Surviving a point blank nuclear explosion

depends on the yield, I believe the original tests planned to try and capture the explosion in a giant pressure vessel due to fears the heat could ignite the atmosphere.

certainly it would be possible to build against something as small as gadget, or even the tiny nuclear cannons they experimented with in the early days.

but modern nukes are too powerful, any vehicle big enough to protect its occupants successfully wouldn't be an effective battle machine
 
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...

I genuinely tried not to laugh at that. And I also genuinely failed.

You bad, bad person, you! :D
 
Why does it have to be a vehicle? Seems rather pointless as you couldn't survive long enough in a car for the radiation to dissipate to habitable levels. It would take more than one generation so you would need to sustain and reproduce.

The Gothardon Base Tunnel is probably the best place to be after a nuke. No doubt all the elite will ferry themselves there before they start mass-killing of all us plebs.
 
All you need is.

9pX57Tl.jpg
 
sanaxe1 said:
Could we not create a energy shield like star trek? In the future of course.
Click to expand...

*crazy theory time*

star trek, and other similar sci fi shields are simply electromagnetic fields that deflect the particle beam weapons (in much the same way particle accelerators work in the first place), and destroy homing torpedoes by messing with their electronic navigation as they pass through or causing them to self destruct.

none of these things will stop good ol' kinetic energy, indeed I'd suggest a backwards step in technology to good ol' guns firing big bullets would actually penetrate these shields, but nobody ever tries it.

*don's flame suit and awaits nerdy rebuttal of this theory*
 
adolf hamster said:
*crazy theory time*

star trek, and other similar sci fi shields are simply electromagnetic fields that deflect the particle beam weapons (in much the same way particle accelerators work in the first place), and destroy homing torpedoes by messing with their electronic navigation as they pass through or causing them to self destruct.

none of these things will stop good ol' kinetic energy, indeed I'd suggest a backwards step in technology to good ol' guns firing big bullets would actually penetrate these shields, but nobody ever tries it.

*don's flame suit and awaits nerdy rebuttal of this theory*
Click to expand...

Would an EM field not also affect ferrous projectiles, e.g. such as those fired by railguns?
 
Zethor said:
No because E=mc^2 and force fields are fairies(they won't ever exist).
Click to expand...

Eh they do sort of exist - the energy requirements are ridiculous but Boeing , etc. have been experimenting with generating plasma fields or similar techniques that can absorb and deflect massive amounts of kinetic energy of the type from an explosion with varying degrees of progress. Not sure about blocking actual projectiles but in the case of a nuclear detonation that is kind of moot as at the kind of ranges we are talking anything would be essentially "atomised" literally or very close to.
 
Haggisman said:
Would an EM field not also affect ferrous projectiles, e.g. such as those fired by railguns?
Click to expand...

yes, yes it would, although you could argue a shield that only has to deflect particle beams and yet still runs low on power won't be strong enough to provide an actual deflection.

its a good point though, as railguns make much more sense in space than on a planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom