[Andoror]

Nukes are far less effective underwater, even at ground level, which is why they go off before hitting the ground.

while that is true about atmospheric (above ground tests) if you wanted to take out an armada, say the kind that stormed the beaches of normandy or were headed towards the japanese mainland, and take as many ships out as possible, underwater explosion would be optimal, (not 1500 meters under water, more like 30-50 meters) as the concussive force added with the water evaporating and creating a wall of water completely inundates surrounding ships.

see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVBhe...eature=related


An above ground explosion is done at a quarter mile or so above the target (maybe higher depending on the yeild) because the ground has no give and the force of the explosion is compressed against the ground increasing damage... water on the other hand has lots of give, and an above water explosion loses intensity because the water absorbes alot of the downward energy.

[usaguedriedax]

Hasn't a modern ship been sunk yet that has a nuclear reactor for power?

Thought Thresher would have picked up on that [rolleyes]

The USS Thresher, a US nuclear submarine was lost - cause unknown - in the early sixties.

For the Thresher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)

Here you go - the Scorpion as someone mentioned.
[quote]
USS Scorpion (SSN-589) was a Skipjack-class nuclear submarine of the United States Navy, and the sixth ship of the U.S. Navy to carry that name. Scorpion was declared lost on June 5, 1968,[2] one of the few U.S. Navy submarines to be lost at sea while not at war and is one of only two nuclear submarines the U.S. Navy has ever lost, the other being USS Thresher (SSN-593), which sank in April 10, 1963 off the coast of New England.[3]
[unquote]
Source for the Scorpion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)

[usaguedriedax]

On subject, even in the Marianis Trench, more specifically Challenger Deep (from the A C Doyle books - really!) which is around 11 kilometers deep, I would be surprised if there was much surface reaction to the explosion as all the water mass would dampen the affects - however, the resulting implosion as the gases cooled and the water rushed in again may be a different story. Until someone tries it, or runs detailed simulations, we're not likely to know.

[sbrpkkl]

Now, say depending on the section of sea that it would be dropped, wouldn't the pressure start to crush the bomb, letting water get in, and destroying the electronics that fire the bomb?


Hasn't a modern ship been sunk yet that has a nuclear reactor for power?

havent teh soviets/russians, losta few this way? i would think though that teh detonation would have to happen, before crush depth was achieved. even so, would make a rather large wave, and prolly fark up some of the ecosystem in place, and a bunch of stunned fish surfacing. ( kinda like dynamite fishing on a HUUUUUUUGE scale)

[Andoror]

havent teh soviets/russians, losta few this way? i would think though that teh detonation would have to happen, before crush depth was achieved. even so, would make a rather large wave, and prolly fark up some of the ecosystem in place, and a bunch of stunned fish surfacing. ( kinda like dynamite fishing on a HUUUUUUUGE scale)

Are you guys thinking that the reactor on a sub might go and the would be some type of nuclear explosion? If so, you are way, way off base. There is a nuclear reaction going on in thier reactors but it is no where near the scale needed to cause a big explosion...if anything, it would just melt the reactor core and spew lots of radioactive material on the bottom of the ocean when the sub settled. there have been several nuclear subs that have been lost...all but one was lost because of something else (one of the US subs went too far down, the kursk had a torpedo explode).

[Dvjkefdw]

Correct - all nuclear-powered subs use PWRs which are incapable of going supercritical (aka "boom!").

[SingleMan]

Edit: What do you know? It was you who asked a little while back. You're also the wacko asking about WiFi signals and bombs. WTF are you asking about this stuff for? [thumbdown]

This made me laugh.. I remember that... lets call Jack Bauer!

[lalpphilalk]

Are you guys thinking that the reactor on a sub might go and the would be some type of nuclear explosion? If so, you are way, way off base. There is a nuclear reaction going on in thier reactors but it is no where near the scale needed to cause a big explosion...if anything, it would just melt the reactor core and spew lots of radioactive material on the bottom of the ocean when the sub settled. there have been several nuclear subs that have been lost...all but one was lost because of something else (one of the US subs went too far down, the kursk had a torpedo explode).

I think most people have the same idea about nuclear power as well...

[Ygxejxox]

I think most people have the same idea about nuclear power as well...

And some people even think that if terrorists flew a 747 into a nuclear power station then there would be a huge explosion too, Well there wouldn't.

Maybe some residual fallout, if the reactor was penetrated, but depending on where the reactor was in the world, the wind and/or rain would wash most of the fallout into the land and ultimately back into the sea.

[lalpphilalk]

And some people even think that if terrorists flew a 747 into a nuclear power station then there would be a huge explosion too, Well there wouldn't.

Maybe some residual fallout, if the reactor was penetrated, but depending on where the reactor was in the world, the wind and/or rain would wash most of the fallout into the land and ultimately back into the sea.

Exactly!

[Dvjkefdw]

Maybe some residual fallout, if the reactor was penetrated, but depending on where the reactor was in the world, the wind and/or rain would wash most of the fallout into the land and ultimately back into the sea.

For somebody who's from/living in Anglesey, you should know about how long it takes radioactive contamination of land from fallout to reduce through just rainfall. It's not something that clears within a matter of a few years - it takes decades.

Much, though, depends on what type of reactor is it (less so where it's located) - graphite moderated reactors (Magnox, AGR, RBMK) run the risk of the graphite igniting if an explosion occurs, and it's this that is the primary mechanism for spreading radioactive contaminates.

[Ygxejxox]

For somebody who's from/living in Anglesey, you should know about how long it takes radioactive contamination of land from fallout to reduce through just rainfall. It's not something that clears within a matter of a few years - it takes decades.

Much, though, depends on what type of reactor is it (less so where it's located) - graphite moderated reactors (Magnox, AGR, RBMK) run the risk of the graphite igniting if an explosion occurs, and it's this that is the primary mechanism for spreading radioactive contaminates.

Well after the Chernobyl incident, much of Wales was affected by Fallout, to a certain degree,
There were claims, by Farmers, of Mutant type effects being seen in Lambs and other offspring, But nothing really spectacular like lambs with 2 heads etc.

I haven't got a clue how many years Wales and other areas were effected though, but I do remember my father discussiing it at the time of the incident due to him being the Resident Nuclear Physicist & Chemist in Trawsfynnydd Nuclear Power station at that time, Well he was for about 34 years or so.

I do remember him stating on several occasions though, that normal background radiation is quite high in Wales, due to the Chemical composition of the rock found in some of the Mountains in Wales, and any readings taken at the time of the incident, could be attributed to abnormally high naturally occurring background radiation.

Thus some radiation could be attributed to Chernobyl, but most is naturally occurring.
People tend to leap to the wrong conclusions, especially where nuclear power is concerned.
Although my dad did honestly say once that he found a cat/kitten under the station that glowed in the dark, As there were quite a few resident cats there for several decades! [rofl]

[Dvjkefdw]

The actual radiation wasn't the problem though (although your father is right about the natural background l evels in Wales - and Wylfa plays a significant part too). It's the isotopes themselves that was the issue, in particular Cs-137 which doesn't occur naturally. Those levels were beyond that permitted in agricultural products for human consumption and remain so for quite some time. In fact, there are still several hundred farms across the UK which are still over the limits.

[Ygxejxox]

(although your father is right about the natural background levels in Wales - and Wylfa plays a significant part too). .

lol...I live 4 miles away from Wylfa!

I haven't started to Glow in the dark yet! [rofl]

[Dvjkefdw]

Well I grew up in Holyhead and regularly used to swim in the sea not far from Wylfa for years, and I'm just fin....ejjjkkkkj hhhaaaackkck..ffffjjzzz... e and dandy!

[engideNedmupe]

Well I grew up in Holyhead and regularly used to swim in the sea not far from Wylfa for years, and I'm just fin....ejjjkkkkj hhhaaaackkck..ffffjjzzz... e and dandy!

And once again I pay my medicine cabinet a visit to fetch the cotton swabs. I don't think my keyboard can take many more tea showers.

[Ygxejxox]

Well I grew up in Holyhead and regularly used to swim in the sea not far from Wylfa for years,

Is that True ??

If it is, Wow! small world, isn't it!!

[Dvjkefdw]

Yep, completely true - I lived in Holyhead for 11 years (1977 to 1988) and my mother still lives there.