Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

danbyer t1_iue4zjg wrote

Those mushroom clouds look like laughing clowns. Terrifying.

91

Nightshade238 t1_iue5u9f wrote

Bro I did not need to see those Mushroom Clowns, now I can't unsee it.

28

FoxMacLeod01 t1_iuekm0o wrote

Does the height of the resulting mushroom cloud actually scale linearly with the megatonnage of the bomb or is that just for the sake of a cute graph?

38

Jupiter20 t1_iuf59oz wrote

For small bombs, the height of the mushroom cloud scales with the cube root of the explosion energy. It changes for larger bombs, because of stratospheric layers or something, those scale steeper, but still not linearly.

21

RightBear t1_iuexaxk wrote

I think so. It's a little misleading, because we judge size by looking at the area, not the height.

Tsar Bomba had ~3x more energy than Castle Bravo, but the graphic gives it 3^2 times as much area.

12

czy85 t1_iue5q0t wrote

How can a bomb be so destructive with such a happy clown face?

15

urineoutput t1_iugt625 wrote

didn’t see it at first and now i’m like 🤦🏼‍♂️

1

Killawife t1_iue92os wrote

Imagine if a more intelligent species found out we were testing nukes on our own planet. That would be like, SO embarrassing.

13

albundyhere t1_iuf5512 wrote

guaranteed why they have never shown themselves. star fleet prime directive is prohibition on interference with the other primitive cultures and civilizations that are devolving.

3

PanchoZansa t1_iuekiik wrote

Well if they are so superior and intelligent they will figure out that resources are limited and one does not simply has the money and time to launch a space mission every time that a nuclear bomb wants to be tested :P

2

the_catshark t1_iuev6da wrote

The larger issue is if the rocket fails, and that bomb goes elsewhere. Also rockets to space are *really* expensive.

2

PanchoZansa t1_iufraiw wrote

For sure. Not to mention it is a show-off towards other countries in a “don’t mess with me”

1

Killawife t1_iueua00 wrote

I don't think they would come to that conclusion at all.

1

PanchoZansa t1_iufr52v wrote

I think that, if they somehow managed to travel those endless distances and see us do things, for sure they’ll understand and did something similar at the time

1

Killawife t1_iuggxse wrote

No I dont think so. We only need to look back at human history a few hundred years to think "O boy those people were stupid." Imagine then coming from a thousand years in the future and seeing a planet full of people NOT working together towards a common goal, NOT looking after the only place they have to live on and not bothering to think for even a second on what will be the resuts of what they are doing right now. They wont be thinking "Oh, how cute, they are just like we were". They will be thinking more in the line of: "Execute order 66"

1

PanchoZansa t1_iugopi3 wrote

In which specific situation would you say "those people were stupid"? In at, at least, a topic related with this one?
I hate to be a boomer but a thoundsand years ago people were not working together. In fact, a couple of thoundsand ago neither did they. Why would they do so in a thousand years in the future?
I get you are optimistic. But it is very hard to get into an agreement even with your neighbours. Take a look at what it took to the government to make us all "united": force, civil wars.... and even so we are not that close. It would be quite difficult to go on a all hands in together without at least a strong "empire" that forces us all to do so.

1

Killawife t1_iuj4xcq wrote

I actually agree with most of what you say here and these things are faults of the human race. They don't have to exist in another race though. And its also very likely that if things develop they way they are everyone WILL be part of a strong "empire" that is actually really effective in gettign things done. Not nessecarily in the best way unfortunately but still. I'm talking ofcourse about China which is the fastest developing superpower at the moment.

2

obscure_greenleaf t1_iuf5b36 wrote

"Oh look, they can't make space missions more affordable"

Yeah, still embarrassing

1

PanchoZansa t1_iufrijm wrote

Yeah, we should be using magical floating devices instead

1

CoachMorelandSmith t1_iuekzrp wrote

It’s as embarrassing as telling the firefighters that you decided to build a campfire in your own house

2

Ultimate_Decoy t1_iug12ze wrote

They're probably looking at us and just enjoying the show. Why waste resources to destroy civilizations when they are willingly doing it to themselves? Just come in after and push aside the debris, and you have all the free real estates you want. Assuming they can deal with the radiations.

Edit: typo

2

L_knight316 t1_iufg5d8 wrote

I see no reason to believe they would be particularly shocked, if we were to make assumptions about intelligence based on the fact we're the most intelligent species on the planet.

1

Killawife t1_iufq0cx wrote

Well, we, as a species is incredubly dull. If humanity survives all the shit that is going on and lives on for another hundred years, people will look back and say: "what the fuck were they thinking?" So if an alien race is thousands of years older than us and more evolved they will ofcourse wonder how fucking stupid you must be to nuke your own planet and just get rid of the little pests before they cause further harm.

1

KerPop42 t1_iue5lku wrote

I think you could have made this data more beautiful. A log vertical scale would have helped us see all the data, and you could have added other, well-known benchmarks to help communicate the power of the log scale

10

Deto t1_iuehsbg wrote

Depends what you are trying to convey. If the message is "look how ridiculously more powerful these later nukes were compared to the first ones" then a linear scale is much more appropriate.

9

quetric t1_iueo4rl wrote

This is pretty far from beautiful. The graph is confusing because looking at the vertical axis tells you the comparison is by yield, but having the mushroom clouds instead of bars suggests the comparison is by height of the cloud. I suspect the relationship between the two metrics is not linear so they're not interchangeable.

6

gabotuit t1_iueistr wrote

Who gives the right to this people to destroy entire areas of the planet and living habitats?

6

bubblysorted t1_iueu8gt wrote

Not beautiful at all. The graph uses height to denote size but uses a wide image to display it, giving the visual impression that area denotes strength. The result is that the perceived power increases exponentially as yield increases linearly.

5

Wounded_Hand t1_iui7324 wrote

But it sounds like power does grow exponentially as yield increases linearly.

> Yielding an explosion of 50 megatons the “Tsar Bomba,” as it is sometimes called, was about 3,300 times more powerful than the 15 kilotons nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima.

0

bubblysorted t1_iuiwu5s wrote

that's megatons vs kilotons. 50,000,000 / 15,000 = 3333.3

3

VoraciousFungi t1_iuedz5q wrote

Always wondered, how does "destructiveness" scale with megatons? Will 1 megaton destroy half of what a 2 megaton bomb would? Like is it linear?

2

685327593 t1_iuef96t wrote

No, the larger the bomb the more the energy is wasted. That's why no deployed nukes are this large. The three large bombs listed above were all experiments, not actual weapons. It's far more efficient to lob multiple smaller warheads to cover the same area.

3

Piranhaswarm t1_iuewtrh wrote

We live on a planet where a few small weak men would use these weapons. It would be better for all of humanity to remove these small weak men from power. Each country citizens has a responsibility to do so

2

jordzkie05 t1_iue5t8d wrote

How big of a radius would Tsar Bomba would cover to let's say, the state of California?

1

tdgros t1_iuedlw7 wrote

you can test it here: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ you can use the actual tested Tsar Bomba at 50MT, or the 100MT one! With that last one set off over San Francisco, there is "moderate blast damage" up to Santa Cruz, so a radius a bit below 60 miles, but you do get 3rd degree burns until 50 miles! So it is very, very far from covering all of California, but still gigantic

4

zean_rm t1_iuemohv wrote

I imagine that simulation does not account for topography. The Bay Area is very hilly and I imagine the effect of a detonation would look very different than if executed on a flat plain

1

destuctir t1_iueqq4q wrote

If I recall, the Tsar was supposed to be 100MT originally but the scientists intentionally fabricated the calculations to use less material and make it 50MT, the reason being they did math and suspected a 100MT bomb detonated at the intended testing site would ignite the ozone layer and they feared it burning an enormous hole

0

tdgros t1_iuerkbf wrote

There are similar stories about the very first atomic bomb test. There was never any real worry though. Do you have a source for this tsar Bomba claim?

3

[deleted] t1_iue6meo wrote

[deleted]

2

Hizjyayvu t1_iuedfi8 wrote

He means "if we wanted to get rid of all of Cali, what size bomb do we need? Also, follow up question, do we currently have a bomb that big?"

2

obscure_greenleaf t1_iueesc8 wrote

Not really, tsar wouldn't obliterate entire California and it was biggest bomb ever (that we know of). There was only one, more were never fully made. There were casings and measures to create more but those were decommissioned and hang in museums now. No, we don't have bomb that big (that we know of)

1

DL_22 t1_iuec2r5 wrote

It destroyed buildings in a village 35 miles away and damaged windows in a building 480 miles away but there was no damage at all to structures in a village 170 miles away. You would’ve gotten third-degree burns if you were 75 miles from ground zero.

So you’re probably looking at extensive damage for about a 100 mile radius.

So damage is probably

2

obscure_greenleaf t1_iuedzj0 wrote

Bomb had capacity of 50 megatons, after being reduced from 100 megatons capacity. It was detonated from 4km (2.5 miles) above ground from Mityushikha Bay. Mushroom cloud was ~60km (37 miles) in height, and flash was seen from ~1000km (620 miles) of distance. Village 55km (34 miles) from detonation site was "leveled."^[1] Buildings more than 160km (100 miles) away were damaged. Any person within 100km (62 miles) would receive 3rd degree burns. Apparently, it shattered window in Finland at a distance of +800km (500+ miles) away.^[2]

Bomb itself had length of 8m (26ft), diameter of 2m (7ft), and weight of 27t (60k lb).

Distance from San Francisco to Sacramento is ~120km (75 miles). Distance from San Francisco to LA is ~560km (350 miles). If it detonated in San Francisco, buildings in Sacramento would be damaged and people in LA would see the flash.

Sources:

2

stelewi t1_iueh1a1 wrote

such an insane amount of energy released

1

685327593 t1_iuec39g wrote

It would completely destroy a major city like Los Angeles and cause damage all the way out into the suburbs.

1

CreatorOfUsernames t1_iueppwt wrote

Approximately how many fish were killed in the testing of Tsar Bomba? Billions?

1

kittymama2020 t1_iuft7s5 wrote

This makes me wonder if all these nukes are at least part of the reason why the planet is heating up faster than usual.

1

Kcnflman t1_iufwfmc wrote

Next question… how will I know which one is selected for my neighborhood?

1

ziplock9000 t1_iufykjd wrote

These type of bar charts where the not just the height but the width of each bar changes are misleading as psychologically, you'll be looking at the area not the height. They should not be used IMHO.

1

exculcator t1_iugnoc2 wrote

Completely misleading, alas.

The vertical scale is megatons, and is 1-dimensional, but the graphics are 2-dimensional, and thus make the 50 Mt bomb look much bigger than it should be, not to mention the actual bombs' effects were spread over 3 dimensions, which is why in real life, the height of the Hiroshima bomb's cloud was ~15% that of the Tsar bomb, instead of the 0.03% this terrible chart shows.

1