Probably not, the heat would vaporise the water creating a crater into which the walls of the crater is supported by the pressure wave. Once the pressure dissipates, the walls collapse and the water rushes in and is impacted on all sides, this would force the water into a column, which would rise up and then collapse again.
But a tidal wave is a wave that moves water from the sea floor to the surface, a nuclear detonation would not be able to do that.
2007-01-20 03:38:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by boobboo77 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
no or at least not in the sense of the Christmas Indonesia tsunami. first off where did the us navy test nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's ..... the south pacific several where done underwater with no ill effect in regards to making "waves". in order for a tsunami to be created you need (a.) a large landslide under or into the water or (b.) a large area of ocean floor gets uplifted all at once... either way the normal seismic causes of a tsunamis are many thousands of times larger in energy release than our largest nuclear weapons. even if "hypothetically" a LA class attack sub where to have all nuclear ordinances aboard detonate at the same time. (which unto itself is extremely unlikely) the blast wave itself would not generate a significant wave at more than 2000miles and even then the wave would be small. so basically unless the sub is near a large underwater landslide zone you need not worry bout your feet getting too wet.
matt
2007-01-20 12:03:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by matt h 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Not really. Tests have been performed where nukes were detonated underwater. What usually happens is a small tidal wave, which quickly evaporates into super hot steam as it moves outwards from the blast site.
2007-01-20 11:36:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The energy of a nuclear weapon is laughably small compared to that of an earthquake. Nonetheless, creating a tsunami with a submerged nuclear weapon (instead of an earthquake) just off shore of a major port has been suggested as being more destructive to the harbor facilities than a "traditional" air burst over it.
2007-01-20 11:52:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dr. R 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is it OK to answer a question with a question?
Would the shock wave emanated from the explosion be equated by the replacement by the surrounding water rushing in to fill he created void?
2007-01-20 12:16:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by olemerv2000 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
If when it went off was in the sub and set off the material in all 32 what u think.
2007-01-20 11:47:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by JOHNNIE B 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not a large one, if at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_explosion
2007-01-20 11:39:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by arbiter007 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No
2007-01-20 11:35:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Gaspode 7
·
3⤊
1⤋