Nuclear Bombs: Is it just me?

[Tex]

I spent some of my time today watching test footage of various US and Soviet nuclear weapon test footage. These weapons are absolutely evil to think about, and I want to know why I seem to instinctively think this.

My rough thought process as I watch these films goes something like curiosity at first (wow that's a bright light, and it lasts for so long!), to wonderment at the huge scale at the size of the plumes of debris, and then something very strange happens: I become extremely anxious and afraid. Watching that huge mushroom cloud forming, seeing the clouds tinted blood red, orange, and yellow by the fireball, and especially the shockwave painting the ground white as it blasts along just sets me off, and I have no idea why.

Do you think it is from my knowledge of what atrocities nuclear weapons have caused? Is it some primal fear, reawakened by this footage? I am at a loss, and cannot shake this fright response whenever I see a nuke blowing up. Does anyone else have a similar reaction? Am I alone in my nuclear anxiety?

[Godot]

Well, I for my part don´t feel this anxiety.

While the conscious part of my brain knows about the dangers resulting from the actual use of these weapons (and the suffering of the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki),

the subconscious parts of my brain think "Oh, beautiful", when they see video footages of a nuclear test

[ZedNova]

I get a rush of adrenaline when i see one blow up. Don't worry about being nuked because it won't happen, and if it did, you wouldn't be able to do anything anyway.

[razark]

Do you think it is from my knowledge of what atrocities nuclear weapons have caused? Is it some primal fear, reawakened by this footage? I am at a loss, and cannot shake this fright response whenever I see a nuke blowing up. Does anyone else have a similar reaction? Am I alone in my nuclear anxiety?

If you don't mind, I'm wondering how old you are. I'm curious if there might be a difference in attitude towards nuclear weapons for those that grew up during the Cold War and those that grew up afterwards.

[MajorThomas]

I too worry and feel uneasy when I see nuclear bomb footage too. The blast/fireball/mushroom clouds represent an unbelievably huge force of nature released to destroy...other people. Letting the genie out of its bottle, like. Not something to be taken lightly. Probably helps that I grew up during the time of maximum nukes and fairly high tension, in the 1980's.

[Nuke]

go watch dr. strangelove, you will feel better.

i personally love nuclear weapons. they are the reason we never had a hot war with russia. war in the industrial age was getting out of hand weapons were getting really good at turning meat into puree. as soon as nukes came around nobody wanted to have a big war anymore. small wars were sufficient. all thanks to the likes of fatman and tsar bomba. they will probibly save our butts somewhere down the road. its the only feasable means of interstellar travel we have at the moment. i like to think of them is really efficient batteries with a rather high discharge rate and capacity. our long term survival as a species will depend of very high energy technologies. nukes are making us discipline ourselves for that future. if we die now from nuclear war or when the sun explodes because we banned nukes and couldnt build an orion drive, i dont see much difference. just because you hold the power of armageddon in your hand, doesnt mean you want to burn.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Nuke

[Seret]

People do seem especially creeped out by nukes, and I'm not entirely sure why. Weapons are inhumane things, designed to cause pain, death and misery. That goes from the biggest nuke down to the infantryman's bayonet. I speak as an ex-armourer, who made a living dealing almost exclusively with weapons.

Most casualties in high-intensity conflict are caused by artillery, if you want to point the finger at the biggest bringer of woe to humans that's where you should be looking. Incidentally there is some overlap between the lethality of some "conventional" weapons systems and the smaller nukes, so it's not entirely a matter of the scale of destruction. I think it's just fear of the unknown. People understand bullets and shrapnel, we turn a blind eye to the tide of misery these cause every day, but the power of the atom seems weird, scary and uncontainable. It's effectively magic to normal people, and they feel that if we let the genie out of the bottle we might not be able to contain it. Personally I disagree, use of chemical weapons on the battlefield hasn't resulted in uncontrollable escalation. I don't see why a limited nuclear exchange couldn't take place.

[bsalis]

It's not just you.

These weapons are shocking in power, beyond comprehension of our day-by-day experiences. A highly recommended documentary to see if you have not already is Trinity and Beyond, narrated by William Shatner.

One standout test for me is Shot Baker. An underwater test of about 21Kt yield. That dark patch on the right side of the shaft is an upturned navy ship. All those ships are just toys compared to that explosion. At only 21Kt, that is a firecracker compared to the island destroying megaton yield bombs tested in the Pacific later years.

Operation Crossroads - Shot Baker

Another shocker is Shot Grable. Yes, that was fired out of that cannon. This among other tests, like the Structural Effects testing, paints a picture of the times that they were really expecting to use these things in conflicts. It's crazy, like watching kids working out how to use real guns for the next round of Cowboy and Indians. What the heck were they thinking?!

Operation Upshot-Knothole - Shot Grable

During the Cold War years, the threat of a nuclear war (ie. World War 3) with the Soviets weighed down on the collective psyche of people in the Western world (Soviets too i'm sure). As someone who grew up in the tail end of those years, it left an impression on me and shaped more than one generation of people.

Since the end of the Cold War, I believe people have become complacent about the risks while the actual chance of these weapons being used has increased. More countries than ever possess these weapons, many not as politically/economically stable as the USA and USSR (Pakistan in particular is worrying). Security around these weapons and fissile material is also worse. Many "non-government entities" are also keen to gain access as well.

I look at the current issues between USA-Japan-China in the South China Sea and wonder about how bad it could turn out. It's like people have forgotten what these countries have in their arsenal, and what measures are taken in war when pushed to the wall. No one seems to be talking about this --- it's all just what's on TV recently or other smalltalk.

[TechnicalK3rbal]

I really don't understand why people are afraid of nuclear weapons. For example during WWII the american thermite bombings in Japan killed several timesmore people than the two atomic bombs combined. Also, how many people would have died if the U.S. Hadn't nuked japan and the war had continued for several more years without a peaceful surrender? And the Cold War. What would've happened between Russia and America if they hadn't been afraid of each others nuclear weapons? Or what if the Nazis had invented before the Americans? What horrors would they have done with it, even worse than those in Asia?

[TelluriumCrystal]

I personally could care less about nuclear weapons. Ironically their sheer destructive power makes them useless in traditional warfare, as they are too powerful to be used tactically (there were smaller ones made, but they were't used for varying reasons). What really bugs me is when people invoke nuclear weapons when talking about nuclear power. Even to this day there are still people who think nuclear reactors can explode like nuclear weapons.

[Wahgineer]

I personally could care less about nuclear weapons. Ironically their sheer destructive power makes them useless in traditional warfare, as they are too powerful to be used tactically (there were smaller ones made, but they were't used for varying reasons). What really bugs me is when people invoke nuclear weapons when talking about nuclear power. Even to this day there are still people who think nuclear reactors can explode like nuclear weapons.

Well, if you put some C4 in the right places, and blew them all up at the right time, or maybe even detonated a nuke in the reactor...

[TechnicalK3rbal]

Well, if you put some C4 in the right places, and blew them all up at the right time, or maybe even detonated a nuke in the reactor...

Well, I you detonated a nuke in the reactor, than it would be that booing up, nt the reactor.

Also, the reactor doesn't contain the critical mass of the uranium, the amount required to react fast enough to create an explosion.

[TelluriumCrystal]

Well, if you put some C4 in the right places, and blew them all up at the right time, or maybe even detonated a nuke in the reactor...

I'm pretty sure detonating a nuclear bomb in the reactor would cause a nuclear explosion. Actually detonating a nuclear bomb anywhere would cause a nuclear explosion.

My point is that it is fundamentally impossible for the fissionable materials in a nuclear reactor to become supercritical and explode. The worst that could happen would be a catastrophic core containment failure, which would result in the leakage of radiation into the surrounding environment. Even then it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as nuclear fallout from a nuclear weapon can cause.

[Klingon Admiral]

It might have something to do with the fact that every single nuclear bomb can easily release the same energy than did the entire Second World War (about 5 megatons). Think about this, if ypu decide to nuke a place, you pretty much decide to bring the entirety of the most destructive conflict in human nature down on it.

And yes, I know that modern nukes aren't really in the 5 megaton department any more (more reliable delivery systems and all that), but still.

[Seret]

they are too powerful to be used tactically (there were smaller ones made, but they were't used for varying reasons)

They weren't used for largely the same reasons larger ones weren't, it was considered too provocative. To fill the gap conventional weapons were developed that were able to create the same impact, such as weapons descending from the Assault Breaker programme in the US (eg: MLRS, Brimstone), and super heavy bombs like the GBU-43 and assorted thermobaric nasties. All this notwithstanding I think you're still far more likely to see a tactical nuke used than one of the biguns. Possibly in something like a naval engagement, where collateral damage would be low enough to make it a politically palatable option.

[crazyewok]

I just think what a waste of energy and mankinds pontential.

Nukes has made the unwashed masses scared of anything nuclear now to the point any benficial research into the areas killed. Just nuclear bombs alone could be used to project huge ships into orbit and at speed that make most the solar system in reach yet all research is on hold due to securitys and millitary cocerns.

[vetrox]

Nuclear weapons arent waht i fear. As someone pointed out they have no use in traditional warfare (by traditional i mean trying to take territory for yourself) The thing that does baffle me is the sheer amount of nuclear tests that were conducted! You think chernobyl was a disaster that contaminated a large area...

What I fear is Bio weapons and this became even more real when playing Metro:last light. A weapon that can destroy whole populations but leave everything else un-touched. This is the weapon you use if you wish to take territory. Even engineering a virus that can spread and kill a population and die out after a given set of time. Again, no fallout, no reprocutions just infect a person, send him into a city hub and win the game for your nation. Easy Mode, at least with nukes you have the potential to survive. It may be slim but if you are far enough away you may live, or you may hide but a virus spread out with the help of the wind...you dont know it has happened until you are already infecting everyone...*shudders*

[lajoswinkler]

I didn't grow up during the Cold war, but I do remember the fear during the last war in my country. I've personally experienced months of bombarding and hiding in shelters. I also had a brush with death from an artillery attack.

Today, I pretty much can't stand loud bangs without feeling very unpleasant, and I don't like weapons and the mentality of gun nutters.

I've learned to somewhat tolerate nuclear weapons because they are different. Their explosions are beautiful in a manner of speaking, and it's the energy that binds up nucleons that's doing the job. They are different, although their sheer destructive yield is much greater than from conventional weapons.

It's the suffering of the potential victims that terrifies me the most. Not the explosion, but the pain, fear, misery and the agony that results from it. If I think about that, it can ruin the most artistic and powerful sight of the "artificial Sun".

Nuclear weapons should be banned just like chemical weapons are. Of course we can't all of a sudden live in an utopia, but there is a lot of space between utopia and war crimes such as usage of such weapons. There are borders you just can't cross. The consequences of nuclear attacks are absolutely massive. Ethical, political, economic, environmental, you name it.

The only good thing about those bombs is that they've ensured, through the potential of mutually asserted destruction, that the Cold war stays cold.

One standout test for me is Shot Baker. An underwater test of about 21Kt yield. That dark patch on the right side of the shaft is an upturned navy ship. All those ships are just toys compared to that explosion. At only 21Kt, that is a firecracker compared to the island destroying megaton yield bombs tested in the Pacific later years.

I've heard it is not a ship, but a shadow of the ship. I really can't tell, though.

Well, I you detonated a nuke in the reactor, than it would be that booing up, nt the reactor.

Also, the reactor doesn't contain the critical mass of the uranium, the amount required to react fast enough to create an explosion.

Typical nuclear power plant contains tens of tons of uranium in the form of uranium dioxide. It's orders or magnitude more than U-235 critical mass, but nuclear explosion can't happen because that's not how those explosions work. It's much more complicated and depends on the geometry of the bomb, the speed of the primary detonator, etc.

Edited January 13, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[Godot]

Nuclear weapons arent waht i fear. As someone pointed out they have no use in traditional warfare (by traditional i mean trying to take territory for yourself) The thing that does baffle me is the sheer amount of nuclear tests that were conducted! You think chernobyl was a disaster that contaminated a large area...

What I fear is Bio weapons and this became even more real when playing Metro:last light. A weapon that can destroy whole populations but leave everything else un-touched. This is the weapon you use if you wish to take territory. Even engineering a virus that can spread and kill a population and die out after a given set of time. Again, no fallout, no reprocutions just infect a person, send him into a city hub and win the game for your nation. Easy Mode, at least with nukes you have the potential to survive. It may be slim but if you are far enough away you may live, or you may hide but a virus spread out with the help of the wind...you dont know it has happened until you are already infecting everyone...*shudders*

Actually biological weapons are even more unpredictable than any nuclear weapon can be.

You cannot realistically design them so they only strike at a limited region (after all you don´t know where the vectors (the humans which are infected and are able to spread the infection) will move before they die (maybe a few of them will move where you didn´t expect them to go and spread it into friendly countries)

and even if you genetically engineer some safety measures into them (like them affecting only humans with a certain genetic makeup ... or them not being able to spread to other humans after their first infection) there is no guarantee, that a certain percentage of them doesn´t mutate in a way that your safety measures are overridden

(just look at the "arms race" between the designers of modern antibiotics and bacteria strains acquiring multiple resistencies against antibiotics .. or at cases where GM crop had been designed to only survive with a certain artificial nutritional additive [that was only present on the GM test fields] but nevertheless spread outside of these fields and was able to survive there).

Using biological weapons IMHO would really have the potential to "accidentally" kill off all (or at least most) of mankind

[Themohawkninja]

-All humans like violence (at some level).

-You're human.

-Therefore, you like violence (at some level).

Not to mention nukes make pretty colors, and Project Dominican Sunset is arguably a piece of art when it detonated.

[Themohawkninja]

I just think what a waste of energy and mankinds pontential.

All that raw energy, and what you can do with it is a waste? It's the least wasted energy mankind has made up until the the first fusion reactors and anti-matter particles were made.

Nukes has made the unwashed masses scared of anything nuclear now to the point any benficial research into the areas killed. Just nuclear bombs alone could be used to project huge ships into orbit and at speed that make most the solar system in reach yet all research is on hold due to securitys and millitary cocerns.

Yeah... the mass media sometimes makes me want to limit the first amendment...

[lajoswinkler]

I just think what a waste of energy and mankinds pontential.

Nukes has made the unwashed masses scared of anything nuclear now to the point any benficial research into the areas killed. Just nuclear bombs alone could be used to project huge ships into orbit and at speed that make most the solar system in reach yet all research is on hold due to securitys and millitary cocerns.

No hard feelings, but that's an incredibly stupid idea. Using it in space, that's ok, but in the atmosphere, that's just nuts.

[vetrox]

Actually biological weapons are even more unpredictable than any nuclear weapon can be.

You cannot realistically design them so they only strike at a limited region (after all you don´t know where the vectors (the humans which are infected and are able to spread the infection) will move before they die (maybe a few of them will move where you didn´t expect them to go and spread it into friendly countries)

and even if you genetically engineer some safety measures into them (like them affecting only humans with a certain genetic makeup ... or them not being able to spread to other humans after their first infection) there is no guarantee, that a certain percentage of them doesn´t mutate in a way that your safety measures are overridden

(just look at the "arms race" between the designers of modern antibiotics and bacteria strains acquiring multiple resistencies against antibiotics .. or at cases where GM crop had been designed to only survive with a certain artificial nutritional additive [that was only present on the GM test fields] but nevertheless spread outside of these fields and was able to survive there).

Using biological weapons IMHO would really have the potential to "accidentally" kill off all (or at least most) of mankind

Although i'm not the worlds leading expert in bio weapons its still something i fear.

Also if used in a military situation your targets are going to be very isolated from other parts of the world. You can also immunize your military. And the reason i fear it is for its sheer lethality. Yes nuclear weaponry is powerfull but so is bio weaponry and i just fear it. I have no opinion on nuclear arms.

Personally i feel bioweapons could be fairly reliable. However I shouldnt pay attention to fiction for this but in Metro: Last light a small station gets wiped out in a matter of hours (or is it a day or so?) because the virus is released via bomb (no explosion thus no collateral damage) the station is infected. Those who are infected first die fairly quickly, those who are infected slightly later die slightly more slowly (as the virus gets weaker) and the few remaining stragglers (who are from other stations) survive

[Seret]

As someone pointed out they have no use in traditional warfare (by traditional i mean trying to take territory for yourself)

This is a common misconception. Tactical nukes can fulfil a number of useful roles in warfare, and IMO a limited exchange is possible. Well defended high value targets such as airfields, very deep bunkers and concentrations of enemy troops such as tanks massing for an attack, air or bridgeheads, and carrier battle groups are all perfectly sensible targets for a tactical nuclear strike. These weapons have a pretty low radiological impact, so contamination of the battlefield isn't an issue that prohibits their use. Tanks and mechanised infantry are trained and equipped to operate effectively on a nuclear battlefield. Use by navies in blue water would generally have no real impact on civilians at all.

High intensity conflict with conventional weapons contaminates battlefields with all sorts of toxic crud anyway. You can't blow up and burn modern technology without releasing a cocktail of toxic gunk, not to mention the risks from spent munitions, mines, etc. If you're concerned about making a mess of the ground you're trying to take, then you're out of luck.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Seret

[NASAFanboy]

I have an fascination with nukes. I'll either be a writer, a astronaut, or a nuclear scientist.