Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
It is an odd one - maybe they think it wouldn't trigger a nuclear response not being a direct nuclear attack but in reality the response would be the same if the country was largely devastated.
It's highly complex physics.
Yes! Exactly... the whole notion of it is just ridiculous, it seemingly defies common sense - in theory maybe they could generate a Tsunami if they cause an underwater landslide or something, maybe a really really ridiculously powerful bomb at the right place could cause something akin to a Tsunami which then devastates a... small costal town.
It seems like both an unreliable approach and rather ineffective in terms of the resulting damage it may cause.
A physicist says blowing up nuclear weapons in the ocean to trigger tsunamis 'would be completely stupid'
British tabloids recently suggested nuclear weapons could trigger killer waves, but science is not on the side of this idea.
www.businessinsider.com
Apparently, this guy doesn't follow the "simple physics" of it either:
It all seems very sus to me...
@dowie if you want a clue as to the level of understanding of oceanic waves have a look at rogue waves. Humans have mentioned them for hundreds of years. Science largely denied their existence until the mid to late 90s. They were only truly recorded in the late 90s. And it was only in 2019 that they were finally simulated.
Simple physics though.
Simple physics though.
What is a regular tsunami? landslides, asteroid impact and earthquakes all produce different variants - it is the displacement of a large volume of water which counts rather than focusing on tectonic plates motion. As per my original post it isn't likely to produce a tsunami like that from an earthquake.
This for instance was produced by a mere 9Kt device https://youtu.be/7If97r5q8g8?t=43
EDIT: To be clear not to say it directly scales up like that a 100+MT bomb and dealing with larger water volumes is very different than creating waves in relatively shallow water with a smaller bomb. Whether it makes sense or not compared to just detonating the bomb over a city is another topic again.
Last edited:
Fury in Brussels: Germany caves in to Russia’s rouble demands
https://www.cityam.com/germany-caves-in-to-russias-rouble-demands/
Germany is getting embarrassing with this stuff. I can understand why they have to do it.
I bet we'll see Germany being more reluctant to get involved. Russia as outflanked Germany.
Only in 2022 can we see a country trading in oil/gas while also facing them in a proxy war.
https://www.cityam.com/germany-caves-in-to-russias-rouble-demands/
Germany is getting embarrassing with this stuff. I can understand why they have to do it.
I bet we'll see Germany being more reluctant to get involved. Russia as outflanked Germany.
Only in 2022 can we see a country trading in oil/gas while also facing them in a proxy war.
Disappointing but not surprising. The West should never have got themselves so dependent on energy from unfriendly nations.
Sadly not surprising and in the longer run it is going to sow division in Europe and undermine the efforts to weaken Russia's ability to wage this war or others... but it is something which needs to be tackled at a larger level, even if Germany is somewhat responsible for its choices here, if we are to prevail in this situation.
EDIT: I stand by a comment I made awhile ago - I think Germany is going to come down on the wrong side of this situation in the longer run.
EDIT: I stand by a comment I made awhile ago - I think Germany is going to come down on the wrong side of this situation in the longer run.
It's not clear what you're trying to say tbh... that video has nothing to do with Tsunamis, it's just showing a big (and relatively localised) wave, don't conflated the height/visuals there with the massive wave you get across a wide area as with a Tsunami.
This notion of a nuclear bomb creating one is very sus so far, seems, at best, highly unreliable and realistically not too plausible.
You seem stuck in the perception of a tsunami as created by an earthquake as if it is the only form it can take.
Take a look at the tsunami, though relatively localised, generated by the Halifax explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion for example. It is perfectly possible to engineer a massive wide area wave with very large nuclear bombs, which can even exceed in wave height tsunamis produced by earthquakes but don't have the large volume of water behind them which is what allows tsunamis like the 2011 one to push so far inland.
*Israeli Prime Minister: Russian Foreign Minister’s Claim That Hitler Had Jewish Roots Is A “Lie”
*Israeli Prime Minister: Using the Holocaust for Political Purposes Must Be Stopped
*Germany Denounces Lavrov’s Comments on Hitler and Zelenskiy As “Absurd” — RTRS
Nope, perhaps re-read my posts if you mistakenly believe that as you've likely missed a few details, I mentioned perhaps a nuke causing a landside underwater for example twice already.
Yet the actual nuclear weapons expert quoted earlier seems pretty skeptical. While tragic you're talking about 300 deaths in that case of a ship full of explosives blowing up, it's not like a Tsunami like that necessarily occurs every time a large explosion (nuclear or otherwise) happens in water either, there have been plenty of nukes detonated underwater over the years. I think that this is clearly a bit of a reach, I appreciate you've googled a bit to pull up that example etc.. but it doesn't really add much here and really this is in danger of getting a bit off-topic and boring.
The context was the Russian threats to the UK re: our support for Ukraine and this ridiculous notion of a nuke causing a huge Tsunami, that seems clearly sus and unless there is something substantial to add to that then this is all clutching at straws a bit.
Gone on, elaborate, and add some evidence whilst you are at it.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,383
Embarrassing.
Even your landslide mention was leaning towards the kind of tsunamis generated by earthquakes (EDIT: Though that is kind of irrelevant to the main point of this as using nuclear weapons to generate a landslide generating a tsunami is another take on it again).
A lot of the nuclear weapon experts don't really move beyond how senseless it seems in comparison to just detonating the bomb over a city and go down the rabbit hole of comparing the initial energy in earthquakes or the energy in earthquake generated tsunamis. Which in context of the reality vs the Russian media notion of putting Britain underwater has limited relevance.
I never claimed that occurs every time there is a large explosion in water - producing a tsunami or tsunami like effect with a large explosion can't just be done ad hoc (reliably) especially when trying to engineer such on a large scale.
It is missing the point a bit anyhow - my comment was about the relative real world tsunami which could be produced with the kind of theoretical capabilities of Status 6 verses the notion of putting Britain underwater. As has been demonstrated it is perfectly possible to move large amounts of water with explosions including that which meets the definition of tsunami.
This is the only feasible method for creating a large tsunami - you need to trigger a slip or slide, but even so you'd never achieve anything bigger than what happened in Japan. What your do is find a section of ridge between two tectonic plates where there is a build up of energy and then hope your bomb creates enough movement in the plates to trigger a slip which would then create the tsunami but what creates the tsunami is the slip and earthquake from the tectonic plates the explosion itself does not create a tsunami.
Large chunks of ice the size of New York State have broken off and fallen into the ocean around Antartica before and even that did not create a large tsunami
A insane amount of nuclear bomb to move that amount of mountainrocks into the ocean just to wash London. We're talking proper Russian media talk now
- Status