I wonder if this equation takes into consideration the angle of the sea bottom, which of course rises towards the coast. That should mean all that water is going to have less and less space, which leaves it with just one way to go, which is up. When that wall of water hits a bay or a fjord, the water will be packed into an even smaller space, leaving it no place to go but up. By the time it reaches the bottom of the fjord, the water level should be tens of meters. In Fukushima, some people died while standing on a small hill, because water had indeed packed into a bay and risen to a surprisingly great height, which exceeded the height of the hill. As for the location chosen for the explosion, I think it's a bad choice. Ireland would take the brunt of the hit, even though it's not a major player in the war. The Hebrides would protect the Scottish Coast, limiting the amount of damage the tsunami could do. There's also not much of value to hit in Scotland, except for the Fastlane submarine base and maybe Glasgow. The same explosion in the Channel, however, would utterly devastate every single seaside and riverside city in Eastern England, including London. Thousands of economically and strategically important targets would be destroyed. As an added bonus, the Netherlands, most of Belgium, most of Denmark and large parts of Northern France would be wiped out. So, what's the point of wiping out a bunch of Scottish whisky distilleries, fishing villages and farmland, when they could just hit where it actually hurts? Taking out multiple NATO countries with one hit must be strategically more advantageous than hitting Scotland.
I was thinking the same thing, but instead of the channel, i was thinking more about the middle of the north sea. There is actually a prediction by a German called Alois Irlmayer (who was known for his predictions) who actually predicted that this would happen. The only difference would be the way it happens. According to him, the Russians dropped something in the north sea from a plane, instead of using a large nuclear torpedo. But the overall effect it would have on the nations along the north sea shoreline, would apparently be quite devastating, especially for the lower lying area's. And here's the kicker: i'm actually situated in The Netherlands, all though not in the lower regions, but still. Another thing i was thinking about, is what about the possibility, that this weapon is actually a nuclear shaped charge, that could focus the explosion in one general direction ?
I think this simulation verifies the threat in general rather than debunking it. This torpedo-underwater-missile tsunami weapon thing is far from “wiping countries off the map”, but to detonate that far off the coast and still have 20+ meter run ups? *THATS 65+ FEET!* Imagine if Russia somehow got multiple instances of that weapon off the US East Coast during a war and flooded the whole area from Florida to Maine with 20+ meter tsunamis!? That would be devastating. I didn’t think that this tsunami bomb would actually work this well. I’m scared and impressed.
To me, there are two main factors working against the veracity of the simulation and possible destruction - one in how ingomar gives the Russians a “break” here in the % of yield which goes into wave formation, and one about the actual yield of the “Poseidon” bomb itself. First one, no fault to ingomar, but they give a pretty optimistic yield % into wave formation of 20%. As ingomar mentioned, we know from the Baker tests that the % yield which goes to wave formation doesn’t really even reach 10%, yet to give the Russian bomb an advantage / benefit of doubt in the simulation / their claims, they bumped that up to 20%. The major issue is, we know from Operation Wigwam’s Scientific Director Report (pg 121) that in deep-water nuclear tests, the percent of a bombs yield that results in surface waves is closer to 2% (1.81% in the case of Wigwam). The other big problem is the purported yield of the weapon being 100 megatons. Now, not to say that nuclear development hasn’t changed since the 1960s, but I’d wager a torpedo in the same diameter class as the tsar bomba would have a tough time fitting a physics package that doubles the explosive yield of that bomb… That is to say, it probably isn’t 100 megatons. In short, scale that down to 2 meter “tsunamis”, and then maybe even 1 meter if you assume they fit a tsar bomba nuclear package in that torpedo.
based on the simulation, the torpedo could also conceivably get triple digit waves (or if the 10% figure is more likely, 50 meter waves, right at the blast site. shove one of these bad boys into new york harbor, right between brooklyn and the statue of liberty, let’s say, and you would see most of NYC and a lot of the new jersey side disappear under the wave. i guess at that point the question is, “is there enough water to make that wave?” would love to see a follow up regarding this!
@@447GHT No, in shallow water it will just be the nuclear explosion causing the trouble. Although you could say it's a sneaky way to get a nuclear explosion near a population centre. But not as destructive as an air-burst detonation. Anyway, as others have said, probably less than 20% and probably less than 100MT, if it works at all, if it exists at all. Sounds like more Russian propaganda trying to scare us all again. At some point nobody will believe the Russians any more.
There definitely would serious damage to coastal cities, similar to what happened in the 2011 Tohoku tsunami. As an offensive weapon, though, it is definitely an inferior countervalue weapon to much lower yield airbursts. It doesn't seem likely that ballistic missiles will ever be intercepted to a sufficient degree that such a system can not be overwhelmed by a massive number of weapons and decoys. Even the high speed and stealth of such a torpedo doesn't significantly improve its utility. And it has no value as all to prevent a counterstrike, which would certainly occur if such a weapon were used. This is an especially pointless weapon.
ngl I am still surprised it made a wave that significant at all. Though it would have been nice to see what this could do if detonated right next to a city's coast, like, just a few kilometers away.
Even then the wave height would drop off very quickly. The explosion could create a 500 meter high wave, but that would drop to a few tens of meters by the time it reaches the city. A wave in the tens of meters would still be dangerous though.
Pardon if im wrong, but the simulation makes it seem theres an entry point? Wouldnt the explosion be underwater in the case of a torpedo? I also believe the effects could be differeny depending on the specific area of blast, perhaps the plan is to detonate the nuke somewhere on the ocean floor that has a shape capable of intensifying waves? Again i dont mean to discredit, just curious.
Good analysis. The total energy of the 2011 earthquake was much larger, and since that energy was in the form of shifting tectonic plates much more of it was transferred in to wave energy.
But just why detonation was on surface level? its kinda dumb for torpedo cause if u detonate it at say 300m depth than all that flash boiled steam will contribute to pressure build up and not just dissipate into atmospehre as in surface detonation where like 50% of energy just go up without any significate effect on ground
It seem that you don't understand the tsunsmi mechanism very well. Tsunami are function of mass displacement, not simple overpressure. The fukushima tsunami was high less than three meters in high waters, but mass conservation made it rise to above 30 meters because the seabed got shallower and the mass hurling was still the same. These nukes can easily create tsunsmis 40 meters high, which is more than enough to raze entire coastal cities to the ground, and penetrate inland along riverbeds more than one hundred kilometers
The ideal location to detonate would be off the coast of Las Palma, by the Cumbre Vieja volcano. The western flank of the volcano is unstable, and a Poseidon detonation would cause the entire mountain to landslip into the sea, causing a mega-tsunami that would devastate the entire eastern US seaboard, as well as European Atlantic coastlines. Far more bang for your buck!
What if you used a nuclear torpedo like this to blow up the top of an undersea mountain and cause an undersea landslide instead? Basically the nuke is the start of a chain reaction that releases much more energy into the water. Would that work?
It also looks dodgy to me - intuitively you would think that even a big nuclear weapon wouldn't have nearly enough energy to make a tsunami like Japan etc. It would be about ten orders of magnitude to little. So I'm surprised they reach this conclusion.
But wasn't the biggest nuke the tasar only 14 or 18 mt and they tested a nuke underwater that made a wall of water about 100 or 200 feet that was smaller
@caineelliott7039 An artillery shell makes a tsunami 50ft tall. But it only goes a few feet around the impact site. So such things can have a very short life. I'm NOT an expert but as I understand it big earthquakes contain as much energy as tens of thousands - possibly hundreds thousands of nuclear bombs? So even big nukes might not do much beyond a mile or so if impact.
To calculate the tsunami effect, you have to put many more parameters into the equation, such as the counterpressure from the sea floor after the explosion.
Laser detonated fusion devices would not be radioactive, but the torpedos are very real. Removing atomic devices (radioactive) for detonation was necessary for MIRV minaturization technology.
Great video ingomar, saw this early on your website :) To me, such a weapon to be used simply for generating tsunamis seems counterproductive to its potential usefulness, perhaps it’s best as a way of disrupting fleets or even destroying harbors (as originally theorized of a use of nukes by Einstein himself). Of course, this assumes this Russian Wunderwaffe (chudo-oruzhiye…? Doesn’t roll off the tongue as well…) even works as advertised in its explosive yield, or even works at all 😅
Redefine your initial parameters and scenerio. Place the device close to or in contact with the seabed close to the edge of the continental shelf. The device is used to trigger an collapse of the self edge - maybe space 2 or 3 such devices along a stretch of shelf boundary - especially a portion identified as weak, stressed or flawed. How would the wave model respond to a much broader and deeper transient cavity?
As this torpedo drone can quite happily park it self on the sea bed and wait for the signal to blow. How do we know there is not one in the Irish Sea , English Channel right above the Chunnel. One sitting out from the Thames, one off the Forth up in Scotland. They could be anywhere. Do we know ?
Have to take into consideration an underwater sea mount or landslide triggered by the bomb. Not sure where that would be but if you look at Gran Canaria for example, easily split it into two and generate a mega tsunami
I’m not sure if you have the necessary data available, but it would be really interesting to see your work regarding the largest flood ever recorded in Southern Brazil, which happened this year, in May, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Out of 497 municipalities, 484 were affected in a state covering 281,748 km². Several rivers overflowed at the same time, and the water made its way to the state capital.
A 10 - 20 m wave would still be devastating and lead to many 1000s of deaths with only a 40min warning time. Especially in west coast cities like liverpool, or even estuary coties like bristol or glasgow
I get that UK and Russia are not getting along as decades go by Im just wonderinh, why did Ireland become like collateral damage for what their neighbor did to ivan lmao. Poor Ireland
The North Sea would seem the logical place to cause a big splash simulating and amplifying the storm surge of January/ February 1953 and also causing damage to mainland Europe. The Atlantic theory does not hold water as the intended targets would be shielded by Ireland.
I'm wondering why the simulation shows the missile / Torpedo coming from the USA. Is this for after the Russians have wiped their bottoms with the USA?
You've failed to consider that 'nuclear' weapons ARE thermobarics. I don't know exactly how, but consider if they have developed a type that does the same thing in water. If a way could be found to cause the water to quickly and in great volume separate into oxygen and hydrogen, followed by an initiating blast, it could be quite a large explosion. Plus, it would convey the force over a wider area of water and lessen the amount that escapes, vastly increasing the efficiency of the energy transfer, far greater than 20%. Even though nukes are fake, this could be real.
I think they are aware of this and are more likely to use a blast to destabilize structures, such as; triggering landslides in the Azores or dislodging sections of continental shelf that can cause significantly bigger Tsunamis. I should imagine it would only take a low yield nuke to achieve this and the effects would likely be devastating.
The largest known undersea landslide occurred over 8,000 years ago off the coast of Norway. The volume of material that moved is mind-blowing, over 4.6 X 1012 cubic yards or 850 cubic miles! Known as the Storegga landslide, the resulting tsunami buried neolithic settlements in Norway with sediment and caused wave run-up in Great Britain that was 80 feet higher than the normal high tide. The devastating loss of human life can only be imagined. Regarding that last question, anthropologists theorized that depending on the time of year when the disaster occured, the loss of life may have been less. During the summer and early autumn, most people in that region would have been in the highlands hunting moose and reindeer. If a series of weapons, as you are discussing, were placed , at or near, or along a geological feature, at the bottom of the Norwegian Sea, it might pose a problem, but find it to be improbable that anyone would do such a thing.
“It’s a weapon of attack, with no defensive value.” “Deterrence.” “Do we need more deterrence than our current arsenal of atomic bombs?” “Drown in ten feet of water or ten thousand, what’s the difference?”
I assume that the Poseidon explodes while partially submerged on the surface in this simulation. What if, however, the torpedo is engineered to leap out of the water at 108 knots in 45 degree angle, launch the nuke, so it explodes over the water surface at sufficient height to convert maximum output in a blast wave, and not to dissipate the fireball in the water? So basically a 100 megaton nuke goes off in 100 meter height?
You just said it, dissipate the fireball into water. The energy doesn't just vanish, it flash boils the water making a huge steam bubble. That's you get the most energy into the tsunami wave, minimize the blast wave. There's probably some info about optimal depth from all the underwater tests the US did.
@@isekaiexpress9450 If you're thinking the shockwave would push along the water making a wave, I'd say no. Just start in the medium you want to move. The underwater bubble is a major factor. Looking at the Wigwam test, deeper isn't better. The bubble forms and collapses, rebounds a few times. Another comment here quotes 1.8% efficiency into waves for Wigwam. Having the bubble breach the surface (meaning shallow det)before collapse, and having a huge wall of water falling back down does alot of the work. Even then Baker still under 10%. Regardless, this sim gives an extremely generous 20% efficiency, better than the best possible case soooo
@@bueb8674 the laminar effect is a interesting thought, but i was thinking of the water masses being compressed by the shockwave under the fireball, rather than creating watershake by a collapsing bubble underwater. So basically dropping a 100 megaton stone in the water, instead of 100 megaton being converted to calories that evaporate water under the surface.
To all the comments that are saying that the impact is minusvalorated I have to remind that it takes the 100 MT yield at face value. That is roughly double the yield of the most powerful nuclear bomb ever. And it was a 27.000 kg bomb. The thought that Russia can fit a bomb double the yield in a torpedo that travels at highway speed under the sea is laughable.
Kinda funny how now that nuclear war is the likeliest it’s been ever since the Cold War, people are trying to convince themselves that nukes are no big deal.
200MT sounds like a bit of a stretch. The Tsar Bomba was only 50MT and while larger yields are theoretically possible I imagine the engineering involved would be a challenge.
Yehab But Tsar bomba was downgraded from orginal designs for testing purposes. U can make 100mt device in same weight\size constraints by just switch material of third stage
Such a thing is undoubtedly devastating. However, consideration should also be given to the possible adverse effects on those deploying the weapon. These are far more difficult to predict with any confidence. We are all so interdependent now. If I ultimately suffer irreparable harm after destroying my enemy, where is the profit?
To maximize the destructive power, it should go off in very deep water but not a trench. It should have a mode converter to turn as much as the radiant energy as possible to blast. Boric acid will do. 😮
i think they are not stupid enough simulating it before deploying right, i guess it meant for detonating high valued military targets at shore bases... 100 megaton is huge..
Don't want to say anything to give anybody any ideas but in principle I would agree that a 500 metre wave crossing the UK is improbable given the amount of natural energy that is needed to generate an actual tsunami. I'm glad Russia has all these "Wunder Weapons" and likes to talk about them......I'd be far more worried by a small country who doesn't talk about their capabilities but has a rich history of combat success.......oh wait a minute....that's us.
I had done the envelope calculation and reached that conclusion some years ago, it would cause some coastal flooding similar in scale to a hurricane. The 100 MT of energy was (if I remember rightly) about 1% of a strong marine Earth quake. You would still get flooding because transmission efficiency of smaller waves in coastal water will be far larger, as energy will not be dissipated on seabed and wave breaking far out. You would have observed this effect if you lived on an oceanic coastline and seen what happens to 60 foot coastal waves…they turn into 6 foot coastal surges. Tsunami is different as water deepens and more energy is brought forward, but actual results are best observed by precedent. The calculation looks expertly executed, but I suspect the results are in practice much too large. Obviously the Russian talk was an attempt to mislead the public, and they should know that they cannot compete with the BBC, Sky and the US trash channels when programming toxic lies into the audience. Scary story, keep repeating it with minor developments, call anyone with a brain and who sees through it a fascist. That’s how to get an ordinary guy screaming for nuclear war to give Ivan a kicking. Not a naive sci fi story subject to some easy logic. Ivan has much to learn. 😁✅🇮🇪
I think that we should not underestimate the people who were able to create such a weapon. Russians are very smart. And there are probably variables in their equations that your direct analysis does not take into account. You have already been given a simple example of Fukushima, when the water suddenly rose and everything was flooded. However, don't get your hopes up that they will. They won't do it because they don't need to.
So who says that the blast point starts exactly where you say that it will be. How about if the blast point starts between the two isles. And who wants to FAFO?
The US actually tried a test where they wanted to simulate if a tsunami could be created by an underwater nuclear explosion. You can find the footage on here. Didn't work in terms of creating one (although that was only an 8 kiloton blast as opposed to what the Russians are claiming Poseidon can do). ruclips.net/video/emRPrNiEVFI/видео.htmlsi=tehB8kvcNzbIomLA
The US and the west wage billions and trillions on new weapons systems that take years if not decades get working properly while Senators, Congressmen (And Women) and the military industrial complex get mind bogglingly wealthy while the general populace suffers and pays the taxes for all this largesse while the Russians on a fraction of the budget develop incredibly effective weapons in a fraction of the time… We are getting fleeced!
The comments from Russia are probably quite exaggerated. Also if something like that were detonated this would in a short time show on seismometers accros the world hence we would know very quickly where the detonation occurred, and also retaliate to destroy Russia. So who would be stupid and crazy enough to use something like that should remain the right question to ask. I am more scared of Russia losing the damn thing, their track record indicating that this could happen, than them using it consciously.
I wonder if this equation takes into consideration the angle of the sea bottom, which of course rises towards the coast. That should mean all that water is going to have less and less space, which leaves it with just one way to go, which is up. When that wall of water hits a bay or a fjord, the water will be packed into an even smaller space, leaving it no place to go but up. By the time it reaches the bottom of the fjord, the water level should be tens of meters. In Fukushima, some people died while standing on a small hill, because water had indeed packed into a bay and risen to a surprisingly great height, which exceeded the height of the hill. As for the location chosen for the explosion, I think it's a bad choice. Ireland would take the brunt of the hit, even though it's not a major player in the war. The Hebrides would protect the Scottish Coast, limiting the amount of damage the tsunami could do. There's also not much of value to hit in Scotland, except for the Fastlane submarine base and maybe Glasgow. The same explosion in the Channel, however, would utterly devastate every single seaside and riverside city in Eastern England, including London. Thousands of economically and strategically important targets would be destroyed. As an added bonus, the Netherlands, most of Belgium, most of Denmark and large parts of Northern France would be wiped out. So, what's the point of wiping out a bunch of Scottish whisky distilleries, fishing villages and farmland, when they could just hit where it actually hurts? Taking out multiple NATO countries with one hit must be strategically more advantageous than hitting Scotland.
Shhhhh. Critical thinking is for Putin puppets only. Democracy supporters (!) can only speak Russophobia.
I was thinking the same thing, but instead of the channel, i was thinking more about the middle of the north sea. There is actually a prediction by a German called Alois Irlmayer (who was known for his predictions) who actually predicted that this would happen. The only difference would be the way it happens. According to him, the Russians dropped something in the north sea from a plane, instead of using a large nuclear torpedo. But the overall effect it would have on the nations along the north sea shoreline, would apparently be quite devastating, especially for the lower lying area's. And here's the kicker: i'm actually situated in The Netherlands, all though not in the lower regions, but still. Another thing i was thinking about, is what about the possibility, that this weapon is actually a nuclear shaped charge, that could focus the explosion in one general direction ?
@@fjvmunsterman the rumour goes that putn's daughter and grandson are in the nl, that's your hope
The south coast of Britain would be hit by something far more devastating than a tsunami... it's not either/or. "And maybe Glasgow" my arse...
@@fjvmunstermannuclear shaped charge makes no sense
Guys cool down, the tsunami half a kilemeter height will NOT be radioactive. Take a chill
I think this simulation verifies the threat in general rather than debunking it. This torpedo-underwater-missile tsunami weapon thing is far from “wiping countries off the map”, but to detonate that far off the coast and still have 20+ meter run ups? *THATS 65+ FEET!* Imagine if Russia somehow got multiple instances of that weapon off the US East Coast during a war and flooded the whole area from Florida to Maine with 20+ meter tsunamis!? That would be devastating. I didn’t think that this tsunami bomb would actually work this well. I’m scared and impressed.
To me, there are two main factors working against the veracity of the simulation and possible destruction - one in how ingomar gives the Russians a “break” here in the % of yield which goes into wave formation, and one about the actual yield of the “Poseidon” bomb itself.
First one, no fault to ingomar, but they give a pretty optimistic yield % into wave formation of 20%. As ingomar mentioned, we know from the Baker tests that the % yield which goes to wave formation doesn’t really even reach 10%, yet to give the Russian bomb an advantage / benefit of doubt in the simulation / their claims, they bumped that up to 20%. The major issue is, we know from Operation Wigwam’s Scientific Director Report (pg 121) that in deep-water nuclear tests, the percent of a bombs yield that results in surface waves is closer to 2% (1.81% in the case of Wigwam).
The other big problem is the purported yield of the weapon being 100 megatons. Now, not to say that nuclear development hasn’t changed since the 1960s, but I’d wager a torpedo in the same diameter class as the tsar bomba would have a tough time fitting a physics package that doubles the explosive yield of that bomb… That is to say, it probably isn’t 100 megatons.
In short, scale that down to 2 meter “tsunamis”, and then maybe even 1 meter if you assume they fit a tsar bomba nuclear package in that torpedo.
based on the simulation, the torpedo could also conceivably get triple digit waves (or if the 10% figure is more likely, 50 meter waves, right at the blast site. shove one of these bad boys into new york harbor, right between brooklyn and the statue of liberty, let’s say, and you would see most of NYC and a lot of the new jersey side disappear under the wave.
i guess at that point the question is, “is there enough water to make that wave?”
would love to see a follow up regarding this!
@@447GHT No, in shallow water it will just be the nuclear explosion causing the trouble. Although you could say it's a sneaky way to get a nuclear explosion near a population centre. But not as destructive as an air-burst detonation.
Anyway, as others have said, probably less than 20% and probably less than 100MT, if it works at all, if it exists at all. Sounds like more Russian propaganda trying to scare us all again. At some point nobody will believe the Russians any more.
There definitely would serious damage to coastal cities, similar to what happened in the 2011 Tohoku tsunami. As an offensive weapon, though, it is definitely an inferior countervalue weapon to much lower yield airbursts. It doesn't seem likely that ballistic missiles will ever be intercepted to a sufficient degree that such a system can not be overwhelmed by a massive number of weapons and decoys. Even the high speed and stealth of such a torpedo doesn't significantly improve its utility. And it has no value as all to prevent a counterstrike, which would certainly occur if such a weapon were used. This is an especially pointless weapon.
@PatriPastry Tsar bomba initial design was at 100 Mt capacity, which they have reduced to around 50 as a precaution.
ngl I am still surprised it made a wave that significant at all. Though it would have been nice to see what this could do if detonated right next to a city's coast, like, just a few kilometers away.
Even then the wave height would drop off very quickly. The explosion could create a 500 meter high wave, but that would drop to a few tens of meters by the time it reaches the city. A wave in the tens of meters would still be dangerous though.
Usually coast have shallow water so wave wouldnt be problem, but explosion itself will be
The legend is back!
Ingomar upload!!!
Neuron activation
the return of the king
Do u know what ingomar uses to simulate this? I wanna try it.@@rizkyadiyanto7922
Pardon if im wrong, but the simulation makes it seem theres an entry point? Wouldnt the explosion be underwater in the case of a torpedo? I also believe the effects could be differeny depending on the specific area of blast, perhaps the plan is to detonate the nuke somewhere on the ocean floor that has a shape capable of intensifying waves? Again i dont mean to discredit, just curious.
yippie the legendary chicxulub tsunami simulation guy is back
Welcome back buddy! 🤠 10 year following you!
Can you please make a simulation of Desember 26th 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami? It's been 20 years
Good analysis. The total energy of the 2011 earthquake was much larger, and since that energy was in the form of shifting tectonic plates much more of it was transferred in to wave energy.
You're back!
awesome, can you make a simulation if it were to pop in the northern sea (between norway, netherlands and uk), in possible good spots?
But just why detonation was on surface level? its kinda dumb for torpedo cause if u detonate it at say 300m depth than all that flash boiled steam will contribute to pressure build up and not just dissipate into atmospehre as in surface detonation where like 50% of energy just go up without any significate effect on ground
Suicidal move. This would make Chernobyl look like a minor workplace accident.
Finally, a scientific geography channel that doesn’t take 1000000 years per upload
It seem that you don't understand the tsunsmi mechanism very well.
Tsunami are function of mass displacement, not simple overpressure. The fukushima tsunami was high less than three meters in high waters, but mass conservation made it rise to above 30 meters because the seabed got shallower and the mass hurling was still the same.
These nukes can easily create tsunsmis 40 meters high, which is more than enough to raze entire coastal cities to the ground, and penetrate inland along riverbeds more than one hundred kilometers
Doesn't an earthquake like the one in 2011 possess the equivalent energy of literally thousands of megatons?
@@theredraven Gigatons.
I don't see you doing the math and posting it.
The ideal location to detonate would be off the coast of Las Palma, by the Cumbre Vieja volcano. The western flank of the volcano is unstable, and a Poseidon detonation would cause the entire mountain to landslip into the sea, causing a mega-tsunami that would devastate the entire eastern US seaboard, as well as European Atlantic coastlines.
Far more bang for your buck!
Would this be used before or after Moscow was incinerated?
What if you used a nuclear torpedo like this to blow up the top of an undersea mountain and cause an undersea landslide instead? Basically the nuke is the start of a chain reaction that releases much more energy into the water. Would that work?
You can check the volcano Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai what happen in this case...
How many nukes have you experimented with then? Really interested.
In the actual event, no one...NO ONE is going to sit down and work an equation....they said similar shit about the Oreshnik missile....
Those wave heights are still quite scary.
Can you please make the simulation of explosion closer to the coast?
100Mt cant cause 500m tsunami 😂. Math and physics left chat when they made their propaganda
Show the math yourself then hypocrite? Prove what you just said is true. Let’s see how dumb you look.
It also looks dodgy to me - intuitively you would think that even a big nuclear weapon wouldn't have nearly enough energy to make a tsunami like Japan etc. It would be about ten orders of magnitude to little.
So I'm surprised they reach this conclusion.
But wasn't the biggest nuke the tasar only 14 or 18 mt and they tested a nuke underwater that made a wall of water about 100 or 200 feet that was smaller
@caineelliott7039 An artillery shell makes a tsunami 50ft tall. But it only goes a few feet around the impact site. So such things can have a very short life. I'm NOT an expert but as I understand it big earthquakes contain as much energy as tens of thousands - possibly hundreds thousands of nuclear bombs?
So even big nukes might not do much beyond a mile or so if impact.
@user-oo8xp2rf1k its not realle tsunami, more like water splash.
See what the variable of water depth has on gerating waves... it becomes more efficient the deeper it is set off... my hypothesis... not sure
I’ve been watching your channel for like years since i like tsunamis and stuff, ty
Have you considered bottom effects? You could detonate this in deep water at great depths (1km) and then calculate as it reaches shallow waters.
No way this dude makes water simulations for over 14 years without a stop
Why not do an alternate scenario assuming 100% wave efficiency?
To calculate the tsunami effect, you have to put many more parameters into the equation, such as the counterpressure from the sea floor after the explosion.
Laser detonated fusion devices would not be radioactive, but the torpedos are very real. Removing atomic devices (radioactive) for detonation was necessary for MIRV minaturization technology.
Great video ingomar, saw this early on your website :)
To me, such a weapon to be used simply for generating tsunamis seems counterproductive to its potential usefulness, perhaps it’s best as a way of disrupting fleets or even destroying harbors (as originally theorized of a use of nukes by Einstein himself).
Of course, this assumes this Russian Wunderwaffe (chudo-oruzhiye…? Doesn’t roll off the tongue as well…) even works as advertised in its explosive yield, or even works at all 😅
Do you consider the speed of the under water weapon😮 it can contribute to the wavelength
He’s back
What program is this? Would love to dream up some imaginary scenarios and simulate em for fun!
Redefine your initial parameters and scenerio. Place the device close to or in contact with the seabed close to the edge of the continental shelf. The device is used to trigger an collapse of the self edge - maybe space 2 or 3 such devices along a stretch of shelf boundary - especially a portion identified as weak, stressed or flawed. How would the wave model respond to a much broader and deeper transient cavity?
I’m SO GLAD YOURE BACK 🥺🥺🥺
As this torpedo drone can quite happily park it self on the sea bed and wait for the signal to blow. How do we know there is not one in the Irish Sea , English Channel right above the Chunnel. One sitting out from the Thames, one off the Forth up in Scotland. They could be anywhere. Do we know ?
Have to take into consideration an underwater sea mount or landslide triggered by the bomb. Not sure where that would be but if you look at Gran Canaria for example, easily split it into two and generate a mega tsunami
Why it soundless?
I’m not sure if you have the necessary data available, but it would be really interesting to see your work regarding the largest flood ever recorded in Southern Brazil, which happened this year, in May, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Out of 497 municipalities, 484 were affected in a state covering 281,748 km². Several rivers overflowed at the same time, and the water made its way to the state capital.
Seems like a highly ineffective position to detonate an attack.
A 10 - 20 m wave would still be devastating and lead to many 1000s of deaths with only a 40min warning time. Especially in west coast cities like liverpool, or even estuary coties like bristol or glasgow
Top 5 rare uploads
I get that UK and Russia are not getting along as decades go by
Im just wonderinh, why did Ireland become like collateral damage for what their neighbor did to ivan lmao. Poor Ireland
The North Sea would seem the logical place to cause a big splash simulating and amplifying the storm surge of January/ February 1953 and also causing damage to mainland Europe. The Atlantic theory does not hold water as the intended targets would be shielded by Ireland.
I'm wondering why the simulation shows the missile / Torpedo coming from the USA. Is this for after the Russians have wiped their bottoms with the USA?
Then, what would happen if on of those torpedos were fired in thames river in mid of london or ptomac river near washington?
You've failed to consider that 'nuclear' weapons ARE thermobarics.
I don't know exactly how, but consider if they have developed a type that does the same thing in water.
If a way could be found to cause the water to quickly and in great volume separate into oxygen and hydrogen, followed by an initiating blast, it could be quite a large explosion.
Plus, it would convey the force over a wider area of water and lessen the amount that escapes, vastly increasing the efficiency of the energy transfer, far greater than 20%.
Even though nukes are fake, this could be real.
Why is there no sound either?
Well they never make videos with sound cuz it's pointless
but what if they use 3 of these one further north and one further south of the initial explosion
I think they are aware of this and are more likely to use a blast to destabilize structures, such as; triggering landslides in the Azores or dislodging sections of continental shelf that can cause significantly bigger Tsunamis. I should imagine it would only take a low yield nuke to achieve this and the effects would likely be devastating.
Thank you Professor Ward!
Bro, wake up, ignomar posted
The largest known undersea landslide occurred over 8,000 years ago off the coast of Norway.
The volume of material that moved is mind-blowing, over 4.6 X 1012 cubic yards or 850 cubic miles!
Known as the Storegga landslide, the resulting tsunami buried neolithic settlements in Norway with sediment and caused wave run-up in Great Britain that was 80 feet higher than the normal high tide.
The devastating loss of human life can only be imagined.
Regarding that last question, anthropologists theorized that depending on the time of year when the disaster occured, the loss of life may have been less.
During the summer and early autumn, most people in that region would have been in the highlands hunting moose and reindeer.
If a series of weapons, as you are discussing, were placed , at or near, or along a geological feature, at the bottom of the Norwegian Sea, it might pose a problem, but find it to be improbable that anyone would do such a thing.
the return of the king
“It’s a weapon of attack, with no defensive value.”
“Deterrence.”
“Do we need more deterrence than our current arsenal of atomic bombs?”
“Drown in ten feet of water or ten thousand, what’s the difference?”
Finally, something new too see
Surley they'd detonate it in the Thames estuary, not so far to the north West that they might as well have set it off in Iceland
try a simulation from a different location, such as the north sea
I assume that the Poseidon explodes while partially submerged on the surface in this simulation.
What if, however, the torpedo is engineered to leap out of the water at 108 knots in 45 degree angle, launch the nuke, so it explodes over the water surface at sufficient height to convert maximum output in a blast wave, and not to dissipate the fireball in the water?
So basically a 100 megaton nuke goes off in 100 meter height?
You just said it, dissipate the fireball into water. The energy doesn't just vanish, it flash boils the water making a huge steam bubble. That's you get the most energy into the tsunami wave, minimize the blast wave. There's probably some info about optimal depth from all the underwater tests the US did.
@@bueb8674 isn't the blast wave from the fireball _above_ water creating a tsunami by a shockwave?
@@isekaiexpress9450 If you're thinking the shockwave would push along the water making a wave, I'd say no. Just start in the medium you want to move. The underwater bubble is a major factor. Looking at the Wigwam test, deeper isn't better. The bubble forms and collapses, rebounds a few times. Another comment here quotes 1.8% efficiency into waves for Wigwam. Having the bubble breach the surface (meaning shallow det)before collapse, and having a huge wall of water falling back down does alot of the work. Even then Baker still under 10%.
Regardless, this sim gives an extremely generous 20% efficiency, better than the best possible case soooo
@@bueb8674 the laminar effect is a interesting thought, but i was thinking of the water masses being compressed by the shockwave under the fireball, rather than creating watershake by a collapsing bubble underwater. So basically dropping a 100 megaton stone in the water, instead of 100 megaton being converted to calories that evaporate water under the surface.
Finally we know that the debate has been settled! Only a traditional full scale nuclear war can kill most of us with less equations.🤣
no way another upload??
This is why I'm subbed 👏👏
how are you alive
To all the comments that are saying that the impact is minusvalorated I have to remind that it takes the 100 MT yield at face value. That is roughly double the yield of the most powerful nuclear bomb ever. And it was a 27.000 kg bomb. The thought that Russia can fit a bomb double the yield in a torpedo that travels at highway speed under the sea is laughable.
Kinda funny how now that nuclear war is the likeliest it’s been ever since the Cold War, people are trying to convince themselves that nukes are no big deal.
200MT sounds like a bit of a stretch. The Tsar Bomba was only 50MT and while larger yields are theoretically possible I imagine the engineering involved would be a challenge.
Yehab But Tsar bomba was downgraded from orginal designs for testing purposes. U can make 100mt device in same weight\size constraints by just switch material of third stage
All very nice, but, a more likely place would be the Thames estuary!
Great video!
6:15 damn, at crunched proportion like that, Downpatrick Head looks like a f*cking wall in comparison to the wave
Yeah your calc is about one but if add two or three same time or with diferent timing :) maybe get 30m waves
Such a thing is undoubtedly devastating. However, consideration should also be given to the possible adverse effects on those deploying the weapon. These are far more difficult to predict with any confidence. We are all so interdependent now. If I ultimately suffer irreparable harm after destroying my enemy, where is the profit?
To maximize the destructive power, it should go off in very deep water but not a trench. It should have a mode converter to turn as much as the radiant energy as possible to blast. Boric acid will do. 😮
yeah wheres the audio lol
Yooooo its the Tsunami guy :D
Images of Dr. Evil come to mind.
You wouldn't detonate it in open water.
i think they are not stupid enough simulating it before deploying right, i guess it meant for detonating high valued military targets at shore bases... 100 megaton is huge..
FYI the posidon is 30 years old
What, It's not like Russia to talk out their arse. 🤭
Don't want to say anything to give anybody any ideas but in principle I would agree that a 500 metre wave crossing the UK is improbable given the amount of natural energy that is needed to generate an actual tsunami. I'm glad Russia has all these "Wunder Weapons" and likes to talk about them......I'd be far more worried by a small country who doesn't talk about their capabilities but has a rich history of combat success.......oh wait a minute....that's us.
I had done the envelope calculation and reached that conclusion some years ago, it would cause some coastal flooding similar in scale to a hurricane. The 100 MT of energy was (if I remember rightly) about 1% of a strong marine Earth quake. You would still get flooding because transmission efficiency of smaller waves in coastal water will be far larger, as energy will not be dissipated on seabed and wave breaking far out. You would have observed this effect if you lived on an oceanic coastline and seen what happens to 60 foot coastal waves…they turn into 6 foot coastal surges. Tsunami is different as water deepens and more energy is brought forward, but actual results are best observed by precedent.
The calculation looks expertly executed, but I suspect the results are in practice much too large. Obviously the Russian talk was an attempt to mislead the public, and they should know that they cannot compete with the BBC, Sky and the US trash channels when programming toxic lies into the audience.
Scary story, keep repeating it with minor developments, call anyone with a brain and who sees through it a fascist. That’s how to get an ordinary guy screaming for nuclear war to give Ivan a kicking. Not a naive sci fi story subject to some easy logic. Ivan has much to learn. 😁✅🇮🇪
Hope noone ever will find out if it works as stated or worst or less, would be a disaster anyway...
It would cause all of about £357 worth of damage to The Isle of Man .....
Ok you used math and i used common sense. We both had the same result.
I mean, we can still dream. 🤷♂️
I think that we should not underestimate the people who were able to create such a weapon. Russians are very smart. And there are probably variables in their equations that your direct analysis does not take into account. You have already been given a simple example of Fukushima, when the water suddenly rose and everything was flooded. However, don't get your hopes up that they will. They won't do it because they don't need to.
So who says that the blast point starts exactly where you say that it will be. How about if the blast point starts between the two isles. And who wants to FAFO?
How many tsunamis were created when the US exploded nuclear weapons underwater?
The US actually tried a test where they wanted to simulate if a tsunami could be created by an underwater nuclear explosion. You can find the footage on here. Didn't work in terms of creating one (although that was only an 8 kiloton blast as opposed to what the Russians are claiming Poseidon can do).
ruclips.net/video/emRPrNiEVFI/видео.htmlsi=tehB8kvcNzbIomLA
the true is not in calculation, but in test. lets check.
Our house is safe! Hoorah!
Yo it's a cover for what will happen .....they know ......look into agreements .....
Any "hot" bomb turns water into steam, it would be like UK receiving a large puff from an oversized vape?
Very interesting
The US and the west wage billions and trillions on new weapons systems that take years if not decades get working properly while Senators, Congressmen (And Women) and the military industrial complex get mind bogglingly wealthy while the general populace suffers and pays the taxes for all this largesse while the Russians on a fraction of the budget develop incredibly effective weapons in a fraction of the time… We are getting fleeced!
Hmm sure very efficient
Fear-porn.. It never stops
Eh, and why is Russia targeting Ireland ?
I get your point. Putin is bluffing, right?
The comments from Russia are probably quite exaggerated.
Also if something like that were detonated this would in a short time show on seismometers accros the world hence we would know very quickly where the detonation occurred, and also retaliate to destroy Russia.
So who would be stupid and crazy enough to use something like that should remain the right question to ask.
I am more scared of Russia losing the damn thing, their track record indicating that this could happen, than them using it consciously.
50 Mt estimated explosive eruption on Tonga. highest volcanic cloud in recent history. little tsunami.
UK is asking and wanting this though. Big mouths.