In the face of China and Russia, the secret that the United States is hesitant to leave is in this building!

The Russia Ukraine war has been fought for nearly a year, and Russia has been threatening nuclear weapons, but it has never fired a nuclear bomb. It can not help but be questioned that the possession of nuclear weapons has always been squeezed and encouraged by NATO to fight at home. Is this nuclear weapon a braggart? Assuming that Russia has 10000 nuclear weapons in stock, according to historical data, when nuclear weapons explode on the plains, the instantaneous killing range is about 6 kilometers in diameter, and the auxiliary killing range is less than 20 kilometers in diameter, which is the size of two or three towns. That is to say, Russia has 10000 projectiles to hit all these 10000 nuclear bombs on the target, which should only cause the earth to lose 20000 towns in plain areas instead of mountains, There should be at most 10000 towns. According to the average 20 towns and villages in a county, about 1000 counties can be bombed out. However, is the earth only as big as 1000 counties?

Obviously, the first problem identified is that Russia cannot destroy the earth, but nuclear weapons can bring another advantage - beheading explosion. If the head of a country is topped by a nuclear weapon, it doesn't matter whether he hides in a bunker or not. Even if it is a solid fortress 100 floors underground, nuclear radiation alone is enough to make people unable to get in and out.

There are specific data related to nuclear bomb damage, which are serious physics papers without any fictional elements. What I vaguely remember is:

Within 200 meters of the heart burst, all of them were vaporized, all of them died within three kilometers, only burned within five kilometers, and almost nothing happened 15 kilometers away. If the blocking effect of urban buildings is taken into account, it is basically OK to be more than one kilometer away under the protection of buildings. Therefore, the killing effect of nuclear bombs is indeed exaggerated, but in order to prevent easy war, exaggerating the role of nuclear bombs is also a matter of seeing through. In addition, the long-term radiation pollution following the nuclear bomb is also very troublesome.

So when no one can safely launch a war against a nuclear country, the value of nuclear weapons will appear. The equation of equivalence is: nuclear weapons ≠ destroy the earth, but nuclear weapons=100% accurate decapitation will kill. So Israel dares to kill in Gaza, but it is still the law of the jungle. Gaza has no nuclear weapons, and Israel dare not touch Gaza if there is a nuclear weapon in Gaza.

Besides, the nuclear bomb is a chicken in the current international situation. The reason why "little boy" and "fat man" could kill so many people in Japan was mainly because there was no effective early warning at that time, and most of the houses were wooden structures. Of course, the power of modern nuclear warheads is much greater than that of "little boys" with an equivalent of 15000 tons. For example, the W88 bomb of the US military has an equivalent of 475000 tons, 32 times the power of "little boys".

The Hiroshima Bank Building in the Hiroshima nuclear explosion in World War II is 380 meters away from the projection point of the explosion center, and the true oblique distance is 670 meters (the height of the explosion center is 550 meters). The result of the nuclear explosion shock wave is only shattered glass. After the war, the building was in normal use.

So, how far can the Hiroshima Bank Building in the above figure remain almost unscathed in the face of W88 attacks? Is it 32 times the real slant distance of 670 meters, i.e. 21.5 kilometers?

It certainly can't be converted in this way. Of course not. In fact, it only needs 2.1 kilometers, and the projection distance is 2 kilometers. As long as it is located two kilometers away, the reinforced concrete building can achieve the status of standing upright and intact exterior walls and structures in the picture. The reason why the result is so counter intuitive is that the power of the explosion shock wave is inversely proportional to the third power of the distance, and the attenuation rate with distance is amazing.

In other words, after the power is increased by 32 times, the effective destruction radius of the shock wave is only increased by 3.14 times; Power increased by 1000 times, and effective destruction radius increased by 10 times. Even if Ivan, the largest nuclear bomb in human history with an equivalent of 50 million tons, is dropped on Hiroshima, the Bank of Hiroshima can still remain intact 10 kilometers away.

That is to say, detonating the W88 of the United States in the super metropolis, combined with the distance measurement on the satellite map, after the equal expansion, it can only result in 3000
The degree of destruction is more than 4000 meters away, which means that I heard a sound.

Sometimes, I also think that reinforced concrete may also be the strategic means of some countries, unlike some countries in Northern Europe that are close to the Arctic Circle and can never fight, they can also build wooden houses and have a delicious life.

Hollywood would not take the initiative to publicize that the Bank of Hiroshima was 380 meters away from the nuclear explosion, but it was only blown through the glass by the shock wave of the nuclear bomb. Someone escaped the atomic bomb in the basement more than 100 meters away. It's propaganda
The whole city was razed to the ground.

But you should understand that the nuclear bomb is not as terrible as imagined. The more people are far away from the center of the regime, the less need to fear it.

The nuclear bomb is used for beheading.

In the scenario of full-scale nuclear war, the enemy's ballistic missiles and air launched/ship launched cruise missiles will have early warnings. In short, they will pull the air defense alarm, while the full-scale nuclear strike has a unique "melody". The high pitched siren will repeat three times in a short time, accompanied by high-frequency alarm sounds, which is extremely "hell", and the mobile phone will also receive alarms.

Therefore, it is better to say how powerful nuclear weapons are than to say that nuclear weapons have changed the logic of war, so that the originators of strategic wars can no longer stay away from the war by hiding in the rear. Most wars are watched by soldiers on the front line to die. Now nuclear weapons can cross the front line and kill the rear indiscriminately, so it is much more prudent to launch a war
。

You know the Cuban crisis. Yes, for NATO, the Russian crisis is the same. When I am poor and worried about being bombed by nuclear weapons and there is no way to escape, do you think that those dignitaries who live in heaven really want to take the initiative to provoke the atomic bomb?

They always say why the United States doesn't end up,
In fact, if there were no atomic bomb, you would have ended long ago. Without the "decapitation" weapon, you would be nothing.

So, generally speaking, it is nonsense to destroy the world with nuclear weapons, but after all, the world does not belong to the poor, so it is gradually portrayed that nuclear weapons can destroy the world. It seems that there is nothing wrong with it. Be careful, isn't it?