It just goes to show, neglegance, unsafe weapon transportation, lack of communciation, and greedy private government contractors were all the reason for that blast
That mustve been a low to medium yield weapon that exploded from how the blast looks. I will say that the special effects couldve portrayed the blast alittle better, but im not picky. If the people that had to look away when the device went off felt it was that bright, they wouldve been burned or vaporized by the flash, and heat blast
Maybe when the explosions started going off, the guy who was trying to disarm the bomb was knocked into the firing mechanism-thing and accidentally set it off. Could that be?
@Godzillaman /its hard to say. Since the detonation of "fat man", nuclear weapons were built better and safer. designs that are built with volitle high explosives, wiring thats not static resistant, or any other design flaws are the ones that are the most unstable. For example the little boy gunbarrel bomb design, that was a very simple to assemble design but, very unsafe with the way you hard arm and fire the weapon
@Godzillaman/Its about the volitility of the explosive triggers, and how unprotected they are from whatever could cause ignition and detonation. Or since it was chemicals that set that off the explosion it couldve been a chemical reaction. it could be anything really, like they said in the movie "they were built fast and they were built cheap". Its all about how that weapons firing systems were.
@Godzillaman /No, it wasnt his fault, the helicopter dropping the water into burning boxcar containing the bomb causing the liquid sodium that was leaking to ignite, explode, and set off the warhead
@MrMariofan7II /Nukes on trains, BAD IDEA AND A HALF. 1 it couldve been stolen, 2 what just happened in the movie with that idiot bradshaw guy sneaking that nuke onto a train knowing its a dangerous and unsafe bomb just to avoid the insurance. and 3 trains arent that ideal for weapon transportation.
Nuclear bombs are full of high explosives used to compress and detonate fissile material. If you subject a nuke to great heat or shock, you may well detonate the chemical explosives irregularly. This will destroy the bomb and spread fissile material, but if the bomb is "one-point safe" then the explosion will not be enhanced to nuclear levels because there will be no chain reaction. When a nuke really goes off the first indication is a huge flash visible miles (though perhaps not feet) away.
@ArchiteuthisNeb Nice however most country use two stage thermonuclear weapons which is much safer than implosion type fission weapons and from what i knew about nuclear weapons they designed to be perfectly safe from any external effects. That huge flash, or thermal radiation is carry 30-50% of the weapon's power as an instant damage. You dont have time to turn your head before the flash burns your skin and make you blind for a couple of minutes or pernamently.
The sequence of the explosion makes no sense. The chemical explosion that engulfs the whole train would almost certainly destroy the bomb if it didn't detonate the bomb instantly, but there is a lag of a couple seconds at least. The first indication that the explosion is going nuclear is when the fireball seen from the city shoots miles up into the air before the city sees any flash, but the fireball would first flash, extend miles on the ground and then rise by convection over many seconds.
@ArchiteuthisNeb Actually the explosion cannot destroy a nuclear bomb and cannot set the bomb off either. Only the triggering device can start the chain reaction so the nukes are perfectly safe from any blast. However the heatwave would fry them or at least their eyes before they could even look at the direction of the blast.
@Zappina Not only that; an old nuclear bomb like that, even a Russian one, shouldn't become less stable with age; it should become less likely to go off (like that Simpsons episode when Sideshow Bob attempted to detonate an old nuclear bomb, but failed because it said "BEST BEFORE 1959" on it).
@wileyk209zback Even a hundred years old bomb can go off, however there is a slight chance that nuclear devices will not work because of the natural decomposition of heavy unstable elements like plutonium. Although thats true, i doubt that 50-60 years is enough for that to happen.
@Zappina /actually its not the material, its about the design of the weapon itself, and what kind of explosives youre using for the trigger. RDX, Composition 4, are what you use for the detonation of the deuterium, the deuterium fires the uranium projectile and sends it crashing into another uranium plate at the end of tube setting off the secondary explosion, you can even do that with a fission trigger too.
@wileyk209zback /Even if the uranium, plutonium, tritium, and deuterium have some form of decay, more than likely its still very useable. nuclear materials can very well outlive us thats for sure
@derekwall82 /If anything itd be the high explosives, internal wiring, and whatever electrical systems used inside the weapon would be the stuff thatd rot away or wouldnt be any good to use after being in storage for so long. but if you can fire a nuclear warhead without the use of electrical energy, than thered be no expiration date for that kind of weapon or weapon trigger
@derekwall82 Ah. Well, the bomb may still work, but there is also a chance that it could malfunction. I read external fires and explosions would not detonate a nuclear weapon
@wileyk209zback /Thats true, but its how youre trigger, trigger ignition systems, and the overall bomb is designed, in the past weve used older weapon designs that weve rebuilt with safer firing systems. i met a person whos had to work with these devices in and has had to assemble them himself. It seems like alot of used-to-be-classified info is spilling out on the net these days
@Metalhead15712 They call it half life(period) because that is the time period when the amount of the substance decrease to half by the natural decay. But you can always find more information on the net.
It just goes to show, neglegance, unsafe weapon transportation, lack of communciation, and greedy private government contractors were all the reason for that blast
derekwall82 2 months ago
That mustve been a low to medium yield weapon that exploded from how the blast looks. I will say that the special effects couldve portrayed the blast alittle better, but im not picky. If the people that had to look away when the device went off felt it was that bright, they wouldve been burned or vaporized by the flash, and heat blast
derekwall82 2 months ago
Maybe when the explosions started going off, the guy who was trying to disarm the bomb was knocked into the firing mechanism-thing and accidentally set it off. Could that be?
Godzillaman 3 months ago
@Godzillaman /its hard to say. Since the detonation of "fat man", nuclear weapons were built better and safer. designs that are built with volitle high explosives, wiring thats not static resistant, or any other design flaws are the ones that are the most unstable. For example the little boy gunbarrel bomb design, that was a very simple to assemble design but, very unsafe with the way you hard arm and fire the weapon
derekwall82 2 months ago
@Godzillaman/Its about the volitility of the explosive triggers, and how unprotected they are from whatever could cause ignition and detonation. Or since it was chemicals that set that off the explosion it couldve been a chemical reaction. it could be anything really, like they said in the movie "they were built fast and they were built cheap". Its all about how that weapons firing systems were.
derekwall82 2 months ago
@Godzillaman /No, it wasnt his fault, the helicopter dropping the water into burning boxcar containing the bomb causing the liquid sodium that was leaking to ignite, explode, and set off the warhead
derekwall82 2 months ago
OOPS.
skyrainbowpony 3 months ago
3:00 because the initial blast didnt kill them
E7uber9000 5 months ago
BIG MISTAKE at 1:49!!
Strasburg1991 6 months ago
@Strasburg1991 Yeh! i remember when i so this for the first time and i just say...noooo don´t do that :P
VwErik88 6 months ago
@Strasburg1991
Big mistake?
More like a DEADLY one
Get it?
MrMariofan7II 5 months ago
@MrMariofan7II yea!! and IN COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strasburg1991 5 months ago
@MrMariofan7II /Nukes on trains, BAD IDEA AND A HALF. 1 it couldve been stolen, 2 what just happened in the movie with that idiot bradshaw guy sneaking that nuke onto a train knowing its a dangerous and unsafe bomb just to avoid the insurance. and 3 trains arent that ideal for weapon transportation.
derekwall82 2 months ago
Not possible, but still wondering... anything in a 5-10 mile radius would be incinerated by the heat jumping around 10 times the sun's temperature.
itachiu37 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
best movie ever!!!!!!!
TheAdnanhz 8 months ago
Nuclear bombs are full of high explosives used to compress and detonate fissile material. If you subject a nuke to great heat or shock, you may well detonate the chemical explosives irregularly. This will destroy the bomb and spread fissile material, but if the bomb is "one-point safe" then the explosion will not be enhanced to nuclear levels because there will be no chain reaction. When a nuke really goes off the first indication is a huge flash visible miles (though perhaps not feet) away.
ArchiteuthisNeb 9 months ago
@ArchiteuthisNeb Nice however most country use two stage thermonuclear weapons which is much safer than implosion type fission weapons and from what i knew about nuclear weapons they designed to be perfectly safe from any external effects. That huge flash, or thermal radiation is carry 30-50% of the weapon's power as an instant damage. You dont have time to turn your head before the flash burns your skin and make you blind for a couple of minutes or pernamently.
Zappina 7 months ago
The sequence of the explosion makes no sense. The chemical explosion that engulfs the whole train would almost certainly destroy the bomb if it didn't detonate the bomb instantly, but there is a lag of a couple seconds at least. The first indication that the explosion is going nuclear is when the fireball seen from the city shoots miles up into the air before the city sees any flash, but the fireball would first flash, extend miles on the ground and then rise by convection over many seconds.
ArchiteuthisNeb 9 months ago
@ArchiteuthisNeb Actually the explosion cannot destroy a nuclear bomb and cannot set the bomb off either. Only the triggering device can start the chain reaction so the nukes are perfectly safe from any blast. However the heatwave would fry them or at least their eyes before they could even look at the direction of the blast.
Zappina 9 months ago
@Zappina Not only that; an old nuclear bomb like that, even a Russian one, shouldn't become less stable with age; it should become less likely to go off (like that Simpsons episode when Sideshow Bob attempted to detonate an old nuclear bomb, but failed because it said "BEST BEFORE 1959" on it).
wileyk209zback 7 months ago
@wileyk209zback Even a hundred years old bomb can go off, however there is a slight chance that nuclear devices will not work because of the natural decomposition of heavy unstable elements like plutonium. Although thats true, i doubt that 50-60 years is enough for that to happen.
Zappina 7 months ago
@Zappina /actually its not the material, its about the design of the weapon itself, and what kind of explosives youre using for the trigger. RDX, Composition 4, are what you use for the detonation of the deuterium, the deuterium fires the uranium projectile and sends it crashing into another uranium plate at the end of tube setting off the secondary explosion, you can even do that with a fission trigger too.
derekwall82 2 months ago
@wileyk209zback /Even if the uranium, plutonium, tritium, and deuterium have some form of decay, more than likely its still very useable. nuclear materials can very well outlive us thats for sure
derekwall82 2 months ago
@derekwall82 /If anything itd be the high explosives, internal wiring, and whatever electrical systems used inside the weapon would be the stuff thatd rot away or wouldnt be any good to use after being in storage for so long. but if you can fire a nuclear warhead without the use of electrical energy, than thered be no expiration date for that kind of weapon or weapon trigger
derekwall82 2 months ago
@derekwall82 Ah. Well, the bomb may still work, but there is also a chance that it could malfunction. I read external fires and explosions would not detonate a nuclear weapon
wileyk209zback 2 months ago
@wileyk209zback /Thats true, but its how youre trigger, trigger ignition systems, and the overall bomb is designed, in the past weve used older weapon designs that weve rebuilt with safer firing systems. i met a person whos had to work with these devices in and has had to assemble them himself. It seems like alot of used-to-be-classified info is spilling out on the net these days
derekwall82 2 months ago
@wileyk209zback it depends on the weapon, how it's made, and what is used to make it.
Metalhead15712 1 month ago
@derekwall82 Unfortunately you are right. Many nuclear material have a long half life. For example the half life of the 239 plutonium is 24200 years.
Zappina 2 months ago
@Zappina why do they call it a half life?
Metalhead15712 1 month ago
@Metalhead15712 They call it half life(period) because that is the time period when the amount of the substance decrease to half by the natural decay. But you can always find more information on the net.
Zappina 1 month ago
12:05 you're looking at horrible death
Itzmyrave 10 months ago
Vehicle not working? Traffic? Flights Delayed? Take Amtrak, Trains of America...
...oh wait...
TheDylanJoyce 10 months ago