Calculating the Risk of Pilot Radiation from Nuclear Bombs

[theallknower]

when the nuclear bomb was droped(dosn't mater witch),has the pilot of the bombarder been iradiated? his only chance is to get out of the radius,witch is really huge,so you need the speed of the bombarder,the altitute at witch was released,and the mass of the bomb(not only the U,you need the cover and everything) and you need the radius of the bomb...witch I don't know...

 

[mgb_phys]

If you are 30,000ft up when the bomb goes off at ground level the direct radiation from the bomb is spread over a hemisphere 6miles in radius so the proportion going through the pilot is very small. Any particles that strongly interact will be absorbed by the air before then and any that do not interact strongly won't interact in the pilots body.

You hope to get away far and fast enough before radioactive fallout is swept up into the atmosphere where it could be breathed in by the crew - you don't want your route to go back through the cloud!

For larger fussion weapons (H bombs) it's harder to get far enough away from the direct effects of the blast and so the bombs were deployed on parachutes giving th eplane a few extra minutes.

 

[theallknower]

For larger fussion weapons (H bombs) it's harder to get far enough away from the direct effects of the blast and so the bombs were deployed on parachutes giving th eplane a few extra minutes.

that dosn't seem a very smart solution,couse it will also give the enemy those few minutes...enought to finish his cofee,watch some TV,get a nap,meditate on the problem and send an anti-rocket rocket or something,so the bomb will not be that eficient...
the solution here should be a faster bombarder,or a bombarder that can lose that bulky form and transfom into a decent supersonic...it should be posible...or better yet,use an unmaned one use airplaine...
thanks for the answer

 

[hamster143]

Nowadays, the bomber with the nuke onboard will be shot down before it even has a chance to approach the target. That's why everyone uses missile silo launched (or, better yet, submarine launched) ballistic missiles. It's much harder to shoot down a lump of metal flying at you at 8 km/s than it is to shoot down a bomber.

 

[theallknower]

Nowadays, the bomber with the nuke onboard will be shot down before it even has a chance to approach the target. That's why everyone uses missile silo launched (or, better yet, submarine launched) ballistic missiles. It's much harder to shoot down a lump of metal flying at you at 8 km/s than it is to shoot down a bomber.

oh,yes,I forgot about that:)
also there has been something invented that can shoot down any misile,but I forgot it's name (seen it at future weapons,if you know the show)

 

[hamster143]

oh,yes,I forgot about that:)
also there has been something invented that can shoot down any misile,but I forgot it's name (seen it at future weapons,if you know the show)

We can intercept a single missile if we see it on our radars in advance. We have nothing that works reliably enough and can be produced on a big enough scale to intercept everything thrown our way in the event of a nuclear war. Russia has thousands of deployable nukes, ready to launch in minutes, as do we; every nuke comes with multiple "decoys" that look like nukes on the radar.

Bottom line, if it comes to the nuclear war, we're all screwed.

 

[theallknower]

We can intercept a single missile if we see it on our radars in advance. We have nothing that works reliably enough and can be produced on a big enough scale to intercept everything thrown our way in the event of a nuclear war. Russia has thousands of deployable nukes, ready to launch in minutes, as do we; every nuke comes with multiple "decoys" that look like nukes on the radar.

Bottom line, if it comes to the nuclear war, we're all screwed.

if by "we" you refer to the USA,then I'll have to disappoint you...there was a pact that said that if you want nukes,you can't build more then 6...Rusia didn't signed the pact,thow...but thousands seems like a SF film

 

[mgb_phys]

if by "we" you refer to the USA,then I'll have to disappoint you...there was a pact that said that if you want nukes,you can't build more then 6...Rusia didn't signed the pact,thow...but thousands seems like a SF film

Don't know where you got that from - both the USA and USSR have >10,000 warheads.

There were a number of treaties limiting various classes of weapons which in general both the (then)USSR and the USA stuck to, largely because it only got rid of obsolete systems that both sides wanted to scrap anyway - remember the treaty was agreed between them so wasn't going to do anything they didn't want. There was a later proposed limit on 6 warheads on each Trident SLBM but it wasn't agreed.

Generally there isn't much interest in treaties between superpowers with 1000s of warheads each - since a) who is going to force them to honor it and b) nobody is going to be around to see the effects of breaking it.

 

[hamster143]

There is a treaty between Russia and the United States and it states that both sides intend to reduce their deployed arsenals to 2200 warheads (each) by 2012.

Both sides also have thousands of nukes in storage.