Tactical or normal nuke modelling

[Listy]

MarkSheppard said:
A 1 kt weapon would only vaporize everything utterly in a radius of 30-40 meters, and the various weapon effects
such as ionizing radiation, air blast, thermal pulse, would
extend out to 700-800 meters.

Just for amusement I'll get on it on Friday night.. However I can see one big problem straight away.

Even with warhead and HEK set to 255, infantry still survive at ground zero. it will do aloft of damage, but won't wipe out the targets.

[MarkSheppard]

Listy said:
Even with warhead and HEK set to 255, infantry still survive at ground zero. it will do aloft of damage, but won't wipe out the targets.

I've done some tests before, what I found to be close to a realistic nuke blast was using a MRLS style setup with accuracy of 100%, and having multiple 255/255 "Shots" hitting
the same hex in rapid succession.

[dita]

Here are another two interesting sites showing the effects, not as detailed as the one previously posted though.

http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?...&contentId=409

Fallout calculator, concerning the latest "bunker buster" type bombs.

The other http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?...&contentId=367

Details outcome in selected US cities.

On another note, years ago, I read a book called Nuclear war:effects and outcomes (or something like that) it totally terrified me! Didn`t understand alot of the science, But i got the general impression of the effects.

It offered several scenarios of a "limited" strike in Europe and its effects.

[Shadowcougar]

I don't want to so down and preach about nuke weapons but my father spent his time in the US Army riding these weapons around the US. He was a MP at Sandia Base (now Sandia Labs) and he told me about what went on. I then took up a study of nuclear weapons and their effects. He was also at a couple of troop tests and guarded the test areas also.

[Shadowcougar]

<rant>
I read the essay by Stuart Slade and agree about the Strategic outcome of a nuke exchange.

However in a tactical framework the use of a Davy Crockett type weapon at the lowest setting will indeed have a small footprint but really only kill a plt or so. You will get a lethal dose (800 rem) at 350 meters (not knell over now dead) and will that will take some time) and outside that area you will be sick and suffer temporary immune system suppression. So it is really a point attack weapon instead of an area effect weapon. You need to use a larger setting to get the desired yield to get the effect needed to make an area unusable to an enemy. The Russians did also have those liners in their tanks and APC’s; those are only good for cutting down the exposure when crossing over the area. If the area was radiated at 800 rem or more they will still get a lethal dose. The Russians would try to go around areas of high radiation to protect their troops. Their best use would have been at bridges and crossroads to impend the movement of enemy mechanized forces.

The fact that the US Army wanted 115,000 nuclear weapons for it use in the defense of Europe will tell you something about how little anyone knew about the affect of nuclear war. Of course that was using those weapons on someone else’s country and not here. We deployed about 2000 203mm nuclear shells as well as Pershing missile, Lance tactical missiles, and SADM’s just for the Army. That doesn’t include the USAF or US Navy nuclear weapons. Add the British, French and Soviet weapons into the total it could have be a very bad and lethal battlefield.

I for one am glad all sides were not as crazy as we accused the other of being.