Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dbernard456 t1_j1s3s7g wrote

Reply to comment by rheumination in Ukraine drone reported shot down deep in Russian territory by Miserable-Lizard

Not mentionning that nukes that wont go supercritical will spread tons of highly radioactive stuff in the biosphere, which is almost worst than a nuked city.

14

unskilledplay t1_j1thilo wrote

I went down this rabbit hole recently. There isn't much radioactive material in a nuclear bomb. Almost all of the ionizing radiation is created during the explosion. This radiation is extremely dangerous but it decays quickly. Radiation in nuclear test sites isn't even detectible today.

There are models that show how ionizing radiation can have disastrous downstream effects but these are all effects that follow the seconds and hours after an explosion.

There hasn't been any detectible radiation in Hiroshima or Nagasaki for many decades.

The image I had in my head of a lifeless wasteland that is uninhabitable for thousands of years after a nuclear holocaust just isn't real. The only material that is radioactive for thousands of years is spent nuclear fuel, or HLW. Everything else decays quickly.

For scale, a nuclear power plant will use 24,000 kilograms of nuclear fuel per year. An advanced nuclear bomb will have about 4 kilograms before detonation.

The radiation and even the long distance radioactive fallout following a nuclear explosion is most definitely not worse than the explosion itself.

8

SirCB85 t1_j1ts40t wrote

The Dude you are answering to isn't talking about nuclear Fallout from a successfully detonating nuke, but the contamination from a nuke failing to ignite and spread its payload as a dirty bomb instead.

1

unskilledplay t1_j1upddt wrote

Is there a mechanism where a failed nuclear warhead can effectively become a dirty bomb? From what I've read, dirty bombs and ICBM warheads are wholly unrelated.

0