HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ seesawtron

Funny how they made such powerful weapon, that could potentially wipe out life from the entire planet, sound muscially pleasing in this video. Old school cool.

Related, and from the title I actually thought it was going to be this:

"A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion" https://youtu.be/LLCF7vPanrY

⬐ LargoLasskhyfv

I've seen this before, and after the first time seeing it I wondered why is everybody talking about the Cold War, when 516 (+1 unknown) of them were atmospheric tests? And IIRC every single one of them stronger than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Seems rather HOT to me.

⬐ corty

The deaths by those tests were negligible, compared to the expected deaths in a hot war. Just compare the millions of fatalities in Korea, Afghanistan or Vietnam. Those wars were only stand-ins for the real big one that thankfully never came.

I've got some bad news for you... https://youtu.be/LLCF7vPanrY

You might find this video interesting:

https://youtu.be/LLCF7vPanrY

Shows every nuke set off between 1945 to 1998.

On a related note, here is a time lapse of all the nuclear detonations since 1945.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

That site really drives the tragic results of drone strikes, however from a UX perspective, I wish they would not use a stacked sliding bar for the death count at the top.

Seeing the death of children growing at the start is heart wrenching, but as the other values grow, the 'children' bar actually shrinks, devaluing the impact of the tragic toll.

Perhaps counters like the "Every Atomic explosion since 1945 video"? [0] Might drive home the point a little better?

[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

⬐ loxs

They are getting "better" though. The ratio of civilian deaths seems to go down with the years.

I've always wondered why don't they allow the testing of those rockets in stable ground? We've done crazier tests, like nuclear testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

⬐ MrZongle2

I thought the reason involved the FAA requiring SpaceX's to prove that the first stage could be guided accurately to the general pad area instead of plowing into a populated region. Landing on a barge out at sea reduces the risk of the latter.

⬐ 001sky

Yep, a flyover of populated areas is avoided with an offshore lz/barge.

Here's a timelapse of every nuclear explosion since 1945. It really puts into perspective just how many nukes have gone off for purposes other than to kill people. It's amazing that only two were used for violence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

According to the video, people have detonated 2053 nukes, and America has the dubious distinction of having detonated over 1000.

⬐ nz8877

I wonder if it will help us communicating with possible extra terrestrial intelligence. If there is some kind of SETI in other world then I guess it would be easier for them to detect nukes explosions than 1936 olympics.

Maybe we'll end up using nukes as kind-of-morse code communication? ;>

⬐ foobarian

I appreciate your precise wording. Makes me wonder how many deaths were nonetheless caused by these non-wartime detonations.

⬐ eru

Not too many. Almost none directly from the explosions.

⬐ gcb0

i wonder if the US tests being all in the west and pacific had anything to do with everyone in project Manhattan being in, well, Manhattan

⬐ daeken

Just FYI, the Manhattan Project did not take place in Manhattan. It was done in Tennessee at Oak Ridge and Los Alamos research facility in New Mexico.

⬐ gcb0

it was done all over the place. the most famous one being new mexico.

but it started in Manhattan. and the CO was always in NY. as well as most of the researchers families and properties.

⬐ TimSAstro

Well, mostly: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/science/30manh.html?pagewa...

⬐ madaxe_again

There are definitely more than those listed. Vela incident, for instance...

I know that this seems deep into tin-foil-hat territory, but do you recall Chelyabinsk? Lots of evidence to point to it being hit by an AMM (probably Gazelle) with a mini-nuke warhead.

⬐ choult

s/seems/is/

Please provide any kind of reputable source as to how the Chelyabinsk meteor was actually a nuke warhead.

⬐ madaxe_again

What?! Not what I said - the Chelyabinsk meteor was a large ferric bolide, which isn't the kind of meteor which typically airbursts - that's reserved for less dense material. Many of the videos of it breaking up show an object approaching it at huge velocity from the rear the moment before it breaks apart, with many fragments accelerating relative to the previous speed of the bolide - again, not typical break-up behaviour - that would be the Gazelle, automatically intercepting a high speed object entering highly protected military airspace. The Gazelle operates by detonating a highly directional, shaped, small, nuclear warhead, in order to utterly destroy a re-entering MIRV - their primary purpose.

⬐ arethuza

I would have thought that the detonation of a nuclear weapon near to the meteor (particularly an ABM which typically use "enhanced radiation" warheads) would have made the remnants fairly "hot" due to neutron activation.

I haven't seen any reports that the remnants of the meteor are radioactive?

⬐ madaxe_again

Yeah, they were:

1) Refers to fireball hot enough to blind and cause second degree burns, and references two nature papers which say the energy discharged is inconsistent with airburst models http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/06/chelyabinsk-m...

2) Residual radiation of fragments wouldn't be expected, as the Gazelle system uses neutron bombs, not uniquely in ABM systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

Fine - it's not definitely the case that this happened, but there's enough information floating about to make it far more than plausible.

⬐ arethuza

"Residual radiation of fragments wouldn't be expected, as the Gazelle system uses neutron bombs"

"Neutron bomb" is another name for an "enhanced radiation weapon" - basically an H-bomb designed to give off large amounts of neutron radiation. So you would expect anything close to the explosion of such a device (and therefore exposed to a very high neutron flux) to have pretty clear indications that would be easy to test for.

⬐ ceejayoz

> the Chelyabinsk meteor was a large ferric bolide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteorite

"Type: Ordinary chondrite LL5" (i.e. stony, not iron)

⬐ sigterm

Only two were actually used to kill people. Most of the rest were preparations for it.

⬐ iaw

Other way around. We had the Trinity test, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and then we set off the rest. Unless you meant "preparations" for killing more people with our nuclear weapons, in which case you may be correct.

⬐ logicallee

(It's completely obvious that's what he meant.)

⬐ Confusion

It's completely obvious that it's not completely obvious, as someone honestly misunderstood.

⬐ iaw

The latter tests arguably weren't performed to improve the killing capabilities of the bombs but rather to understand the physics and physiological impacts of bomb blasts. Given that it's possible (albeit unlikely) we never see a nuclear weapon used in war again I don't see it as being completely obvious.

⬐ Houshalter

Arguably most of the nuclear tests were done to prevent war. Each side wanted to show the other they could match and one-up them in nuclear tech. Neither really wanted to ever actually use them to kill people.

⬐ yardie

Plenty of people on both sides really wanted to use them. Nobel Peace Prize winner, Kissinger, being one of them. Fortunately, cooler heads held the launch codes and we all prevailed.

⬐ arethuza

I think a lot of people on both sides were prepared to use them. Fortunately only a very small number of people wanted to use them and were in any position to actually do so.

⬐ yardie

Pres. Nixon wanted to use them. And you can't get much more capable than the CIC. Luckily, his advisers talked him out of it.

⬐ arethuza

I thought Nixon just wanted to appear mad enough to use nuclear weapons rather than actually being that daft...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

⬐ gdy

Is this what you are referring to? http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-03/ff...

⬐ yardie

This and a few others. Going through the wired archives you'll find many examples of nuclear false alarms and brinkmanship where the only thing stopping annihilation is an officer ignoring or delaying the order to launch [1][2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

That opening paragraph really puts the following time-lapse animation showing every nuclear explosion since 1945 in perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

One of the most fascinating things is seeing how every string of nuclear tests in Russia were quickly followed by many more detonations in the US.

⬐ alanfalcon

Thanks for sharing that link.

Just spent 15 minutes rethinking whether I really want to live in Las Vegas.

I don't understand why an accidental detonation of a warhead would produce "lethal" fallout. Yet there's comparatively little concern (and rightfully so) over the 2000+ intentional test detonations done around the world so far?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

⬐ rosser

St. George, UT, downwind of the Yucca Flats test site, had a markedly increased cancer rate among the people who lived there at the time. A friend's aunt had her thyroid removed as a teenager, presumably consequent to fallout exposure from nuclear weapons testing. (Naturally, the government made her and her family agree never to say, or even speculate aloud about why it was done when they paid for the surgery...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George,_Utah#Nuclear_conta...

⬐ malandrew

    "Naturally, the government made her and her family agree 
    never to say, or even speculate aloud about why it was 
    done when they paid for the surgery..."

I find it shocking that we afford the government the unilateral right to gag an individual from talking in exchange for treatment owed. I would hope that our judicial system would review such an arrangement and nullify a non-disclosure clause in this incident. Near as I can tell it sounds like your friend's aunt never entered into a binding legal relationship with those that contributed to her cancer until after it had been demonstrated that they were at fault. How those responsible can get a judgement or arbitration that includes such a non-disclosure when that party is so obviously wrong and at fault is simply mind-boggling.

⬐ philwelch

Most out-of-court settlements entail non-disclosure and non-disparagement. It's fairly standard.

⬐ Thrymr

"comparatively little concern"? The US and USSR stopped above-ground testing in 1963 and there has not been an above-ground test anywhere on earth since 1980. 159 countries have ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [1]. There has been a hell of a lot of concern over the past 68 years over nuclear detonations (and rightfully so).

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_...

⬐ e12e

You mean like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_atomic_experiments#Afte...

⬐ arethuza

A 3.8 megaton H-bomb exploding at ground level would have created a lot of fallout - most tests were careful to explode high yield weapons high enough that fall out wouldn't be a problem.

Where tests of large H-bombs were done at ground level there were huge amounts of fallout created. However, these tests were usually in very remote places with nobody around in the few hundred miles downwind. However, there were still serious problems with fallout:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

Considering the impact of fishing perhaps a bit of paranoia will do good for the biosphere. Still I must point out that whatever radiation is released or will be released from Fukushima, is nothing compared to what nuclear weapons testing had done in the last century:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

so enough scaremongering.

⬐ jchrisa

I'm working under the assumption that all the containment tanks they've built for dirty water will be washed out to sea in the next tsunami.

⬐ zsombor

And?

⬐ gus_massa

Previous discussions:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1586544 (58 points, 824 days ago, 26 comments)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2427187 (14 points, 581 days ago, 12 comments)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2847966 (10 points, 463 days ago, 1 comment)