Talk:High-altitude nuclear explosion

message: ...is horrendously written.  Here's what it says:
:The radiation dose rate was at least 60 rads/day at four months after Starfish for a well-shielded satellite or manned capsule in a polar circular earth orbit [3], which caused NASA concern with regard to its manned space exploration programs.
Clearly it isn't written correctly.  I was going to delete it because I couldn't figure out what it's actually saying, but I just wanted to give you guys the heads up so maybe you could fill in. 162.84.165.244 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence in paragraph 5... 

message: I was not able to find information about any other nation testing nuclear weapons in space. However, I am not certain this is true. Anyone know different?  aa  v ^ 15:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the only nation to... 

message: I'm curious as to what sort of long term damage to the ozone layer has all of this testing caused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.227.5 (talk • contribs) 
:It did less damage than concorde!  The gamma radiation released in all ATMOSPHERIC nucleas bomb tests PRODUCE LOADS OF OZONE by ionizing air near the bomb!  After the air "shocks up" (which occurs after the major prompt gamma ray emission) the blast wave produces some nitrogen oxides, eg nitrogen dioxide produces the dark fire-like rust-colour of the fireball you see in films of tests.  The 1970s it was widely believed (FALSELY) that the ozone damage by nitrogen oxides was the only mechanism that the bomb acts on the ozone layer.  This was proved to be a lie when it was disclosed in the 1980s that secret measurements of nuclear test radiation spectra showed severe ozone PRODUCTION in the fireball.  Actually, Dr Harold Brode of RAND Corp had included a declassified curve showing gamma ray caused ozone cutoff on the thermal spectra back in his 1968 "Review of Nuclear Weapons Effects" in the Annual Review of Nuclear Science, vol. 18, pages 153-202.  Nobody cares or publishes when nuclear exaggerations and hoaxes exposed or corrected , so people go on pretending nuclear weapons somehow damage the environment in some way, despite the beauty and low residual racioactivity (near background) of Nevada test site, Eniwetok, Bikini, etc after two hundred megatons.  It is all crackpottery for money by cynical politically-prejudiced morons.  Hope this answers your questions!  ;-) Nigel 172.202.252.91 13:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to use the term "whiny liblet", but I decided not to feed the trolls. Your answer is far more thorough (and correct!) than mine would have been. Thank you. ... aa:talk 15:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ozone

message: The image used on Supernova (of Kepler's supernova) looks strikingly like some of the nuclear explosions (such as the bluegill III shot). Is this because of some dynamic of vacuum- (or low-gravity) explosions? That is, is it superficial, or is there some structure to the phenomenon? ... aa:talk 18:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  curious 

message: Please reference this discussion and post responses there. Squideshi 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was referring to the Soviet bomb. And it was "tested in the atmosphere" meaning that it was not tested underground, underwater, or in outer space. It was not tested high-altitude (they wouldn't have been able to get a rocket to lift it that high anyway at that point!). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  100MT US Bomb Tested in Atmosphere? 

message: There was a very big flash of light in Siberia near Iekaterinburg on Nov 14, 2014. It was recorded on two separate video footages (at least). There were articles on the international press. It was seen as a meteoritical event and quickly forgotten.
However, no meteorite was to fall on Earth that day. The Russian military said it was an on ground event, an explosion in a warehouse. But there was no earthquake, no sound, no shockwave. The CTBTO confirmed to me (I called their PR division) there was nothing recorded by their receptors on that day in the area (they would have told me if they had, because I claimed to them there was a nuclear test in space and such a finding would have disqualified my claims).
The CTBTO has no proper mean of watching for HANEs. They do not have satellites, they rely on the US military for that (bilateral agreement). I have doubts on the full aptitude of the US network post Cold War to watch for HANEs (budgetary cuts were planned by the Air Force regarding SABRS, Space Atmospheric Burst Reporting System).
There was a missile defence conference planned 3 days after the event in the same city of Iekaterinburg, by the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the "Russian NATO". The point of the event was probably a test of ICBM interception with a nuclear warhead, in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. Why would have Russia explicitely lied (since the hypothetical on ground explosion did not cause any sound or earthquake) if it wasn't to hide something they did ?
Note that the test did not cause an EMP because it happened at night. There is no ionosphere except at very high altitudes by night so it is possible to make a "stealth" HANE by detonating it not too high.--FlorentPirot (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Discovery Network's Science Channel on their show Strange Evidence, Season 2 America's Loch Ness Monster, videos of the November 14, 2014 light did not exhibit any of the interference artifacts characteristic of the EMP effect associated with HANEs. While the show's creators did not draw definite conclusions about the light, they eliminated the possibility of it being a HANE. - Srwalden (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The flash of light in Siberia on November 14, 2014 

message: I made a baby intro. Please help. Add appropriate info so that we're not diving straight into EMP & nanoseconds. nuclear weapons testing is well-written & has a legit intro that gives needed context before it starts dropping hard-core science on the reader. Plenty of other articles around this topic are already probably well-formed. Not sure why this one's an outlier when it comes to giving orbust context in the intro. A good intro will help define the purpose & scope of the article. thanks. skakEL 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  need proper intro