I'm pretty sure 100% nailed on that we can definitely pin the wrong on Russia and the right on Ukraine.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
I'm pretty sure 100% nailed on that we can definitely pin the wrong on Russia and the right on Ukraine.
The last bit is the most unlikely - the theoretical weaponised developments for the Status 6 platform could produce a significant tsunami but closer to the one which happened to Japan in 2011 than something which could disappear the UK into the ocean so to speak. It could produce higher tsunami waves than that of the 2011 tsunami but won't have as much energy/volume of water displacement behind it so won't intrude as far inland but very damaging for immediate coastal areas.
It is one I think, assuming the project is reality at all, and around the more likely spec than the headline 200MT, we might more likely see Russia try to use for intimidation as it is a step removed from directly using nuclear weapons inside the borders of a country (EDIT: Though IIRC one of the intentions with those developments was to be able to pollute an entire coastline with radiation - denying the use of port facilities, etc.).
What is the basis for that? AFAIK they don't have enough power unless they trigger a substantial landslide underwater.
Multiple nuclear weapons have been tested in our oceans and none of them have produced a tsunami.
That is based on 100+MT variants of the weapon (headline 200MT), existing nuclear weapon tests underwater have been far smaller and not optimised for production of a tsunami (actually the opposite - most of the tests have been done to minimise the spread of destruction outside of the test area). That said quickly reading up on it the latest expert estimates is that Russia has never built or will likely build variants with more than 2-3MT capability any time soon which at best would be like normal waves over a larger area.
EDIT: A lot of the energy comparisons are flawed because the energy is used in a different way to produce a tsunami with an explosive device vs how it is produced by the energy from an earthquake moving large volumes of land and water - however it is very difficult to produce the kind of tsunami with an explosion like that produced naturally - you get a shorter, higher peak rather than a longer displacement of a much higher volume. (Unless as you mentioned you can trigger an event like a large scale landslide).
Last edited:
No, like what is the basis for your claim, I had a quick look when I initially saw the Russian TV footage, everything I've seen so far online suggests it's BS. I don't know for sure but it does seem pretty sus.
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
Can a nuclear bomb create a tsunami?
Answer (1 of 16): I think its always important to get an idea of how powerful these things are by reducing them to their energy equivalent proportions. First .. we have the easy one to understand because in energy terms its so easy to find .. easy to employ and produces the smallest amount of en...
No, like what is the basis for your claim, I had a quick look when I initially saw the Russian TV footage, everything I've seen so far online suggests it's BS. I don't know for sure but it does seem pretty sus.
Reddit - Dive into anything
Can a nuclear bomb create a tsunami?
Answer (1 of 16): I think its always important to get an idea of how powerful these things are by reducing them to their energy equivalent proportions. First .. we have the easy one to understand because in energy terms its so easy to find .. easy to employ and produces the smallest amount of en...www.quora.com
Most of those studies are a bit flawed because the way tsunamis are generated by natural events and the energy underpinning them doesn't directly equate to how you'd use the energy from a nuclear weapon to produce a tsunami (ignoring triggering landslides, etc.). However the tsunami generated by an explosion produces a very different effect to that of massive displacement of land and water with an earthquake or landslide - you won't get water on water building up and pushing onwards like happened with the 2011 tsunami - it would break very quickly once it hit shallow water and the shore. (So the notion of using a nuclear weapon to put the UK underwater as the Russian media is talking isn't realistic).
So again, what is the basis for this claim?
? it is simple physics.
Sus
I don't understand why they'd even bother trying to create a tsunami bomb, it seems like an overcomplicated, riskier and less effective way to perform a nuclear attack against somebody.
In any case, I imagine a bunch of fishing trawlers would just tow it away and stick it on ebay.
In any case, I imagine a bunch of fishing trawlers would just tow it away and stick it on ebay.
So many areas of expertise... or did you ask your dad or your uncle's friend, or a man in the pub close to kicking out time?
It is awhile since I looked into it but I think the original intentions with it was to be able to spread radiation over a large coastal area (salted bomb) - being able to effectively deny the use of port facilities, often power stations are coastal, etc. etc. with the use of 1 or a small number of bombs - potentially with the notion of using it to escalate without directly using a nuclear weapon on an enemies territory so as not to immediately kill 1000s or millions of civilians - though in reality it would probably be responded to the same as a direct nuclear attack. The tsunami notion seems to be something which was picked up later more by the media than reality.
Oh look another one...
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 5,773
- Location
- Location, Location!
Ooh that was a satisfying Bayraktar video I just watched destroy those Raptor boats.
I sense some backtracking... No offense Roff but you do seem to have a habit of BSing a bit when it comes to military stuff.
Morally perhaps. When discussing the interests and needs of a nation, that's a different discussion. Politics and power struggle often have no place for moral superiority.
That's because you don't understand
Was wondering when the backtracking comment would come along from people who didn't understand my original post... (To quote again: "It could produce higher tsunami waves than that of the 2011 tsunami but won't have as much energy/volume of water displacement behind it so won't intrude as far inland but very damaging for immediate coastal areas.").
As for BSing... this thread generally tends to prove I know what I'm talking about, mostly. Can go back for instance look at my comments about Russia and railways and the reality that has come to light in that respect with this war or the stuff Enkore was getting their knickers in a twist about me claiming... which again this invasion has shown I was on the money.
He's pretty well versed on most things military to be fair. I don't see any BSing, in my opinion.
- Status