Surviving a point blank nuclear explosion

hornetstinger said:
What if the vehicle had tens of meters of dense materal as a outer layer, such as ceramic? That would protect from the initial heat.
Click to expand...

Surely the scenario has to place a limitation on the distance the occupants need to be from ground zero, otherwise the answer is as simple as "have the vehicle's walls 1000 miles thick and made of anything"
 
Nothing can survive at point blank. The energies involved at that level are literately higher than the sort that keeps matter together. So nothing at point blank survives.

If you talk about building something with 30 feet of shielding in varying matterial, then it may survive some of the smaller ones but really, its not really point blank if you have a buildings worth of solid dense material protecting you from the blast.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Nothing can survive at point blank. The energies involved at that level are literately higher than the sort that keeps matter together. So nothing at point blank survives.

If you talk about building something with 30 feet of shielding in varying matterial, then it may survive some of the smaller ones but really, its not really point blank if you have a buildings worth of solid dense material protecting you from the blast.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking!
 
Rroff said:
IIRC it would need to survive closer to 100 million degrees of heat if it was very close to the explosion. I don't believe even a ablative heat shield with some kind of active protection to route heat could deal with that - you'd need some kind of forcefield.
Click to expand...

That's at the immediate blast. Which to be fair is what the OP asked but OP probably didn't realise that nuclear weapons typically detonate in the air (to not waste half their energy by sending it into the Earth) rather than on the ground. Even 20m away that's already dropped to the hundreds of thousands of degrees and at ground level it would probably be on the order of "mere" (lol) thousands. So, let's say 5,000 to 7,000C. Much easier. ;) ;)

Note to OP, if you want to know how I work that out, look up the "inverse square law."
 
Maybe the simplest and best answer to the OP is simply "nuclear weapons very bad".

They may also be interested in this:

http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

The logic of Nuclear Weapons: if we raise the stakes high enough, we're safer.

Our last attempt at that as a species was the "Entente Cordiale".
 
TheMightyTen said:
It's great, with the 50Mt Tzar Bomba on the interchange of the A452 and the A45 I can easily take out Coventry and Birmingham, cracking value for one strike :D :p
Click to expand...

The theoretical 100mt one is quite scary - the mushroom cloud would dominate the sky from more than 100 miles away.
 
Id shoot the explosion out of the sky with a mac 10 i could get in ten minutes and then live out my life under a shield made from quaterstaffs and corner sofas
 
Last edited:
I'd build something that can go underground... use the ground as my shielding.

Depends whether you just have to be say in an unmoving vehicle and how far "point blank" was i suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom