I am not a nuclear weapons expert, but have done considerable research relative to the probable effects of a nuclear exchange on those living at and near ground zero.
Nuclear devices fall into several categories. The most basic (and weakest) are single-stage fission devices. When these devices detonate, conventional explosives are utilized to create a supercritical mass, and an "initiator" causes a neutron flux that bombards the supercritical mass with neutrons, thereby initiating the fission chain reaction that releases gamma rays, x-rays, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. The result is the formation of a massive fireball, which grows in diameter extremely rapidly and which acts as a piston, pushing air away from the center of the fireball (the immediate shock wave is referred to as a hydrodynamic front, and it is due to the fact that the hydrodynamic front forms first within the fireball and then expands until it obscures the fireball, that such a detonation results in a "double-pulse" of light).
Two such improvised devices were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, causing utter devastation. However, many people survived, despite being exposed to considerable doses of radiation.
More "sophisticated" devices, commonly referred to as "thermonuclear" devices, utilize a fission reaction (i.e. the power of a single-stage weapon) to induce a fusion reaction. Without getting too technical, the fissile material is compressed inwards by high explosive, resulting in the formation of a supercritical mass; the intiator then creates the neutron flux necessary to initiate the fission reaction, which in turn generates sufficient heat and pressure to induce a fusion reaction of the surrounding, fusile material. The so-called "ablation" design causes half of the fusile material to blow outwards, creating pressures that cause the other half of the fusile material to implode into the fission reaction, which in turn initiates a fusion reaction of terrible power. Such a double-staged weapon is much more powerful than a single stage weapon.
The worst of the bombs (utilizting the so-called "Teller-Ulam" design) add a third, fission stage to the process, and it is these bombs that scatter radioactive debris over a massive area.
However, it is the type of radiation that is important in estimating mortality and morbidity. Most detonations involving a nuclear exchange would probably involve so-called "airbursts" (in which the fireball never touches the ground). An airburst does not kick up a huge cloud of radio-contaminated dust, soot, earth, and rubble (as does a ground burst). Most of the radiation is released in the form of soft x-rays, which are rapidly absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere. The remainder of the radiation takes the form of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and most of the fallout has a rapid half-life (the time it takes for the amount of radioactive material to decay to half of the original amount). Gamma radiation can travel through several feet of concrete, and it is this type of radiation that incapacitates and kills people who survive the overpressure and the thermal pulse.
In a full-blown nuclear war between two superpowers, most of the detonations would take the form of airbursts. People close to ground zero who are not shieled from the gamma radiation, or who come into contact with contaminated dust particles (through eating or breathing), will almost certainly die within hours. People who are shielded would be able to emerge after three or four days. Unfortunately, most people would not know the direction of the prevailing winds, and would not be able to escape the fallout from a three-stage weapon.
However, people living a considerable distance away from the targets would probably survive, since alpha radiation and beta radiation rapidly decays, and gamma radiation does not travel vast distances. So much would depend on whether or not there were grounbursts (which would kick up contaminated dust, soot, and debris).
I know that the above sounds incredibly detached, dry, and insensitive. However, I am trying to explain an extremely emotionally upsetting scenario in terms which can be understood.
All of this is academic, however. The emotional power of "Testament" does not turn on the theoretical accuracy of the plot background. It turns on the assumption of the worst possible case -- always a wise assumption to make in cases such as this, when so much is at stake -- combined with a harrowing account of life in a world where the future has disappeared in a blaze of white light. Jane Alexander deserved the Oscar for which she was nominated. Why she did not receive it, I will never understand....
Philip Chandler
reply
share