Wired: scientists told where you can hide from the blast waveRussia and the United States possess so-called low-power nuclear weapons.
But it will also lead to massive destruction and cross a dangerous red line, writes Wired. The growing risks of the conflict in Ukraine have prompted scientists to simulate the consequences of a nuclear explosion.
Ramin Skibba (RaminSkibba)
In the blink of an eye, a nuclear warhead releases a destructive force of hundreds of kilotons in TNT equivalent. The resulting infernal blast wave instantly kills all living things in its path. And yet it is possible to survive, being at a distance of 3 to 10 km from the epicenter, if you are lucky to find a suitable shelter. This is the conclusion reached by the authors of one of the recent studies.
His supervisor Dimitris Drikakis, a hydrodynamic scientist from the University of Nicosia in Cyprus, was motivated by a desire to highlight the current risks of nuclear escalation and to study the chances of human survival if the unthinkable still happens. “People have forgotten about the devastating consequences of nuclear war. But now the discussions are resuming, because there is a possibility of a nuclear escalation in Ukraine,” says Drikakis. "I think this kind of research raises awareness among the general population that nuclear explosions are not a joke."
His non-optimistic study appeared just at the moment when the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists magazine, citing growing nuclear tensions, reported that the hands of the Doomsday clock had been moved forward, and now there are only 90 seconds left until the apocalyptic midnight, Scientists and artists came up with these metaphorical clocks to report on the risks associated with global problems caused by human activity, including climate change, but the main focus from the very beginning was on the risks of nuclear war.
Drikakis studied scientific studies on how the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons would look like, and found a gap: little is known about the impact on people hiding in rooms in a “moderate damage zone” at a distance of several kilometers from the epicenter, but it is far enough away that buildings do not fly to pieces. He and his colleague Ioannis Kokkinakis focused on this issue and recently published a corresponding study in the journal Physics of Fluids.
Nowadays, no one conducts nuclear weapons tests on buildings, so computer modeling is used in this kind of research. Drikakis and Kokkinakis simulated the effect of the explosion of a 750-kiloton warhead — and Russia has hundreds of even larger bombs in its arsenal — delivered by an intercontinental ballistic missile that will explode at an altitude of about three kilometers above the metropolis. They studied the impact of supersonic shock waves on a three-room concrete structure in a zone of moderate damage and concluded that the concrete is strong enough to withstand the pressure of an explosive wave of 1.5-2 kg per 6.5 square centimeters.
As the study showed, after the explosion of a nuclear bomb in a large modern city, there would indeed be survivors in the surrounding areas. From the moment of the initial outbreak, they will have only 5-10 seconds to get to a safe place. If they were lucky enough to be in a structure with thick concrete walls and a small number of holes like a bank or subway, they could survive by running into the farthest corner of the farthest room.
The fact of an enclosed space is extremely important, because, according to scientists, the explosive waves following the fireball can be even more dangerous and deadly than the explosion itself. Such a wave carries a special danger if a person is near a door or window, in a corridor or at the entrance to a room. The waves there rush by quickly, scattering people and objects like a storm inside the building.
(If you're wondering if it's realistic to survive a nuclear explosion inside a refrigerator, as Indiana Jones did in The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Drikakis says yes. But a strong blast wave can turn this refrigerator over and twist it.)
Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, a staff scientist and nuclear physicist at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, notes that if there are several other structures between the building you are in and the incoming flow of radioactive air, the shielding effect can reduce its speed and the forces involved. Hiding in the basement, you can avoid the worst consequences of the explosion. “Many people think that nothing can be done about it,” but this is not the case, he said.
But let's be honest: most people, even in a zone of moderate damage, will not survive. Hardly anyone lives and works in reinforced concrete buildings without windows or in the immediate vicinity of a concrete bunker. (Even inside the bank, the safest place is the vault, and those who hide in metro stations deep underground will be in the most advantageous position.) Most people live in panel and other unprotected buildings.
This should not be interpreted as a way to protect yourself in a nuclear explosion, says geologist and nuclear scientist Dylan Spaulding from the non-profit organization for the protection of scientific interests Union of Concerned Scientists. According to him, strong structures made of concrete with metal reinforcement, designed to ensure seismic safety, would withstand the pressure modeled by the team, whereas most traditional frame houses and brick structures would be destroyed without reinforcement.
He says that the blast wave is not everything. It poses the greatest danger even with a non—nuclear explosion - similar to the one that shook Beirut in 2020 due to improper storage of a large amount of combustible ammonium nitrate in the port of the city — and nuclear weapons also emit ionizing radiation and heat, which are invariably followed by radioactive fallout.
Exposure to radiation on the skin and lungs when inhaled can have many consequences, including burns, organ damage and cancer. The range of radiation exposure can cover tens of kilometers from the epicenter, so even survivors of the explosion begin to die later.
The example of Drikakis focuses on the so-called “strategic” nuclear weapons transported by ICBMs, but there are also “tactical” nuclear warheads that are dropped by aircraft on the battlefield and can explode on the ground. According to Spalding, such explosions occur in different ways, but can be no less deadly and destructive, exposing thousands of people to lethal doses of radiation.
Russia and the United States also possess so-called low-power nuclear weapons (from 5 to 10 kilotons), which is slightly less than the 15-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima. But it will also lead to massive destruction and cross a dangerous red line, leading to an escalation of the conflict with the use of more powerful weapons.
The most destructive weapon of mankind was used in wars only once, when at the end of World War II, the United States destroyed Japanese Hiroshima and Nagasaki with two atomic bombs. Together, they killed more than 100 thousand civilians and wounded many. With the exception of the experiments at the Nevada test site, they are the only real evidence of which structures can survive an atomic explosion and to what extent, says Spalding.
Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted that he did not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Although NATO did not use such threatening rhetoric, it conducted nuclear exercises in October, simulating the dropping of B61 nuclear bombs. In the nuclear policy review, President Joe Biden abandoned the moratorium on preemptive strike, which he had previously supported. Just imagine the nuclear risks in other conflicts: North Korea versus South Korea or Pakistan versus India.
According to the questionnaire of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the world's arsenals number about 12,700 warheads. Thanks to the arms reduction treaties, this is much less than the 70 thousand units that were recorded towards the end of the cold war. But since then, some of these agreements have been terminated, and the dangers have not disappeared, and the Doomsday clock clearly illustrates this.
This is not a game, says Drakakis. The risks of a devastating nuclear strike are all too real, he says: “We must maintain peace, fully aware of the risks of non-compliance.”
