It's one of those things where even a child would know it's a bit unrealistic, so having a professional tear it apart is really satisfying. It feels having a professional speak "for" you.
I always thought it would have been funny if he survived the explosion and the being thrown part, but then was unable to get out because it's an older model fridge that can only be opened from the inside (so unless he starves to death, someone would have to find it and open it for him). I've heard that was a problem sometimes for children in the early fridge models - a small child might hide inside it and then couldn't get themselves out due to how the door latched (admittedly, I haven't seen any real true stories about it, just heard about it second/thirdhand). In my mind, it would make the situation funnier - he survives the bomb and being thrown through the air at the speed of sound (which is completely impossible/fictional), then gets locked in the fridge and unable to get out (which might be a true thing that could happen).
Oh yes, so our education system is marvelous at teaching the facts of reality & life. Movies are that of fantasy, unfortunately the world is full of people who commonly believe such fantasy. More unfortunate is what we learn, be it from education or other sources are also fantasy. Those who are accepting of theories (no matter what subjective word you may place in front to describe) as definitive answers to that in which is unknown, are by right only adding to such fantasy beliefs. In our time now a serious problem emerges, has it been all but inevitable. AI in the public sector provides a strategic basis into falsification of our education & learnt knowledge of existence & life, fantasy our reality, no longer do unknowns exist, answers are but one choice of acceptance as no alternatives will be applicable.
I really enjoyed Oppenheimer and apparently I was so engaged watching it that my brain short circuited a bit. As the explosion went off without sound, the artistic part of my brain "approved" that Nolan made the scene silent to emphasize the magnitude of the test. Half a second later, the science part of my brain rebukes "light travels faster than sound dummy."
That they got so absorbed in the spectacle of the moment they were unable to recall a basic scientific concept, and just assumed the silence was a narrative decision instead of a practical one.
The Pacific Rim seabed nuke and the T2 ones should have been included for both their uniqueness and prominence in their respective films. Hope we get a part 2 to this video.
The detonation scene in T2 has been called by many experts as the most realistic depiction ever. So real in fact it's been called the best nuclear detearant ever from scientists.
I was also thinking that T2 should have been included. But your comment about being the best nuclear deterrent reminded me of one movie (American) "The Day After" and a British drama, "Threads" which came out close together in the early 1980s, which were instrumental in changing public perception about nuclear war; both depicting the collapse of civilisation after a nuclear war.
@@axelBr1 yeah, the blasts would kill millions, but the lack of supply chains would kill many more. Starvation is probably the biggest killer in an all out nuclear war. Supply chains destoryed + nucelar winter = most of the world screwed. If it happens I'd like to be at ground zero and be incenerated, much less painful than starvation or radiation sickness. Though some palces are completly self sufficent and would go on probably jsut fine for the most part. New Zealand comes to mind. I don't think they would be the direct target of any nukes, they are completly self-suffient and don't rely on outside supply chains to survive, and are far enough south to avoid most of the fallout. The nuclear winter would be rough, but tehy would likely survive it. Most experts these days think nuclear witners would only last a few months and that the severity of them would bea lot less than we once thought, so with enough self suffiency you would make it through.
Should have included the nuclear detonation dream scene that Sarah Connor has in Terminator 2 Judgement Day. James Cameron has claimed physicists have complemented him on how realistic that scene was
This was actually one of my favorites of this series. A lot of the physics I'd always taken for granted, like what happens with a nuke in space (especially as a sci-fi fan), really surprised me
Yes. I'm not sure if I understand it right but you've got to imagine most (sci fi) ships would be able to deal with solar and maybe cosmic radiation, so the actual impact of a nuke that detonated nearby would be practically nothing, unless it was a direct hit. I'd guess a much lower-yield explosive that left shrapnel big enough to make a hole would be much more effective as a torpedo
One thing about the Indiana Jones one is Why would they put all those trinkets and food in the houses? There would really be nothing except the manniquins
The shockwave and fireball are both atmospheric effects. Without an atmosphere, all you get is the radiation. Which as he says is over in the blink of an eye. The fireball is due to the atmosphere absorbing some of the radiation.
@@tSp289 In space, "nearby" can mean a lot of different distances depending on what you are talking about. But a nuke going off within 100 m of a ship would still instantly vaporize the outside of a vehicle causeing a strong shock through the rest of it.
My grandad was in the RAF's V-Bombers, who would have the job of retaliating against the USSR if nuclear war came about. Since that fortunately never happened, they spent most of their time smuggling things from the US, and dropping them from the bomb bays on their landing approach to be collected by waiting colleagues.
My grandad worked on the Vulcans as an armourer, had some great stories through the years. Best one was flying back from Canada in a Vulcan with barrels of beer in the nose! Wish I'd written more of them down or got him to do some sort of interview to have all his hilarious stories recorded for posterity!
Fun fact about Operation Crossroads (the US nuclear naval tests), one of the ships used in the tests was the German heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen which was one of two of the only intact large German warships that survived WW2 (the light cruiser Nurnberg was 2nd ship).. Which it was able to survive the blasts from both of the nuclear tests Able & Baker... It did later sink though 5 months later, from the leaks it had which couldn't be repaired due it being too radioactive from the 2 bomb blasts for any personal to make repairs...
I was going to bring up Crossroads in relation to the American Assassin clip. I mean, that's literally what happened in the Baker Shot, and there is how much publicly available footage of the blast for that one?
This is awesome for that reason. Too many people think things they see in the movies are accurate. Its a shame that their scientific education is so lacking.
0:28 The Dark Knight Rises 1:44 Armageddon 3:02 Oppenheimer 5:13 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 8:44 Broken Arrow 11:02 The Avengers 12:16 American Assassin 14:34 Dr Strangelove
USSR had plans for one, Stalin wanted the ultimate "Tzar Bomba", even bigger than the one tested, that couldn't be transported by planes or rockets, it would be so destructive that it would wipe out it's own country before enemy could, and then kill the rest of the world slowly by nuclear winter. He kicked the bucket before realization of that though, and thankfully nobody after was interested in the idea... At least officially.
Of the dozens of depictions of nuclear explosions I've viewed in films and on tv, by far the most soulful and emotionally gut-wrenching was the clip towards the end of Empire of the Sun. How a 13-yr old Christian Bale was scripted to react to seeing the glow from a distant Hiroshima, by seeing it as a childhood idea of a new, wonderous dawn, always gets to me.
I understand the very crude basics of fission and fusion but it will never cease to amaze me that there is something we can extract from the earth and configure to release this kind of energy. Absolutely mind blowing.
it is and for me it is just as fascinating just how energy dense it is. Looking at a reactor and the amount of fuel used for the amount of power produced is mind blowing.
even more astounding: there is actually a thousand times more energy in that uranium, by mass equivalent (buy no known way to liberate it other than matter/antimatter annihilation)
Thank you for “You don’t get EMP unless it’s a detonation high in the atmosphere” - I’ve been saying this since the movie came out. There’s also Travolta acting like an “exposed core” would affect you like poison gas or something.
But do give credit to the movie for introducing EMP to the film industry, because up till then all movies were just using"nuclear weapon". After EMP came "biological weapon", and then "cyberware attack". It's funny how a lot of things existed for decades before Hollywood make a movie about it, and when one release, 10 dozen follow.
IIRC Slater totally shrugs off getting axe handled across the spine with a crowbar during the train fight by someone twice his size, I may not have understood much about nuclear weapons when I was a teenager but that made me laugh out loud.
Good observation - I didn’t know they built cavern sets using rubber rock hangings until seeing Slater bump into one and moving it (and they used the take).
I mean exposing the core in a BWR can end pretty badly, but that's hardly a weapon, much less one reliant on an external (to the fuel core) explosion to set it off...
Kinda surprised Oppenheimer only got a 7/10, it's supposed to be pretty accurate to what happened during the Trinity test as far as I know. Since it was the first ever atomic bomb test all the different scientists had different ideas of what kind of protection they thought was appropriate (Teller wearing sunscreen, Feynman with the windshield, etc)
The scientist here is talking from the years of knowledge he has acquired over the subject, whereas teller and co feynman at the time isn't aware of the consequences just assumptions and theory. It's perfect regardless of what his rating is.
Please stop thinking major film productions are ever meaningfully historically accurate or couched in evidence. The point is to tell an entertaining story, not portray facts - some parts will be accurate, most will be creative license. Unless you're watching a documentary, this will always be the case. For instance, the film entirely ignores the fact that Japan was already trying to surrender before getting bombed.
@@eikonise Maybe it never happened, but it's certainly not improbable that at least one individual would misguidedly put on sunscreen. I haven't seen it yet, but I guess it depends on who the character is and what his expertise was. If it's someone who wouldn't know any better it's not a huge flaw that he would put on sunscreen.
A Few nukes scene you can use for a Part Two would be: - Pacific Rim: seabed nuke - Terminator 2: Nuke at the beginning - Wolverine: Nagasaki Bombardement scene - Independance Day: B-2 Nuclear Strike & final Mother ship destruction - The Expanse: Destruction of the Canterbury (S1E1), of the Donnäger (S1E4) & the Agatha King (S3E6)
I've been absolutely fascinated by nuclear bombs and their destructive capabilities since I was a kid. Loved seeing Oppenheimer in theaters. Loved the HBO series Chernobyl too. Terrifying and fascinating at the same time. I hope we never see the use of a bomb capable of this ever again
@@boijames3253 they didnt say that. There was a potential for a steam explosion which would have released even more nuclear material from the other remaining reactors. The show didn't imply the explosion would destroy kiev but that it would just irradiate a larger portion of eastern Europe.
I love how people think that if your body doesn't physically touch the ground then you're safe from the impact. It's the sudden stop that causes most of the damage. You can be inside the toughest shell in the world, but once it hits the ground that sudden deceleration is killing you. It's why we build crumple zones into cars rather than making them super solid.
Three I wanted to see: 1) True Lies, 2) The Peacemaker, 3) The Sum of All Fears. Surely there are others…The Day After, perhaps. Do another one with Dr. Spriggs!
"I have no knowledge of any doomsday device in existence." Sounds like a quote from Dr. Strangelove...so it also sounds exactly like what someone with knowledge of a doomsday device would say.
Cause there is one and we have it. It's called "Dead Hand" and it launches nukes automagically when certain criteria are met. US also had special ICBM's that would launch to radio-command launch of their own arsenal.
I watched 'Dr Strangelove: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb' (1964) for the first time just recently and highly recommend it. Another Stanley Kubrick masterpiece. 🙂🇦🇺
I have a collector DVD with tons of bonus material... Legend says that Ronald Reagan, just after being sworn-in in 1981 asked to see the 'War Room' at the Pentagon - having seen the movie he was convinced such place really existed - and was really disappointed to learn the truth
"we've had yields that were a little bit higher than people thought..." Bro Castle Bravo had more than double the predicted yield. It vaporized an island and spread fallout over hundreds of square miles.
That, was a slight mistake. You know, like a… a little ‘oopsie daisy’. We’ve all made mistakes… we accidentally vaporized an entire island, killed a guy, and gave a few dozen people radiation poisoning, it was an honest mistake, a goof in the calculation, cut them some slack.
Well too bad for Nolan there were no IMAX cameras in 1945, well, they werent before they stopped Atmosferic testing,.... las clip actualy used real footage from severals tests,.. so they coudnt make it wrong in that way...
As a long-time Indiana Jones fan, and also a scientist who is very critical of science’s incorrect portrayal in movies, I am very glad to see Indy’s invincible fridge adventure not get the lowest possible rating in this episode 😂
I love the trilogy, but it should have stayed a trilogy. Nuking the fridge wasn't the only thing that made no sense in that movie (the alien magnet that attracted non-magnetic metals for example). Not only that but it was just an all around bad movie. It was a terrible attempt at "passing the torch" and it ended up going back to old man indy for the 5th one (which I heard was good but still havn't seen).
It's a pity that so little of what happened at Los Alamos and the science behind it got into the movie. I would happily trade the sexy scenes and the BW ones for more science in it, including the daemon core accident after trinity.
@@TheAlchaemist You have to remember that the film is a biopic. It's not so much about the bomb or the science of the tests, it's about the man, his experiences, his viewpoint, his life and his mind. Because of that, I believe it nailed exactly what it set out to do.
@@takoshihitsamaru4675so the movie represented the bomb as a merr fuel tank explosion intentionally? Is the movie saying that oppenheimer really didn't see it as a otherworly power but just a thing that maybe can happen by accident?
@@spinosaurusstriker Nolan wanted the focus to be on the intricacies and reactions happening within the explosion, rather than the raw devestation of the explosion itself. He wanted to frame the little sparks, the fire, the visual as beautiful, wondrous. It's also a serious limitation that he chose to forego CG for it.
Also, was hoping to hear an evaluation of the detonation at the end of Pacific Rim. A deep ocean, seafloor explosion. Specifically Striker's detonation and sacrifice, not Gypsy's post-portal boom.
It was shite. Especially the part where the Kaiju survives it. Multi-Megaton underwater detonation within visual range leaves only Kaiju-Goo. Realistically, even Gypsy would have been crushed like a soda can, being further away. But I still love that film. 😊
6:00 just that much more evidence to demonstrate that everything in that movie past that point is him hallucinating, trapped in a bombed-out fridge and suffering from radiation poisoning.
I love these videos. We know most of these movies are fiction/fantasy, but so many people get their knowledge directly from these movies, or are informed by them, when it comes to concepts like this.
One of Spriggs recent projects was the film restoration and digitally measuring the yield of nuclear tests using the old films. They're easily found on YT. Fantastic work he and his crew did.
Yea, I was hoping to see his rating of this. It's like the only nuke to go off in the states in a movie not done by "evil A.I." and in a realistic setting. The ending to the movie was *chef's kiss*
The nuke is OK, but the thing in the movie that really stands out is the Backfire raid on the carrier. If only someone would make a movie version of Red Storm Rising and give us an amazing rendition of the Dance of the Vampires chapter from the book.
Noubers, the thing is, the Backfire raid on the carrier didn't happen in the book. That happened in a different Clancy novel, "Red Storm Rising". For this reason, Tom Clancy said that he would no longer agree to movies based on his novels.
The atmosphere isn't normally conductive. So usually there are no currents of any size in he atmosphere. However, during a nuclear expolsion, an EMP is generated in a process called Compton scattering. The high energy radiation of the explosion ionizes air and rapidly seperates charges, which in turn creates an electric field that propagates through the atmosphere and can induce currents in conductors like basically all our electronics, except glass fibers.
If I hadn't have done law and economics, I would have done nuclear physics second. Sometimes, I regret not doing it! It's just so interesting! Definitely bring him back! I'm surprised you did not give him the 'Sum of all Fears' or 'Steel Rain', the latter which shows an ICBM launch.
I love when grandpa coolly, and distinctly, describes the factual inaccuracies portrayed in film of the most horrifying device constructed by human beings besides roombas. You can't trust roombas, they're up to something.
Surprised you didn’t have him react to the scene from Terminator 2. I heard it is considered the most realistic portrayal of a nuclear bomb detonation in a city.
Such a great episode. He did Dr. Strangelove dirty though.. The movie is so realistic in its depiction of the nuclear paranoia of the Cold War and the concept of the doomsday device definitely merits some style points.
Lead lined refrigerators are actually vet common for storing radio isotopes for use in medicine/science etc. There was actually a lead lined King Cool brand fridge installed in one of the houses in Doom Town for the detonation in 1957 as shown in Indiana Jones
They were also just extremely common period during that time. Lead was in *everything* it was treated like a miracle metal for a while. I was pretty appalled that a guy his age seemed to have zero knowledge about lead lined refrigerators. He assuredly had one as a kid.
Lead assuredly was not in everything in the 50s. Its toxicity was already extremely well understood at the time and any lingering use of it in things like leaded petrol or lead crystal was more a product of willful misinformation on the part of chemical engineering companies who falsely reassured people that they were in stable or non-toxic compound form. The Surgeon General's office already knew from as early as 1925 that tetraethyl lead was horrendously toxic, but their panel was dominated by industrial lobbyists so they suppressed that info. Similarly lead paint was officially outlawed in 1978 but was already well understood as toxic and begun to be phased out by the 1950s. It certainly could not be taken for granted that you'd just find lead in everyday appliances like a household fridge by the mid-1950s; if anything the thing was more likely covered in lead paint on the outside!
@@hafor2846 actually appalls me that, after looking into that, yeah - lead *was* in everything, but I can’t find much on how common it was in fridges in the 40s-50s. From what I can tell, It’s super common for sciencey/medical fridges to be lead lined, but they’re usually the size of a mini fridge. But as far as I can tell, you’d likely have had more lead in your home’s water lines in the 40-50s than in your fridge. So TECHNICALLY there was lead in your fridge… just in the water, leached from pipes lol. However, I couldn’t find anything saying that they weren’t common - maybe I just didn’t use the right search terms but I couldn’t find an exact answer from a reputable source; and to be fair, it wasn’t until the 1930s that **sulphur dioxide** as a refrigerant changed…. Lol
@@wolfiemuse Insulation was poor, cooling machinery was small and inefficient, and lead was dirt cheap. That's why lead-lined fridges proliferated; it's DENSE. It resists being warmed, so placing a layer inside the insulation means you've got this extra mass that's resisting getting warmed up while you have the door open. Basically it exists to smooth out the temperature swings from use. That's why it's still found in scientific coolers, because it keeps the temperature more consistent. Remember, post-WWII you had industrial spindown and de-armament, as well as salvage. Lead bullets, lead solder, lead batteries, lead ballast, lead left over in the supply chain, lead lead lead. thousands of tons of lead, waiting for a use, until the extra ran dry in 1948 and the price tripled to 18 cents a pound. Manufacturers would have used up what they bought while switching to post-war technologies, so they persist to the 50's.
Please bring him back! This was great! I am curious how much damage a Nuke is capable of doing in space now. Are they ineffective as a possible defense against asteroids?
Great movie. I wish it was known better. Speaking of great nuclear bomb movies, there is also Fat Man and Little Boy, which is imho a magnitude better than Oppenheimer.
My husband was Fred Vaslows care taker for him and his wife for years until they passed away two years ago in Oak Ridge TN he worked on the bomb I also got to in the Army to go to white sands New Mexico and visit the site of the first test looking back now knowing everything Fred told me they did the impossible during a impossible time
The Expanse have some outer space nuke detonation, which I thought was weird at first, but after hearing his explanation of how space nuke would look like, is probably somewhat realistic
I think The Expanse got nukes right though, It's just a flash then it's over. There is no shockwave nor medium for thermal exchange to happen unless it hits a ship directly. The main threat of a nuke in space would be the radiation emitted.
There's something fascinating about watching a nuclear scientist speak so calmly and intelligently about the known effects when the basic building blocks of matter split apart.
Oh hey Broken Arrow! I loved that movie as a kid for some reason. Really interesting to hear about what nukes would be like in space. And terrifying to think it will probably happen one day. Luckily we still haven’t lived to see it.
Just watched Oppenheimer last night, I thought it was a very well done movie. The one thing I would have added is right at the detonation of the Trinity test, they should have had a wide-angle shot of the entire valley, with the tower sitting in the middle, just this tiny little illuminated thing in the middle of complete darkness, then it detonates and the entire valley is illuminated for a second or two.
@@RealFemale69 They could have done it with CGI, and it would only have to be a two or three second shot before they cut away to a close-up of the explosion and scientists watching.
One nitpick I have about the test towns depicted in instances like Crystal Skull or Black Ops is that they are *way* overbuilt for the tests that they were conducting with the paved roads, concrete sidewalks, grass lawns and a lot of mannequins in the open so close that they were going to be incinerated anyway. In real tests, they build the same house at increments further and further away like the one-story house close in that flies apart while the furthest one was so unshaken that the lights were still on which reminds me that they *did* test how utilities would fare like power lines and radio broadcast. As for mannequins, they were placed *much* further away to test the effects of clothing material, color, and even how skintight the clothes were for absorbing and burning the skin underneath from the initial thermal pulse (take, for example, the burns on a woman in Hiroshima caused by the pattern of her kimono). Another nitpick with American Assassin this time: how was there not a *single* Wilson cloud forming during all of that? Even the shot in Operation Wigwam that was much further down than Baker generated a Wilson cloud above the hypocenter that was formed from the shockwave reflecting off of the underwater topography.
@@mjrodriguez2025Dead Hand isn’t a doomsday device in the strict sense of Dr. Strangelove. 1. A Dead Hand system can be switched on and off by the High Command of the nation using the system. A Doomsday Device goes off by any attempt to turn it off or defuse it. 2. Depending on the philosophy of the user, Dead Hand either triggers an automatic launch of a retaliatory strike, or “merely” sends the command to the silos, bombers and submarines. Which could make a small difference. A Doomsday Device is fully automatic, human action is neither necessary nor possible or desired. 3. The purpose of the Dead Hand system is to deter a specific attacker, ensuring a retaliatory strike. A large scale nuclear war would of course lead to a huge amount of fallout and perhaps even a nuclear winter. But e.g. Australia and New Zealand would with high probability remain habitable, along with southern Africa and South America. The Doomsday Device on the other hand is designed to create such an amount of lasting fallout that survival is only possible deep underground, with facilities for energy production, grow crops, etc., completely independent from the surface (maybe except for solar panels), until the radioactive fallout has decayed. The purpose is to deter every possible attacker, whoever he may be. 4. Depending on the accuracy and number of first-strike weapons, survivability of both those weapons against counter-measures and their respective targets, and of the quality of the available intel, there is at least a small possibility that a first strike takes enough second-strike weapons out that the retaliation of the Dead Hand could be deemed acceptable. A Doomsday Device will go off when it detects a strike against it, so there is no hope to escape it. 5. A Dead Hand system depends on the amount of nukes that it can deploy successfully against an attacker. So it needs a relatively high number of nukes, together with their delivery systems and protecting them against a successful attack. A Doomsday Device depends only on the reliability of the sensors that triggers it, either in case of an attack against itself or its nation. It consists only of a small number of powerful nukes together with some material to create a large amount of long-living highly radioactive fallout and sending it into the stratosphere to engulf the earth in a deadly radioactive cloud. So it is comparatively much, much cheaper. 6. A Doomsday Device is highly vulnerable against suicide terrorist attacks, since one of it main components is to go off an attempts to defuse it. So it has to be protected at all costs against madmen doing that. A Dead Hand System has of course also be protected against attempts to disarm it, but those don’t have to trigger automatically a strike.
What exactly are the inaccurassies in the Oppenheimer scene that justify a 7? I'm not claiming that the depiction is 100% correct but he didn't point out any inaccuracy.
Stanley Kubrick is so funny and smart, he knew that the scene of the nuclear explosion will be dissected in the future, so he used the real footages 😂 no one can criticize the authenticity
My favourite part about the Oppenheimer bomb detonation was seeing Feynman in the jeep without any goggles because the Jeep's windshield blocked the UV radiation and he wanted to see the blast with his bare eyes, apparently in real life he was the only person who saw it with their bare eyes. It's not explained in the movie, but his autobiographies talk about his time at the Manhattan project a lot and it frequently matches what we do see of him in Oppenheimer
I think it’s funny that, for virtually every scene, he gives a proper and detailed explanation as to why what is happening either would or wouldn’t happen, but at 12:18 he just says “I’ve never seen that before, where did they even come up with that.”
While the “Doomsday Machine” was not a real thing, it was a real idea suggested by Herman Kahn at the RAND corporation in the 1950’s. However this was done in jest to try and convince the Air Force that their “all out” war plan in an age of Soviet retaliation was no different than a “Doomsday Machine” - though Kahn did figure out on paper the device was technically possible. One of director Kubrick’s main sources for the script was Kahn’s book “On Thermonuclear War”.
This is easily the best of the analysis series of videos presented by Insider. That's all to do with the sober analysis of Dr. Spriggs, who cogently deconstructs every detail in every scene, leaving no [radioactive] stone unturned. Does his knowledge crosswalk to any other subjects? We need more of his kind.
Here's something I've always wondered about. In two movies, that I know of, Fail Safe and The Day After, we see the fission bomb effect of bodies being x-rayed and their bones visible. At least I believe that it's only a fission effect, please correct me if I'm wrong. But in each case 20 megaton fusion bombs have been detonated. Wouldn't the fireball from a thermonuclear bomb of that size be larger than the entire fission bomb effects radius? And if so, would things like x-rayed bodies be visible?
While I can't comment on x-ray effects actually happening and the sort there is one thing about the size of that effect vs fireball. Xrays(and all other EM waves) travel at the speed of light while a fireball or any shockwave would even right next to the blast move at maybe a few multiples of the speed of sound(no idea what the exact number would be). So a xray effect could be there simply before the more physically destructive forces arrive and wipe the stuff out.
There's not a lot of credible info on what "Dead Hand" is or how it works. It _could_ be something like the Dr. Strangelove doomsday machine, but the fact that it never went off by accident, e.g. in the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, makes me doubt that it's automatic. Also, salted cobalt bombs are a stupid idea & probably haven't ever been deployed IRL. So whatever dead hand is it's likely different from the doomsday machine in important ways
@@nathansmith3608 Agreed, it could be as simple as the Prime Ministers Letter that are carried on UK ballistic missile submarines, which basically is if they stop hearing Radio 4 and can't contact higher they are to open the letter and carry out the orders inside of it. _Technically_ that is a doomsday weapon.
Came looking for this. Dude is pretty smart, but not up-to-date on his doomsday devices. It's not really like the machine from Strangelove. It's not a 100-years-of-fallout salted dirty weapon. I believe it's just a way to cause an automatic launch of some/many/most/all of Russia's ICBMs if suddenly they are cut off from command and control and other sensors detect Russia has been attacked. Probably. Maybe. There are some lovely gory details about a rocket being launched to trigger it, and said rocket flies across the length of Russia sending radio signals to order the launches.
Hold up, help me please! On the Avengers clip, he notes that there wouldn't be a shockwave, and that thermal would disappate incredibly fast. Those are the biggest things nukes are used for, so based on this updated information, would nuclear weapons be any good and/or better than conventional explosives in a space conflict? He talked about what was wrong, but not what real damage from a space nuke would potentially be. I'm pretty sure I played some 4x game that had nuclear torpedoes as an option back in the day, lol. I need answers XD
You would either need to land direct hits or rely on the radiation flux sterilizing the vessel from all life within it. Fragmentation warheads like they are used in conventional surface to air and air to air missiles would be just as effective and cheaper, because perforating a space vessel is lethal enough.
Yes and no, in vacuum 100% of the nuclear weapons energy goes into radiation (unless a direct hit, which is very very very difficult to do in space given distances and the speeds). So the problem is that yes the radiation still has the same energy as in surface, and it's going destroy (transfer very much energy to) nearby ships. However as the radiation goes out in a bubble, a lot of that energy is not directed to the target. There are concepts for nuclear shaped charges that would direct the radiation energy more to a cone than a bubble, but those studies are still classified so there is no way of knowing how effective and efficient they are. Back to your original question: chemical explosions could be more effective given that they can be used to create a cloud of high speed shrapnel, specially if the bus delivering the warhead is fast too. Shrapnel can also be some what mitigated with a whipple shields. But as it it takes time and Delta V to accelerate into high speeds, in close range nuclear weapons could be more effective. Also hauling weapons across space takes a lot of Delta V, so the best weapon might be the one that weighs only a little and most surely delivers a lot of energy to the target, be it radiation, heat or kinetic. RUclips channel Spacedock has a lot of cool videos about (theoretical) space weapons, you should check it out if interested!
So yes if close enough the target would take in a lot of heat, and probaly/likely melt, which could cause secondary explosions. In vacuum explosions wouldn't be as slow as in atmosphere, as the gases would quickly expand to vacuum of space. And from distance explosions would be silent, but when shockwave of dissipating passes over, one would hear a high pitched sound due to the vacuum, not deep bass in atmosphere.
My understanding is that you lose most of the enhanced effects you would get in atmosphere (like thermal radiation and pressure waves) but nuclear weapons are still plausuble in SF space combat as they provide more explosive force in a smaller weapon than conventional chemical explosives. In other words, even ignoring the fact that it's a nuclear explosion, a nuclear weapon would be way more powerful than any conventional weapon of similar size and weight. In reality though, I think any near-future space combat would be conducted with some kind of large-diameter compressed-gas kinetic weapon, basically a giant BB gun. Eliminates all the risks of having flammable/explosive munitions on board a (probably) oxygen-rich environment. Further down the road, maybe a magnetic gauss-type weapon. Will come down to whether it's easier to haul around a bunch of big gas tanks, or generate and store enough power for the weapon. Either way, your projectile does not need to be aerodynamic, and with the fragility of spacecraft, it also doesn't need to be large or explosive. Only in Star Wars do you need to blow up an entire ship to kill it. In real life, imagine stitching up the ISS with a few dozen 2-inch diameter aluminum cylinders moving at 2500 fps. Any breach of the pressure hull, any hit to life support or critical power or propulsion systems, even a glancing shot to one of the engine bells could be enough to brick the ship or at least get you a mobility kill. Nuclear weapons are plausible in space, but IMO still far-fetched enough that they belong in SF. If I had to guess what a real space conflict would look like, I'd put my money on non-chemically-propelled kinetic weapons for the foreseeable future.
@@its_cleanDirect hits with nuclear weapons across space would be exceedingly difficult which is why thought has been put in to utilise the nuclear energy as a power source rather than a big explosive weapon. Think Casaba howitzers or nuclear pumped lasers.
There's something captivating about watching a nuclear scientist give a serious analysis of something so absurd as Indy's nuke proof fridge.
It's one of those things where even a child would know it's a bit unrealistic, so having a professional tear it apart is really satisfying. It feels having a professional speak "for" you.
@@nivyan I think that’s probably the point of it though. It’s so absurd that even children know it can’t really happen but it’s entertaining to watch.
@@ruk2023-- Definitely. I was trying to specify that captivating feeling of hearing an expert talk about their field.
I always thought it would have been funny if he survived the explosion and the being thrown part, but then was unable to get out because it's an older model fridge that can only be opened from the inside (so unless he starves to death, someone would have to find it and open it for him). I've heard that was a problem sometimes for children in the early fridge models - a small child might hide inside it and then couldn't get themselves out due to how the door latched (admittedly, I haven't seen any real true stories about it, just heard about it second/thirdhand). In my mind, it would make the situation funnier - he survives the bomb and being thrown through the air at the speed of sound (which is completely impossible/fictional), then gets locked in the fridge and unable to get out (which might be a true thing that could happen).
Oh yes, so our education system is marvelous at teaching the facts of reality & life. Movies are that of fantasy, unfortunately the world is full of people who commonly believe such fantasy. More unfortunate is what we learn, be it from education or other sources are also fantasy. Those who are accepting of theories (no matter what subjective word you may place in front to describe) as definitive answers to that in which is unknown, are by right only adding to such fantasy beliefs. In our time now a serious problem emerges, has it been all but inevitable. AI in the public sector provides a strategic basis into falsification of our education & learnt knowledge of existence & life, fantasy our reality, no longer do unknowns exist, answers are but one choice of acceptance as no alternatives will be applicable.
I really enjoyed Oppenheimer and apparently I was so engaged watching it that my brain short circuited a bit. As the explosion went off without sound, the artistic part of my brain "approved" that Nolan made the scene silent to emphasize the magnitude of the test. Half a second later, the science part of my brain rebukes "light travels faster than sound dummy."
What are you even saying?
That they got so absorbed in the spectacle of the moment they were unable to recall a basic scientific concept, and just assumed the silence was a narrative decision instead of a practical one.
@@travisearly7879and that you got so absorbed in demeaning someone else you forgot they’re a human being
@@wolfiemuse nice try, Russian Bot
Lol so true, and then I get really shocked by the explosion sound even more 😂
The Pacific Rim seabed nuke and the T2 ones should have been included for both their uniqueness and prominence in their respective films. Hope we get a part 2 to this video.
I hope so ! 😀
T2 is the most realistic for sure. Can't believe not included.
Yeah, how could they not include those two?
Sam Winston did NOT enjoy making the T2 nuke scene due to how realistic it was.
I was waiting for pacific rim :c
The detonation scene in T2 has been called by many experts as the most realistic depiction ever. So real in fact it's been called the best nuclear detearant ever from scientists.
I was also thinking that T2 should have been included. But your comment about being the best nuclear deterrent reminded me of one movie (American) "The Day After" and a British drama, "Threads" which came out close together in the early 1980s, which were instrumental in changing public perception about nuclear war; both depicting the collapse of civilisation after a nuclear war.
@@axelBr1 yeah, the blasts would kill millions, but the lack of supply chains would kill many more. Starvation is probably the biggest killer in an all out nuclear war. Supply chains destoryed + nucelar winter = most of the world screwed. If it happens I'd like to be at ground zero and be incenerated, much less painful than starvation or radiation sickness. Though some palces are completly self sufficent and would go on probably jsut fine for the most part. New Zealand comes to mind. I don't think they would be the direct target of any nukes, they are completly self-suffient and don't rely on outside supply chains to survive, and are far enough south to avoid most of the fallout. The nuclear winter would be rough, but tehy would likely survive it. Most experts these days think nuclear witners would only last a few months and that the severity of them would bea lot less than we once thought, so with enough self suffiency you would make it through.
@@axelBr1Also the Raymond Briggs’s graphic novel “When The Wind Blows” (which was also made into an animated movie).
@@happyspaceinvader508 Oh yeah, I saw the movie. It was a really sad.
Should have included the nuclear detonation dream scene that Sarah Connor has in Terminator 2 Judgement Day. James Cameron has claimed physicists have complemented him on how realistic that scene was
I was expecting that would be here. What a shame...
I can't believe that wasn't included, total fail!
Could be something as simple as it being blocked by copyright.
Thank you!!!
@@Obeythebeard And all these other films _aren't_ covered by copyright in your mind? 🤦
This was actually one of my favorites of this series. A lot of the physics I'd always taken for granted, like what happens with a nuke in space (especially as a sci-fi fan), really surprised me
Yes. I'm not sure if I understand it right but you've got to imagine most (sci fi) ships would be able to deal with solar and maybe cosmic radiation, so the actual impact of a nuke that detonated nearby would be practically nothing, unless it was a direct hit. I'd guess a much lower-yield explosive that left shrapnel big enough to make a hole would be much more effective as a torpedo
One thing about the Indiana Jones one is Why would they put all those trinkets and food in the houses? There would really be nothing except the manniquins
The shockwave and fireball are both atmospheric effects. Without an atmosphere, all you get is the radiation. Which as he says is over in the blink of an eye. The fireball is due to the atmosphere absorbing some of the radiation.
@@tSp289 In space, "nearby" can mean a lot of different distances depending on what you are talking about. But a nuke going off within 100 m of a ship would still instantly vaporize the outside of a vehicle causeing a strong shock through the rest of it.
My grandad was in the RAF's V-Bombers, who would have the job of retaliating against the USSR if nuclear war came about. Since that fortunately never happened, they spent most of their time smuggling things from the US, and dropping them from the bomb bays on their landing approach to be collected by waiting colleagues.
I'd love to hear more about this!
@@Reflectivekangaroototally nothing wrong here😅
@@rudrodeepchatterjeeThis, I believe, is what is colloquially known as "fed posting".
Can your grandad please get me a couple of kilos of Colombian?
My grandad worked on the Vulcans as an armourer, had some great stories through the years. Best one was flying back from Canada in a Vulcan with barrels of beer in the nose! Wish I'd written more of them down or got him to do some sort of interview to have all his hilarious stories recorded for posterity!
Fun fact about Operation Crossroads (the US nuclear naval tests), one of the ships used in the tests was the German heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen which was one of two of the only intact large German warships that survived WW2 (the light cruiser Nurnberg was 2nd ship).. Which it was able to survive the blasts from both of the nuclear tests Able & Baker...
It did later sink though 5 months later, from the leaks it had which couldn't be repaired due it being too radioactive from the 2 bomb blasts for any personal to make repairs...
There is nuclear material that can contaminate the planet and create a "doomsday" effect. Plus all-out nuclear war will destroy a lot.
I was going to bring up Crossroads in relation to the American Assassin clip. I mean, that's literally what happened in the Baker Shot, and there is how much publicly available footage of the blast for that one?
I love when you have real scientists talking about real science. More please!
Thats why the video is really interesting !
Third this.
This is awesome for that reason. Too many people think things they see in the movies are accurate. Its a shame that their scientific education is so lacking.
0:28 The Dark Knight Rises
1:44 Armageddon
3:02 Oppenheimer
5:13 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
8:44 Broken Arrow
11:02 The Avengers
12:16 American Assassin
14:34 Dr Strangelove
They didn't put the nuclear explosion from T2 which is considered to be one of the most realistic ones? that's a big omission.
The way he just adamantly said he has no knowledge of a doomsday device makes me feel like there’s absolutely a doomsday device somewhere 😂
His training/indoctrination inadvertently kicked in 😅
Right?! Same stuff people said about the UFOs
USSR had plans for one, Stalin wanted the ultimate "Tzar Bomba", even bigger than the one tested, that couldn't be transported by planes or rockets, it would be so destructive that it would wipe out it's own country before enemy could, and then kill the rest of the world slowly by nuclear winter. He kicked the bucket before realization of that though, and thankfully nobody after was interested in the idea... At least officially.
He's just a physicist, why would he know. Regardless, the existence of nuclear-equipped submarines makes doomsday devices unnecessary.
I think a cobalt bomb would qualify.
Of the dozens of depictions of nuclear explosions I've viewed in films and on tv, by far the most soulful and emotionally gut-wrenching was the clip towards the end of Empire of the Sun. How a 13-yr old Christian Bale was scripted to react to seeing the glow from a distant Hiroshima, by seeing it as a childhood idea of a new, wonderous dawn, always gets to me.
I would love to see a second part with some more movies like Terminator 2!
Ya, seems strange to skip it!
Includedl Alien Vs Predator too✌️
How did they not include T2?!!? Easily the most impactful depiction of a nuke on screen.
and threads...
T2 has one of the most realistic nuclear attack scenes on film, to date. According to nuclear scientists
I understand the very crude basics of fission and fusion but it will never cease to amaze me that there is something we can extract from the earth and configure to release this kind of energy. Absolutely mind blowing.
it is and for me it is just as fascinating just how energy dense it is. Looking at a reactor and the amount of fuel used for the amount of power produced is mind blowing.
even more astounding: there is actually a thousand times more energy in that uranium, by mass equivalent (buy no known way to liberate it other than matter/antimatter annihilation)
Thank you for “You don’t get EMP unless it’s a detonation high in the atmosphere” - I’ve been saying this since the movie came out. There’s also Travolta acting like an “exposed core” would affect you like poison gas or something.
I'm imagining you telling everyone you meet, every day, for the past 27 years.
But do give credit to the movie for introducing EMP to the film industry, because up till then all movies were just using"nuclear weapon". After EMP came "biological weapon", and then "cyberware attack". It's funny how a lot of things existed for decades before Hollywood make a movie about it, and when one release, 10 dozen follow.
IIRC Slater totally shrugs off getting axe handled across the spine with a crowbar during the train fight by someone twice his size, I may not have understood much about nuclear weapons when I was a teenager but that made me laugh out loud.
Good observation - I didn’t know they built cavern sets using rubber rock hangings until seeing Slater bump into one and moving it (and they used the take).
I mean exposing the core in a BWR can end pretty badly, but that's hardly a weapon, much less one reliant on an external (to the fuel core) explosion to set it off...
'Predator' and '24' season 6 would have been interesting ones to include.
Kinda surprised Oppenheimer only got a 7/10, it's supposed to be pretty accurate to what happened during the Trinity test as far as I know. Since it was the first ever atomic bomb test all the different scientists had different ideas of what kind of protection they thought was appropriate (Teller wearing sunscreen, Feynman with the windshield, etc)
The scientist here is talking from the years of knowledge he has acquired over the subject, whereas teller and co feynman at the time isn't aware of the consequences just assumptions and theory. It's perfect regardless of what his rating is.
Please stop thinking major film productions are ever meaningfully historically accurate or couched in evidence. The point is to tell an entertaining story, not portray facts - some parts will be accurate, most will be creative license. Unless you're watching a documentary, this will always be the case. For instance, the film entirely ignores the fact that Japan was already trying to surrender before getting bombed.
There's been a few professionals on here, where they had great, informational explanations, but completely bizarre and seemingly ratings.
It seems like they lost 3 points because Teller put on sunscreen.
@@eikonise Maybe it never happened, but it's certainly not improbable that at least one individual would misguidedly put on sunscreen. I haven't seen it yet, but I guess it depends on who the character is and what his expertise was. If it's someone who wouldn't know any better it's not a huge flaw that he would put on sunscreen.
A Few nukes scene you can use for a Part Two would be:
- Pacific Rim: seabed nuke
- Terminator 2: Nuke at the beginning
- Wolverine: Nagasaki Bombardement scene
- Independance Day: B-2 Nuclear Strike & final Mother ship destruction
- The Expanse: Destruction of the Canterbury (S1E1), of the Donnäger (S1E4) & the Agatha King (S3E6)
I've been absolutely fascinated by nuclear bombs and their destructive capabilities since I was a kid. Loved seeing Oppenheimer in theaters. Loved the HBO series Chernobyl too. Terrifying and fascinating at the same time. I hope we never see the use of a bomb capable of this ever again
the HBO Chernobyl series are terrible, and not accurate at all.
like a steam explosion that would destroy kiev from 100km is just bs
@@o-hogameplay185sorry I havent watched the show but did they actually say that ?
@@boijames3253 they didnt say that. There was a potential for a steam explosion which would have released even more nuclear material from the other remaining reactors. The show didn't imply the explosion would destroy kiev but that it would just irradiate a larger portion of eastern Europe.
@@jonnypope1537 so judging by your reply, the guy that I responded to mistook the steam explosion itself as the main threat.
@@o-hogameplay185 loved how they combined an entire team of (male) scientists into one female know-it-all character
I love how people think that if your body doesn't physically touch the ground then you're safe from the impact. It's the sudden stop that causes most of the damage. You can be inside the toughest shell in the world, but once it hits the ground that sudden deceleration is killing you. It's why we build crumple zones into cars rather than making them super solid.
this guys is cool, his ability to explain such complex processes and effects, is better than I have seen anywhere else.
Three I wanted to see: 1) True Lies, 2) The Peacemaker, 3) The Sum of All Fears. Surely there are others…The Day After, perhaps. Do another one with Dr. Spriggs!
Scrolled too far to finally see The Sum of All Fears mentioned...I thought that was one of the more realistic nuclear detonations.
I was kinda hoping for True Lies also.... but there really wasn't a huge focus on the blast itself in that movie
"I have no knowledge of any doomsday device in existence." Sounds like a quote from Dr. Strangelove...so it also sounds exactly like what someone with knowledge of a doomsday device would say.
Cause there is one and we have it. It's called "Dead Hand" and it launches nukes automagically when certain criteria are met. US also had special ICBM's that would launch to radio-command launch of their own arsenal.
@@RussianSevereWeatherVideos Where does it launch them to?
@@mummeliini123 To their pre-set targets. You can imagine where those targets are located.
I think we need a movie about the guy who invented Duct Tape. They have a lot to answer for.
Think of the poor ducks!!
He am become death
@@Jeedan He hath become tape!
I watched 'Dr Strangelove: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb' (1964) for the first time just recently and highly recommend it.
Another Stanley Kubrick masterpiece. 🙂🇦🇺
Our precious bodily fluids!
It might be my favorite film of all time tbh.
I have a collector DVD with tons of bonus material... Legend says that Ronald Reagan, just after being sworn-in in 1981 asked to see the 'War Room' at the Pentagon - having seen the movie he was convinced such place really existed - and was really disappointed to learn the truth
POE!
He should answer to the Coca-Cola Company for giving it a 2 of 10
"we've had yields that were a little bit higher than people thought..." Bro Castle Bravo had more than double the predicted yield. It vaporized an island and spread fallout over hundreds of square miles.
Bravo was detonated on an artificial island off of Namu. Ivy Mike took out Elugelab, a real island.
That, was a slight mistake. You know, like a… a little ‘oopsie daisy’. We’ve all made mistakes… we accidentally vaporized an entire island, killed a guy, and gave a few dozen people radiation poisoning, it was an honest mistake, a goof in the calculation, cut them some slack.
Christopher Nolan apparently has a monopoly on halfway decent nuclear blasts in film.
Eh 🤷♀️. In Oppenheimer, it was mostly a fireball and sound effects. I didn't find it as good as some others from older movies.
James Cameron has some classics
Oppenherimer's nuke was pretty bad. I'd have simply AI upresed the real footage and denoised.
Well too bad for Nolan there were no IMAX cameras in 1945, well, they werent before they stopped Atmosferic testing,.... las clip actualy used real footage from severals tests,.. so they coudnt make it wrong in that way...
opinion. @@kw7378a1
One of the most serious ratings by a scientist that I've seen in this platform.
As a long-time Indiana Jones fan, and also a scientist who is very critical of science’s incorrect portrayal in movies, I am very glad to see Indy’s invincible fridge adventure not get the lowest possible rating in this episode 😂
he looks so much like harrison ford too
@@cia5649Wow, you're right, come to think of it. A less grumpy Ford.
It was a Maytag.
I love the trilogy, but it should have stayed a trilogy. Nuking the fridge wasn't the only thing that made no sense in that movie (the alien magnet that attracted non-magnetic metals for example). Not only that but it was just an all around bad movie. It was a terrible attempt at "passing the torch" and it ended up going back to old man indy for the 5th one (which I heard was good but still havn't seen).
All that Oppenheimer detail and he like “eh 7”
Not going to lie, they had me at Oppenheimer. The Trinity Test was one of the best parts of the movie!
It's a pity that so little of what happened at Los Alamos and the science behind it got into the movie. I would happily trade the sexy scenes and the BW ones for more science in it, including the daemon core accident after trinity.
@@TheAlchaemist You have to remember that the film is a biopic. It's not so much about the bomb or the science of the tests, it's about the man, his experiences, his viewpoint, his life and his mind. Because of that, I believe it nailed exactly what it set out to do.
@@TheAlchaemistIt’s a book adaptation, not a scientific movie
@@takoshihitsamaru4675so the movie represented the bomb as a merr fuel tank explosion intentionally? Is the movie saying that oppenheimer really didn't see it as a otherworly power but just a thing that maybe can happen by accident?
@@spinosaurusstriker Nolan wanted the focus to be on the intricacies and reactions happening within the explosion, rather than the raw devestation of the explosion itself. He wanted to frame the little sparks, the fire, the visual as beautiful, wondrous.
It's also a serious limitation that he chose to forego CG for it.
Nothing beats Dr. Strangelove in terms of pure entertainment value as Kong rides the bomb down.
Also, was hoping to hear an evaluation of the detonation at the end of Pacific Rim. A deep ocean, seafloor explosion. Specifically Striker's detonation and sacrifice, not Gypsy's post-portal boom.
It was shite. Especially the part where the Kaiju survives it. Multi-Megaton underwater detonation within visual range leaves only Kaiju-Goo. Realistically, even Gypsy would have been crushed like a soda can, being further away.
But I still love that film. 😊
How could they not include T2? The most iconic one in my opinion. And the most terrifying
I'm surprised they didn't do the blast effects from Terminator 2's dream sequence.
6:00 just that much more evidence to demonstrate that everything in that movie past that point is him hallucinating, trapped in a bombed-out fridge and suffering from radiation poisoning.
I love these videos. We know most of these movies are fiction/fantasy, but so many people get their knowledge directly from these movies, or are informed by them, when it comes to concepts like this.
Feynman watched the blast from inside a pickup. That's a real story from his memoirs.
My man just had nuclear goggles handy. He ready for anything.
You never know when Russia’s gonna get pissed off enough.
I love the way you rated the last one, specifically, because it's more than one piece of film put together.
Teller actually used suncreen and looked directly to the exploded during the Trinity test according to sources.
He said it himself
One of Spriggs recent projects was the film restoration and digitally measuring the yield of nuclear tests using the old films. They're easily found on YT. Fantastic work he and his crew did.
I like that, as ridiculous the lndy nuke was, it still got more realism points than Armageddon
He's so thorough and insightful. More of him please.
4:48 "tests where the yield was a little bit higher"
Castle Bravo
I dunno how realistic it is, but my favorite nuke scene in a movie is The Sum of All Fears.
Yea, I was hoping to see his rating of this. It's like the only nuke to go off in the states in a movie not done by "evil A.I." and in a realistic setting. The ending to the movie was *chef's kiss*
The nuke is OK, but the thing in the movie that really stands out is the Backfire raid on the carrier. If only someone would make a movie version of Red Storm Rising and give us an amazing rendition of the Dance of the Vampires chapter from the book.
@@Noubers There are YT videos of someone playing around with this while the book is being read.
Noubers, the thing is, the Backfire raid on the carrier didn't happen in the book. That happened in a different Clancy novel, "Red Storm Rising". For this reason, Tom Clancy said that he would no longer agree to movies based on his novels.
"Why would you line your refrigerator with lead?"
Probably the same reason we painted our walls with it lol
Still putting it in planes too
Lead is perfectly safe as long as you dont inhale/ingest it.
That American Assassin scene was so ridiculous. I saw some of these shots, and I was just like "PFFFT, what is THAT?"
Thanks Greg and team - that was informative and entertaining. In the past, I've been lucky enough to visit both LLNL and LANL.
Giving oppenheimer a 7 is crazy, thats at least a 9
Sum of all Fears probably has the most accurate depiction of a nuclear detonation.
Not quite... The hospital perspective: Flash followed by an immediate shockwave. Not realistic at all. If you were that close, you'd be vaporized.
The atmosphere isn't normally conductive. So usually there are no currents of any size in he atmosphere. However, during a nuclear expolsion, an EMP is generated in a process called Compton scattering. The high energy radiation of the explosion ionizes air and rapidly seperates charges, which in turn creates an electric field that propagates through the atmosphere and can induce currents in conductors like basically all our electronics, except glass fibers.
If I hadn't have done law and economics, I would have done nuclear physics second. Sometimes, I regret not doing it! It's just so interesting! Definitely bring him back! I'm surprised you did not give him the 'Sum of all Fears' or 'Steel Rain', the latter which shows an ICBM launch.
Oppenheimer is the best movie I’ve ever seen that I have absolutely no desire to watch again. In other words, it’s a Christopher Nolan movie.
Greg is lovely. Absolutely fascinating. Please bring him back for more.
I love when grandpa coolly, and distinctly, describes the factual inaccuracies portrayed in film of the most horrifying device constructed by human beings besides roombas. You can't trust roombas, they're up to something.
Surprised you didn’t have him react to the scene from Terminator 2. I heard it is considered the most realistic portrayal of a nuclear bomb detonation in a city.
The fact that you didn't include the Terminator 2 nuclear bomb shows how little the producers of this show know or care.
I like how the helicopter exploded from two separate areas just by scraping the ground
Yeah it's like when in the movies they shoot at the windshield and you end up with the fireball of a nuclear explosion...
Hollywood loves explosions and fire due to how visual they are. If it can explode it will no matter how unlikely it actually would be irl.
I have learned more from this man about Nuclear weapons than anyone I have ever seen.
These are all great, but this one was one of the really good ones. I love listening to experts talk about their areas of expertise.
Such a great episode. He did Dr. Strangelove dirty though.. The movie is so realistic in its depiction of the nuclear paranoia of the Cold War and the concept of the doomsday device definitely merits some style points.
Lead lined refrigerators are actually vet common for storing radio isotopes for use in medicine/science etc. There was actually a lead lined King Cool brand fridge installed in one of the houses in Doom Town for the detonation in 1957 as shown in Indiana Jones
They were also just extremely common period during that time. Lead was in *everything* it was treated like a miracle metal for a while. I was pretty appalled that a guy his age seemed to have zero knowledge about lead lined refrigerators. He assuredly had one as a kid.
@@wolfiemuse Why would something like that appall you?
Lead assuredly was not in everything in the 50s. Its toxicity was already extremely well understood at the time and any lingering use of it in things like leaded petrol or lead crystal was more a product of willful misinformation on the part of chemical engineering companies who falsely reassured people that they were in stable or non-toxic compound form. The Surgeon General's office already knew from as early as 1925 that tetraethyl lead was horrendously toxic, but their panel was dominated by industrial lobbyists so they suppressed that info. Similarly lead paint was officially outlawed in 1978 but was already well understood as toxic and begun to be phased out by the 1950s. It certainly could not be taken for granted that you'd just find lead in everyday appliances like a household fridge by the mid-1950s; if anything the thing was more likely covered in lead paint on the outside!
@@hafor2846 actually appalls me that, after looking into that, yeah - lead *was* in everything, but I can’t find much on how common it was in fridges in the 40s-50s. From what I can tell, It’s super common for sciencey/medical fridges to be lead lined, but they’re usually the size of a mini fridge. But as far as I can tell, you’d likely have had more lead in your home’s water lines in the 40-50s than in your fridge. So TECHNICALLY there was lead in your fridge… just in the water, leached from pipes lol. However, I couldn’t find anything saying that they weren’t common - maybe I just didn’t use the right search terms but I couldn’t find an exact answer from a reputable source; and to be fair, it wasn’t until the 1930s that **sulphur dioxide** as a refrigerant changed…. Lol
@@wolfiemuse Insulation was poor, cooling machinery was small and inefficient, and lead was dirt cheap. That's why lead-lined fridges proliferated; it's DENSE. It resists being warmed, so placing a layer inside the insulation means you've got this extra mass that's resisting getting warmed up while you have the door open.
Basically it exists to smooth out the temperature swings from use. That's why it's still found in scientific coolers, because it keeps the temperature more consistent.
Remember, post-WWII you had industrial spindown and de-armament, as well as salvage. Lead bullets, lead solder, lead batteries, lead ballast, lead left over in the supply chain, lead lead lead. thousands of tons of lead, waiting for a use, until the extra ran dry in 1948 and the price tripled to 18 cents a pound. Manufacturers would have used up what they bought while switching to post-war technologies, so they persist to the 50's.
Please bring him back! This was great! I am curious how much damage a Nuke is capable of doing in space now. Are they ineffective as a possible defense against asteroids?
Did you even watch this? He talked about that directly.
I would interested to hear what he thinks of Threads. What I think is probably the most realistic portrayal of a nuclear apocalypse.
I’m disappointed not many people outside of the UK knows this film, it’s the most disturbing ever
No movie haunts me like Threads.
Aniara is a close 2nd but Threads, and The Day After, stick with me.
@@andresf1984 well they made hellot of job shaving it under rug,... since it was not good for general narative,.... great movie thou...
Totally agree about Threads. I was fourteen when I first watched it. It preyed on my mind for days. Rwal nightmare fuel
Great movie. I wish it was known better. Speaking of great nuclear bomb movies, there is also Fat Man and Little Boy, which is imho a magnitude better than Oppenheimer.
No the sum of all fears ? I think that is one of the best movie nukes
My husband was Fred Vaslows care taker for him and his wife for years until they passed away two years ago in Oak Ridge TN he worked on the bomb I also got to in the Army to go to white sands New Mexico and visit the site of the first test looking back now knowing everything Fred told me they did the impossible during a impossible time
This guy giving 7/10 without actually mentioning why he took 3 points off
The Expanse have some outer space nuke detonation, which I thought was weird at first, but after hearing his explanation of how space nuke would look like, is probably somewhat realistic
I think The Expanse got nukes right though,
It's just a flash then it's over.
There is no shockwave nor medium for thermal exchange to happen unless it hits a ship directly.
The main threat of a nuke in space would be the radiation emitted.
Expanse has the most accurate momentum physics in all of Sci-fi. Wouldn't be surprised if the nukes were realistic as well
@@krishanuphukan80 yes, other than the protomolecule stuff, their realism level is through the roof
There's something fascinating about watching a nuclear scientist speak so calmly and intelligently about the known effects when the basic building blocks of matter split apart.
Oh hey Broken Arrow! I loved that movie as a kid for some reason.
Really interesting to hear about what nukes would be like in space.
And terrifying to think it will probably happen one day. Luckily we still haven’t lived to see it.
I mean, they kinda are less dangerous up there, so if you have to do it, do it up there.
His immediate reaction to American assassin was perfect. Reminds me of what my teachers told me in school
Just watched Oppenheimer last night, I thought it was a very well done movie. The one thing I would have added is right at the detonation of the Trinity test, they should have had a wide-angle shot of the entire valley, with the tower sitting in the middle, just this tiny little illuminated thing in the middle of complete darkness, then it detonates and the entire valley is illuminated for a second or two.
They would have had to light an entire valley
@@RealFemale69 They could have done it with CGI, and it would only have to be a two or three second shot before they cut away to a close-up of the explosion and scientists watching.
@@LordOwenLongstriderthat would be breaking Nolan's #1 rule in filmmaking
@@Not-ElBarto Batman- "I only have one rule." Joker- "And tonight you're gonna break your one rule."-- The Dark Knight
@@LordOwenLongstrider damn 😂 got me there
Interesting. Didn't know that a nuke had to be detonated high enough to have its EMP disrupt signals and electronics.
One nitpick I have about the test towns depicted in instances like Crystal Skull or Black Ops is that they are *way* overbuilt for the tests that they were conducting with the paved roads, concrete sidewalks, grass lawns and a lot of mannequins in the open so close that they were going to be incinerated anyway.
In real tests, they build the same house at increments further and further away like the one-story house close in that flies apart while the furthest one was so unshaken that the lights were still on which reminds me that they *did* test how utilities would fare like power lines and radio broadcast.
As for mannequins, they were placed *much* further away to test the effects of clothing material, color, and even how skintight the clothes were for absorbing and burning the skin underneath from the initial thermal pulse (take, for example, the burns on a woman in Hiroshima caused by the pattern of her kimono).
Another nitpick with American Assassin this time: how was there not a *single* Wilson cloud forming during all of that? Even the shot in Operation Wigwam that was much further down than Baker generated a Wilson cloud above the hypocenter that was formed from the shockwave reflecting off of the underwater topography.
This is one of my favorites of this series. Greg was great, informative and entertaining.
Doomsday devices aren't a Hollywood invention; they are hypothetical devices that have been discussed seriously, starting in the 50s.
Is Dead Hand not a doomsday device? And real?
@@mjrodriguez2025Dead Hand isn’t a doomsday device in the strict sense of Dr. Strangelove.
1. A Dead Hand system can be switched on and off by the High Command of the nation using the system. A Doomsday Device goes off by any attempt to turn it off or defuse it.
2. Depending on the philosophy of the user, Dead Hand either triggers an automatic launch of a retaliatory strike, or “merely” sends the command to the silos, bombers and submarines. Which could make a small difference. A Doomsday Device is fully automatic, human action is neither necessary nor possible or desired.
3. The purpose of the Dead Hand system is to deter a specific attacker, ensuring a retaliatory strike. A large scale nuclear war would of course lead to a huge amount of fallout and perhaps even a nuclear winter. But e.g. Australia and New Zealand would with high probability remain habitable, along with southern Africa and South America. The Doomsday Device on the other hand is designed to create such an amount of lasting fallout that survival is only possible deep underground, with facilities for energy production, grow crops, etc., completely independent from the surface (maybe except for solar panels), until the radioactive fallout has decayed. The purpose is to deter every possible attacker, whoever he may be.
4. Depending on the accuracy and number of first-strike weapons, survivability of both those weapons against counter-measures and their respective targets, and of the quality of the available intel, there is at least a small possibility that a first strike takes enough second-strike weapons out that the retaliation of the Dead Hand could be deemed acceptable. A Doomsday Device will go off when it detects a strike against it, so there is no hope to escape it.
5. A Dead Hand system depends on the amount of nukes that it can deploy successfully against an attacker. So it needs a relatively high number of nukes, together with their delivery systems and protecting them against a successful attack. A Doomsday Device depends only on the reliability of the sensors that triggers it, either in case of an attack against itself or its nation. It consists only of a small number of powerful nukes together with some material to create a large amount of long-living highly radioactive fallout and sending it into the stratosphere to engulf the earth in a deadly radioactive cloud. So it is comparatively much, much cheaper.
6. A Doomsday Device is highly vulnerable against suicide terrorist attacks, since one of it main components is to go off an attempts to defuse it. So it has to be protected at all costs against madmen doing that. A Dead Hand System has of course also be protected against attempts to disarm it, but those don’t have to trigger automatically a strike.
What exactly are the inaccurassies in the Oppenheimer scene that justify a 7? I'm not claiming that the depiction is 100% correct but he didn't point out any inaccuracy.
What about the scene in The Iron Giant where the Giant tanks the bomb to save his friends?
Wait! No Terminator 2 and no Barefoot Gen? Seriously. The two most shocking atom bomb scenes in movie history and they didn’t include them?
Nobody's going to talk about the film the day after or Terminator 2 nuke scene
I paused the video so many times just to listen to what he is explaining and wrapping my head around all that. Very interesting.
Stanley Kubrick is so funny and smart, he knew that the scene of the nuclear explosion will be dissected in the future, so he used the real footages 😂 no one can criticize the authenticity
“and that would be a bad thing” is the most understated thing I’ve ever hear!😂
I must be a nuclear bomb because my girlfriend always tells me that I last 10 to 20 microseconds
Greg was referring to the flash of light only.
Surely, your thermal pulse, shock wave and radiation after effects has a longer time frame of pleasure!
My favourite part about the Oppenheimer bomb detonation was seeing Feynman in the jeep without any goggles because the Jeep's windshield blocked the UV radiation and he wanted to see the blast with his bare eyes, apparently in real life he was the only person who saw it with their bare eyes.
It's not explained in the movie, but his autobiographies talk about his time at the Manhattan project a lot and it frequently matches what we do see of him in Oppenheimer
I think it’s funny that, for virtually every scene, he gives a proper and detailed explanation as to why what is happening either would or wouldn’t happen, but at 12:18 he just says “I’ve never seen that before, where did they even come up with that.”
My dad used to work at LLNL. I think I remember seeing this guy! Thanks for the memories❤
While the “Doomsday Machine” was not a real thing, it was a real idea suggested by Herman Kahn at the RAND corporation in the 1950’s. However this was done in jest to try and convince the Air Force that their “all out” war plan in an age of Soviet retaliation was no different than a “Doomsday Machine” - though Kahn did figure out on paper the device was technically possible. One of director Kubrick’s main sources for the script was Kahn’s book “On Thermonuclear War”.
The Soviet Union made the "Dead Hand" system which is essentially the doomsday machine.
There absolutely is a Doomsday Machine. It was an episode of Star Trek TOS.
Similar idea though not fully automatic like the Strangelove machine - “Dead Hand” is semi-automatic and manually turned on during times of crisis.
This is easily the best of the analysis series of videos presented by Insider. That's all to do with the sober analysis of Dr. Spriggs, who cogently deconstructs every detail in every scene, leaving no [radioactive] stone unturned. Does his knowledge crosswalk to any other subjects? We need more of his kind.
This was a great video, but come on, Dr. Strangelove is 11/10 on all counts! Best movie about nuclear weapons ever made.
10/10 portrayal of a nuclear physicist
Here's something I've always wondered about. In two movies, that I know of, Fail Safe and The Day After, we see the fission bomb effect of bodies being x-rayed and their bones visible. At least I believe that it's only a fission effect, please correct me if I'm wrong. But in each case 20 megaton fusion bombs have been detonated. Wouldn't the fireball from a thermonuclear bomb of that size be larger than the entire fission bomb effects radius? And if so, would things like x-rayed bodies be visible?
While I can't comment on x-ray effects actually happening and the sort there is one thing about the size of that effect vs fireball. Xrays(and all other EM waves) travel at the speed of light while a fireball or any shockwave would even right next to the blast move at maybe a few multiples of the speed of sound(no idea what the exact number would be). So a xray effect could be there simply before the more physically destructive forces arrive and wipe the stuff out.
Good point, sort of like the lag that lets a fission powered laser work.@@frosthammer917
Nobody:
Christopher Nolan: Understands nuclear weapons better then any director.
No Threads?
Sad they didn't include "The Day After"
The Soviet Union created "Dead Hand" which is essentially the doomsday Machine from Dr. Strangelove.
There's not a lot of credible info on what "Dead Hand" is or how it works. It _could_ be something like the Dr. Strangelove doomsday machine, but the fact that it never went off by accident, e.g. in the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, makes me doubt that it's automatic. Also, salted cobalt bombs are a stupid idea & probably haven't ever been deployed IRL. So whatever dead hand is it's likely different from the doomsday machine in important ways
@@nathansmith3608 Agreed, it could be as simple as the Prime Ministers Letter that are carried on UK ballistic missile submarines, which basically is if they stop hearing Radio 4 and can't contact higher they are to open the letter and carry out the orders inside of it. _Technically_ that is a doomsday weapon.
Came looking for this. Dude is pretty smart, but not up-to-date on his doomsday devices. It's not really like the machine from Strangelove. It's not a 100-years-of-fallout salted dirty weapon. I believe it's just a way to cause an automatic launch of some/many/most/all of Russia's ICBMs if suddenly they are cut off from command and control and other sensors detect Russia has been attacked. Probably. Maybe. There are some lovely gory details about a rocket being launched to trigger it, and said rocket flies across the length of Russia sending radio signals to order the launches.
Type of dude who can effortlessly explain stuff at a bonfire that will cause everyone to lean in with their mouth wide open.
Hold up, help me please! On the Avengers clip, he notes that there wouldn't be a shockwave, and that thermal would disappate incredibly fast. Those are the biggest things nukes are used for, so based on this updated information, would nuclear weapons be any good and/or better than conventional explosives in a space conflict? He talked about what was wrong, but not what real damage from a space nuke would potentially be.
I'm pretty sure I played some 4x game that had nuclear torpedoes as an option back in the day, lol. I need answers XD
You would either need to land direct hits or rely on the radiation flux sterilizing the vessel from all life within it. Fragmentation warheads like they are used in conventional surface to air and air to air missiles would be just as effective and cheaper, because perforating a space vessel is lethal enough.
Yes and no, in vacuum 100% of the nuclear weapons energy goes into radiation (unless a direct hit, which is very very very difficult to do in space given distances and the speeds). So the problem is that yes the radiation still has the same energy as in surface, and it's going destroy (transfer very much energy to) nearby ships. However as the radiation goes out in a bubble, a lot of that energy is not directed to the target. There are concepts for nuclear shaped charges that would direct the radiation energy more to a cone than a bubble, but those studies are still classified so there is no way of knowing how effective and efficient they are.
Back to your original question: chemical explosions could be more effective given that they can be used to create a cloud of high speed shrapnel, specially if the bus delivering the warhead is fast too. Shrapnel can also be some what mitigated with a whipple shields. But as it it takes time and Delta V to accelerate into high speeds, in close range nuclear weapons could be more effective. Also hauling weapons across space takes a lot of Delta V, so the best weapon might be the one that weighs only a little and most surely delivers a lot of energy to the target, be it radiation, heat or kinetic. RUclips channel Spacedock has a lot of cool videos about (theoretical) space weapons, you should check it out if interested!
So yes if close enough the target would take in a lot of heat, and probaly/likely melt, which could cause secondary explosions. In vacuum explosions wouldn't be as slow as in atmosphere, as the gases would quickly expand to vacuum of space. And from distance explosions would be silent, but when shockwave of dissipating passes over, one would hear a high pitched sound due to the vacuum, not deep bass in atmosphere.
My understanding is that you lose most of the enhanced effects you would get in atmosphere (like thermal radiation and pressure waves) but nuclear weapons are still plausuble in SF space combat as they provide more explosive force in a smaller weapon than conventional chemical explosives. In other words, even ignoring the fact that it's a nuclear explosion, a nuclear weapon would be way more powerful than any conventional weapon of similar size and weight.
In reality though, I think any near-future space combat would be conducted with some kind of large-diameter compressed-gas kinetic weapon, basically a giant BB gun. Eliminates all the risks of having flammable/explosive munitions on board a (probably) oxygen-rich environment. Further down the road, maybe a magnetic gauss-type weapon. Will come down to whether it's easier to haul around a bunch of big gas tanks, or generate and store enough power for the weapon. Either way, your projectile does not need to be aerodynamic, and with the fragility of spacecraft, it also doesn't need to be large or explosive. Only in Star Wars do you need to blow up an entire ship to kill it. In real life, imagine stitching up the ISS with a few dozen 2-inch diameter aluminum cylinders moving at 2500 fps. Any breach of the pressure hull, any hit to life support or critical power or propulsion systems, even a glancing shot to one of the engine bells could be enough to brick the ship or at least get you a mobility kill.
Nuclear weapons are plausible in space, but IMO still far-fetched enough that they belong in SF. If I had to guess what a real space conflict would look like, I'd put my money on non-chemically-propelled kinetic weapons for the foreseeable future.
@@its_cleanDirect hits with nuclear weapons across space would be exceedingly difficult which is why thought has been put in to utilise the nuclear energy as a power source rather than a big explosive weapon.
Think Casaba howitzers or nuclear pumped lasers.
Not gonna lie, I kinda like this format more. Very informal and laid back.