Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jolldan

Newly Declassified Videos Show US Testing Nuclear Weapons and Their Phenomenal Power

Recommended Posts

The US government has declassified hundreds of films of nuclear weapon tests conducted between 1945 and 1962.

 

The chilling videos, shot at the height of the Cold War when the arms race was at its fiercest, have just been shared on YouTube in an attempt to preserve footage found rotting in high security vaults.

 

The American Lawrence Livermore Laboratory conducted 210 nuclear weapons tests across New Mexico, Nevada and both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans between 1945 and 1962.

 

Its weapon physicist Greg Spriggs and a team of archivists have been hunting down, scanning and declassifying these decomposing films before it is too late.

 

To date, the team has located around 6,500 of the estimated 10,000 films created during atmospheric above-ground testing.

 

Around 4,200 films have so far been scanned, 400 to 500 have been reanalyzed and around 750 have been declassified.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwr3mTlWdJY

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PofxZad1fc

 

Video is playing up on my computer so just put the two videos in case one doesn't work.

Edited by Jolldan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the ones they are not showing us that is worrying me. 

I think the ones we're not seeing are more likely to be malfunctions than some sort of special weapon they're hiding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully. The worst one is that big scary thing the Russians supposedly have that has a huge blast radius, big enough to flatten Texas. It just feels a matter of when, not if. Last few months I have been looking into moving to St Helena or Pitcairn.  Somewhere remote in the Southern Hemisphere. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully. The worst one is that big scary thing the Russians supposedly have that has a huge blast radius, big enough to flatten Texas. It just feels a matter of when, not if. Last few months I have been looking into moving to St Helena or Pitcairn.  Somewhere remote in the Southern Hemisphere. 

Don't be alarmed. Just use your common sense.

   

Media insists Russia, and Putin personally, wanted to help Trump win. Why would we go to war with them? Also, we don't have the president who is insistent on pushing a Muslim uprising in the ME, more specifically Syria, where Russia has grown tired of us, so I don't see any way a conflict can even potentially arise.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully. The worst one is that big scary thing the Russians supposedly have that has a huge blast radius, big enough to flatten Texas. It just feels a matter of when, not if. Last few months I have been looking into moving to St Helena or Pitcairn.  Somewhere remote in the Southern Hemisphere. 

 

Not even the Tsar Bomba would make a dent in an area the size of Texas.  A 30 mile or so radius would be pretty destroyed but still, Texas is far too big, 268,581 square miles. It would be like a mosquito biting an elephant.  I doubt there is even enough combined fissile material possessed by mankind that could take out Texas, it's just silly. 

 

Unless Russia has an Meteor on standby, which they don't, I don't think you need to worry about moving to the middle of nowhere.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even the Tsar Bomba would make a dent in an area the size of Texas.  A 30 mile or so radius would be pretty destroyed but still, Texas is far too big, 268,581 square miles. It would be like a mosquito biting an elephant.  I doubt there is even enough combined fissile material possessed by mankind that could take out Texas, it's just silly. 

 

Unless Russia has an Meteor on standby, which they don't, I don't think you need to worry about moving to the middle of nowhere.

The fear is real. 

 

Then people wonder why Trump rails on about the media. ^^It's because people end up hiding in their closets shaking in fear. lol

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even the Tsar Bomba would make a dent in an area the size of Texas. A 30 mile or so radius would be pretty destroyed but still, Texas is far too big, 268,581 square miles. It would be like a mosquito biting an elephant. I doubt there is even enough combined fissile material possessed by mankind that could take out Texas, it's just silly.

 

Unless Russia has an Meteor on standby, which they don't, I don't think you need to worry about moving to the middle of nowhere.

Science'd

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer you to my previous statement.  

 

Read the damn wiki:

 

Weight Over 100 tonnes

Warhead is 10-24 MIRVs[1] (various type and yield; At the maximum reported throw-weight of up 10,000kg, the missile could deliver a 50 Mt charge (the maximum theoretical yield-to-weight ratio is about 6 megatons of TNT per metric ton, and the maximum achieved ratio was apparently 5.2 megatons of TNT per metric ton in B/Mk-41).

 

The max reported throw-weight is 10,000kg.  Max yield 50 mt divided over 10-24 warheads that could target independently.  Hell, with the impossible chance each of those MIRVs is 50mt (it's not) it still wouldn't come close to destroying the entire state.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is beyond many of the monkey-level intellects here but nuclear weapons haven't been designed to kill with blast for decades. 

 

In fact blast is considered a peaceful aspect of these weapons, as it can be used to create peaceful and useful things like deep harbours. You would of course use low yield weapons fort that task. 

 

For killing something like Texas you would use ultra high yield weapons that would irradiate all life in the area. What used to be called neutron bombs. They are detonated in the atmosphere and have literally zero blast. You don't want to destroy the valuable infrastructure. You want to kill all the people and use the infrastructure yourself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the unitary warhead has also been replaced by the mirv, where a single weapon is launched and deploys several independent weapons which rain down in various patterns that are engineered to maximize damage. 

 

You don't just drop a big bomb one a single target anymore. Far too wasteful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is beyond many of the monkey-level intellects here but nuclear weapons haven't been designed to kill with blast for decades. 

 

In fact blast is considered a peaceful aspect of these weapons, as it can be used to create peaceful and useful things like deep harbours. You would of course use low yield weapons fort that task. 

 

For killing something like Texas you would use ultra high yield weapons that would irradiate all life in the area. What used to be called neutron bombs. They are detonated in the atmosphere and have literally zero blast. You don't want to destroy the valuable infrastructure. You want to kill all the people and use the infrastructure yourself. 

 

Uhh neutron bombs most certainly DO have a blast.  The idea that there is "literally no blast" is complete science fiction.  

 

But that's beside the point considering that we are discussing the Satan-2 ICBM which is NOT a neutron bomb.   Also the point of contention is that such a device would "destroy" and area the size of Texas, not "wipe out life through radiation".  

 

Let's go to wiki:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

 

 

 

Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the infrastructure intact", with current designs that have explosive yields in the low kiloton range,[44]detonation in (or above) a built-up area would still cause a sizable degree of building destruction, through blast and heat effects out to a moderate radius, albeit considerably less destruction, than when compared to a standard nuclear bomb of the exact same total energy release or "yield".[45]

 

Here's one more quote from the article:

 

Effects

 

Upon detonation, a near-ground airburst of a 1 kiloton neutron bomb would produce a large blast wave and a powerful pulse of both thermal radiation and ionizing radiation, and non-ionizing radiation in the form of fast (14.1 MeV) neutrons. The thermal pulse would cause third degree burns to unprotected skin out to approximately 500 meters. The blast would create at least 4.6 psi out to a radius of 600 meters, which would severely damage all non-reinforced concrete structures. At the conventional effective combat range against modern main battle tanks and armored personnel carriers (< 690–900 m), the blast from a 1 kt neutron bomb would destroy or damage to the point of non-usability almost all un-reinforced civilian buildings.

 

 

 

So even with low kiloton yields there is still "a sizable degree of building destruction, through blast and heat effects".  You're blathering about "Ultra-high yield" bombs that somehow have zero explosion of any kind and release enough radiation to kill off life but leave the infrastructure somehow usable and radiation free? Okay.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the unitary warhead has also been replaced by the mirv, where a single weapon is launched and deploys several independent weapons which rain down in various patterns that are engineered to maximize damage. 

 

You don't just drop a big bomb one a single target anymore. Far too wasteful.

We ARE talking about MIRVs, this Missile being discussed can be outfitted with anywhere from 10-24.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Cage, to your point, the kind of device you described would be infinitely preferable, strategically, to a conventional nuclear bomb.  I just don't believe at this point man has the ability to produce such a device that would yield the desired reults.  

 

At the same time I don't feel like I'd be any less dead in the event of a nuclear war of any kind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think nuclear is the leading edge of destruction anymore. Biological agents are far more deadly and can be made to order with genetic engineering. 

 

As far as needing actual physical destruction of things like roads and buildings conventional payloads are plenty good enough. The whole concept of vaporizing vast areas of your enemies country and vast numbers of people is passe. Can you generate that much destruction? Sure. But you can achieve your goals without doing it.

Edited by UFCCagerattler
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think nuclear is the leading edge of destruction anymore. Biological agents are far more deadly and can be made to order with genetic engineering. 

 

As far as needing actual physical destruction of things like roads and buildings conventional payloads are plenty good enough. The whole concept of vaporizing vast areas of your enemies country and vast numbers of people is passe. Can you generate that much destruction? Sure. But you can achieve your goals without doing it.

Yeah the thought of a global pandemic is terrifying.  The book The Stand by Stephen King scared the **** out of me, not the whole "dark man" stuff but the plague outbreak.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its the threat going forward

 

the nutjobs are going to get their hands on some deadly **** and wipe out a bunch people

I really really hope some jihadi doesn't set off a backpack nuke anywhere though, not with Tronald Dump at the helm 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×