If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LiveLeak)   You know it's the '50s when a few hundred soldiers gather around to watch a freaking ATOMIC Satchel charge detonation. Paige for Dr. Strangelove   (liveleak.com) divider line 44
    More: Spiffy, Atomic Satchel, Dr. Strangelove, nuclear tests  
•       •       •

5614 clicks; posted to Video » on 03 Jan 2013 at 8:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-03 08:56:58 AM
Who is Paige?
 
2013-01-03 09:29:58 AM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Who is Paige?


She sounds hot.
 
2013-01-03 09:56:46 AM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Who is Paige?


Satchel Paige, duh.
 
2013-01-03 10:10:22 AM
www.coe.ksu.edu
You called?
 
2013-01-03 10:24:28 AM
I bet those spectators had a certain glow after watching that
 
2013-01-03 10:25:51 AM
People blather on and on about a suitcase nuke, that's what a suitcase nuke would look like. Not a city-destroyer.
 
2013-01-03 10:44:34 AM
Aren't there supposedly a few of those satchel nukes missing from the soviet breakup?
 
2013-01-03 11:00:24 AM
Let's just call it what it really is. It's a purse.
 
2013-01-03 11:00:37 AM

pag1107: People blather on and on about a suitcase nuke, that's what a suitcase nuke would look like. Not a city-destroyer.


A B53 seems to be the same size as the orignial Fat Man used in Japan, but has a yield 8900 KT greater than Fat Man.

How is that possible?
 
2013-01-03 11:21:45 AM

pag1107: People blather on and on about a suitcase nuke, that's what a suitcase nuke would look like. Not a city-destroyer.


I'm no expert in nuclear weapons, but I'd think that with 60 more years of development, a bomb of the same size these days could produce a lot more energy. That along with the fact that the test in the video was underground and atomic testing of the past has shown that the altitude of detonation plays a huge role in the damage done. Not saying that everyone should be afraid of suitcase nukes now, just that the results could be a lot different with these factors in play.
 
2013-01-03 11:47:23 AM
1) Where was the blast wave?

And

2) This:

BigSnatch: pag1107: People blather on and on about a suitcase nuke, that's what a suitcase nuke would look like. Not a city-destroyer.

I'm no expert in nuclear weapons, but I'd think that with 60 more years of development, a bomb of the same size these days could produce a lot more energy. That along with the fact that the test in the video was underground and atomic testing of the past has shown that the altitude of detonation plays a huge role in the damage done. Not saying that everyone should be afraid of suitcase nukes now, just that the results could be a lot different with these factors in play.

 
2013-01-03 11:55:32 AM
And this is why there is an issue with the ozone layer today?
 
2013-01-03 12:04:01 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 12:06:13 PM
When I saw the video of them all gathered around for the explosion, I realized that Satchel was right:

"The social ramble ain't restful."
 
2013-01-03 12:54:53 PM
api.ning.com
 
2013-01-03 01:48:34 PM

douchebag/hater: 1) Where was the blast wave?

Yeah, the resolution on those cameras can pick up the pressure wave just like they do on Myth busters today...

Also, the dirt probably absorbed a bit.

 
2013-01-03 02:02:49 PM
And no one has yet noticed that this was a French test?

/I surrender
 
2013-01-03 02:04:26 PM

MelGoesOnTour: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Who is Paige?

She sounds hot.


She used to be

i.imgur.com

until she had half her face ripped off.

/Still pretty nice considering what happened.
 
2013-01-03 02:42:17 PM

Giltric: pag1107: People blather on and on about a suitcase nuke, that's what a suitcase nuke would look like. Not a city-destroyer.

A B53 seems to be the same size as the orignial Fat Man used in Japan, but has a yield 8900 KT greater than Fat Man.

How is that possible?


Number of ways:

1. Purer nuclear fuel available
2. Various new technological developments in bomb design (tritium/deuterium boosting for example, though those wouldn't apply to a suitcase)
3. More precise engineering of necessarily complex bomb parts, aided by experience and technology

By extension, the MIRV caps on current ICBMs are about 300kt yield despite weighing less than 10% of what the Fat Man did; that's a power increase of two orders of magnitude relative to the size.
 
2013-01-03 03:25:46 PM

grinding_journalist: By extension, the MIRV caps on current ICBMs are about 300kt yield despite weighing less than 10% of what the Fat Man did


That's apples and oranges, Fat Man was a straight up fission device while modern warheads are fusion devices (or more accurately fission/fusion/fission devices). Really different animals except for both make really big booms.
 
2013-01-03 03:27:44 PM
Anyone notice the artifacts on the film from the radiation?

That's the scary part, the explosions are too.
 
2013-01-03 03:31:45 PM
Sigh. They had so much fun in the 50's....
 
2013-01-03 04:20:57 PM
I'll just leave this here.
 
2013-01-03 04:58:12 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Who is Paige?


I'm not sure, but apparently her snatch is atomic.
 
2013-01-03 05:24:53 PM

vossiewulf: grinding_journalist: By extension, the MIRV caps on current ICBMs are about 300kt yield despite weighing less than 10% of what the Fat Man did

That's apples and oranges, Fat Man was a straight up fission device while modern warheads are fusion devices (or more accurately fission/fusion/fission devices). Really different animals except for both make really big booms.


Oh, sure. I was just demonstrating the differences in size/engineering between WW2 era and modern nuclear devices. The post I originally quoted was wondering how it was possible for a physically smaller device to have a hugely greater yield. I used Fat Man vs MIRV as an example because a. an ICBM MIRV is the most "modern" nuclear weapon (aside from possibly those on cruise missiles) I know much about, and as such b. I'm aware of the dimensions and yield of them, so was able to make a size/yield comparison to the Fat Man. Was just trying to keep things simple.

From a knowledgable perspective, yes, comparing a Fat Man implosion device to an ICBM MIRV with active countermeasures is akin to comparing a '64 VW Beetle to an '09 Bugatti Veyron. Yeah, their design DNA is...well, similar I guess, but the resultant products are so different they can barely be classed the same way.

/terrified a friend the other day by describing Project Pluto/SLAM to him
//sorry, but flying unshielded nuclear reactors are just plain awesome
 
2013-01-03 05:41:07 PM

vossiewulf: grinding_journalist: By extension, the MIRV caps on current ICBMs are about 300kt yield despite weighing less than 10% of what the Fat Man did

That's apples and oranges, Fat Man was a straight up fission device while modern warheads are fusion devices (or more accurately fission/fusion/fission devices). Really different animals except for both make really big booms.


Ah, found the more direct comparo I was looking for; just wanted to be sure:

The largest pure-fission bomb ever constructed Ivy King had a 500 kiloton yield, which is probably in the range of the upper limit on such designs. Fusion boosting could likely raise the efficiency of such a weapon significantly, but eventually all fission-based weapons have an upper yield limit due to the difficulties of dealing with large critical masses. However, there is no known upper yield limit for a fusion bomb.

So there's a non-thermo device with a 500kt pop. The complete bomb weighed 8600 lb. Fat Man, by contrast, weighed 10,300lbs. and yielded 21kt. Ivy King was tested in 1952, only 8 years after the development of Fat Man. 8 years of development increased the efficiency by a factor of 20. Crazy.
 
2013-01-03 05:43:51 PM

pag1107: People blather on and on about a suitcase nuke, that's what a suitcase nuke would look like. Not a city-destroyer.


The danger of a suitcase nuke isn't it's destructive potential, which would be extremely limited. It's because the threat of a dirty bomb spreading nuclear isotopes over heavily populated areas.
 
2013-01-03 06:16:55 PM

YodaBlues: pag1107: People blather on and on about a suitcase nuke, that's what a suitcase nuke would look like. Not a city-destroyer.

The danger of a suitcase nuke isn't it's destructive potential, which would be extremely limited. It's because the threat of a dirty bomb spreading nuclear isotopes over heavily populated areas.


Yep. No need to blow it up when you can simply irradiate it (and the folks in it.) Heck, there's a real benefit to ensuring your package doesn't explode - if you can quietly irradiate a large area, well, it's that much longer before anyone figures out what's going on.
 
2013-01-03 06:25:01 PM

p4p3rm4t3: I'll just leave this here.


Very nice, thanks from a nuke test video collector. Even more entertaining was the link from a "nukes don't exist" nutjob in the comments.
 
2013-01-03 06:32:27 PM

snark puppet: p4p3rm4t3: I'll just leave this here.

Very nice, thanks from a nuke test video collector. Even more entertaining was the link from a "nukes don't exist" nutjob in the comments.


From the comments in that second video:

"No, you don't know. Newtonian physics works mathematically, but it doesn't explain gravity. And relativity is pure BS promoted by Jews in an attempt to show they aren't entirely parasitic."

As someone who works with GPS systems I get a kick out of that.
 
2013-01-03 06:34:45 PM
And another:

"Ohh come on, its called the vacuum explosion, then implosion that causes the back and fourth. I can believe the Moon, 9/11, and JFK, were crooked, but atomic bombs? No way"
 
2013-01-03 06:38:25 PM
Vegas, baby!

archure.net
 
2013-01-03 06:56:15 PM

p4p3rm4t3: I'll just leave this here.


How about this?
 
2013-01-03 08:07:32 PM
Sedan
 
2013-01-03 09:25:34 PM
Subby, turn off your computer and get your ass to a library. Paige...../facepalm.
 
2013-01-03 11:13:18 PM

YodaBlues: pag1107: People blather on and on about a suitcase nuke, that's what a suitcase nuke would look like. Not a city-destroyer.

The danger of a suitcase nuke isn't it's destructive potential, which would be extremely limited. It's because the threat of a dirty bomb spreading nuclear isotopes over heavily populated areas.


No, the danger of a suitcase nuke is the complete and utter destruction of a good square mile of city centre with close to 90% fatalities in the entire square mile.  Imagine every skyscraper from Battery Plaza to Chambers in the financial district of Manhattan being suddenly blown down.  This is bad.

The danger of a "dirty bomb" is radioactive isotopes, which are mostly not even an issue (it's more a weapon of terror than an effective way to kill).

When people talk of a "suitcase nuke", they are referring to an actual fission device.
 
2013-01-03 11:58:18 PM
The military used to store those, and other stuff like it, in a 50 bunkers exclusion area at the Sierra Army Depot in Herlong, CA.

I've told you too much. Now I have to kill you.
 
2013-01-04 09:44:38 AM
Two words:  Project Orion.

We could have had functional colonies across the solar system by the 1970s but for the fact that basketball
sized nuclear weapons have uses other than space propulsion.
 
2013-01-04 10:30:34 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Two words:  Project Orion.

We could have had functional colonies across the solar system by the 1970s but for the fact that basketball
sized nuclear weapons have uses other than space propulsion.




Having functional space colonies involves much more then the ability to traverse space.
 
2013-01-04 02:11:44 PM

Mark Ratner: Let's just call it what it really is. It's a purse.


....European SHOULDER BAG....it was a gift(lQQks to side).....
 
2013-01-04 09:10:34 PM
I've taken the tour of the Nevada Proving Grounds. To say the underground explosions left a few craters is an understatement. Check out the area from Google Earth. One word WOW.
 
2013-01-05 01:48:51 AM

p4p3rm4t3: I'll just leave this here.

What are the vertical smoke streamers? They just sort of appear a good distance from the fireball.
 
2013-01-05 02:09:15 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: DjangoStonereaver: Two words:  Project Orion.

We could have had functional colonies across the solar system by the 1970s but for the fact that basketball
sized nuclear weapons have uses other than space propulsion.

Having functional space colonies involves much more then the ability to traverse space.


What about dysfunctional space colonies then?
 
2013-01-05 10:54:12 PM

DrGunsforHands:
What are the vertical smoke streamers? They just sort of appear a good distance from the fireball.


Essentially smokey contrail model rockets.

The streamers left behind lets them measure the airborne shock wave.

--Carlos V.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report