Would a bundle of ten 1 megaton nukes going off at the same time create a 10 megaton explosion?

Would a bundle of ten 1 megaton nukes going off at the same time create a 10 megaton explosion?
Or would it do little more than double the explosion to 2 megatons?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Would a bundle of ten 1 megaton nukes going off at the same time create a 10 megaton explosion?
    yes
    >Or would it do little more than double the explosion to 2 megatons?
    no

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Seems like getting the triggers synchronized could prove tricky.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why? "Megatons" is a measure of energy release. If each warhead releases energy equivalent to the detonation of 1 million tons of TNT, then why would one warhead going off at a fractionally different time equate to less energy released?

      Both you and the OP are fricking moronic.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Humor me here, but for a warhead to release the theoretical million tons it needs to complete mechanical & electronic actions. This includes the first and secondary explosion. Each warhead is going to have it's own latency. The warhead with the lowest latency will destroy or disrupt the others from completing their actions.

        Thus a homosexual of 1mt warheads would not create a 10 megaton explosion, no?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It depends on if the difference in time for the triggers is less than the time it takes the shockwave from the initial explosion to reach its neighbor…. Once it detonates the explosion itself is going to begin compressing the fissile material, while the outward expanding part of the explosion (which is going to be pretty equal to its neighbors) will interact with the incoming blast… I’m not a physicist but my suspicion is that if the explosives detonate faster than the shockwave travels then the differences won’t matter, once that explosion starts compressing the fissile material it’s not gonna matter if an outside shockwave hits it

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >then why would one warhead going off at a fractionally different time equate to less energy released?
        You are stupid.

        A legit atomic explosion requires the extremely precise detonation of conventional explosives to implode or slam fissile into each other in a way that causes a nuclear chain reaction. If that detonation isn't calibrated perfectly to cause that, then you don't have an atomic bomb. You have a conventional bomb whose fragmentation happens to be made out of radioactive materials. If 1 of the 1MT bombs goes off too soon, then it'll very likely destroy destroy the other 9 bombs in a way that won't allow them to explode properly.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Forgot to add pic related

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the issue is that the OP's question is vague. You could interpret it to be asking if a bundle of nukes sitting next to each other as in the pic would have a combined nominal yield if detonated, or you could interpret it to be asking if 10 smaller nukes deployed over a wider area would have more tactical/strategic effect than one big nuke 10x their size.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    called a bus, not a bundle, apparently

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the collective noun for nuclear explosions is "apocalypse"; "an apocalypse of nukes"

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sure is a lot of nuke posting the last few days..

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. It would be 10, 1 megaton explosions and depending on distance would do MORE damage than a 10 megaton
    explosion.
    >double
    No. Look up the cube square law.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >depending on distance
      OP clearly states that it is a "bundle" of warheads.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    combined yield will be less than one megaton because there will be interactions between all the primaries fissioning in close proximity at the same time and the secondaries wouldn't work properly. really old designs from the 50s might work more reliably as they weren't so highly optimized and there are fewer things to go wrong

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How close do you think they are when they go off?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        anon, that is not close enough to be considered one explosion. 1 megaton nukes have a fireball like half a mile widekp08

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How would two nuclear explosions happening a few hundred meters apart mean "secondaries wouldn't work properly"

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a root of 2 to three thing... Twice the power 1.4 results....
    That's why best to go for 100X the power and be all happy 😀

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The energy released would be 10x, which would correspind to a bit over 2x the explosion radius in an idealized world.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Two questions, asking for a friend /k/. Maximum yield a W88 can produce and how much do one of those cones, fully loaded, individually weigh?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The weight's probably classified like virtually everything to do with nuclear weapons is.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        About 600lbs. And no, anon asked because of Snowcrash. In short, you'd have to be the Great Kali to carry that around on your back and even then with support.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you're willing to settle for tactical yield (1kT vs 475kT), the W54 is only like 50 lbs.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The nukes might disrupt each other's detonation process dramatically. Even if they do not, they might disrupt the exact formation of each other's explosive waves in a way that positively or negatively influences the damage done. That second possibility would effect the damage, not the total energy, you understand.

    Spreading ten nukes out is way, way better than one nuke ten times the size, you waste less energy in the air and the ground.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1.6 MT

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Least interesting, most autistic assumptions (almost dodging the question): its 10 real nukes triggered separately near each other at some approximation of simultaneously probably just malfunctioning due to proximity or imperfect synchronization

    Most interesting assumptions: It's 10 x 1mt nuclear explosions magically occurring in the same instant at the same location vs 1 x 10mt nuclear explosion, nobody has the physics background to answer this

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *