Re: Nukes and such.
Derek Sherman (doppleganger@pipeline.com)
Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:47:09 -5000
On 20 Oct 99, at 18:28, Jonathan M. Rosenfeld wrote:
> Hmm.. I'm no physicist or anything, but I think a nuclear explosion would
> have much less of an effect if used in space then on the surface of a
> planet, as I thought the primary destructive force of a nuclear blast was
> its shockwave and not the actual radiation and heat. Since there is no
> material for the shockwave to propogate through in space, only the
> radiation (infrared included) of the blast is effective. Considering that
> most spaceships are probably heavily shielded against heat and radiation
> (two common dangers in space), I think this nuclear blast would have
> little effect.
Had a debate about this on another mailing list that I belong to,
where there were a few physicists involved. If I recall correctly,
the general consensus was :
1) Hard radiation from a nuclear blast would be deadlyat between
close and medium ranges - no atmosphere to stop the radiation pulse,
so even the "light" stuff would go a long way. Gamma rays don't stop
for much of anything anyways, so they'd be a killer no matter what.
2) You're correct about the lack of atmosphere dulling a nuclear
weapon's impact - as long as the weapon goes off in space and isn't
actually in contact with a vessel or object. If the weapon had a
contact trigger of some sort, and went off when it was actually in
contact with a ship, then the results would be spectactularly
unfortunate for said ship. Otherwise you'd have to be damn close to
the blast itself to get damaged from the actual blast - the gases and
fragments from the weapon itself would only do damage at
exceptionally close ranges.
Can't recall too much more than that......
Derek
