Can a Nuclear Bomb Go Off w/o a launch pad?

GingerGunlock · Nov 16, 2013

Call me paranoid (yeah, I totally am), but to me a "tactical nuke" isn't really what the phrase seems to suggest it is. A nuke is a nuke, n'est-ce pas? As a result, the explosion will result in fallout and destruction, variable based on where it is placed/where it detonates, the payload, etc.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both airburst, and people operated in those crippled areas thereafter, trying to help the wounded, deal with the wreckage, all of those.

Pertaining to the underground detonation of the Sedan nuclear test, according to Wikipedia (lazy, I'm sorry),

The radioactive fallout from the test contaminated more US residents than any other nuclear test.

(and you can watch a video on/of the test here on Youtube, with Roentgen doses not seeming to match up, quite, with what was later reported.)

So, ultimately, it's up to you which you want. If you want an airburst, you could also consider whether you want it to be at an altitude such that it produces a nuclear EMP.

asnys · Nov 16, 2013

GingerGunlock said:
Call me paranoid (yeah, I totally am), but to me a "tactical nuke" isn't really what the phrase seems to suggest it is. A nuke is a nuke, n'est-ce pas? As a result, the explosion will result in fallout and destruction, variable based on where it is placed/where it detonates, the payload, etc.

A tactical nuclear weapon is mostly identical to a strategic nuclear weapon (although the average tactical is a bit smaller). The difference is how they're delivered and their intended purpose. A strategic nuclear weapon is used to target cities, factories, major military bases, missile silos, and other "strategic" targets and is generally delivered by bomber, ICBM, SLBM, or cruise missile. A tactical nuke is used to target enemy military formations in the field and is generally delivered by fighter aircraft, short-range missile, or artillery, or the like. As a result, tacticals tend to be easier to steal because they tend to be a) not attached to gigantic ICBMs and b) deployed in forward bases close to potential enemy lines rather than deep inside secure military preserves.

GingerGunlock said:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both airburst, and people operated in those crippled areas thereafter, trying to help the wounded, deal with the wreckage, all of those.

Pertaining to the underground detonation of the Sedan nuclear test, according to Wikipedia (lazy, I'm sorry),

(and you can watch a video on/of the test here on Youtube, with Roentgen doses not seeming to match up, quite, with what was later reported.)

SEDAN is a weird case and not really representative of the sort of scenario the OP has in mind. It was set off some distance underground to contain the fallout - deeper than a terrorist group could (or would want) to reach. The reason it tops the charts, so to speak, is that it was one of the very, very few AEC tests in Nevada that were high-yield and that breached the surface. Other AEC tests were either detonated high above the ground, were detonated deep below ground, were very low-yield, or were set off out in the Pacific.

GingerGunlock said:
So, ultimately, it's up to you which you want. If you want an airburst, you could also consider whether you want it to be at an altitude such that it produces a nuclear EMP.

To generate a large-scale EMP, you need a rocket to loft it into the upper atmosphere. I am extremely skeptical that any terror group could procure and launch a rocket. Even if they could, it would have to be set off at such a high altitude that blast effects would not reach the surface, so it doesn't really meet the OP's requirements.

GingerGunlock · Nov 16, 2013

asnys said:
A tactical nuclear weapon is mostly identical to a strategic nuclear weapon (although the average tactical is a bit smaller). The difference is how they're delivered and their intended purpose. A strategic nuclear weapon is used to target cities, factories, major military bases, missile silos, and other "strategic" targets and is generally delivered by bomber, ICBM, SLBM, or cruise missile. A tactical nuke is used to target enemy military formations in the field and is generally delivered by fighter aircraft, short-range missile, or artillery, or the like. As a result, tacticals tend to be easier to steal because they tend to be a) not attached to gigantic ICBMs and b) deployed in forward bases close to potential enemy lines rather than deep inside secure military preserves.

SEDAN is a weird case and not really representative of the sort of scenario the OP has in mind. It was set off some distance underground to contain the fallout - deeper than a terrorist group could (or would want) to reach. The reason it tops the charts, so to speak, is that it was one of the very, very few AEC tests in Nevada that were high-yield and that breached the surface. Other AEC tests were either detonated high above the ground, were detonated deep below ground, were very low-yield, or were set off out in the Pacific.

To generate a large-scale EMP, you need a rocket to loft it into the upper atmosphere. I am extremely skeptical that any terror group could procure and launch a rocket. Even if they could, it would have to be set off at such a high altitude that blast effects would not reach the surface, so it doesn't really meet the OP's requirements.

It seemed to me that they had a bunch of tower detonations at the NTS, but digging around, it looks like there were only 56 ("only"). I guess it's just that a lot of the videos I watched were towers! (I pulled the number from this DOE document, which states it's a list of all American Nuclear Tests from 1945-1992)

Really, I know about this stuff only as a layperson in comparatively general terms, it's just a topic of interest. However, nobody I know ever wants to talk about nukes, nor do they know anything about them, so I've been loving this thread and the input of people actually seem to know what they're talking about.

asnys · Nov 16, 2013

GingerGunlock said:
It seemed to me that they had a bunch of tower detonations at the NTS, but digging around, it looks like there were only 56 ("only"). I guess it's just that a lot of the videos I watched were towers! (I pulled the number from this DOE document, which states it's a list of all American Nuclear Tests from 1945-1992)

Yeah, the tower shots - and the underground shots that were shallow enough to breach the surface - make much better video than the deep underground tests.

56 was a lot of shots, proportionally, at the time - the US stopped atmospheric testing in, if I recall correctly, 1962, so at the time this was a large percentage of the total number of tests. But most of the tower shots were low-yield, and the towers high enough that the fireball didn't touch the surface. It's only when the fireball kisses the earth - or you get really unlucky with weather - that you get significant local fallout.

In the case of the OP, this will probably be a surface burst with negligible burial, which is the worst of all possible worlds in terms of fallout. The only good thing is that the yield will probably be relatively low.

GingerGunlock said:
Really, I know about this stuff only as a layperson in comparatively general terms, it's just a topic of interest. However, nobody I know ever wants to talk about nukes, nor do they know anything about them, so I've been loving this thread and the input of people actually seem to know what they're talking about.

I know what you mean. Nuclear history is a hobby of mine, but nobody I know in real life is interested in talking about it.

King Neptune · Nov 16, 2013

mfarraday said:
What about tactical nuclear weapons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

1.) Wouldn't terrorists be more likely to steal something like this and be able to use it, even though the article cited above says there aren't very many around anymore:

2.) It seems like this scenario fits my story exactly. I want my characters to be in the city when the bomb is exploded, to survive the blast/witness it, to be exposed to the radiation a bit, and for the bomb to be exploded by terrorists who stole or created the weapon. It seems almost perfect.

Terrorists might be interested in tactical nuclear weapons, but I think those would be harder to steal, because there aren't many left. I believe that the shelf life of an atomic bomb is about twenty years, and I don't believe that the U.S.A., at least, has made not replacements for some time. "No new nuclear weapons have been produced in this country in 10 years. In fact, the average age of a stockpile weapon is now 19 years, and some of the weapons are over 35 years old."
http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_w03/shelf_life.shtml

There is a good chance that an over aged bomb would fizzle into a dirty bomb, enough power to spread a lot of radioactive isotopes, but not enough power to make a good explosion.

I can't find the relative ages of tacticle nukes, but I don't think they would have long a lif as large bombs.

blacbird · Nov 16, 2013

In the real reality we face today, the likelihood of a non-nuclear "dirty bomb", one that spreads radioactive material via a conventional explosive blast, is far greater than an actual nuke, tactical or otherwise, being used. Non-fissionable but highly dangerous radioactive material is widely available. Hell, it's a good thing Timothy McVeigh didn't think of getting some, or his Oklahoma City bomb might have made a big swath of that area uninhabitable for many decades.

caw

mfarraday · Nov 16, 2013

This is what I'm watching tonight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOFDFogc6Gk

This is certainly not fun to consider.

I may actually go the dirty-bomb route.

asnys · Nov 16, 2013

The damage caused by dirty bombs is severely over-stated. Simulations show that the casualties from the blast would exceed casualties from the radioactive material; the effect would be primarily psychological and financial, not physical. Unless you're right up close, your protagonists are extremely unlikely to receive enough radiation dose to suffer from radiation sickness.

asnys · Nov 16, 2013

King Neptune said:
Terrorists might be interested in tactical nuclear weapons, but I think those would be harder to steal, because there aren't many left. I believe that the shelf life of an atomic bomb is about twenty years, and I don't believe that the U.S.A., at least, has made not replacements for some time. "No new nuclear weapons have been produced in this country in 10 years. In fact, the average age of a stockpile weapon is now 19 years, and some of the weapons are over 35 years old."
http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_w03/shelf_life.shtml

There is a good chance that an over aged bomb would fizzle into a dirty bomb, enough power to spread a lot of radioactive isotopes, but not enough power to make a good explosion.

I can't find the relative ages of tacticle nukes, but I don't think they would have long a lif as large bombs.

Pakistani tactical nukes are brand-new. And the US does maintain its nuclear weapons.

King Neptune · Nov 17, 2013

asnys said:
Pakistani tactical nukes are brand-new. And the US does maintain its nuclear weapons.

The U.S. hasn't replaced any nuclear weapons in at least ten yeas. Theaverage age of warheads is something like 20 years, and the typical life span of a warhead is 25 to 35 years. That suggests that there may be warheads that will not function propoerly in the U.S. arsenal.

King Neptune · Nov 17, 2013

mfarraday said:
This is what I'm watching tonight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOFDFogc6Gk

This is certainly not fun to consider.

I may actually go the dirty-bomb route.

There's a very good chance that terrorists would end up building a dirty bomb whether they wanted to or not.

asnys · Nov 17, 2013

King Neptune said:
The U.S. hasn't replaced any nuclear weapons in at least ten yeas. Theaverage age of warheads is something like 20 years, and the typical life span of a warhead is 25 to 35 years. That suggests that there may be warheads that will not function propoerly in the U.S. arsenal.

They're refurbished on a regular basis. As in, taken apart and rebuilt.

I don't think we in the unclassified world can know what percentage of US weapons would function properly in a war. From what I've read, I suspect the percentage of duds is higher than we would expect, but still low enough to do the job.

For that matter, there's no guarantee even with brand-new weapons. The Polaris SLBM's were deployed for years with defective warheads, many of which would have failed to function in a war.

In any event, Pakistani tac-nukes are more plausible than American ones for this scenario.

King Neptune said:
There's a very good chance that terrorists would end up building a dirty bomb whether they wanted to or not.

That much is true.

mfarraday · Nov 17, 2013

I watched a BBC documentary on dirty bombs last night. It really seems like the dirty bomb is oriented towards long term effects - rendering a section of a city unusable, for instance, and causing cancer rates to jump - rather than immediate effects. So it doesn't seem to fit my scenario. I'm back to using tactical bombs as my plot device.

King Neptune · Nov 17, 2013

asnys said:
They're refurbished on a regular basis. As in, taken apart and rebuilt.

I don't think we in the unclassified world can know what percentage of US weapons would function properly in a war. From what I've read, I suspect the percentage of duds is higher than we would expect, but still low enough to do the job.

For that matter, there's no guarantee even with brand-new weapons. The Polaris SLBM's were deployed for years with defective warheads, many of which would have failed to function in a war.

Apparently you didn't read this linked document http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_w03/shelf_life.shtml
Nuclear weapons deteriorate fairly quickly. I don't know the ages of Pakistan's weapons, but I would be willing to bet that many are duds.

It is impossible to determine whether a nuclear weapon is a dud until one tries to set it off, but I think that we can be reasonably confident that they (regardless of whose) would be duds about as frequently as surface to air missiles are (averaging Russian and American models). Which almost means that I would be willing to play Slim Pickens, if I had a parachute.

asnys · Nov 17, 2013

King Neptune said:
Apparently you didn't read this linked document http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_w03/shelf_life.shtml
Nuclear weapons deteriorate fairly quickly. I don't know the ages of Pakistan's weapons, but I would be willing to bet that many are duds.

It is impossible to determine whether a nuclear weapon is a dud until one tries to set it off, but I think that we can be reasonably confident that they (regardless of whose) would be duds about as frequently as surface to air missiles are (averaging Russian and American models). Which almost means that I would be willing to play Slim Pickens, if I had a parachute.

Let me quote from your own source:

The nation's nuclear weapons were originally designed to last for 20 to 25 years. Each year, the directors of the Department of Energy's three nuclear weapons labs must certify that the stockpile weapons will perform as designed. If the performance of an older weapon becomes questionable, lab scientists must decide how to replace its aging parts in order to restore its peak performance.

Aging weapon parts are a major topic for materials scientists Paul Dunn, Rusty Gray, Dave Teter, and Dan Thoma, who are working to extend the lifetimes of stockpile weapons in two of Los Alamos' highest-priority programs. The goal of one of these programs is to extend the lifetime of a 25-year-old weapon system to 75 years, which will guarantee its performance until at least 2042. Materials science is key to these efforts because, as Thoma says, "The only things that change in a stockpiled nuclear weapon are the materials." These scientists must determine how the materials are changing so they can predict when a part will fail.

They don't just leave these things in a warehouse, you know. They are regularly maintained.

As for Pakistan, they only started making nuclear weapons at all in the mid-90s, and tactical nukes in the last decade or so.

mfarraday · Nov 17, 2013

This is what I'm currently looking at:
http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

I apologize if someone recommended that I visit this page beforehand and I am re-posting the same info.

I entered in my criteria - downtown Washington D.C. and a crude nuclear terrorist weapon and got a good idea of how the characters in my story would be affected.

I think this particular blast would be survivable and my characters could get in a car accident in the ensuing hysteria. Hence their needing blood transfusions later on (and furthering my plot.)

asnys · Nov 17, 2013

mfarraday said:
This is what I'm currently looking at:
http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

I apologize if someone recommended that I visit this page beforehand and I am re-posting the same info.

I entered in my criteria - downtown Washington D.C. and a crude nuclear terrorist weapon and got a good idea of how the characters in my story would be affected.

I think this particular blast would be survivable and my characters could get in a car accident in the ensuing hysteria. Hence their needing blood transfusions later on (and furthering my plot.)

Makes sense. A few notes, in case they might be helpful to you:

The crude nuclear terrorist weapon setting on NUKEMAP is just 100 T (= 0.1 kT). That's tiny by nuclear weapon standards, and indicates the weapon was a partial fizzle - the terrorists were probably expecting it to produce about 10 kT, 100 times as much. A partial fizzle under these circumstances is very plausible, but you'll have lots of talking heads on CNN saying how it could have been so much worse.
Damage effects at these low yields scale weirdly. If you look at NUKEMAP, you can see the green circle - representing the 500 REM radiation dose contour - is much bigger than all the other circles. With a weapon this small, if you still want your protagonists to suffer from radiation poisoning, it's plausible they could suffer radiation injury despite not being anywhere near the area damaged by the explosion. If you want this to happen, put them a bit further than the green radius. More generally, for a weapon of this yield, you'll probably have more radiation injuries than burn and blast injuries.
You may have seen this already, but just in case: if you click on Advanced Options, there are a bunch of extra settings you can have it display, such as the radius at which windows will be broken. And if you click on "NUKEMAP 3D" in the upper right corner, the program will give you a visual of the mushroom cloud (I'm told - I don't have the Google Earth plugin, so I haven't tried it myself).
The guy who created NUKEMAP has a blog, Restricted Data, which is amazingly awesome.

Good luck with your writing!

mfarraday · Nov 17, 2013

Thanks, I'll check all of that. I mostly switched to a car accident because someone commented earlier that radiation poisoning isn't alleviated with transfusions. Will be looking into that...I need the transfusions to occur because my villain won't be able to donate blood to his daughter in the presidential fallout shelter. He'll think she's not his daughter.

mfarraday · Nov 17, 2013

I'm planning for the terrorists to strike the Pentagon. The White House is out of the blast range according to NukeMap.

asnys · Nov 17, 2013

mfarraday said:
Thanks, I'll check all of that. I mostly switched to a car accident because someone commented earlier that radiation poisoning isn't alleviated with transfusions. Will be looking into that...I need the transfusions to occur because my villain won't be able to donate blood to his daughter in the presidential fallout shelter. He'll think she's not his daughter.

Blood transfusions are used to treat radiation poisoning (see, e.g., this abstract: "Therapy includes treatment with hematopoietic cytokines; blood transfusion; and, in selected cases, stem-cell transplantation").

mfarraday · Nov 17, 2013

Ok awesome. Wow.

King Neptune · Nov 18, 2013

mfarraday said:
This is what I'm currently looking at:
http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

I apologize if someone recommended that I visit this page beforehand and I am re-posting the same info.

I entered in my criteria - downtown Washington D.C. and a crude nuclear terrorist weapon and got a good idea of how the characters in my story would be affected.

I think this particular blast would be survivable and my characters could get in a car accident in the ensuing hysteria. Hence their needing blood transfusions later on (and furthering my plot.)

Neat site. With a "crude terrorist" bomb they could watch from outside the blast area and leave before the radiation got to them. It's perfect for planning a party for one's enemies.

robjvargas · Nov 18, 2013

Just out of curiosity, who says they can't get radiation sickness from handling the bomb. They don't use proper radiation protocols when arming it or some such.

Experts might snicker. But I think the vast majority of people could buy that.

Then you don't have to worry about the exact distance the terrorists are at when it goes off. Doctors, with so much else going on, probably wouldn't notice the difference, if any, with those sick by the explosion itself.

Helix · Nov 18, 2013

mfarraday said:
This is what I'm currently looking at:
http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

I apologize if someone recommended that I visit this page beforehand and I am re-posting the same info.

That was me upthread at #8. But it's always handy to have the info reposted, especially when the threads run over several pages.

Nivarion · Nov 21, 2013

mfarraday said:
Will my story not be plausible if I don't explain how they went from 'yellow cake' which is the smuggled substance (as I have currently written it, via an underground tunnel at the U.S.-Mexico border) to the refined U-235 of which you're speaking? I wasn't planning to explain this. I just was going to go from 'they have uranium' directly to 'the terrorists have a bomb now' and leave all the tech stuff out. I was going to leave that up to the terrorist's scientists, who never play a role in the story.

I can see how a bomb would get by on a shipping container (kind of...with all the radiation detection equipment that I understood they use at ports like Long Beach, I'd hope that they would find one before it got by the officials)...but right now, I prefer to have it smuggled in as pure uranium and converted later. That way I can concentrate on my characters. If it's just too unbelievable, however...

*getting tied in knots*

The equipment to refine Uranium into a weapons grade material is far too costly for a small group to have access to it. Unless they have a prodigy who finds a cheaper methood they would need to have it pre-refined.

The cost is prohibitive to countries.

The radioactive output of uranium is fairly low, and inside of a steel shipping container it might not even tick on a Geiger counter.

Can a Nuclear Bomb Go Off w/o a launch pad?

paralibrarian

Do Not Fear the Future

paralibrarian

Do Not Fear the Future

Time Traveler

Do Not Fear the Future

Do Not Fear the Future

Do Not Fear the Future

Time Traveler

Do Not Fear the Future

Time Traveler

Do Not Fear the Future

Time Traveler

Time Traveler

Do Not Fear the Future

Time Traveler

socially distancing

Brony level >9000