Nuclear tsunami?

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23481

I've created a poll to document the various opinions on this topic.

 

[USViking]

We all understand explosions underwater would cause a wave, but a 94 foot wave a football field away from a nuclear explosion does not a tsunami make.

Try reading the whole thing. It took that 94-foot monster
about four miles to get down to below six feet, and there
were nine waves in all. Nine 50-footers could quite possibly
have tsunami-like effects.

 

[Zhukov]

Try reading the whole thing.

I did read the whole thing. I just chose not to quote the whole thing.

Do you understand that the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake tsunami created 100+ ft. waves over 4 thousand kilometres away from where it started and killed people as far at 8000 kilometres away?

What's more, 4 kilometres from the surface point above the epicenter there was barely any wave at all.

Besides all that, it is not merely the height of the wave, it is the force behind it.

To use the wave that article describes as an attack on say NYC you would have to detonate a bomb more or less at the bottom of Upper New York Bay. Well, if you're going to do that, you may as well just detonate it in the city, you'll kill more people.

Unless I'm mistaken RWA is asking about an attack that would hit up and down an entire coast line: San Diego to Seattle, or Miami to Boston.

Yet you reposted your original post, to which I repiled:

We all understand explosions underwater would cause a wave, but a 94 foot wave a football field away from a nuclear explosion does not a tsunami make.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I did read the whole thing. I just chose not to quote the whole thing.

Do you understand that the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake tsunami created 100+ ft. waves over 4 thousand kilometres away from where it started and killed people as far at 8000 kilometres away?

What's more, 4 kilometres from the surface point above the epicenter there was barely any wave at all.

Besides all that, it is not merely the height of the wave, it is the force behind it.

To use the wave that article describes as an attack on say NYC you would have to detonate a bomb more or less at the bottom of Upper New York Bay. Well, if you're going to do that, you may as well just detonate it in the city, you'll kill more people.

Unless I'm mistaken RWA is asking about an attack that would hit up and down an entire coast line: San Diego to Seattle, or Miami to Boston.

Yet you reposted your original post, to which I repiled:

I didn't necessarily mean the whole coast, in fact. one that "merely" hit new york would be considered a succesfful attack.

It may do more damage in the city, but also in the city there could be more security. It's a trade off. UNLESS WE PATROL MORE WATER. My goal is to step up security and vigilance, not get into a "thing" about it.

 

[USViking]

I did read the whole thing. I just chose not to quote the whole thing.

Do you understand that the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake tsunami created 100+ ft. waves over 4 thousand kilometres away from where it started and killed people as far at 8000 kilometres away?

What's more, 4 kilometres from the surface point above the epicenter there was barely any wave at all.

Besides all that, it is not merely the height of the wave, it is the force behind it.

To use the wave that article describes as an attack on say NYC you would have to detonate a bomb more or less at the bottom of Upper New York Bay. Well, if you're going to do that, you may as well just detonate it in the city, you'll kill more people.

Unless I'm mistaken RWA is asking about an attack that would hit up and down an entire coast line: San Diego to Seattle, or Miami to Boston.

Yet you reposted your original post, to which I repiled:

I agree with you "tsunami" is not precisely the correct term
for the kind of wave decribed in the link, since the effects
were very much more local, and probably would have been
nil 10 miles from the explosion.

 

[Zhukov]

I didn't necessarily mean the whole coast, in fact. one that "merely" hit new york would be considered a succesfful attack.

Alright, well your use of the word tsunami certainly implied you were thinking about a larger attack.

I don't think a 10kt bomb detonated at the bottom of Upper New York harbor would do more damage or kill more people than a 10kt bomb on a cargo ship, in a truck, or carried as a suitcase in NYC.

In fact I think it would do far less damage and kill far fewer people and I don't think getting an atomic bomb to the bottom of Upper New York harbor would necessarily be any easier than getting it onto the streets of NYC.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Alright, well your use of the word tsunami certainly implied you were thinking about a larger attack.

I don't think a 10kt bomb detonated at the bottom of Upper New York harbor would do more damage or kill more people than a 10kt bomb on a cargo ship, in a truck, or carried as a suitcase in NYC.

In fact I think it would do far less damage and kill far fewer people and I don't think getting an atomic bomb to the bottom of Upper New York harbor would necessarily be any easier than getting it onto the streets of NYC.

Don't quibble with me over words. It's beneath you.

We get it. You think it's unlikely.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Zhuk. Do you think we should consider this possiblity AT ALL in our security planning?

Sorry if i seemed short before, but I thought we had gone over how tsunami was not exactly the right term on this. Cheers bro.

 

[Zhukov]

I thought we had gone over how tsunami was not exactly the right term on this.

Well I remember something to the effect of it not being caused by an earthquake and so therefore it was strictly speaking not a tsunami as far as the word was commonly understood. I still thought you were thinking about a wave the same size as a tsunami.

If it had been previously stated that you were asking about an attack of a size smaller than a tsunami I missed that.

Do you think we should consider this possiblity AT ALL in our security planning?

The security I believe we should have wouldn't necessarily take this sort of attack into consideration, but would certainly prevent it, and that is the inspection of all cargo ships both at their port of origin and also here at their destination, but at a sufficient distance offshore before they were allowed to approach our cities.

Ships would have to pass thru a structure, like a converted off-shore oil rig, where they would be inspected.

The Mexican border should be tightly sealed and all shipments inspected and we should force Canada to take similar precautions with their ship borne imports.

The thing is I don't see how a planned attack to detonate a nuke in the water is a vulnerability. If they tried to use a submarine that'd be completely obvious and I don't think they'd get very far. Which means they have to smuggle it aboard a surface ship. If they can do that, the hard part is past and they can come up with much more effective ways to deploy their nuke, like chartering a Cessna.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well I remember something to the effect of it not being caused by an earthquake and so therefore it was strictly speaking not a tsunami as far as the word was commonly understood. I still thought you were thinking about a wave the same size as a tsunami.

If it had been previously stated that you were asking about an attack of a size smaller than a tsunami I missed that.



The security I believe we should have wouldn't necessarily take this sort of attack into consideration, but would certainly prevent it, and that is the inspection of all cargo ships both at their port of origin and also here at their destination, but at a sufficient distance offshore before they were allowed to approach our cities.

Ships would have to pass thru a structure, like a converted off-shore oil rig, where they would be inspected.

The Mexican border should be tightly sealed and all shipments inspected and we should force Canada to take similar precautions with their ship borne imports.

The thing is I don't see how a planned attack to detonate a nuke in the water is a vulnerability. If they tried to use a submarine that'd be completely obvious and I don't think they'd get very far. Which means they have to smuggle it aboard a surface ship. If they can do that, the hard part is past and they can come up with much more effective ways to deploy their nuke, like chartering a Cessna.

yes, Not a tsunami due to causation AND size. LOL. We're such geeks.


SO that's a no? we should not consider this? Couldn't a terrorist motor out from someplace already within our border and bring his bomb with him. Of course he could.

 

[Zhukov]

Couldn't a terrorist motor out from someplace already within our border and bring his bomb with him.

If they have a bomb in our country it's probbably already too late.

Besides, if a terrorist could do that, motor into NY harbor, why sink the bomb?

What you are asking is: should we take into special consideration the possibility that terrorists might detonate an atomic bomb in order to flood a city.

But, besides what would already be done in order to prevent a terrorist from detonating an atomic bomb in our country in any fashion whatsoever, what specific course of action could you even suggest for this specific sort of attack?

I can't think of anything additional that would need to be done, save maybe frogmen on patrol at the bottom of the east river 24/7.

Of course if they have it here in the country already, perhaps we should encourage them to detonate it underwater.

As someone else said, if a terrorist is going to detonate a bomb in this country, let us hope they detonate it deep under water. Most of the force of the blast will be dissipated by the need to move water, and most of the radiation will be absorbed by the water itself, as opposed to ejected straight into the air. Irradiated water would rain down and wash away. Lots of people would be killed, lots of damage done, but nothing compared to a surface or air burst.

That's a much better scenario than a large cloud of radioactive dust that hung in the atmosphere for weeks or months.

The only thing that would be better would be if they stuck it in salt mine or something. Too bad they don't know how much we like salt.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If they have a bomb in our country it's probbably already too late.

that seems like a defeatist attitude.

Besides, if a terrorist could do that, motor into NY harbor, why sink the bomb?

Less security out in the water. The water iteself transfers the energy of the bomb to the target.

What you are asking is: should we take into special consideration the possibility that terrorists might detonate an atomic bomb in order to flood a city.

Not special consideration. Consideration.

But, besides what would already be done in order to prevent a terrorist from detonating an atomic bomb in our country in any fashion whatsoever, what specific course of action could you even suggest for this specific sort of attack?

I think acknowledging it as a possibility is the first step.

I can't think of anything additional that would need to be done, save maybe frogmen on patrol at the bottom of the east river 24/7.

Or maybe just extra vigilance on the part of the coast guard.

Of course if they have it here in the country already, perhaps we should encourage them to detonate it underwater.

As someone else said, if a terrorist is going to detonate a bomb in this country, let us hope they detonate it deep under water. Most of the force of the blast will be dissipated by the need to move water, and most of the radiation will be absorbed by the water itself, as opposed to ejected straight into the air. Irradiated water would rain down and wash away. Lots of people would be killed, lots of damage done, but nothing compared to a surface or air burst.

Yet still, a bad thing.

That's a much better scenario than a large cloud of radioactive dust that hung in the atmosphere for weeks or months.

The only thing that would be better would be if they stuck it in salt mine or something. Too bad they don't know how much we like salt.

Of course an open air blast is more descructive, this doesn't make what I'm suggesting impossible.

 

[Zhukov]

The water iteself transfers the energy of the bomb to the target.

Not nearly as well as open air. Even a surface burst wouldn't be half as effective as an airburst. For the maximum amount of damage you want an unobstructed target.

I think acknowledging it as a possibility is the first step.

Or maybe just extra vigilance on the part of the coast guard.

Well, I think we all agree it is a possibility, however unlikely it may or may not be.

It wouldn't just be the coast guard though; I don't think it would even be half the coast guard. We're talking New York harbor and river police. I don't know how their sonar is, or how their underwater recovery is.

You are Mayor of NYC, or Commissioner of the NYPD, or whatever, and it is your responsibility to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off in the harbor or bay, specifically underwater. What course of action do you suggest? What is your plan? [/horribly acted Keanu voice]What do you do!?

that seems like a defeatist attitude.

Just realistic I think. If we can't keep nuclear weapons out of our country we are going to be nuked.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not nearly as well as open air. Even a surface burst wouldn't be half as effective as an airburst. For the maximum amount of damage you want an unobstructed target.Well, I think we all agree it is a possibility, however unlikely it may or may not be.

It wouldn't just be the coast guard though; I don't think it would even be half the coast guard. We're talking New York harbor and river police. I don't know how their sonar is, or how their underwater recovery is.

You are Mayor of NYC, or Commissioner of the NYPD, or whatever, and it is your responsibility to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off in the harbor or bay, specifically underwater. What course of action do you suggest? What is your plan? [/horribly acted Keanu voice]What do you do!?

Just realistic I think. If we can't keep nuclear weapons out of our country we are going to be nuked.

I would just have someone watch the surface. Something can go from the surface to being underwater via the mechanism called "sinking". LOL.

 

[Zhukov]

I would just have someone watch the surface. Something can go from the surface to being underwater via the mechanism called "sinking". LOL.

What about the terrorist with SCUBA gear?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What about the terrorist with SCUBA gear?

That's impossible!

 

[Zhukov]

That's impossible!

What about the terrorist who can hold his breath a really, really, really, really long period of time?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What about the terrorist who can hold his breath a really, really, really, really long period of time?

Peace be upon him!

 

[Zhukov]

Peace be upon him!

Bah, he can suck it.