Ken wrote:
>
> I have little to argue with your statements and did not mean to imply
> that a mushroom cloud would be absent in a modern weapon. Quite contrary
> to that I would think the effeciency of the modern versions would create
> a more unifom shape than the earlier types. The majority of nukes in the
> modern US arsenal are no where near as radioactive as the earlier types
> due to the effeciency at which they consume the radioactive isotopes
> during detonation.
> My father worked in the military aerospace and weapons industry his
> whole life and there were a couple of underground tests that he was
> invoved with. His presence was needed to set up and monitor special
> blast hardened electronics equipment that was exposed to the shock
> wave of the blast.
> He mentioned one time that they were allowed back into the tunnels
> within two hours of the blast to retrive their equipment and needed
> no protective equipment to do so. The delay was needed so the surfaces
> of the tunnels could cool enough to be entered. He also mentioned that
> while it was safe to go in afterwards, the equipment that they went to
> retrieve had fused itself into the rock floor of the tunnel. They were
> forced to use pry bars to remove it from the rock as a good 1/4 inch
> or so of the rock surface had turned into a glass carbonaceous like
> substance. Anyway knowing that they can control the radioactive after
> effects to that high degree of precision I see no reason that they
> can't design them to have a nice, pretty, and well behaved mushroom
> cloud too.
>
I think the beauty of the cloud has never been a primary development
target! :-)
The behaviour of the cloud depends on so many factors like the
environment under the blast area or in the case of ground fusing the
shape of the surroundings that the design of the weapon is only
secondary.
Well I hope that I never have the chance to see this kind of clound in
real. For the simulation your cloud is more than sufficient! <g>
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
