, the proccess would be astronomicly expensive and transportation would be a nightmare. But say multiple smaller nukes, and your in buisness. Just another way we can kill ourselves. FTW

It would be very expensive, but it's feasible. Tsar bomba was carried on an airplane, so it wasn't really that large, maybe 20k pounds. Assume the bomb gets 2x larger for each stage (I think that's reasonable, maybe someone can correct me), and even a 5 stage device really isn't so large. If such weapons had military value, I suspect the U.S. would have a stockpile.

But even if it is really big, the transportation is the easy part: build it in an empty oil tanker or on top of a barge, steam it to wherever and sink it.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Gibsons
In theory though, nuclear bombs are infinitely scalable. They can be built with as many stages as you have material (or money) for, with each stage progressively larger than the previous. Most all current weapons are small two stage designs yielding around a MT. Tsar Bomba yielded about 50MT, but could've reached its design yield of 100MT quite easily. It was "only" a three stage design. I don't think the U.S. ever built a three stage device, we never went over about 15MT in any case. Build a 4-5 stage device and you might reach multiple gigatons you'd need for a tsunami. If it isn't enough, you could build a 6 or 7 stage device. It might be the size of a large building, but it'll blow up good.

A nuke the size of a building isn't feasible to build and lift into the ocean, or even feasible to build, the proccess would be astronomicly expensive and transportation would be a nightmare. But say multiple smaller nukes, and your in buisness. Just another way we can kill ourselves. FTW

It would be very expensive, but it's feasible. Tsar bomba was carried on an airplane, so it wasn't really that large, maybe 20k pounds. Assume the bomb gets 2x larger for each stage (I think that's reasonable, maybe someone can correct me), and even a 5 stage device really isn't so large. If such weapons had military value, I suspect the U.S. would have a stockpile.

But even if it is really big, the transportation is the easy part: build it in an empty oil tanker or on top of a barge, steam it to wherever and sink it.

If it is only 2X larger,I thought is was multiple times larger, I guess if anyone really wanted to they could, but that kind of uranium would cost cash and couldn't be done covertly. But if the US wanted to cause one I guess...

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Linky

Actually one of the most popular nuke vids was actually underwater. Bet all that steam would make for a bad hairday...

Granted that's a low yield, but even a few thousand times that wouldn't really be that big of a wave would it? Easier just to drop the bomb over them.

The comments on that vid are soooo ignorant:laugh:

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Linky

Actually one of the most popular nuke vids was actually underwater. Bet all that steam would make for a bad hairday...

Granted that's a low yield, but even a few thousand times that wouldn't really be that big of a wave would it? Easier just to drop the bomb over them.

The comments on that vid are soooo ignorant:laugh:

Huh? No comments on the video.

That was the Bikini Baker shot. IIRC, 100ft underwater. No tsunami. Not even close to what is required.

My dad worked in the lab on the animals that were on the ships during the tests to see what radiation effects would be. His work was the effects of radiation on protein and amino acid bonds.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Ayah
Nuclear weapons aren't powerful in terms of explosive force but their radiation affects.

Look at pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the blasts.. and those were measured in kilotons, not megatons.

A 1 megaton explosion is equal to 2,000,000,000 pounds of TNT... how do you say that isn't powerful in terms of explosive force??


Incidentally, I've always wondered if a reasonably strong nuke would be sufficient to start a major quake, perhaps somewhere in the Cascadia range to set of one a possible megathrust earthquake.. i.e. the nuke doesn't do it - the quake does it.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Linky

Actually one of the most popular nuke vids was actually underwater. Bet all that steam would make for a bad hairday...

Granted that's a low yield, but even a few thousand times that wouldn't really be that big of a wave would it? Easier just to drop the bomb over them.

The comments on that vid are soooo ignorant:laugh:

Huh? No comments on the video.

Scroll down, there's like 74
That was the Bikini Baker shot. IIRC, 100ft underwater. No tsunami. Not even close to what is required.

My dad worked in the lab on the animals that were on the ships during the tests to see what radiation effects would be. His work was the effects of radiation on protein and amino acid bonds.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Ayah
Nuclear weapons aren't powerful in terms of explosive force but their radiation affects.

Look at pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the blasts.. and those were measured in kilotons, not megatons.

A 1 megaton explosion is equal to 2,000,000,000 pounds of TNT... how do you say that isn't powerful in terms of explosive force??


Incidentally, I've always wondered if a reasonably strong nuke would be sufficient to start a major quake, perhaps somewhere in the Cascadia range to set of one a possible megathrust earthquake.. i.e. the nuke doesn't do it - the quake does it.

I don't think they mean not powerful in terms of raw wowage, but in comparison to other things in nature / the universe.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: jagec

Huh? No comments on the video.

Scroll down, there's like 74

Ah... your definition of "on the video" and mine are different. On the video, I heard a count down. You meant the comments about the video. Both right

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Ayah
Nuclear weapons aren't powerful in terms of explosive force but their radiation affects.

Look at pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the blasts.. and those were measured in kilotons, not megatons.

A 1 megaton explosion is equal to 2,000,000,000 pounds of TNT... how do you say that isn't powerful in terms of explosive force??


Incidentally, I've always wondered if a reasonably strong nuke would be sufficient to start a major quake, perhaps somewhere in the Cascadia range to set of one a possible megathrust earthquake.. i.e. the nuke doesn't do it - the quake does it.

Diminishing returns because of inverse square IIRC. Still 1 mile of total destruction vs 5 miles is nothing to sneeze at (don't quotes those figures as I cannot swear by them at the moment).

But a nuke causing a quake is a Hollywood thing. Compared to real forces of nature, nukes are insignificant. Hollywood likes to give too much credit to men as it makes good story. Like we actually matter It is all about scale. Maybe in the exact right spot of max pressure, a well-placed nuke would break the friction holding the system in place. But, we still aren't smart enough to find those points. If we did, we would be much better at predicting earthquakes.

 

[Kyanzes]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Ayah
Nuclear weapons aren't powerful in terms of explosive force but their radiation affects.

Look at pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the blasts.. and those were measured in kilotons, not megatons.

A 1 megaton explosion is equal to 2,000,000,000 pounds of TNT... how do you say that isn't powerful in terms of explosive force??


Incidentally, I've always wondered if a reasonably strong nuke would be sufficient to start a major quake, perhaps somewhere in the Cascadia range to set of one a possible megathrust earthquake.. i.e. the nuke doesn't do it - the quake does it.

Diminishing returns because of inverse square IIRC. Still 1 mile of total destruction vs 5 miles is nothing to sneeze at (don't quotes those figures as I cannot swear by them at the moment).

But a nuke causing a quake is a Hollywood thing. Compared to real forces of nature, nukes are insignificant. Hollywood likes to give too much credit to men as it makes good story. Like we actually matter It is all about scale. Maybe in the exact right spot of max pressure, a well-placed nuke would break the friction holding the system in place. But, we still aren't smart enough to find those points. If we did, we would be much better at predicting earthquakes.

Today's technology allows us to build nuclear warheads in the gigaton range that could be carried by bombers / missiles. So these seem to achievable:

8.0 1 gigaton San Francisco, CA Quake, 1906
8.5 5.6 gigatons Anchorage, AK Quake, 1964

That one, however, seems a bit far today:

9.0 32 gigatons 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

Somehow I have the feeling that we won't have to wait too long for that one to be surpassed, unfortunately.

 

[imported_inspire]

Are you trying to say that seismic activity has increased in magnitude over time? Do you have more than those numbers?