Say I set off a row of nukes across a mountain valley. Say the

>>31499933
20 miles would be nothing for modern NBC gear. Any army would be able to cross unimpeded.

If you're talking about area denial for non-military purposes, you're retarded to bring nukes into it at all.

>>31500023

If we're talking a single valley, surely it's just be better to go around

>>31499933
Most nuclear weapons aren't designed to leave radiation for more than a week, because longer than that is impractical and overly dangerous. The reason sites like cheenobyl are still hot is because it's a different kind of radioctive element in use, because a bomb is a lot of energy being released all at once, but a power plant is energy being released over decades

>>31499933
What "coverage" are you going for? Blast effects? Thermal effects? Cratering?

>>31499933
Surface bursts, Months for unprotected personnel.
Air bursts, a few hours.

what nukes? it matters. The first fission bombs were far more dirty than modern fusion weapons.
How are they detonated? Groundbursts will contaminate a lot more than airburst.
If you want to contaminate an area, it'd be better to spread a ton of nuclear waste everywhere. Modern APCs and tonks would get through just fine, anyways- most were designed in an era where battlefield nuke usage seemed not only possible, but likely "when the big one kicks off".

>>31499933

Tbh, if you want to block off an area with radiation, you'd want to drop nuclear reactor rods and let them go hot, not nukes

File: falloutbarrier.png (119KB, 611x416px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 611x416px

https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/tactical.pdf

Start at page 16 of the report.

>>31505169

>130MT per year

The idea of bombarding a single area with nukes for that long seems like overkill.

>>31505169
lol why

>>31505169
They didn't consider the obvious. Line the nukes with cobalt. This will create a deadzone that no human in any gear could pass through on land for an average human lifetime or more.

>>31499933
how many mega tons? air or ground burst?

>>31507017
>how many mega tons?
One million tons
>Air or ground burst?
Yes

>>31506555
The only known test of using Cobalt salts as a reactant in a nuke, was considered a complete failure as it failed to produce any noteworthy increase in yield and tactically speaking, the aftermath only lasted roughly 50-75 years, the immediate danger being lost in 5 where it could easily be taken care of by using conventional decontamination tactics.

>India raids Pakistan
>this thread pops up at roughly the same time
Go to bed Sharif.

>>31507168

THIS IS THE LAST TIME

LIKE BELKA, WE WILL SECURE OUR BORDERS WITH RADIOACTIVITY

>>31507165
Yeah ok so good luck pressure washing the area and carting off most of the earth and rock that was exposed as that is common decontamination. The point is area denial. I am aware cobalt is unsuitable for boosting yield.

>>31507221
And how well did that go for Belka?

File: 1433624125723.jpg (78KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x375px

>>31507221
shhhh its bedtime Abdul

>>31499933
a few days at most for a "conventional" nuclear weapons

>>31507925
Would've gone well if not for those meddling razgriz. No other squadron had the skill AND support to put an end to belkan hijinks.

>>31507925

Consider it prevented them from losing all their land in the Zero war, I'd say it did its job