Is the second nuke the same yield as the first?
Because they set off the first one and no one cared.
shareWell, I guess that answers that question.
share
MovieChat Forums > The Strain (2014) Discussion > Is the second nuke the same yield as the...
SBL, i didn't even see your thread (i posted the same topic. i apologize)....but yeah, what gives with the yields? they must have been different but that makes no sense to me. wouldn't they be the same yield in case one nuke was stolen/compromised/etc?
shareThey should have been exactly the same, though if they were bootleg nukes built by North Koreans or Muslim Terrorists, it could vary in potency from one to the other.
shareRussia. They said they came from Russia. But hey, even this totally made up world, let's just blame it on Muslims. Even though they're not mentioned whatsoever and don't actually have nukes in real life?!? Seriously?
shareDidn't the first one go off underground?
shareYes, but not really far enough down to matter. It was clearly in the subway / underground rail system, or something connected to it. Underground nuke tests were typically at a depth of 1km, the deepest NYC subway is .5km and would vent the radiation everywhere.
The nukes in the show were small, tactical nukes, not city busters. "Suitcase Nukes" are not very powerful - around .2 KT explosion, and that's for a 100 pound suitcase nuke. The explosion presented in the season finale was way out of what with what a suitcase nuke could possibly do.
--
Not that the writers showed us this on the show, but they could have easily been different yields, even if they are the same design. Virtually all modern-as in part of current active arsenals-nuclear weapons are so called dial-a-yield. They can have their yield set a certain number. This is especially true with tactical nukes, because in theory it makes them more able to be used with less fallout.
Or more likely it's a plot hole. But there is an explanation it, even if they didn't actually give it to us in the show.
Not really, you can't turn it up to x10 what power it's capable of. Stoneheart's just a bit South of central park and the bomb went off on Ellis Island. A nuke that small is already on the bottom end of what's viable though I suppose there's room for nuclear secrets I just might not know there simply isn't a suitcase device remotely capable of doing the things we saw.
(I don't why have this in my favorites http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/)
I didn't say turn it up 10x, but if you assume the 1st one was at lowest power, then there be quite the difference in power.
For example, the B61 is one of the primary warheads in the US modern arsenal. It's yield can be set anywhere from 0.3 to 340 kilo tons, KT. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb
So actually you are right, they can't turn it up just 10x in power. That is a range of over 1000x difference from lowest to highest yield of the bomb.
I'm not saying that could be fit in a suitcase nuke, I never claimed that and that wasn't my point. But my point was you absolutely can have vastly different yields from identical devices.
And the smallest acknowledged nuclear device in the US arsenal, the W54, had a variable yield of 10-250 tons. That's regular TONS, not the KT range of most currently active weapons. The W54 was part of the Davy Crockett weapons system, an infantry fired nuclear mortar essentially.
So yes they obviously took some artistic license with the size of the device, I'll agree with that. But you're wrong about not being able to crank it up a huge relative amount to the lowest yield of variable yield devices.
Un-huh, and the B61 can't bet set to 3400KT, nor the W54 to 2500T, you know ten times the power they're capable of.
Your point was the devices may have been set to different yields, mine was that since the device couldn't possibly be set to the yield it was that doesn't cover anything, but thank you. To reciprocate I would have you know that double barreled coach guns can be 'dialed' to fire 1,2 or even no shots of a variety of loads thus the possibility of different 'yields' from identical devices or even the same shotgun so the next time you see someone firing one say 6-12 times without reloading, or use one to destroy a warehouse now you have an explanatio-no wait, not really, that doesn't hold up in the slightest. Huh, go figure.
No I'm saying it could have been the other way around. 1kt on the first one, 300kt on the second, for example. How are you not understanding this? I never said 10x the max, I feel like you're intentionally misrepresenting the point. If a icbm fired warhead can have 100 or 1000x range, then it's not unreasonable for a portable device having a 10x range from lowest to highest yield.
shareAnd that it could be the other way around is utterly irreverent because you yourself don't deny there is no such suitcase nuke, nor because such devices are on the bottom end of what's viable , could such a thing be built. You referred to it as artistic licence. This is exactly equivalent to you saying because Fet's humvee has different gears, and can go different speed that would explain him driving it 600mph. It doesn't. (That's because that is about ten times faster than the highest 'yield' or top speed of a humvee.)
Gonna cut through the haze, here. . .because you're a bit confused. Or being purposely obtuse?
1) Can there be a suitcase nuke w/the yield we saw in the first explosion? YES
2) Can there be a suitcase nuke w/the yield we saw in the second? YES
3) Can the devices be the same size? YES.
Done.
Not sure what your problem is. . .but the orders of magnitude work, and the variable sizes work. Your analogies have NOTHING to do w/the above logic chain.
NOW: Was this depicted clearly? NO! Which is why this is one of the Few plot points on this show that isn't Completely Absurd. Can't believe I'm defending anything churned out by these writers, but here, the vagueness helps w/accepting the storytelling conceit.
"Personally I hope they make all the gods black and change it from Valhalla to Valholla!"
2) Can there be a suitcase nuke w/the yield we saw in the second? YES
Then perhaps that's the problem. Because that's a NOPE. That was not something a suitcase nuke was capable of doing. Not a question°. In fact '1' is iffy, but in the ballpark. They didn't just decide to make the non-suitcase ones bigger for kicks, or because they were so spend thrifty. But hey I don't want to be a walnut if you're saying several-ish city blocks isn't all a suit case nuke could make good on, or Ellis Island isn't where I think it is i'm willing to hear it. Though I can agree with you about the show. Indeed this would be another completely absurd plot point with the show acting like it was some kind of master stroke as though they had taken out US military command instead of a tourist attraction, or Eich's not going to have to worry about sunlight again, not that he really does anyway.
°Not even from the very top of the Statue of Liberty which isn't really all that tall for an air burst anyway, and the shot of it going off did seem to show a ground blast which would be preferable for putting particulate matter in the air although again tiny little nuke. share
Then perhaps that's the problem. Because that's a NOPE.
Dunno what your background is, but even a cursory knowledge of physics should tell you that you're wrong. (If your contention is we haven't seen one yet, you're still wrong. . .but that's outside this discussion) The science is DEFINITELY possible. . .don't care if you understand that or not; it's just a matter of "have the US/Russia/Israel abided by arms treaties in the past decades."
Bottom line: I'm NOT saying what we saw was realistic, or made much sense. I'm just saying the size/yield complaint is a nonstarter.
This show gets too much wrong to add on things that are non-issues. That just gives ammunition to the apologists. . .
"Personally I hope they make all the gods black and change it from Valhalla to Valholla!" share
See, here I thought you were saying that: the 'orders of magnitude work, and the variable sizes work' and there can be a 'suitcase nuke w/the yield we saw in the second blast' but that's not only not the case apparently you don't even consider it worth talking about, a nonstarter and non issue...in a thread about it (hint: the subject title)...in a response to a reply about it...with a reply including it (hint: that stuff in the quotes is stuff you said). Right. Well this has been time well spent.
shareI have no idea what that dense paragraph of blather is about (and neither do you), but the point stands: nothing we saw, vis-a-vis the yield/size of the nukes, was wrong. No matter how much you confuse yourself.
Simple enough? Good. Move along, now. . .
"Personally I hope they make all the gods black and change it from Valhalla to Valholla!"
Let me see if can bottom line it for you: You're desperate not to go into yields because you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and are most likely hoping Koomba will turn back up with some kind of argument so you can go back to pretending like in your first post.
Now as far as I can tell Koomba didn't read past the first half a dozen words or so of a reply though I can at least say he was trying to contribute.
So to be clear going on when you say: 'I'm NOT saying what we saw was realistic, or made much sense.' and 'nothing we saw, vis-a-vis the yield/size of the nukes, was wrong' that's not obviously conflicting, and you are talking about a blast from a suitcase nuke that caused an SUV, silver & lead coffin, and a cut rate version of Blade to blow like tumbleweeds at a distance that starts at a mile away
Virtually all modern-as in part of current active arsenals-nuclear weapons are so called dial-a-yield.
Not "suitcase nukes", they're incredibly limited and small. The one on the show, were it's very light weight considered, would barely qualify as a nuke if it could be detonated at all. Even the smallest nukes weigh around 100 pounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
-- share
Because they set off the first one and no one cared.
The first one went off underground. From previous scenes in the show, it looked like the other ancients were pretty deep underground. That would have contained the blast, which would have spread through the tunnels and collapsed part of the ground, but probably wouldn't do much above the area.
This is a THREADED message board. Please reply to the proper post! share
[deleted]
They never show where in the statue the nuke was placed, for max effect it would have to be in the crown or the torch.
Tactical nukes, coming to a city near you soon... or worse a city you're on.
[deleted]
They never show where in the statue the nuke was placed, for max effect it would have to be in the crown or the torch.
Tactical nukes, coming to a city near you soon... or worse a city you're on.
I find it hard to believe a nuke would be that heavily dampened because it was underground...
shareThat's because you don't know what you're talking about.
See how that works?
"Personally I hope they make all the gods black and change it from Valhalla to Valholla!"
Oh and you are a nuclear weapon engineer?
shareThe beautiful thing about IMDB is the endless supply of idiots who babble opinions about things they know NOTHING about. Then get corrected by people who know better. Then snarl back, instead of understanding they've just made a fool of themselves.
Here's a hint as to how confused you are: you think one has to be a "nuclear weapon engineer" in order to understand (fairly basic) science.
NOTE: You still don't have an answer to your question. But as the answer is irrelevant, that information has been omitted. See how that works?
Of course you don't. . .
"Personally I hope they make all the gods black and change it from Valhalla to Valholla!"
They are supposed to be WMDs of the same yield. Maybe no one gave a damn because the first one was detonated deep underground. But in reality it would still have caused hellish damage.
share