That's just about one of the most annoying watermarks i've seen, NOT put there by shitty media-converting software.
And why not just use an ordinary nuke for this? Isn't TNT really unstable and inconsistent?
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;40682286]Because radiation[/QUOTE]
but there's been thousands of nuclear weapon detonations, many of them at sea. what's one more?
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;40682460]but there's been thousands of nuclear weapon detonations, many of them at sea. what's one more?[/QUOTE]
Just because there have been thousands of detonations already doesn't mean that "just one more" should be done just like that. The test was on a small enough scale and in such a location where setting up the TNT was either more cost efficient or environmentally safer than detonating a nuclear device.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;40682460]but there's been thousands of nuclear weapon detonations, many of them at sea. what's one more?[/QUOTE]
because this one is on the ground and mere miles away from navy ships and observers who want to test how well said ships will hold up and call me crazy but i think simulating a nuclear explosion would be much safer without actual nuclear fallout afterward
I'm assuming this may have been before they had nukes available for testing?
I thought an atomic bomb was equal to 16,000 tons of TNT, at least the ones in 1945 were. One million pounds isn't anywhere near that.
[QUOTE=Sharker;40682603]I thought an atomic bomb was equal to 16,000 tons of TNT, at least the ones in 1945 were. One million pounds isn't anywhere near that.[/QUOTE]
it clearly says this footage was from 1965...
[QUOTE=Sharker;40682603]I thought an atomic bomb was equal to 16,000 tons of TNT, at least the ones in 1945 were. One million pounds isn't anywhere near that.[/QUOTE]
They can develop a model to predict the damage caused by larger blasts, as well as that they've tested actual megaton class nukes on ships before, and even after heavy decontamination measures, were still too radioactive to use, and had to be sunken at sea.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;40682460]but there's been thousands of nuclear weapon detonations, many of them at sea. what's one more?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty[/url]
[QUOTE=Arsonist;40682685][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty[/URL][/QUOTE]
[quote=wiki]It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September 1996 but it has not entered into force as of December 2012.[/quote]
[quote=video]feb 1965[/quote]
[QUOTE=Sharker;40682603]I thought an atomic bomb was equal to 16,000 tons of TNT, at least the ones in 1945 were. One million pounds isn't anywhere near that.[/QUOTE]
the ones you guys used to nuke Japan were
but that isn't a limiting factor or anything when it comes to nukes - I'm fairly sure this blast simulates a ~0.5 kiloton detonation
[QUOTE=Em See;40684970]the ones you guys used to nuke Japan were
but that isn't a limiting factor or anything when it comes to nukes - I'm fairly sure this blast simulates a ~0.5 kiloton detonation[/QUOTE]
1Kt precisely, the ton based explosive equivalent is based on TNT, and 1M pounds is 1,000 imperial tons.
[QUOTE=zombini;40685019]1Kt precisely, the ton based explosive equivalent is based on TNT, and 1M pounds is 1,000 imperial tons.[/QUOTE]
no it isn't?
kt is usually done with metric tons, and even so, 1M pounds is 500 short tons or ~450 metric and long tons
though we are talking about the imperial system here, so I can't be sure of something so inconsistent
[QUOTE=Em See;40685123]no it isn't?
kt is usually done with metric tons, and even so, 1M pounds is 500 short tons or ~450 metric and long tons
though we are talking about the imperial system here, so I can't be sure of something so inconsistent[/QUOTE]
Oh, i wasn't sure if they went by metric or imperial for that measurement back then, i always assumed it was the imperial short ton.
N² Bomb
[QUOTE=zombini;40685300]Oh, i wasn't sure if they went by metric or imperial for that measurement back then, i always assumed it was the imperial short ton.[/QUOTE]
that'd still make it 0.5kt
[QUOTE=Em See;40685374]that'd still make it 0.5kt[/QUOTE]
Yeah, my time forcing myself to use metric in a world of the imperial system is confusing the fuck out of me, i seem to keep thinking that a short ton is 1000 lbs.
Oh man, I've seen that bit at 1:15 with the mannequin somewhere else before, can't remember where.
This detonation wasn't to simulate a nuclear bomb, it was to calibrate their instruments before detonating a real nuclear bomb
[QUOTE=zombini;40685673]Yeah, my time forcing myself to use metric in a world of the imperial system is confusing the fuck out of me, i seem to keep thinking that a short ton is 1000 lbs.[/QUOTE]
i wouldn't say a world, afaik only the uk and the US use it?
[QUOTE=DrBreen;40688188]i wouldn't say a world, afaik only the uk and the US use it?[/QUOTE]
The UK use it partially, markets use Imperial alot but I still think in Metric.
I bet a large warship, pointing at the explosion, would be a safe place to be. As long as you were below deck
The fake explosion sound is making me cringe so much.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;40688861]I bet a large warship, pointing at the explosion, would be a safe place to be. As long as you were below deck[/QUOTE]
not if it's an actual nuclear explosion.
that would irradiate the entire ship.
[QUOTE=Caulo32;40685824]Oh man, I've seen that bit at 1:15 with the mannequin somewhere else before, can't remember where.[/QUOTE]
Was is 40 seconds into this?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTSyclIKtvQ&[/media]
[QUOTE=Caulo32;40685824]Oh man, I've seen that bit at 1:15 with the mannequin somewhere else before, can't remember where.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much every documentary about nuclear bombs since ever.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;40689039]The fake explosion sound is making me cringe so much.[/QUOTE]
You'll hate Dedtroyed in Seconds though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
