Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Explosive in a tornado

  • 19-11-2009 7:27pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭


    What happens if you were to place a bomb in a tornado? Is there any chance that an explosion might disipate a tornado and, if so, how big would it need to be?


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,693 ✭✭✭Redsunset


    What happens if you were to place a bomb in a tornado? Is there any chance that an explosion might disipate a tornado and, if so, how big would it need to be?


    God you have a strange mind. but here's some replies from the wonderful world wide web,


    Answer:
    Maybe. It would depend on how big the nuke was and how big the tornado was. But even if it worked, it would not change the large-scale conditions that caused the tornado and it would probably form again.....and stir up a lot of radioactive rubbish.
    Answer


    Yes. (There ain't no "maybe" about it!) The minimum yield for a nuke would overwhelm even an EF5 (Enhanced Fujita Scale). It may not disperse a supercell source, which could then regroup and make another or other twisters. Remember that for an atomic blast to happen, a "threshold" must be crossed. Critical mass must be achieved, and there will be a minimum energy that a weapon will release when it goes off. The blast will make any tornado disappear. Anyone who does not think so overestimates the tornado or underestimates the nuclear weapon - or both.
    Answer


    Maybe. It's interesting to remember that, decades ago, nukes were considered as a way to blast a sea-level canal near the existing Panama Canal. Nukes were considered as a way to divert the path of hurricanes. The plans were abandoned because of the undesirable side effect of radiation debris. Also, consider this: what good would it do to detroy any tornado if the nuke that destroyed it destroyed more than the original tornado might have? Should we destroy a bothersome fly with a hand-grenade?
    Answer


    Maybe. A tornado is formed by a warm air meeting cold air, and without going into to much detail, the temperature difference between the two. If the nuke were dropped dead center, it would probably equalize everything, and the tornado would go away. However, if it were strategically dropped on one side or the other, it could conceivably make it a whole lot worse.

    Answer
    No doubt it could, but it would produce much worse and longer-lasting effects than a tornado would. Decades later we'd be walking around (assuming we could still walk) on 8 legs, be covered in fur, and have 3 eyes.

    Answer
    The problem here lies in several different factors. Targeting systems for a nuclear weapon are mainly used to pinpoint stationary locations E.G. a military base or a city, or other location. Tornadoes as moving "targets" are extremely difficult to pinpoint let alone lock on. The best way to tell is by a hook signature on Doppler radar and even this is not perfect.
    Second, suppose you had a stroke of sheer stupid luck and the weapon detonated at the base of the funnel. It would probably disrupt the rotation but make the updraft much, much worse... and possibly lay the groundwork for another stronger, more horrifying storm than the original tornado you were trying to dissipate. This one would spread radioactive fallout ALL OVER the place.

    Thirdly, even if you were successful in breaking up the storm, you would STILL be killing greater numbers of people and injuring more, because the side effects of the bomb. Tornadoes don't cause burns, they don't cause radiation sickness, and they dont cause cancer and other long lasting effects like the bomb does. Such a cure would be far worse than the disease.
    Finally, every time we have ever screwed around with Mother Nature, she has ALWAYS found a way to vengefully pay us back. Keep this in mind the next time you decide that you want to nuke a tornado. :-)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭shamwari


    The OP said nothing about using a nuke ;) !!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,134 ✭✭✭✭maquiladora


    What happens if you were to place a bomb in a tornado? Is there any chance that an explosion might disipate a tornado and, if so, how big would it need to be?


    mythwalrus_2.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭Sleipnir




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,150 ✭✭✭Deep Easterly


    What happens if you were to place a bomb in a tornado?

    Not really sure, but I would say that'd be a feat easier said than done!

    I am just picturing someone running after a killer tornado with a highly explosive bomb :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,960 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    It's so nice to know that there is another lunatic out there !. I too have wondered this but my theory would be based on a very powerful conventional explosive as fall out is a non starter.

    My Euro lotto fantasy would be to modify an Abrams tank by adding weight (bring it up to 70 tons) & fit a reverse hovercraft system to hold it down. Then take it on a tank transporter, off load & drive straight into the Tornado.

    In my head I have even designed shielded viewing windows for filming. Would be quite a ride & not too difficult or expensive as all the hardware is readily available. The film rights would easily cover the cost.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭shamwari




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭Woow_Aqualung


    Discodog wrote: »
    It's so nice to know that there is another lunatic out there !. I too have wondered this but my theory would be based on a very powerful conventional explosive as fall out is a non starter.

    My Euro lotto fantasy would be to modify an Abrams tank by adding weight (bring it up to 70 tons) & fit a reverse hovercraft system to hold it down. Then take it on a tank transporter, off load & drive straight into the Tornado.

    In my head I have even designed shielded viewing windows for filming. Would be quite a ride & not too difficult or expensive as all the hardware is readily available. The film rights would easily cover the cost.

    Good idea. Don't think we can rely on the lotto though. I'll ring Bill.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    Not really sure, but I would say that'd be a feat easier said than done!

    I am just picturing someone running after a killer tornado with a highly explosive bomb :pac:

    And if anything went wrong, I would love to hear his next of kin try to explain to the life insurance company exactly what happened. :o


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭Woow_Aqualung


    Or if you were riding a nuke, wearing a ten gallon hat, into the eye of a gargantuan one.:D


  • Advertisement
Advertisement