[Stuart Galbraith]

Just discovered this on the Youtube website. I can recall watching this in 1982, and after having recently seen St Pauls in real life, was a bit shocked as a 9 year old how fragile it was. Well, St Pauls and London survived the 80s, but its still a chilling documentary of the potential effects of a nuclear attack.

All I will say is, dont watch it if you have just eaten pork....

http://www.youtube.c...vdzyqQIEAI&NR=1

http://www.youtube.c...0...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.c...w...ted&search=

[ShotMagnet]

Great find, Stuart. I have a morbid fascination for this kind of thing.


Shot

[MOrab46019]

Thank you for the link.

[Gavin-Phillips]

I was quite suprised at the "2 weeks" figure. Was always thinking along the lines that if you detonated a nuclear warhead on the ground, that area would be intensely radio-active for decades, if not longer.

Obviously not. Neutron bombs were designed around the idea of the radiation having a short lifespan so an invading army could walk right through the bombed out area with minimal protection after only a few days (Dale Brown mentions this in his book Fatal Terrain). But those bombs were designed to saturate targets with radiation, not as much as destroy them with blast & overpressure.

I do have a question though.

Suppose it as a hydrogen bomb of roughly the same strength (assuming they do exist); would the effects and the area of destruction be more or less the same; or less or greater than what the clips suggest?

[RIPper]

Gavin-Phillips, on Sun 22 Apr 2007 1951, said:

Suppose it as a hydrogen bomb of roughly the same strength (assuming they do exist); would the effects and the area of destruction be more or less the same; or less or greater than what the clips suggest?

i believe they meant that a 1Mt "hydrogen" bomb exploded over London in that clip. as far as i know, there's an upper limit to the yield of pure fission bombs, which is somewhere in the hundreds of kilotons.

[RIPper]

anyway the documentary was excellent (even visually, which i didn't expect). one thing i found strange was that they expected up to 30 warheads hitting London. i know it's the freakin' London, but 30 warheads? are there any other sources with guesses about how many warheads were expected to hit which area in the world/US etc?

[Catalan]

Have you guys ever seen War Games? It was a quasi-documentary made by a British film student which was locked away in a vault for many years after. I think it was filmed in 1967. Really good directing. It's not really accurate (probably), but fun to see anyways.

[Catalan]

Here you go: http://www.youtube.c...Y...ted&search=

[Stuart Galbraith]

Its debateable what kind of attack profile would have bit london. Bearing in mind that an SS20 had something like 3 warheads (I think they were 750 Kilotons each but would have to check) then its clear that 30 1 meg warheads would have been utterly overkill. There were not that many hardened structures in London, and those that were would probably have been destroyed by airbursts. Ok, I do know the MOD MAY have had a nuclear bunker towards the end of the cold war (though Ill warrant it wasnt finished till long after) but it certainly wouldnt need this kind of attention. So do I think they exaggerate, but its not clear by how much. Off the top of my head, (and its been a while since I looked at this) I think the UK goverment estimate for megatonage hitting the uk would have been about 2000 megatons, and CND claimed that was a low estimate. If its of any interest, ive a book in my possession from this period giving estimate of megatonage against the uk in various scenarios. I think the one where CND calculates a total attack on the uk using SS18s with 20 meg warheads to destroy cruise was a typical CND hysterical reaction, but some of the low estimates looked quite convincing. Note that an airburst that doesnt touch ground lives little long term radiation. Its only when its a groundburst (to penetrate subterranian structures) that it kicks up a lot of fallout. In that case, having a big warhead is a good thing (at least globally) since by the time it comes back down, the radioactivity has subsided.


Roger, no problem. You may also find the following of interest.
http://www.cybertrn....n.co.uk/atomic/

Please note, Protect and survive is also available on Video by DD videos (sadly only as Pal). Genuinely terrifying, we are advised by the films (which would have been on telly in a leadup to a war) that if anyone dies, we are to bag them, tag them and leave them outside for the authorities to collect. :blink:

[RETAC21]

Gavin-Phillips, on Sun 22 Apr 2007 1751, said:

I was quite suprised at the "2 weeks" figure. Was always thinking along the lines that if you detonated a nuclear warhead on the ground, that area would be intensely radio-active for decades, if not longer.

Obviously not. Neutron bombs were designed around the idea of the radiation having a short lifespan so an invading army could walk right through the bombed out area with minimal protection after only a few days (Dale Brown mentions this in his book Fatal Terrain). But those bombs were designed to saturate targets with radiation, not as much as destroy them with blast & overpressure.

I do have a question though.

Suppose it as a hydrogen bomb of roughly the same strength (assuming they do exist); would the effects and the area of destruction be more or less the same; or less or greater than what the clips suggest?

A megaton weapon is a megaton weapon irrespective of wether is an fission or a fussion device, it would be the same.

I wonder about the irrelevant info like "Steve is a musician" or "They have been married for seven years" as well as the idiotic questions: "would you be willing to use force to keep the neighbours out?". You bet!

[Macarthur]

except that a pure fission device can't have a yield of a megaton (the limit for pure fission floats around 500+ kilotons IIRC)

[Animal Mother]

Macarthur, on Sun 22 Apr 2007 2223, said:

except that a pure fission device can't have a yield of a megaton (the limit for pure fission floats around 500+ kilotons IIRC)

Yep, the Ivy King test shot was 500 kT and from what I can remeber it was as close one could safely go design wise (At the time at least, dont know if it would be possible today, but then again, it is no need either).

[DemolitionMan]

There´s also the brilliant and sad animation movie "When the wind blows": http://video.google....d+blows+nuclear

[ShotMagnet]

Quote

You may also find the following of interest.

Great link, Stuart. Thanks again.

My morbid fascination will buy you a beer. Or three.


Shot

[konev]

Gents,

ok here's a challenge for those with IT experience.

Somehow, when the picture on the video comes up with the 30 ground zeroes/circles, freeze it there, then take a map of London and compare where the locations are.

I will bet you most are either C&C facilities, General Staff locations or Cabinet ministries, plus probably the infrastruture targets.

Even given the much smaller size of Washington, DC, I will also bet that it has at least 10 impact points (2 for White House, 2 for Pentagon, 1 for Congress, 1 each for Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce and Archives, plus 2 more for Andrews AFB.

And if they new about them, 2 each for Greenbriar Hotel, Site R and Mount Weather.

konev

[Tuccy]

RIPper, on Sun 22 Apr 2007 2038, said:

anyway the documentary was excellent (even visually, which i didn't expect). one thing i found strange was that they expected up to 30 warheads hitting London. i know it's the freakin' London, but 30 warheads? are there any other sources with guesses about how many warheads were expected to hit which area in the world/US etc?

IIRC Kladno was (in estimates) to be targeted by two Tomahawks (one for railway station, one for the ironworks) and a Pershing generally for everything.

Though I doubt the railway station would deserve a missile of its own. I'd put rather both warheads for the ironworks, they were pretty large ;) But then I live just about 400 meters from the railway station while the ironworks are on the far end of the city ;)

This post has been edited by Tuccy: 22 April 2007 - 2304 PM

[philgollin]

My father was a Civil Defence Scientific Officer from WW2 through to the end of the cold war.

I grew up with lots of books, leaflets and other gear stuffed into a cupboard upstairs - fascinating. The most interesting was a circular slide rule giving ways of estimating the yield of weapon from its effect (I understand the observer coprps also had them).

He was very sanguine about what was going to happen to London. The estimated megatonnage due for London was down to it "deserving" targeting on different bases. London as a city deserved targeting, Whitehall as a political base deserved it. Places like Northolt also deserved very special targeting. All in all there would have been a queue in the stratosphere. Added into all that is the fact that London lies in a basin formed by the North Downs, Chilterns, etc... Nothing much was going to survive within that basin. The government didn't really advertise it, but neither did they hide the fact that the whole basis of Civil Defence was to go into the outskirts of destroyed areas for rescue, not attempt to help those in the actual attacked area.

My father's official duties included coming up from his nice bunker after the attack and wonder around taking measurements and reporting back to the bunker. He didn't think it was likely to be possible, nor would it be more than one trip.

The quetion of fallout of course depends on targeting. A city might be attacked by a carefully detonated airburst, not letting the fireball hit the ground to maximise blast damage, but fortified places like Whitehall, Northolt, etc... would have received ground or even ground-piercing weapons causing massive fallout.

[TomasCTT]

Thanks Stuart. Same here, have a morbid fascination of nukes detonating over cities.

Last year, I was up on the 8th floor of a building, looking out the balcony and seeing Metro Manila arrayed before me. I couldn't stop thinking what it'd look like when a 1MT airburst would do to the city.

[Jeff]

philgollin, on Mon 23 Apr 2007 0208, said:

All in all there would have been a queue in the stratosphere.

Out of curiosity, what are the requirements for targeting multiple strikes on the same area without incurring fratricide amongst the warheads?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Macarthur, on Sun 22 Apr 2007 2323, said:

except that a pure fission device can't have a yield of a megaton (the limit for pure fission floats around 500+ kilotons IIRC)

In most cases, that probably right, though there was a specialised British weapon from the late 50s that was a particularly large Atomic Bomb. So large that it was in the range of around a megaton, and fooled everyone into thinking we had a Hydrogen bomb. Those wacky prankers at Aldermaston. :lol:

Ok, I was way out on a number of assumptions. Firstly, the SS20s had an option of a 1 megaton weapon, or 3 150Kiloton weapons, and as they had a cep around 1.3 kilometres, its likely any nuclear strike on central london would have made use of these to minimise fracticide. There was also a mod 2 version of SS19 that had 6 550 kiloton weapons, and this may also have been an option. On the other hand, another weapon option of SS19 had a 5 Megaton weapon, and it was suggested that this may have been one of the weapons intended for RAF Northwood (which would have dealt with communications with the Polaris boats). That had subsurface facilities (was this Headquarters Strike command at the time?) and would probably have been a ground bursts.

The 2 smaller options which looked most likely projected Uk megatonnage much lower than I recalled (I must have been thinking Kilotonnage). Projected Uk by the book 'Doomsday, Britain after nuclear attack', there were 11 scenarios suggested. I think the first 2 (A had priority nuclear, communications and coms facilities, B had the same but included airfields, including Heathrow and major airports) were the most likely. A proposed 75 warheads for 42.5 megatons, and B suggested 160 warheads for 87 megatons. Clearly a large amount of these were projected as sub megaton warheads, not unlikely with SS20 being fielded. The heaviest options (when frankly the Soviets must have been annoyed we won the world cup or something) were 485 warheads for 365.67 megatons. Even in the Lightest option, London got stonked.

Lastly, does anyone know how to snag video from You Tube? I wouldnt mind burning this onto DVD to put with the rest of my cold war collection.