
Hundreds of nuclear blast videos show explosions in the ocean and Nevada desert - dsr12
https://businessinsider.com/new-nuclear-blast-videos-2017-3
======
apo
_Not all of the blasts were supposed to be big. This one yielded about 80
times less energy than the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima._

[https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall](https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall)

That may be the most provocative of them all today.

What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat?
Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment
could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships.

Escalation to the level of H-bombs would mean WWIII. No response demonstrates
"weakness." Tit-for-tat seems the most likely outcome, with gradual escalation
along the way.

It's far from clear how long that gradual escalation phase could last, but it
could be a long time indeed. The first use of low-yield nuclear weapons in
combat lays the groundwork for their use in the next conflict.

~~~
jballanc
You might be interested in reading more about "Davy Crockett"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_devic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29))
and the Fulda Gap
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap)).

In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage over
NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold off a
full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of tactical
nukes.

As you rightly point out, MAD strategy doesn't quite apply here. Yes, the Davy
Crockett is a nuclear weapon. However, the fact that it only would've leveled
the playing field probably means that the USSR wouldn't have immediately
responded in kind. That said, a world of tactical nukes is definitely a scary
one (Frank Herbert was rather prescient in this regard), and I'm glad we've
never had to find out what it would look like.

~~~
flukus
> In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage
> over NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold
> off a full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of
> tactical nukes.

Would it be effective against a tank invasion? I would have thought tanks were
solid enough that you'd almost need a direct strike to destroy them, if the
tanks were spread out it wouldn't be more effective than conventional weapons.
I'm not sure about the soviet era one's but the current Russian ones are
designed to operate on an irradiated battlefield.

~~~
gonzo
[https://www.quora.com/How-effective-would-a-tactical-
nuclear...](https://www.quora.com/How-effective-would-a-tactical-nuclear-
weapon-be-against-tanks)

~~~
flukus
Thanks, I didn't know about these ones:

> The second category, no longer in use, were low-yield weapons that produced
> high doses of radiation that would incapacitate the crews of the tanks. The
> Enhanced Radiation (ER) warheads, commonly referred to as ‘neutron bombs’
> were a sub-category. Four 1 kt ER warheads would incapacitate the crews of
> the battalion.

It's scary that humanity ever actually produced devices like that.

------
mynameishere
Any with audio? To this day I'm only aware of one video where you actually
hear the detonation, albeit with whatever equipment they could grab out of the
dumpster behind the nearest Radioshack:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwkTYeukE4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwkTYeukE4)

~~~
hymen0ptera
I think, in most cases, the sound is omitted, since it's often the least
interesting aspect of the event, and being a little underwhelming, almost
detracts from the visuals.

They aren't like loud, irregular rolling thunderclaps, with interesting sweet
spots and curious deviations or oddities. They don't rumble and crackle or
anything. One bang, a trail off of distant reverberation, and not much else.
You have to figure audio equipment doesn't do the explosions much justice
during playback either, in terms of volume and possibly seismic effects.

It's just a single report, detached and delayed by the speed of sound, and the
mandatory distance from the blast itself. The accuracy of this depiction is
valuable, because it informs the viewer of what it would be like to witness a
test first-hand, but as entertaining media that demonstrates the noises that
relate to the visuals, the timing delay leaves an impatient gap between cause
and effect.

To provide improved legibility, the videos would probably want to synchronize
the auditory report of the bang with the imagery of the explosion, and push
the sound backwards by a number of seconds to remove the delay between sight
and sound, due to distance.

~~~
GW150914
The truth is that the only way to really appreciate the sound of a nuclear
detonation is to be blown away by it. Literally. When you see tanks being
flipped over, and bridges being collapsed, that’s the “sound” in the form of a
mach stem trashing it. If you’re close enough to really appreciate it, you’re
already dead.

~~~
kryogen1c
I don't think this is actually true. As long as you don't get vaporized in the
immediate detonation radius or killed by shrapnel, the acute survival rate is
actually very good (that's why cold war PSAs always show people getting under
blankets and desks; if you're alive after the blast, you have to worry about
flying glass).

------
spiderPig
As a non-American, while I do see the need for such tests during the Cold War,
the way America ruined pristine pacific islands just saddens me. They
should’ve been held accountable for that but alas better them than the USSR

~~~
phendrenad2
If you’re just talking about the islands themselves, I’d say that falls under
the umbrella of aesthetics: are the islands more or less beautiful now? We’ll
never have an aesthetics court to argue such things, sadly.

~~~
Fej
There are a couple islands which have massive holes in them now. We're not
talking about small craters. You can see them on Google Maps.

~~~
phendrenad2
Holes in islands are natural. A meteorite could easily have made the crater
instead. Humans didn't do anything abnormal to the islands, really.

~~~
brokenmachine
Can't tell if trolling or serious.

------
Bucephalus355
FYI, there is no sound on any of these videos.

However it’s very interesting. With the smaller explosions, I’m really shocked
by just how small they are.

We tend to think of better nuclear weapons as “bigger”, getting into the
double digits in terms of megaton yield. However, the trend over he last 40
years, as computers has shown is, is miniaturization.

Most likely, nuclear weapons will follow a similar law, particular if war
forces them back into active development.

------
jcims
I’m sure lots of folks have already seen this, but the aftermath is still
visible from the air.

[https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2](https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2)

~~~
ChuckMcM
I spent a summer (intern) working at the Nevada Test Site and visited the
Sedan crater when I was there (my supervisor gave me the 'nickel tour' as he
called it).

He said that one of the goals of the Sedan test was to test the feasibility of
using nuclear weapons to create a replacement for the Panama canal across the
lower part of Mexico "in a hurry." I don't know what their conclusion was but
I remain skeptical that such a plan had any merit.

I read that in the early 2000's NASA went back over this test as part of an
effort to evaluate what the impact of a nuclear weapon would be as an asteroid
defense. And caveat the issue of turning one asteroid into a dozen, they
concluded that significant delta-V could be added to an asteroid in this way.

~~~
JackCh
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare)

Among other things, they were investigating the use of nuclear bombs to create
artificial harbors (probably a lot more feasible than digging a canal across
Mexico, but it sure would make one hell of a mess.)

The Soviets had their own version of this program:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy)

~~~
King-Aaron
Interestingly, the plan to create harbours using nuclear detonations was
seriously considered by Lang Hancock (The mining magnate) in Australia during
the 70's, as well as a method for extracting Iron Ore...

[http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3533473.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3533473.htm)

------
tmkbry
The most impressive video I've seen so far, just insane:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84)

------
mdb333
For the macro-perspective: [https://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-
hashimoto/](https://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/)

Everyone should see this if you haven't already!

~~~
luke0016
This includes underground tests, right?

