With modern technology how close do you think you could be to

Get in to a refrigerator

>>719267516
Where is it detonated? Airburst? Ground level? Underground?

If you were directly beside the bomb within 25 feet and it was a ground burst it would toss your cube like a golf ball for miles. The g force of the launch and landing would be fatal.

>>719267516
I have a fridge. I'm all set.

>>719267805
Go to bed billy

>>719268001
where do modern ICBM's blow up? in the air right? so the average nuclear ICBM blows up, how many miles away do you have to be to survive?

>>719267516
Does steel prevent against radiation? How long do you have to be alive (functional) post-detonation in order to win this competition?

>>719268157
Like, does it matter if you become all fucked up and cancer ridden a few months after deto?

>>719268001

What if we made the cube 300' tall and buried it so only the top 25' was exposed?

And the nuke is just sitting on the ground .

And the Chamber you are in is just bug enough to fit in. It was sealed behind you from the opposite side of the blast with some super thick door. You have a 24hour air supply tank with you.

I'm just talking hypothetical here. Like if it was a challenge to see how close one could get to the blast and still live with infinite resources

>>719268272

Shit. That was me OP here.

Anyways.

You don't have to live more than the hour or so it takes to retrieve you from your shelter.

I assume you want to be completley unharmed though. It's like a competition

25 feet underground and you'd probably be fine. but you'd need a hell of a blast door on that bunker. Not sure how long you'd need to stay down there before it would be safe to come out

>>719267516
High chance you'd die from the radiation if you survive the blast. Also high chance you'd die in under 30 days after exposure.

>>719267516
I read that last sentence in my dads voice but with a boston accent

>>719267516
I think an underground concrete bunker will perfectly save you from almost any nuke attack. Undrfloor of a concrete building will save you as well, but in thus case the building itself is dangerous, because it can fall down. Metros, subways, underground garages seem to be less effective, because they are too open for radiation and explosion wave.

Modern nukes don't have the insane radiation the old ones had. They are a lot "cleaner". That's why they talk about terrorists making nigger rigged "dirty bombs". Basically badly made nukes that would give off shit loads of radiation

File: blast door open_1438042415621_22055352_ver1.0.jpg (735KB, 899x675px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 899x675px

>>719268157
Any material prevents radiation. It's about the mass you have between you and your radiation source. That's why dense materials like lead are good at stopping radiation. They have the most mass in the least amount of thickness. That's what density is.

Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs is designed to withstand a direct nuclear blast.

>>719268529
A dirty bomb isn't a nuke at all. It is a normal bomb that just spreads tons of radioactive material in a populated area and makes the area unsafe to live in. Terrorists could ruin the downtown of a major metropolis for years without "destroying" it. The cleanup would be very expensive and tedious.

>>719268533

Yeah buy that's still probably like 1000' of rock and shit between you and the nuke if the nuke goes off right at the side of the mountain.

We are going for the world record.

>>719267516
It's hard to define a "medium size" nuke though, because typical size depends on time period, and since the Cold War ended there hasn't been anything we can clearly define as "current" nukes.

Even if the cube made it through wouldn't the heat cook your ass inside? The side closest the nuke would be half blown away and red hot molten steel right?

File: 7dpBiaG.png (767KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 750x1334px

just found this shit go use it before its patched

Guessing here but at ground zero there is a radius that is 'consumed' by the blast. Like shit is turned to literal dust by heat and pressure. Nothing (concrete / lead etc) survives in here. This is like in the crater. Right?

Then outwards there are zones of damage.

This thread got me thinking about a nuke on the next suburb scenario.

Obviously ignoring fallout etc. Just initial survivability

>>719268844
Many nukes have adjustable yield now. They can change the strength based on the target.

>>719267516
Assuming a 1 megaton bomb.
Closet I'd get, is 2 miles.

Anything closer and there is a considerable risk of the bunker failing and just a small breach could lead to death due to radiation.

>>719269303
It is a small dotty area, 50-100 meters in diameter maybe. You have to win a lottery to get in there.

>>719269303

Yeah. But dirt and shit isn't that strong.

Like. What if you put a nuke inside of OP,s cube instead?

What is the smallest cube that would contain the blast completley?

You would probably cook inside the metal box provided the blast didnt send you flying

>>719269362

Waste of a good nuke if you don't go 100%

There are a few things you have to content with. The blast, the radiation, and the thermal heat.

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

In this video at about 30 seconds look at how black smoke billows off the buildings before they are hit by the blast. The heat wave travels at the speed of light while the blast wave travels at the speed of sound. So the heat hits first and scorches the surface of everything and then the blast hits.

>>719268063
Old refrigerator like back in the day were lined with lead.. I don't think they would use lead anymore for that?

>>719269747
That's cool as fuck.

>>719269576
The blast takes the path of least resistance for the most part.

A nuke is basically a massive amount of energy, but basically no mass. So it won't have nearly the cratering effect you would get with a meteor.

>>719268529
dirty bombs are not nukes

stop talking about stuff you have 0 knowledge about

>>719269773
Plus it's cold inside so it would protect you from the heat.

You just need a diamond car traveling at 9001 walls per iron

>>719268153
nobody knows. it's been years since they tested them, and nobody's even sure if the current round of missiles would work at all. i mean, imagine if there was a nuclear war and NONE of the missiles worked? a lot of military contractors would be fucked, but even if less than half of them worked, who's going to be around to sue them?

>>719272223
That's false. The missiles are tested regularly. We launch a few a year, they just don't have nukes on them. And likewise the detonation mechanisms can also be tested, they just don't have fissile material in them.

We understand very well what it takes to create a nuclear blast. We don't need to actually set off the blast anymore to know if it would work.

>>719272409
>>719272223
Here is a test from 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OFPBWUk7_Q

>>719272508
the fuck

what kind of aero organisation would that take? did they say it went 4000 miles? what happens if some poor fuckwit in his cesna gets hit?

>>719272673
Are you a complete retard? It was done from a military base which is clearly a no fly zone for civilians.

I would think modern nukes could crater at least a couple of hundred feet...if I was feeling particularly ballsy and cocky (and had plenty of prep time / money / knew to 100% accuracy where it'd be detonated), I might try to go 500ft away (if it's a moderate nuke)

File: Tsutomu-Yamaguchi-Japanes-001.jpg (21KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 460x276px

>MFW only one atomic blast

>>719273222
>I would think modern nukes could crater at least a couple of hundred feet

If detonated underground, yes. Otherwise, no.

>>719272849
didn't realise the base was 4000 miles wide/long

>>719268033
CHEK'D TGE FRIDGE WORKS! DUVS OF TRUTH

>>719273475
I don't think that's correct. Castle Bravo (big-ass US nuke) was detonated at ground level (definitely not underground) and left a giant crater (hundreds of feet deep, I believe)

according to a serj tankian song i listen to, there are an estimated 19 000 nuclear warheads in existance

>>719273616
okay lets be honest, you really are an idiot, its a no fly zone... ICBMs go up... cessnas fly at 5-10k feet usually, some icbms go into low orbit...

>>719274459
They all go to orbital altitudes.

What they didnt tell you is that it would have done 4000 miles in only a few minutes at thousands of miles an hour. That is more effextive without an atmosphere.

Most nuke scenarios include very high altitude EMP nukes to kill off power grids

File: DB773FD3-2BF4-4CEE-AC03-8830BB7B6869-389-0000013FDF48639B_tmp.jpg (424KB, 2000x1303px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 2000x1303px

>>719267516
It's not the initial explosion that will kill you, it's the shockwave, and the coming radiation from the aftermath.

Surviving a nuclear blast is one thing, but you better get your ass out of there quick when the blast mushrooms up and throws all of the radioactive materials around.

The majority of tests conducted by the US army during the 60s concluded that after the main detonations, the radioactive cloud that forums is the most dangerous.

The ideal situation, you are in a deep bunker, or in a lead lined bunker, and has its own air and water filtration system to keep you safe.

Also having a military grade respirator and a full seal suit would be ideal if you plan on leaving.

But as it stands now, who really knows how a nuclear bomb would preform. Since major testing has not been conducted since the 1990

I'm a CBRN specialist for the US army, ask away.

>>719267516
make a suit made of cock roaches and get as close as you want.

>>719272222

>>719275395
are you excited for trump? are you confident in his temperament?

>>719275734
I really don't care too much as I'll be out of here in another year.

Even if there is another war, it would be highly unlikely that nuclear weapons will be used. But if it does happen, a majority of military bases have underground arms bunkers that can take a majority of a nuclear arsenal. I would be worried if I was a civilian and it happened though.

>>719268533
Desnity is mass over volume, not mass over thickness dipshit. You're still right

>>719268153

The LGM-30 Minuteman the US uses can do air burst or ground based, depending on how it is programmed to detonate. The W87 warhead it carries has a 300 kiloton yield.

>A 300 kT warhead would within a millionth of a second release 300 trillion calories of energy primarily in the form of intense light. The fireball would extend more than a mile in diameter and at its center produce temperatures of over 200 million degrees Fahrenheit, about four to five times the temperature found at the center of the sun. At Pentagon City, a shopping and office complex 0.7 miles from ground zero at the Pentagon, light from the fireball would melt asphalt in the streets, burn paint off walls, and melt metal surfaces within a half second of detonation. The interior of vehicles in line of sight of the fireball would explode into flames.About one second later, the blast wave and 750 miles per hour (mph) winds would arrive and toss burning and disintegrating vehicles into the air like leaves in a wind. The blast wave could cave in buildings and would turn windows and furniture into missiles and shrapnel. The interiors of buildings that remained standing would, within minutes, be burning pyres of splintered walls, doors and other combustibles. Seconds after the passage of the blast wave, suction effects created in part by the rising fireball would reverse the winds, drawing them toward the detonation point at perhaps 50 – 70 mph.All the areas within 1.3 miles of the Pentagon (almost all of the Arlington National Cemetery, most of the Virginia Highlands and Addison Heights neighborhoods, and parts of Washington D.C. reaching to the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials) would experience more than 15 times the thermal energy found at the edge of the mass fire which destroyed Hiroshima

>>719277520

Grass, vegetation, and leaves on tress would explode into flames, and the surface of the ground would explode into superheated dust. Flames and black smoke would spew out from all combustible materials illuminated by the fireball. The marble on the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials would crack, pop, and possibly evaporate. The light would melt the surface of the bronze statue of Jefferson. Birds in flight would drop from the sky in flames. People exposed to the light would be instantly cremated. Four seconds later the blast wave would arrive and collapse the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials. This would be followed by winds of 300-400 mph which combining with the blast wave would completely destroy wood-frame and residential brick buildings. Aluminum surfaces on the aircraft at the Reagan National Airport would melt and warp. Interior sections of the aircraft exposed to the fireball would burst into flame. Tires on the aircraft and any nearby vehicles would also catch fire. Within 3 miles of ground zero the clothing worn by people in direct line of sight of the fireball would burst into flames or melt, and areas of skin not covered by clothing would be scorched, charring flesh and causing third-degree burns. For many miles in all directions, any creature unfortunate enough to look into the fireball at the time of detonation would either be blinded or suffer permanent retinal damage.

>>719277567

The 300kT detonation would create a mass fire with a radius of 3.5 miles in all but the most extreme weather conditions. Under a majority of weather conditions, there would be a mass fire ignited to a distance of just over 4.5 miles from the detonation. This gigantic fire would quickly increase in intensity and in minutes generate ground winds of hurricane force with average air temperatures well above the boiling point of water (212 degrees F). The fire would then burn everywhere at this intensity for three to six hours, producing a lethal environment over a total area of approximately 40 to 65 square miles – an area about 10 to 15 times larger than that incinerated by the 15 kT atomic bomb which destroyed Hiroshima.

>>719268533
then why is plain water an effective radiation blocker

>>719267516
with modern technology, how close to a grenade do you think you could get to, without being killed

Do you see the idiocy in that question?

>>719278076
Well if i had one of those fancy ass shields i could stand right next to it, assuming i had proper ear wear

>>719268001
Exactly

>>719278265
Wrong. If you were 25 feet from ground zero you wouldnt be tossed anywhere. There would be literally nothing left of you to toss

>>719278164
Why would you need to wear proper ear protection? Did you know a grenades shockwave kills 90% of the people it takes encounters?

Just don't have any air in your lungs and keep your mouth open and you'll probably survive.

>>719278076

How close could my tip of my cock get to your tonsils before you winked at me?

>>719275395
What brought you to /b/?

How close could you get if you were in a fighter plane at the exact moment of detonation?
I have no idea so genuinely asking, if say you were flying at very low altitude could you get within 500ft at the exact moment of detonation and be flying quick enough to avoid the plane going down?

*unsure of the physics and the emp blasts affect on the plane

>>719278164
see'

this is how i know you aren't and never were in the army.

It's not just the shrap that kills you, you no nothing.
It's also the Concussion.

If you had your fancy suit, and in an enclosed room, and a threw a gren in there. Trust me. You ain't whistling dixie after that.

>>719268157
Steel does not protect against radiation, the only fool proof way is having a steel box lined with lead, or a concrete mix with lead.

I'll give you a quick analogy

When you go to the dentists office to get a cleaning done, they sometimes take X-rays to see how your teeth look. They make you wear these heavy vests filled with layers of lead.

The lead apron protects your body from the xrays. The radiation cannot pass through lead at certain levels.

Though lead is not fool proof, the higher the rads, thicker the lead.

If you where say, in a bunker your dad built in the back yard, only around 10-15 feet deep, and we where to say that the nuclear impact happened only a mile from you, you would likely survive the initial blast, but the radiation would probably have a later adverse effect on people who where in the bunker.

If it where to be atleast 100 or so feet deep, and lined with lead, you would likely survive if you stayed inside. But would likely get radiation poisoning or cancers later down the road if you where to venture out.

>>719268001
If you where 25 feet away from the direct blast point, you would be completely vaporized. There would be no trace of you.

>>719268153
There's no conclusive evidence stating the safety distance from the explosion.

Basically if you see the mushroom cloud, you better get your ass running, and hope to god that the wind will push the nuclear cloud away from you.

2-3 miles away is the current standard for a blast, but recent studies are saying the potential of new nuclear armaments could vaporize a whole city, 3-5 times bigger than Hiroshima. Though there's no current evidence to proof this because a live test hasn't been done since the 1990s.

>>719272223
Absolutely false. Russia has more than 1,200 deployed active nuclear weapons currently.

>>719279153
Fly by wire fighter plane in sight of the blast is coming down