Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
The U.S. and New Zealand collaborated on a top-secret plan to develop a 'tsunami bomb' capable of devastating coastal cities, it has emerged.

The countries carried out covert tests of the potential weapon of mass destruction - designed to use underwater explosions to trigger huge tidal waves - in waters around Auckland and the Pacific island of New Caledonia during the Second World War.

Details of the secretive operation, code-named Project Seal, were discovered in military files buried in New Zealand's national archives by author and film-maker Ray Waru.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256003/U-S-New-Zeal...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256003/U-S-New-Zeal...


Why worry about nukes and other things when Asian countries can start wiping out entire cities with conventional explosives.....so said the experts in New Zealand......

And if bjp's projections of global resource wars occurs, the folks living 2 feet above sea levels have lots of other things to worry about. Just like the Al Queda load up a truck with five tons of explosives to blow down entire blocks.....or try it with the WTC 20 years ago........just load up a ship with five million pounds of high explosives and take out a city of a million or more quickly.....

Any sea rise will be a 'bonus' to the effort.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
just load up a ship with five million pounds of high explosives and take out a city of a million or more quickly....

If a standard shipping container will hold some 64,000 pounds, that would be the equivalent of less than 100 containers. Any old small feeder container ship could be used and sailed to LA, San Francisco, New York, London or Rotterdam. Once close it could be sunk and exploded....

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If a standard shipping container will hold some 64,000 pounds, that would be the equivalent of less than 100 containers. Any old small feeder container ship could be used and sailed to LA, San Francisco, New York, London or Rotterdam. Once close it could be sunk and exploded....


I don't see how this would be more effective than sailing a containership with 2 kilotons of explosives into the harbour and exploding it there.
I believe a "tsunami bomb" is only interesting in wartime, when you CAN'T sail into the enemy harbour.
Even then, it would require a level of air superiority that would make it possible to bomb the enemy city at will.
I'm not entirely certain a tsunami bomb really makes any kind of sense.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A tsunami bomb would take out all the shipping out of that port......all of it located close in. Stop it dead in its tracks.

Would be very effective.

Or how about a submarine operated by Al Queda on a suicide mission.....into the Washington DC/Baltimore area? Or Los Angeles....
or even a regular passenger ship......just 'sailing' across the ocean, laden with five million pounds of explosives......and sunk five miles off shore and exploded...


hmmmm..

Now would you care to estimate how much of Miami could be wiped out in a terrorist attack?


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
In 1955, the US Navy exploded a nuclear bomb underwater in Operation Wigwam. This test was conducted only 500 miles from San Diego, California. The purpose of the test was not to create a tsunami, but to study the effects of underwater nuclear blasts on submarines. The test did produce surface waves that spread out over a wide area, but no tsunamis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wigwam

Also from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_explosion

During the Cold War, underwater explosions were thought to operate under the same principles as tsunamis, potentially increasing dramatically in height as they move over shallow water, and flooding the land beyond the shoreline. Later research and analysis suggested that water waves generated by explosions were different from those generated by tsunamis and landslides. Méhauté et al. conclude in their 1996 overview Water Waves Generated by Underwater Explosion that the surface waves from even a very large offshore undersea explosion would expend most of their energy on the continental shelf, resulting in coastal flooding no worse than that from a bad storm.
--------------------------------------------------

I think the only way a "tsunami bomb" could work is if it triggered an underwater landslide large enough to produce a tsunami. But there would be no way of ensuring such an explosion would produce the desired effects.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think the only way a "tsunami bomb" could work is if it triggered an underwater landslide large enough to produce a tsunami. But there would be no way of ensuring such an explosion would produce the desired effects.

And for a entertaining look at the physics involved with trying to create a tsunami through explosives:

http://what-if.xkcd.com/15/

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Baker test at Bikini in 1946.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvjmsU48TSc
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think the only way a "tsunami bomb" could work is if it triggered an underwater landslide large enough to produce a tsunami.

Baker Test of Operation Crossroads in the Bikini Islands was a 29-kiloton nuke exploded 90' underwater. It produced a 100' wave at 300 meters and 15' waves at 6 km. Such effects would be highly dependent upon the geometry to the harbor and, of course, the dynamics of a large conventional explosion are somewhat different than a small nuclear device.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You want a directional effect. Wave building on wave. A sequence of explosions timed correctly, in a line with your target.
Print the post Back To Top