Maximum Death For Nuclear Bomb in USA

Not individually, but collectively. They’d absorb a lot of the energy. It’s not going to make much difference if you’re very close, but if you’re at a distance…

I was primarily interested in this scenario originally for a low-yield, terrorist-style, nuke. KT rather than MT. IIRC it was estimated that a ground-level nuke of less than 10 KT detonated in London or Dublin would be largely contained within a block or two. Of course, we have lots of heavy stone buildings and irregular streets. Sorry, but I can’t turn up a decent cite.

New to the forums and wanted to draw attention of posters in this thread to a 1980s BBC Show called QED which featured a theoretical 1 megaton bomb being dropped on London :

A quick Google for the basic concept of the show, threw up a Youtube submission of the programme in 3 parts :

Hope this is of some use.

Great forum.

Cheers.

I was thinking the same thing.

Ahh, I love older documentaries. Not like the crap they feed you on Discovery these days.

Here as an additional is an online version of :

NATO HANDBOOK ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF NBC DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS
AMedP-6(B)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/1toc.htm
The OP might get some information from there pertinent to his enquiry.
And here :

NBC Field Handbook
PDF (3.63 mb) FM 3-7 This U.S. Military Field Manual details the NBC warning and reporting system, and how to locate, identify, and operate in and around NBC contamination. This manual is designed to be an easy-to-read, step-by-step manual depicting the manual method of calculating NBC defense procedures useful for the field soldier.
http://thedisease.net/functions.php?PHPSESSID=0cff77ffd14ddbe36fb293844194be7b&arcanum=nbc/FM_3-7.rar

http://thedisease.net/?ejaculate=library&your_poison=NBC%20Warfare

Speaking totally theoretically (of course) if you wanted maximum destruction, wouldn’t it make more sense to drop the big one over someplace like Philadelphia, where the blast could extend from, let’s say Baltimore to Newark, taking out Wilmington, Trenton, etc. in between?

Wouldn’t a ground-level nuke create a bigger fallout problem because of all the debris thrust into the air?

What sort of mayhem would bombing Niagara Falls cause? I remember like the whole east coast losing power for hours because someone pulled a wrong switch or something. What if it was just totally destroyed? For that matter, whats the best target if your goal is overall mayhem?

What is the worst that can happen ? Is it true that as it flows, N Falls is eroding rocks back towards one of The Great Lakes and at some point far off in the future, that lake will empty straight over the Falls ?

Surely it would just boil off a huge quantity of water as well as laying waste to the surrounding area ?

If it were possible to use a large enough nuclear device at another location outside the US, then the risk to the whole US Atlantic seaboard from a cataclysmic event in The Canaries would have a far greater effect that anything dropped in the US itself :

Volcanic Island, Canaries Mega Tsunami …

That Canary Islands tsunami is back in the news again in
the USA. The one, that is, that foreign experts like Prof Bill
McGuire say will be triggered by an eruption and
mega-landslide in La Palma and which island authorities
prefer not to talk about.
But in the hypothetical case of half of La Palma crashing
down into the sea tomorrow, the mega-tsunami it would stir
up would, after a few hours crossing the Atlantic, slam into
the US’s east coast – and lay it waste.
And although there’s no telling when the crunch might occur
– next week, next century or next millennium – some
people across the pond are getting pretty twitchy and are
preparing themselves, right now. Just in case.
Take Onslow, Carteret and Duplin Counties, for instance,
which at the end of April staged a three day exercise …

http://www.tsunami-alarm-system.com/presseseite/Artikel/Tenerife-News-30_05_2007-America-prepares-for-the-Canary-mega-tsunami.pdf

The disintegration of the rock, this earlier study predicted, would produce a debris avalanche deposit extending 60 kilometres from the island. The energy released by the collapse would be equal to the electricity consumption of the entire United States in half a year.

The new model - which provides further insights into the consequences of the collapse - predicts that the landslide would create an exceptionally large tsunami with the capability to travel great distances and reaching speeds of up to 800 kilometres per hour. Immediately after Cumbre Vieja’s collapse a dome of water 900 metres high and tens of kilometres wide will form only to collapse and rebound. As the landslide continues to move underwater a series of wave crests and troughs are produced which soon develop into a tsumani ‘wave train’ which fuels the waves progress. After only 10 minutes, the model predicts, the tsunami will have moved a distance of almost 250 kilometres.

The greatest effects are predicted to occur north, west and south of the Canaries. On the West Saharan shore waves are expected to reach heights of 100 metres from crest to trough and on the north coast of Brazil waves over 40 metres high are anticipated. Florida and the Caribbean, the final destinations in the North Atlantic to be affected by the tsunami, will have to brace themselves for receiving 50-metre high waves - higher than Nelson’s column in London, some 8 to 9 hours after the landslide. Towards Europe waves heights will be smaller, but substantial tsunami waves will hit the Atlantic coasts of Britain, Spain Portugal and France.

For tsunamis striking flat-lying coastline regions such as Florida, calculating the inundation distance - the extent to which water penetrates inland taking the form of fast moving floods after waves break - is crucial to assessing potential damage. Dr. Day and his colleagues estimate inundation distances in the region of several kilometres from the coast. Accurate estimates of the scale of economic loss are yet to be made but are thought to be in the multi-trillion USD range.

Not sure how big an explosion it would take to actually precipitate that - probably beyond human capability, though I recall reading that there was an attempt made to bomb Mount Fuji to try and cause an eruption during WW2.

Well I was trying to leave out New York City, because of the huge population and it’s density, it would always be a target. Same for Washington DC, being the capital.

I actually was reading an old book about the Tsar Bomba and they were calculating the overkill of the bomb. In otherwords if you can have a bomb half the size of the Tsar Bomba and let’s say for sake of argument, it would wipe out Kansas City. So the book says there’s no point using the Tsar Bomba on KC, because once you kill everyone in the central city the area not dense. For cost purposes it would be better to build a smaller bomb.

The book (written in 1975) was saying Chicago, New York and Los Angeles were the only places worth bombing with the Tsar Bomba, Chicago being the closest target would be the obvious choice. (Provided the Soviets came up with an effective delivery)

Speaking of the Tsar Bomb, why don’t we have one greater or equal to its power?

Can’t find a specific link but recall reading years ago that US scientists had a theoretical device planned but never built that would possibly have had a yield in the region of 50,000 megatons - but it was’t pursued as there was no way to deliver it - and according to one of the scientists it would have pretty much wiped out all life on earth regardless of where it went off.

Don’t have the knowledge of chemistry or physics but it was supposedly cobalt chloride based.

  • Guinness Book of Records 1980 was where I read that.

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

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

~110k dead instantly if you bombed Beaver Stadium

Taking out NORAD would be a good idea. But you are asking for total deaths not practical.

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.

Delivery systems have been in place for over twenty years now to get a 50 kt weapon to within 3 feet of its target. Back when the tsar bomb was all the rage , nukes had to be a large yeild to compensate for lack of accuracy.

Declan

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.

With regard to the idea of hitting the Great Lakes, is it not true that the water vapour carried upwards, would end up being dispersed by the Jet Stream on its way back down ? This dissipation would reduce any localised effect.