/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6597918
The tornado would cease to be.

Nuclear tornado.

Hey /sci/...

What would happen if you tornadoed a nuke?

Could a tornado destroy one of these bad boys?

>>6597918
I would love to see a huge tornado filled with nuclear fire and winds filled with fallout.

That would top my oil-spill filled cyclone of burning death.

>>6597940
Oh well last sunday I ate a gamma ray burst when I was hung over, you can only imagine my diarrhoea after that

it's just pressure anyway.

had the nuke exploded right at the bottom of the tornado the tornado would just evaporate kind of how the clouds sort of dissappear during real nuke testing.

also are you in highschool because you sound like you are.

>>6597918
Nasa has some info page actually answering this exact question. Apparently tornados are much more powerful than nukes and nuking one wouldn't do shit to it, well, except make it radioactive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAyd4WnvhU

i wonder what would happen to a tornado if you fired a really big vortex cannon at it

what would happen if a volcano erupted while a tornado passed over it just as a gamma ray burst hit earth at the same time as a geomagnetic reversal occurred?

>>6598654
it would create a sun of ice, which in turn would collide instantly with our sun of lava.

What would happen if you nuked a black hole?

A white hole?

A nuke?

The moon?

Antarctica?

The sun?

Heaven?

>>6598703
A volcano?

The Earth's core?

Mars's core?

Uranus?

>>6598703
Or Jupiter?

Will all of the planet really explode?

Yes, this is real.

>>6597987
>implying nukes only come in one strength.

Pretty sure if you put a 100 megaton nuke next to a tornado it would get rekt.

>>6598703
Nothing.
Doesn't exist
An explosion with a force equal to their nukes power added together (assuming you detonated them both, if you just nuked a nuke that was just lying around, but didn't detonate it, it would just be a normal nuke blast)
Very very little.
Very little.
Nothing.
You'd kill God maybe. Irradiate all them angels and dead niggas

>>6598703
Nothingness would happen ; trust me on this , it is the absolute truth for I only speak the truth .

>>6598703
> What would happen if you nuked a black hole?
spaghettification
> A white hole?
a tiny blip
> A nuke?
a dirtier bomb
> The moon?
http://youtu.be/2PZDuPWi1KI?t=1m5s
> Antarctica?
nothing
> The sun?
boop
> Heaven?
Tokyo 3

>>6598719

i heard conventional intersteller space travel is impossible because4 all of the potentially explosive gases looming about in amount in clusters hundreds of miles long and general debris in space which would damage a space ship

>>6598759
White holes do exist you god damn nigger

>>6598703

>>6598752
The largest nuke ever was 50 megatons, and the average nuke is maybe 1 megaton. The only nukes that have been used in actual warfare were about 30 kilotons, i.e 0.03 megatons.

>>6598703
I can tell you listen to modest mouse and I frown upon that

Is this what /sci/ is about because this is bullshit.

>>6597987
I have trouble believing this.
Do you have a link to where you read that? I've tried googling it to no avail

>>6601156
I can't find it and it's driving me nuts.
iirc xkcd talked about it in one of his whatif's and I. can't. find. it.
It also might be some weather service.

>>6601150
They're having a laugh at the stupidity of this thread.

>>6600690
>The largest nuke ever was 50 megatons
That was a retarded shot. The third stage tamper was lead instead of the DU in the original design, that would have kicked the yield up over 100MT. Unfortunately, changing this would have taken it from the cleanest warhead ever exploded to the dirtiest.

>>6601239
I for one am glad the Russians showed some constraint.

>>6597918
The tornado would probably disperse. The pressure wave from a nuclear detonation is enormous and would likely disrupt the vortex so much that it would just fall apart. The vortex basically IS the tornado and if you don't have it you don't have a tornado.

A better question is would the heat and pressure from a nuclear blast significantly alter local weather. Like if you had a powerful supercell capable of producing tornadoes and a 20MT nuclear bomb was airbursted at 2000ft from the ground and 3000ft below cloud level then could it disperse the thunderstorm assuming cloud tops were at about 55,000ft?

Obviously, the tornado would be destroyed.

Tornadoes need a number of conditions to be met in order to form. Whatever pressure system that created it would be disrupted. Moisture would evaporate. Temperatures would skyrocket. A pressure wave would rip through it. An airburst would create immense downward pressure, and an updraft is required as part of the tornado's formation. A groundburst would still create a blast wave and high temperatures. You'd be introducing winds at over a thousand kilometers an hour into the system. Very hot winds.

You'd disperse the damned thing. The entire phenomenon would be disrupted by the forces you've introduced.

>>6601630
Would it create a gamma star?

>>6601643
Now you're just being facetious.

>>6597918
>Could an h-bomb destroy one of these bad boys?

Well, you would..umm..have a much larger problem on your hands

>>6597940
High yeild H-bombs don't have a fallout problem. The more hydrogen you stuff in there the more of the explosion will come from clean fusion and the more of the unburned Pu and U will get fissioned. The Tsar Bomba at the 100 megaton yield would have had almost no residual radiation.

>>6597987
Calling bullshit. The massive increase in pressure and temperature along the shockfront alone would be enough to completely disrupt the entire system.

>>6598974
Damn, I really need to watch that show

>>6601150
Sometimes stupid questions lead to genuinely interesting conversations.

We once had a 500 post thread discussing whether you could grill a steak via atmospheric reentry.

>>6597918
If you dropped a nuke in the vicinity of a Tornado, needless to say, it would stop the Tornado. And fuck up a lot of the other weather in the immediate area.

>>6601195
http://what-if.xkcd.com/23/
Second one.
>>6601156
It's talking about a hurricane NOT a tornado.
A tornado would be absolutely destroyed.

>>6602999
What show?

>>6597951
You know, if it weren't for the humidity and (obvious) wind issue, FAEs could definitely help during tornado outbreaks