# Maximum Death For Nuclear Bomb in USA **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 26, 2008, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581 "2008-11-26T18:10:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sleel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/73ab20/32.png) [@Sleel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleel)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/41 "2008-11-27T13:51:23Z")
[US population density statistics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_density). While cliched, it looks like the NY/NJ area is the place to hit if you want the most immediate deaths for your weapon, plus panic, subsequent deaths from fallout, and massive displacement of survivors in the surrounding area. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2008, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/42 "2008-11-27T14:01:05Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Because smaller bombs are better. It takes a bomb eight times are powerful to double the blast radius, so it’s better to blanket an area with 4 100KT bombs than 1 6MT bomb. > [http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/blastfnd.html](http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/blastfnd.html) Presumably, since 1MT and larger bombs exist, there may be some applications in which a single large device is preferable to smaller ones. Either that, or it’s just that the larger warheads were manufactured before accuracy became a concern. What is the straight dope on that? ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2008, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/43 "2008-11-27T15:17:41Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > Presumably, since 1MT and larger bombs exist, there may be some applications in which a single large device is preferable to smaller ones. Either that, or it’s just that the larger warheads were manufactured before accuracy became a concern. What is the straight dope on that? The latter. Originally, weapon delivery systems were relatively inaccurate. So, you had the monster Titan missile, armed with a 9 MT warhead, and it could land anywhere in the vicinity of your target and flatten it. Now, there are much more accurate ICBMs and cruise missiles, so they can carry a much smaller warhead. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2008, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/44 "2008-11-27T15:55:42Z")
Just as another random hijack, since apparently we’ve got all the a-bomb freaks here… We know that nuclear facilities are common targets of nuclear weapons. If you dropped a nuclear bomb on a stockpile of nuclear material like Pu-239, would that material fission and cause a larger explosion? ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2008, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/45 "2008-11-27T16:37:59Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > Just as another random hijack, since apparently we’ve got all the a-bomb freaks here… > > We know that nuclear facilities are common targets of nuclear weapons. If you dropped a nuclear bomb on a stockpile of nuclear material like Pu-239, would that material fission and cause a larger explosion? That’s a very interesting question. Nuclear weapons emit copious amounts of neutrons. I suspect that if you had a bomb go off close to a pile of HEU or PU-239, it would induce fission. Whether that would add to the explosion in any significant way is debatable. In a H-bomb, even U-238 can undergo fission from all the fast neutrons. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/46 "2008-11-27T19:02:17Z")
Although not deliverable and perhaps not even emplaceable without special resources, how about deeply buried nukes? If you could set off a multimegaton blast a mile or two underground, how would that work out? Presuming the blast and fire broke the surface, would it be spead out more effectively? How about damage from seismic shock? ---
**Author:** ![dre2xl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@dre2xl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dre2xl)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2008, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/47 "2008-11-27T21:29:34Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > You need to think outside of the box. > > My obvious choices would be communication, finance and transportation centers. Think New York, Washington, DC, Chicago railyards, St’ Louis railyards, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, et. al. > > The purpose is to disable/kill the banking and finance centers, the major telecommunications links, and the food transportation hubs. The initial blast will kill the head; time will kill the rest of the body as people have no access to communications, money and food. What about framing some other country for the blame, like Russia? Hello WWIII! ---
**Author:** ![DeptfordX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DeptfordX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeptfordX)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/48 "2008-11-28T01:48:47Z")
> [@telebox](#): > > Here is one article about the ‘mega weapons’ referred to above but with no hard facts to back up the theories … > > [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,828877,00.html?iid=digg\_share](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,828877,00.html?iid=digg_share) Yeah i too find that article highly, _highly_ dubious. You can increase the size of a nuclear weapon indefinitly? A 20.000 Megaton bomb? I’d need to see a highly credible cite to believe that. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/49 "2008-11-28T02:14:43Z")
> [@DeptfordX](#): > > Yeah i too find that article highly, _highly_ dubious. You can increase the size of a nuclear weapon indefinitly? A 20.000 Megaton bomb? I’d need to see a highly credible cite to believe that. From what I’ve read about the design of thermonuclear weapons, you can add an arbitrary number of stages to the weapon. Each stage igniting the next stage in a linear array of stages. At some point it gets too big and long to move or deliver, but it still functions. You start things off with a fission device, which ignites the first fusion stage. Add a jacket of U238 for increased yield and fallout. ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/50 "2008-11-28T03:48:16Z")
Could a sufficiently large detonation, at ground level, near the mouth of the Illinois river, in Chicago, cause the Great Lakes to drain back down the Mississippi river? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/51 "2008-11-28T04:02:09Z")
> [@Bootis](#): > > What sort of mayhem would bombing Niagara Falls cause? The honeymoon would be over, that’s for damn sure. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/52 "2008-11-28T04:19:09Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > From what I’ve read about the design of thermonuclear weapons, you can add an arbitrary number of stages to the weapon. Each stage igniting the next stage in a linear array of stages. At some point it gets too big and long to move or deliver, but it still functions. You start things off with a fission device, which ignites the first fusion stage. Add a jacket of U238 for increased yield and fallout. Wouldn’t you run out of time? Let’s say it takes six seconds (or whatever) for the blast wave of your primary detonator - the fission device - to form, and in the meantime you ignite the next stage - after your six seconds were up the blast/heat/pressure wave/whatever from your initial stage would just vaporize the rest of your device, right? ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/53 "2008-11-28T04:45:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Wouldn’t you run out of time? Let’s say it takes six seconds (or whatever) for the blast wave of your primary detonator - the fission device - to form, and in the meantime you ignite the next stage - after your six seconds were up the blast/heat/pressure wave/whatever from your initial stage would just vaporize the rest of your device, right? You have no idea how fast this all happens. An fission bomb explodes in nanoseconds. A fusion bomb is triggered by the light pressure (x-rays, mostly) from the fission bomb, so you can create a very long bomb with as much fuel as you want, and not have to worry about the blast destroying it. Of course, at some point you can’t deliver it, but if you wanted to create a doomsday device… ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/54 "2008-11-28T07:13:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Wouldn’t you run out of time? Let’s say it takes six seconds (or whatever) for the blast wave of your primary detonator - the fission device - to form, and in the meantime you ignite the next stage - after your six seconds were up the blast/heat/pressure wave/whatever from your initial stage would just vaporize the rest of your device, right? As beowulff said, the trick is that the electromagnetic radiation from the primary is moving at the speed of light, unlike the blast wave and bomb fragments, which are just moving really, really fast. One of the conceptual breakthroughs that led to the design of the Teller-Ulam configuration was the use of electromagnetic radiation to compress and ignite the fusion secondary stage. That is unlike the fission primary, which uses the shock wave from high explosives to compress and ignite the core. ---
**Author:** ![DeptfordX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DeptfordX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeptfordX)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/55 "2008-11-28T11:06:32Z")
So there’s no upper limit apart from practicality. Now thats remarkable. Going to have to use this in the next superhero RPG i run. Ok , so our hypothetical 20,000 Megaton weapon. Any idea how big and heavy it would actually have to be? ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/56 "2008-11-28T11:26:02Z")
> [@DeptfordX](#): > > So there’s no upper limit apart from practicality. Now thats remarkable. Going to have to use this in the next superhero RPG i run. > Ok , so our hypothetical 20,000 Megaton weapon. Any idea how big and heavy it would actually have to be? Assuming 2 kt/kg, about 10,000 metric tons. It would be huge. Something like the size of a battleship. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/57 "2008-11-28T17:14:37Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Unless you are restricting it to immediate deaths, it seems like the best would be a blast in/above the Great Lakes area. That would put massive amounts of water into the air, messing up the weather for months. Probably Lake Superior would be best, to damage or destroy the crops growing in the Midwest & Canadian Plains. Late spring, when the crops are starting to sprout might be the best time. > > You also have that water eventually coming back to earth, within the Ohio-Mississippi watershed. Likely causing extensive flooding, all the way from Minneapolis & Chicago down to New Orleans (or whatever is left of it now). Probably a lot more killed in this flooding. > > And then you also have the fallout moving east, and hitting the whole northeast area out to the coast, Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, etc. I guess that would depend on the size of the weapon. For info, read about “shot Baker”, Operation Crossroads: [Operation Crossroads - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads) , but that was probably a Hiroshima sized warhead. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/58 "2008-11-28T17:24:41Z")
> [@chacoguy420](#): > > Could a sufficiently large detonation, at ground level, near the mouth of the Illinois river, in Chicago, cause the Great Lakes to drain back down the Mississippi river? :eek: “Shot Mike”, Operation Ivy, detonated on an islet part of the Enewetak Atoll, 1952. > **[Operation Ivy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy)** > > Download coordinates as: > Operation Ivy was the eighth series of American nuclear tests, coming after Tumbler-Snapper and before Upshot–Knothole. The two explosions were staged in late 1952 at Enewetak Atoll in the Pacific Proving Ground in the Marshall Islands. > On January 31, 1950, President Harry S. Truman ordered that the US should continue research into all forms of nuclear weapons, including the development of thermonuclear weapons. The Operation Ivy test series was the first to involve a... 10 megaton weapon left a crater 164ft deep and 6400 feet wide (which was larger than the islet it was on). Is that big enough to dig a trench for the Great Lakes to make it to the Mississippi River system? Photos of Operation Ivy. Note circular crater in next to last photo. [Operation Ivy - Wikimedia Commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/59 "2008-11-28T17:27:38Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > You have no idea how fast this all happens. > An fission bomb explodes in nanoseconds. A fusion bomb is triggered by the light pressure (x-rays, mostly) from the fission bomb, so you can create a very long bomb with as much fuel as you want, and not have to worry about the blast destroying it. Of course, at some point you can’t deliver it, but if you wanted to create a doomsday device… Thanks! It didn’t occur to me that you could just build the thing in a straight line. I was visualizing something like a spiral with the primary device in the middle. ---
**Author:** ![manila](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@manila](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manila)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581/60 "2009-01-20T16:39:37Z")
one more random hijack in a fascinating thread. what about the Neutron Bomb? the nuclear landlord? Evict the tenants and leaves the buildings standing? And what bomb and altitude would you need to explode a device to maximise the destructive power of the electromagnetic pulse to fry your targets ipods? very interesting stuff, haven’t thought about this stuff for years [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maximum-death-for-nuclear-bomb-in-usa/474581.md?page=2)