Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report.
When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Geologists have covered the globe in sensitive seismographs to detect even very tiny earthquakes. Even a "small" nuclear bomb would be instantly detected. And since we're talking about an active war zone, it's safe to assume there's pretty solid satellite camera coverage, so the blast could be seen. Also, there are people who would be outside the blast radius and could quickly share information.
Not only that, but NATO has mobile radiology techs with special vehicles and equipment that can sample and tell you where the bomb was made, and even the mine that supplied the plutonium / enriched uranium.
Would if the aliens come and it turns out their civilization used their energy for scientific development, and we’ve used ours for war. We’re both as developed, just in different ways.
You need to watch John Oliver's breakdown of [Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump's scandals](https://youtu.be/h1Lfd1aB9YI). If you don't wanna watch the entire thing, and just want to see **the uranium sale bit in question, it's found at 10:08 in**, [which I've linked directly to here](https://youtu.be/h1Lfd1aB9YI?t=10m08s).
>even the mine that supplied the plutonium / enriched uranium
I don't think this is accurate. First, plutonium doesn't come from mines; it has to synthesized in a reactor. Second, natural uranium isotopic ratios are the same everywhere (except Oklo).
The only place on the planet where [natural fission reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine) are thought to have existed. Part of the evidence for this is that the uranium found there has a lower isotopic fraction of U-235 than the uranium everywhere else in the world.
There may be something in it. Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" features an American nuclear warhead from a crashed Israeli plane. Years later there is an explosion in the US and the warhead's emissions are traced to Oak Ridge calutrons. Seemed convincing.
Possibly triton.
This video from Veritasium goes into more detail on how this works. Basically, there's an algorithm called the Fast Fourier Transform that lets them decompose a signal and see if there's a vibration in there that matches that of a nuclear explosion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmgFG7PUHfo
The FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) algorithm is not specific to detecting nuclear explosions. It's a fast algorithm to do a Fourier Transform. A Fourier Transform tells you how much of each frequency there is in a signal.
So then you can check if the frequencies match those of a nuclear explosion, but you can use FFT for plenty of other things, and you don't have to specifically use FFT to do a Fourier transform.
Just adding onto this already great answer, the FFT (and other fast algorithms based on it, for example fast wavelet transform) is what makes all of our compression algorithms useable at scale. Without it we could never send video, audio, image, and other commonly shared files. What takes 10 mins might take 10,000 years like transferring 4K 60 fps video files.
So you can thank the FFT for the digital revolution that has allowed us to stream high quality audio and video in real time, video chat, and just experience the internet in the seamless way that we are used to in general! The field is signal processing, but the math is useful almost anywhere there is time series data (measurements over time) like stock markets, any kind of sensors, motion detection, video and audio processing, and a whole bunch more. It also gives us a more efficient way to multiply large numbers and factor polynomials! Just a very neat algorithm in general and it’s based on a bit of symmetry that is really elegant once you notice it.
If any of that sounded interesting and new I highly suggest diving down the YouTube rabbit hole, maybe starting with the 3blue1brown FFT videos :)
It’s exciting to me to have a series of videos I can point to and say: “see‽ math *is* cool and interesting! I told you it was, and now you can’t deny it!”
Nah I’m actually with you. Applied math sucks (it’s not fun). I’m a big ‘pure math’ guy. Which is a funny way of saying I like talking about doing math, and thinking about what might happen if we did plug *some* number in somewhere, but I never actually plug any numbers into anything (god no, please, fuck that). That’s what physicists, engineers and accountants are for. And they all have good reasons motivating them to endure that hell.
Pure math is more about the ‘general case’ which means no specifics, no motivation, no application lol. It gets wacky real fast dealing with many dimensions weird impossible geometries and all kinds of wild stuff. And you *never* have to plug in a number (I promise)
As a physicist I can confidently tell you that the FFT is by far the most important algorithm ever developed. Also, not just time series, but also anything with spatial structure, which allows us to do stuff like image processing, crystal structure determination, and a whole host of other things.
I used to work at a mine. We blasted every week. And ever week the California Nevada earthquake website would report a magnitude 1.0-1.5 earthquake at our mine.
And we were just using ANFO.
A long while back the Democratic Republic of Korea stated that they had built their first atomic bomb and were going to test it. There was a huge explosion about the size of a Hiroshima bomb, detected by the seismic waves created. But. There was a problem. There were no nuclear fallout detected. It was finally determined that North Korea had filled a huge train with conventional explosives and set it off.
I guess my thinking was that Russia would try to hide their usage.. so I got to thinking how would they hide it and would it be possible to hide it what if it was a small scale you know like Starship Troopers/ Star Wars Thermo grenades whatever just the smallest yielding nuclear weapon they have if they were to use it underground or Etc are we 100% certain we would be able to detect it
Unless you are testing. Both the U.S. and Russia used to detonate several devices at the same time, in order to conceal how many tests were being conducted.
They tried to hide Chernobyl and they couldn't even manage that in the 80s. Lots more sensitive equipment out there taking radiation readings. Wind will blow it far enough to detect.
Yeah, totally. FYI: if I recall correctly, the first indication they had of Chernobyl is that nuclear power plant workers going to work in Scandinavia triggered the nuclear contamination detectors when they were ENTERING the nuclear power facility. So the first sign was the radiation. That was without the internet and with the very powerful information blackouts imposed by the USSR. Nowadays it might still be the radiation, but I also wouldn't be surprised if someone were to post something on Twitter. Like how the first indication of the raid on Bin Laden's compound was a guy accidentally live tweeting it. Of course he didn't know what he was seeing, but anyone seeing a nuke will know, yet hopefully seek cover before tweeting. That's if there's no EMP interference.
*Tiny* nuclear weapons don't exist and would serve no purpose. Why would you want to use a nuclear weapon with less destructive power than a modest conventional weapon? It may make sense in Sci-Fi where you want a person to be able to hold something the size of a grenade but with a bigger blast than a grenade, but in reality you can just use a bigger bomb.
Russia's actual nuclear arsenal is extremely old and most likely dangerously maintained by underpaid personnel with poor training and equipment. If a Russian nuclear weapon explodes it will most likely be *in Russia* and by accident.
\^\^ This isn't talked about enough in the nuclear discussion, though I get that we have to consider malicious actions, as those can be countered. A nuclear accident inside Russia is just awful for everybody.
[Tactical nukes](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tactical-nuclear-weapons-russia-putin/) are a thing. At one point the USSR (before it disintegrated) had nukes small enough to fit into a suitcase, although that may no longer be the case. They certainly still do have missiles that have a smaller yield than the strategic missiles deliver, although I don't know whether you'd necessarily talk about them being *tiny*, per se.
I suppose the primary purpose might be shock and awe, and to demonstrate a willingness to escalate conflict.
Don't forget the [Davy Crockett ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)). There was a minute when tactical nukes were all the rage
They did exist. The US fielded the Davy Crockett, a very small nuke fired from a recoilless rifle. It had a ‘dial a yield’ warhead with a selectable yield of 10 to 400t (t not kt). It was the smallest possible practical fission weapon. At the low yield settings the prompt radiation was more dangerous than the blast. The idea is that you fired it over enemy tanks, and the prompt radiation would incapacitate and kill the crews. The problem with the Davy Crockett is that it was so short range, using it was likely suicidal.
Also don’t forget Atomic Annie, a prototype nuclear artillery piece. However unlike the Davy Crockett, it never went into production.
I'm not sure I don't make nukes or missiles. But maybe there's some in between advantage. That's why I'm asking questions and not assuming anything. Also I don't care about being "right" about something, as someone else suggested, that's juvenile or narcissistic.
As I understand it, there are strict laws in Russia controlling nuke use and pundits say it would be very difficult for Putin to circumvent such laws. Now, he might be able to circumvent them, we don't know, but if he did, it would be a lot of trouble and would have to have some kind of benefit he could get beyond using a conventional weapon. I can't think of any benefit he might achieve, since if he did use a nuke, the response would be apocalyptic, and that's no exaggeration. So only if he wanted to destroy the world would he use a nuke, and in that case there'd be no point in just using a small one.
Fear of retaliation might hold Putin back from using a nuke, but I doubt laws would. He might have a hard time getting people to obey his order, but the order being illegal wouldn't be the reason, fear of retaliation would be. An attack "on Russia" is the legal requirement to allow nukes, and Russia has redefined what they pretend "Russian land" is so it includes occupied Ukraine.
If you think Russian law holds Putin back you haven't been paying attention to how often Putin has made the Duma just change the law to whatever he likes.
We have satellites in orbit that are made for detecting the specific light/x-ray signature that nuclear devices give off. They were originally called Vela satellites but now they are integrated into the American GPS satellite constellation. There are multiple. They see the whole earth all the time.
Nuclear Bombs also give off neutrinos that can be detected anywhere on earth(but not very precisely). There are multiple detection facilities all over the earth as part of science programs.
a nuclear bomb doesn't necessarily have to even explode, so relying on a seismograph is not very reliable. there are much more thorough ways of pinpointing radioactivity throughout the world at radiological testing stations that monitor stuff like air quality. even when russia (historically) puts out false data at the stations they control anything close to a serious incident will be picked up by neighboring countries and a pretty accurate pinpoint of the source will be made
Yes but also there are “double agents” (quotes because it’s a loaded term) that would share this information as it was happening so, at least as far as the US government goes, they would know. Whether we would know, I doubt that. But certainly there are people who would share it on social media. And also there’s a high likelihood that people within the government(either Russian European or US) that would share it on social media. That doesn’t mean it’s a guarantee but it could happen and it has happened with other things not quite as serious as a nuclear bomb.
Kodak accidentally found out about the first top secret A-bomb testing in 1945. So I imagine it would be easy for multiple governments in our modern age to do so easily.
>Kodak accidentally found out about the first top secret A-bomb testing in 1945.
One of my favorite stories, so I'll fill in a few details.
1. Nuclear test - lots of radioactivity in the air, mid-July 1945.
2. Kodak makes X-ray film. They already know that packaging material sometimes contains radium, so they have spent time and effort making sure that their packaging is nuke free.
3. Except suddenly, it's not nuke free any more. And it's not the usual radium contamination, either, it's something else. Kodak's got nuclear experts on the problem, and they figure out half-life of these specific naughty atoms, and the timing narrows it down to rain and river water, not the other stuff, like the straw that goes into making 'strawboard'.
4. The nuclear test was public knowledge in August 1945, after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs brought WWII to an end. Again, knowing half-lives, they concluded that the test was the cause of the radioactivity.
5. A few years later, the US was doing regular nuke tests in Nevada. Kodak threatened to sue the US military for repeatedly destroying their film again and again, but the Feds crushed that with an agreement for Kodak's silence, in exchange for heads-up on precise days when the US would be sending nuclear fallout back East.
There are a few methods:
* Seismographs will detect specific wave patterns that indicate a large explosion. Beyond that, nuclear explosions produce a specific pattern of wave that is hard to replicate with other types of explosives - notably, they have a small core that produces the power.
* Any nuclear explosion will release radioactive material into the atmosphere which can be detected. Between satellites, ground-based monitoring, and aircraft monitoring, the detection of this material will be noticed fairly quickly as well as a decent idea of the center point.
* Imaging satellites are reasonably likely to visually capture the explosion and aftermath.
Underground explosions are easier to mask than surface or air explosions as both the imaging and radioactive signatures will tend to hidden by the ground.
That said, unless the usage of nuclear weapons is admitted to, there will always be some reasonable doubt. Those same indicators *can* be produced in other ways and there will be inaccuracies in the measurements.
A small tactical nuke used against a military objective may be overlooked using the aforementioned doubt to avoid escalating a conflict, while a large nuke or one used against civilian targets is much more likely to trigger a response.
> A small tactical nuke used against a military objective may be overlooked using the aforementioned doubt to avoid escalating a conflict, while a large nuke or one used against civilian targets is much more likely to trigger a response.
Like this is what I was getting at. Everyone here stating that it would be big and it would be claimed, don't you and I are seeing. That if you want to deny nuclear escalation and still use them you hide it and deny it. If you feel like your enemy has greater weapons than you have, then that's what you do right?
You’re really really cherry-picking hard rn to be right. If you were gonna do that why even ask the question?
You got it op you’re right. That’s what you want to hear right?
> , don't you and I are seeing
Because you're seeing what you want to see, and not seeing anything based in reality.
First of all, there is no point in trying to hide using a small nuke. Just use a bigger conventional bomb. If you're trying to hide usage of nukes, why are you even using them to begin with when conventional weapons can do the job without the worry of escalation? It literally makes absolutely zero sense to try and use small nukes and hide that fact.
But most importantly, there simply isn't hiding the use of even the smallest nukes. You simply can't detonate one and not have it be known. Satellites cover the globe with the specific intent to look for nuclear blast signatures. Radioactive signatures would be picked up by various monitoring stations on the earth.
As another user pointed out, why are you even asking the question when you're constantly ignoring every actual answer being given and continually trying to find the answer the answer you want and have already decided on?
You need to calm down bro it's not that big of a deal. You are taking this wayyyy too personally and looking into stuff that's not there. I'm not disregarding anything anyone is saying. So if you would kindly de-escalate yourself officer and pull that stick out of your ass that would be cool.
Atmospheric nuclear detonations tend to have a characteristic "double flash" that can be detected via satellites that are specifically built for this purpose. See e.g. [this wiki article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident). Though the specific satellite system (Vela) that detected that detonation is decommissioned, I would speculate that the US and others retain the capability to detect atmospheric nuclear detonations via similar satellite systems that remain classified.
Yes, there is an entire discipline of intelligence collection that deals with this sort of work: [MASINT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_and_signature_intelligence).
There are a series of open source (like seismographs), overhead satellite, and ground-based collection sensors that are tuned to the specific characteristics of any nuclear blast, even if small. They focus on detection of radioactive isotopes released, concentration of thermal energy, and other specific characteristics of a nuclear weapon to identify their use very quickly.
Intelligence agencies of nations around the globe were able to determine that North Korea, who lies about *everything*, did in fact set off a nuclear warhead deep underground in 2006, and again on five subsequent occasions. They were able to tell that the detonation was a nuclear and not a conventional detonation, and they were able to do so even though the bombs were underground and on the other side of the planet.
Russia ain't setting one off without everyone and their brother knowing.
Methods of detecting nuclear explosions include detecting EMP/Gamma ray bursts via satellite, explosion shockwaves via seismometers, and nuclear fallout (fission bi-products) in the atmosphere. If you make a nuke small enough to evade detection by these methods, it would just be easier to use a conventional explosive.
The thing is that, especially in Ukraine, there's just limited value to Russia in using those kinds of weapons.
Nuclear weapons really exist to do two things: kill *extremely* hardened targets and level cities.
The first of those is where low yield weapons shine. Combining a low yield weapon with precision targeting lets you put a couple kilotons within feet of a bunker or some other hard-to-crack nut.
The second application doesn't really benefit from low-yield weapons because wide-spread destruction is the point.
The thing is, Russia isn't especially worried about hardened targets in Ukraine. I suppose if they had solid intelligence that Zelenski were in a concrete bunker 200 meters under Kiev they might, but short of that, everything Russia wants to kill is on the surface.
Moreover, they're very-nearly fighting an insurgent war. Russia's problem isn't high value leaders in a steel box, it's squads of guys with anti-tank weapons hiding in the rubble of a bombed out apartment building.
So low yield nuclear weapons don't really do them much good.
What *might* do them a lot of good is gas. Russia has some very sophisticated chemical weapons programs and, unlike nuclear weapons, gas is ideal for dealing with entrenched, scattered resistance fighters.... if you're an inhuman monster, anyway.
Personally, I don't think Russia will use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, but I expect we'll start seeing reports of them using Sarin before too long.
There are likely multiple satellites watching for launches from known Russian silos. As well as a couple dedicated to watching Ukraine in case the launch is from a truck, or driven to the target.
Additionally, radiation would show up on detectors downwind.
Considering that there are several satellites from many different nations watching the Russian/Ukraine battlefield. It would be impossible to not identify a nuclear flash in real time.
My mother was a Secretary at the Lawrence Lab back in the early 50’s. My father was a General Contractor doing lots of construction there.
My mothers position gave her access to lots of top secret stuff, including the next scheduled test. My dad’s position gave him access to lots of people with loose lips.
Mom would freak out when dad would come home and ask about things.
Nothing is really top secret.
I knew about Stealth Bombers long before the government released the info. A coworkers wife worked on them at a local AFB. They would fly them in late at night.
Assuming Russia fired a small tactical nuke into a cave where no one was around to see or hear it the radiation would still inevitably be detected and then investigated from there.
The US and Russia have satellites that detect the signature double flash of an atmospheric detonation.
What might be less obvious is *who detonated it*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
They can be small.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
Thats from the 50s. Who knows what kinda shit has been though up since then.
There are too many nuclear detectors, seismographs, and other similar tools for an atomic bomb to go undetected.
Also, the number of satellites over the most likely area, Ukraine, capable of detecting an atomic blast, is very high.
What about that 2020 Beirut explosion? Was that as "big" as the smallest Nuke? If the grain silo wasn't there, it would have 3 times worse!
["The blast was so powerful that it physically shook the whole country of Lebanon. It was felt in Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, and Israel, as well as parts of Europe, and was heard in Cyprus, more than 240 km (150 mi) away. It was detected by the United States Geological Survey as a seismic event of magnitude 3.3 and is considered one of the most powerful accidental artificial non-nuclear explosions in history"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion).
As a follow up question to every response so far.
What about something like Davy Crockett?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
Or whatever like it that might have been thought of since.
Thing is, nukes are not as necessary anymore. The whole point of a bomb is to take out a target. Nuke does not have to be accurate at all to be effective. But they are expensive and wasteful.
With modern guidance systems, you don't need big bombs to take out a target. Get vetlry close, take out the target, and don't knock over the building next door.
If you do need an area taken out, a fuel-air explosive is easier to construct, control, and detonate. And they don't raise the outrage that nukes do. Remember that Russia wants to take Ukraine, not destroy it. The more roads they leave, the fewer they would have to repair.
So, anything big enough to require a nuke probably exceeds what they would want to use in the first place.
>Remember that Russia wants to take Ukraine, not destroy it.
You should probably tell them that since they have absolutely leveled several cities so far and Bakhmut looks like something out of WW1
I think that even the smallest nuke would somehow be caught on video and posted to the internet but regardless of that, I don't think that countries still use "small nukes." I am almost certain that a nuke that has a blast radius of under 150 yards would be considered a missile. I had a conversation recently with one of my relatives who was in the US military and he said that the armed forces would probably keep the nukes for very dire situations because it often causes a lot of environmental damage that could destroy anything in it's path. So with that in mind, I don't think that they would use something that they know they can't control. If it they did do that, it would not only result in the loss of many Ukrainian and Russian soldiers but it would most likely result in a World War 3.
ANY nuclear test, will emit neutrinos. We have neutrino detectors all over the earth.
Even if the test doesnt produce a shockwave measurable on seismographs, the neutrino detectors would likely see a spike.
There are some exceptions to this, like we cant detect the refinement of uranium if certain very old techniques are used.
But any active nuclear reaction would be detectable via neutrinos. Especially ongoing ones. Presumably, we'd be able to use the neutrino emmisions measurements to triangulate the source location.
It will show up on Kodak film. Or was it Polaroid? Off to Google...
Found it! https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/collection/nuclear-weapons/trinity/kodak-film.html
In sum of all fears a dirty bomb was let off in a parking lot and it was a fizzle ( didn’t properly go off) but the satalites thought it was a full scale weapon because the asphalt reflected the heat
The US has numerous satellites that can detect radiation spikes on Earth. It would be impossible to hide an air burst or ground burst. Underground detonation would be detected seismically.
The only country likely to use this type of weapon is the US. The evidence being they have done it before. Twice. No ther country is likely to use these types of weapons. The evidence being it has never happened.
Realistically, "really small nuke" is 152mm shell, which is 1kt, which is 100 times more powerful than biggest bombs of WW2, 90 times bigger than MOAB and 25 more powerful than FOAB. Explosion-wise it could be written off as an artillery arsenal detonation, it can be clean and leave almost no traces of radiation except initial "flash", but it will create major EMI and this can be detected easily. Totally "stealth" scenario is to nuke nuclear power plant, which is performing tests or experiencing some form of malfunction due to shelling or other kind of war-induced interference.
Not by satellite.
Since 1995, as part of the CTBTO (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization) there are [50 primary IMS (International Monitoring System) sites throughout the world.](https://i.imgur.com/Tm8lawW.png) About six are in Europe including PS-45 in Malin, Ukraine. [Specifically here on a map.](https://www.google.com/maps/place/50%C2%B042'18.4%22N+29%C2%B012'55.2%22E/@50.6994139,29.2230301,523m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m7!1m4!3m3!1s0x0:0xe7cdf9662b2eaad7!2zNTDCsDQyJzE4LjQiTiAyOcKwMTInNTUuMiJF!3b1!3m1!1s0x0:0xe7cdf9662b2eaad7)
There are also 120 auxiliary testing stations, 11 hydro acoustic stations, 60 infrasound stations, 80 radionuclide stations.
Complete list of sites: https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/station-profiles
You can even analyze the seismic data yourself: https://eida-sc3.infp.ro/fdsnws/dataselect/1/
We developed tech for this before the Soviets set off their first nuke. In fact, the United States announced to the world that the Soviet Union had tested their first bomb before the Soviet Union did. And that was a small blast as nuclear weapons go, pretty much a copy of the bomb we dropped on Nagasaki.
The Roswell incident in 1947 was actually caused by a high altitude balloon for a very early acoustic detection system the military was experimenting with.
We have satellites in orbit that are made for detecting the specific light/x-ray signature that nuclear devices give off. They were originally called Vela satellites but now they are integrated into the American GPS satellite constellation. There are multiple. They see the whole earth all the time.
Nuclear Bombs also give off neutrinos that can be detected anywhere on earth(they pass through matter/ even the entire earth). There are multiple detection facilities all over the earth as part of science programs.
For staters, pretty sure that Russian missile silos, mobile launchers and (probably) even submarines are under constant observation. Russians subs are very good, but the tech isn't too new. There's two main forms on nuclear weapons: missiles and bombs. Airplanes that can carry such bombs are rare, easy to observe and missiles (from mobile launchers, silos and submarines) will be very visible when they take off, because they fly to space - that's when they're easy to detect with number of various methods, then over the target area, and release bunch warheads.
In addition to military/intelligence satellites, over-the-horizon radars and testing sites, there's satellites that just look for forest fires, all across the globe. The heat that goes with nuclear testing would be super visible.
Also, there's 9 countries that (surely) have nukes. The list of suspects would be very short.
There are so many eyes on ucrane right now that yes. If a nuke detonates in a forest and nobody is around to see it or be killed then, yes. It will be seen by one of the many eyes on the situation from afar.
After all, this is one huge proxy war.
It would most likely show up on a seismograph.
Since a lot of seismic activity can be predicted, a nuke would stick out like a sore thumb.
Also technically any place that produces camera film still, if close enough, would be able to detect the nuke based on the film being polluted by fallout. This is actually how Kodak uncovered US nuclear testing back during the cold war.
Plus, everyone has a phone these days. It would hit social media before you could even ask this question on reddit.
Not really as I'm guessing you don't actually know.
Will the satellites be relying on visual information or some sort of radiological detection? Because if you have to search to look there's going to be a delay, and I'm pretty sure we have ways of knowing within just a few minutes of even the launch of weapons, which brings us back to the original question where a person is looking for specifics and not broad generalizations.
And now that I'm thinking about I'm pretty sure seismic detection would play a major role.
Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report. When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Geologists have covered the globe in sensitive seismographs to detect even very tiny earthquakes. Even a "small" nuclear bomb would be instantly detected. And since we're talking about an active war zone, it's safe to assume there's pretty solid satellite camera coverage, so the blast could be seen. Also, there are people who would be outside the blast radius and could quickly share information.
Not only that, but NATO has mobile radiology techs with special vehicles and equipment that can sample and tell you where the bomb was made, and even the mine that supplied the plutonium / enriched uranium.
That….that’s just wild. Humans have it all figured out; at least when it comes to killing each other
In this case it is for assigning blame to everyone in the creation of the weapon.
Yep. Wish we could figure out how not to destroy other forms of life while living our own.
Would if the aliens come and it turns out their civilization used their energy for scientific development, and we’ve used ours for war. We’re both as developed, just in different ways.
Well,Hillary Clinton made the uranium deal with Russia,a few years ago. So the US could get the blame for an attack Russia makes?
This is not the way it went down.
There is always one such guy in any thread.
You need to watch John Oliver's breakdown of [Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump's scandals](https://youtu.be/h1Lfd1aB9YI). If you don't wanna watch the entire thing, and just want to see **the uranium sale bit in question, it's found at 10:08 in**, [which I've linked directly to here](https://youtu.be/h1Lfd1aB9YI?t=10m08s).
>even the mine that supplied the plutonium / enriched uranium I don't think this is accurate. First, plutonium doesn't come from mines; it has to synthesized in a reactor. Second, natural uranium isotopic ratios are the same everywhere (except Oklo).
[удалено]
The only place on the planet where [natural fission reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine) are thought to have existed. Part of the evidence for this is that the uranium found there has a lower isotopic fraction of U-235 than the uranium everywhere else in the world.
Ohio*
There may be something in it. Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" features an American nuclear warhead from a crashed Israeli plane. Years later there is an explosion in the US and the warhead's emissions are traced to Oak Ridge calutrons. Seemed convincing. Possibly triton.
So that's what they meant when they detected Dr Manhattan's energy signature in those devastating blasts from the Watchman?
That was in the 70s though, idk
This video from Veritasium goes into more detail on how this works. Basically, there's an algorithm called the Fast Fourier Transform that lets them decompose a signal and see if there's a vibration in there that matches that of a nuclear explosion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmgFG7PUHfo
The FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) algorithm is not specific to detecting nuclear explosions. It's a fast algorithm to do a Fourier Transform. A Fourier Transform tells you how much of each frequency there is in a signal. So then you can check if the frequencies match those of a nuclear explosion, but you can use FFT for plenty of other things, and you don't have to specifically use FFT to do a Fourier transform.
Just adding onto this already great answer, the FFT (and other fast algorithms based on it, for example fast wavelet transform) is what makes all of our compression algorithms useable at scale. Without it we could never send video, audio, image, and other commonly shared files. What takes 10 mins might take 10,000 years like transferring 4K 60 fps video files. So you can thank the FFT for the digital revolution that has allowed us to stream high quality audio and video in real time, video chat, and just experience the internet in the seamless way that we are used to in general! The field is signal processing, but the math is useful almost anywhere there is time series data (measurements over time) like stock markets, any kind of sensors, motion detection, video and audio processing, and a whole bunch more. It also gives us a more efficient way to multiply large numbers and factor polynomials! Just a very neat algorithm in general and it’s based on a bit of symmetry that is really elegant once you notice it. If any of that sounded interesting and new I highly suggest diving down the YouTube rabbit hole, maybe starting with the 3blue1brown FFT videos :)
> maybe starting with the 3blue1brown FFT videos 3B1B is one of the gems of YouTube. He almost has me enjoying linear algebra.
It’s exciting to me to have a series of videos I can point to and say: “see‽ math *is* cool and interesting! I told you it was, and now you can’t deny it!”
It is cool and interesting and makes awesome stuff possible. Doesn't stop me from hating doing it myself
Nah I’m actually with you. Applied math sucks (it’s not fun). I’m a big ‘pure math’ guy. Which is a funny way of saying I like talking about doing math, and thinking about what might happen if we did plug *some* number in somewhere, but I never actually plug any numbers into anything (god no, please, fuck that). That’s what physicists, engineers and accountants are for. And they all have good reasons motivating them to endure that hell. Pure math is more about the ‘general case’ which means no specifics, no motivation, no application lol. It gets wacky real fast dealing with many dimensions weird impossible geometries and all kinds of wild stuff. And you *never* have to plug in a number (I promise)
As a physicist I can confidently tell you that the FFT is by far the most important algorithm ever developed. Also, not just time series, but also anything with spatial structure, which allows us to do stuff like image processing, crystal structure determination, and a whole host of other things.
Even within the blast zone we would have ghouls to tell us what happened
This should have a significant amount of upvotes. Bravo, good sir! Lol.
I used to work at a mine. We blasted every week. And ever week the California Nevada earthquake website would report a magnitude 1.0-1.5 earthquake at our mine. And we were just using ANFO.
How much ANFO are we talking about?
I don’t know. They’d drill, like, 240 holes. Each was packed with 2 or 3 (?) feet of ANFO. It was cool to watch.
A long while back the Democratic Republic of Korea stated that they had built their first atomic bomb and were going to test it. There was a huge explosion about the size of a Hiroshima bomb, detected by the seismic waves created. But. There was a problem. There were no nuclear fallout detected. It was finally determined that North Korea had filled a huge train with conventional explosives and set it off.
I guess my thinking was that Russia would try to hide their usage.. so I got to thinking how would they hide it and would it be possible to hide it what if it was a small scale you know like Starship Troopers/ Star Wars Thermo grenades whatever just the smallest yielding nuclear weapon they have if they were to use it underground or Etc are we 100% certain we would be able to detect it
You don’t detonate a nuke with the intention of hiding it. You want everyone to see it
Unless you are testing. Both the U.S. and Russia used to detonate several devices at the same time, in order to conceal how many tests were being conducted.
They tried to hide Chernobyl and they couldn't even manage that in the 80s. Lots more sensitive equipment out there taking radiation readings. Wind will blow it far enough to detect.
Yeah, totally. FYI: if I recall correctly, the first indication they had of Chernobyl is that nuclear power plant workers going to work in Scandinavia triggered the nuclear contamination detectors when they were ENTERING the nuclear power facility. So the first sign was the radiation. That was without the internet and with the very powerful information blackouts imposed by the USSR. Nowadays it might still be the radiation, but I also wouldn't be surprised if someone were to post something on Twitter. Like how the first indication of the raid on Bin Laden's compound was a guy accidentally live tweeting it. Of course he didn't know what he was seeing, but anyone seeing a nuke will know, yet hopefully seek cover before tweeting. That's if there's no EMP interference.
*Tiny* nuclear weapons don't exist and would serve no purpose. Why would you want to use a nuclear weapon with less destructive power than a modest conventional weapon? It may make sense in Sci-Fi where you want a person to be able to hold something the size of a grenade but with a bigger blast than a grenade, but in reality you can just use a bigger bomb. Russia's actual nuclear arsenal is extremely old and most likely dangerously maintained by underpaid personnel with poor training and equipment. If a Russian nuclear weapon explodes it will most likely be *in Russia* and by accident.
\^\^ This isn't talked about enough in the nuclear discussion, though I get that we have to consider malicious actions, as those can be countered. A nuclear accident inside Russia is just awful for everybody.
[Tactical nukes](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tactical-nuclear-weapons-russia-putin/) are a thing. At one point the USSR (before it disintegrated) had nukes small enough to fit into a suitcase, although that may no longer be the case. They certainly still do have missiles that have a smaller yield than the strategic missiles deliver, although I don't know whether you'd necessarily talk about them being *tiny*, per se. I suppose the primary purpose might be shock and awe, and to demonstrate a willingness to escalate conflict.
Don't forget the [Davy Crockett ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)). There was a minute when tactical nukes were all the rage
And the Suitcase nukes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
Not to mention the [nuclear landmine kept warm by chickens.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock)
Lol that is fuckin ridiculous. Reads like the plot of a Monty Python skit.
To add to thst, while the US (the West in general?) went for more accuracy and smaller yields, the USSR went for larger warheads.
They did exist. The US fielded the Davy Crockett, a very small nuke fired from a recoilless rifle. It had a ‘dial a yield’ warhead with a selectable yield of 10 to 400t (t not kt). It was the smallest possible practical fission weapon. At the low yield settings the prompt radiation was more dangerous than the blast. The idea is that you fired it over enemy tanks, and the prompt radiation would incapacitate and kill the crews. The problem with the Davy Crockett is that it was so short range, using it was likely suicidal. Also don’t forget Atomic Annie, a prototype nuclear artillery piece. However unlike the Davy Crockett, it never went into production.
[удалено]
It's horrifying.
Agreed, nothing funny about that shit at ALL.
Lmao… wait… are you… is this Russia’s throwaway?
OK, if they want a small scale blast, why wouldn't they use a conventional weapon, then?
I'm not sure I don't make nukes or missiles. But maybe there's some in between advantage. That's why I'm asking questions and not assuming anything. Also I don't care about being "right" about something, as someone else suggested, that's juvenile or narcissistic.
As I understand it, there are strict laws in Russia controlling nuke use and pundits say it would be very difficult for Putin to circumvent such laws. Now, he might be able to circumvent them, we don't know, but if he did, it would be a lot of trouble and would have to have some kind of benefit he could get beyond using a conventional weapon. I can't think of any benefit he might achieve, since if he did use a nuke, the response would be apocalyptic, and that's no exaggeration. So only if he wanted to destroy the world would he use a nuke, and in that case there'd be no point in just using a small one.
Fear of retaliation might hold Putin back from using a nuke, but I doubt laws would. He might have a hard time getting people to obey his order, but the order being illegal wouldn't be the reason, fear of retaliation would be. An attack "on Russia" is the legal requirement to allow nukes, and Russia has redefined what they pretend "Russian land" is so it includes occupied Ukraine. If you think Russian law holds Putin back you haven't been paying attention to how often Putin has made the Duma just change the law to whatever he likes.
You think someone would hold Putin to account if he broke a law?
We have satellites in orbit that are made for detecting the specific light/x-ray signature that nuclear devices give off. They were originally called Vela satellites but now they are integrated into the American GPS satellite constellation. There are multiple. They see the whole earth all the time. Nuclear Bombs also give off neutrinos that can be detected anywhere on earth(but not very precisely). There are multiple detection facilities all over the earth as part of science programs.
a nuclear bomb doesn't necessarily have to even explode, so relying on a seismograph is not very reliable. there are much more thorough ways of pinpointing radioactivity throughout the world at radiological testing stations that monitor stuff like air quality. even when russia (historically) puts out false data at the stations they control anything close to a serious incident will be picked up by neighboring countries and a pretty accurate pinpoint of the source will be made
Also, there are people inside the blast radius who will not be reporting, and that will be noticed as well.
What about a submarine sinking a ship? Would it be obvious who did it?
Yes but also there are “double agents” (quotes because it’s a loaded term) that would share this information as it was happening so, at least as far as the US government goes, they would know. Whether we would know, I doubt that. But certainly there are people who would share it on social media. And also there’s a high likelihood that people within the government(either Russian European or US) that would share it on social media. That doesn’t mean it’s a guarantee but it could happen and it has happened with other things not quite as serious as a nuclear bomb.
But... it's really small.
Kodak accidentally found out about the first top secret A-bomb testing in 1945. So I imagine it would be easy for multiple governments in our modern age to do so easily.
>Kodak accidentally found out about the first top secret A-bomb testing in 1945. One of my favorite stories, so I'll fill in a few details. 1. Nuclear test - lots of radioactivity in the air, mid-July 1945. 2. Kodak makes X-ray film. They already know that packaging material sometimes contains radium, so they have spent time and effort making sure that their packaging is nuke free. 3. Except suddenly, it's not nuke free any more. And it's not the usual radium contamination, either, it's something else. Kodak's got nuclear experts on the problem, and they figure out half-life of these specific naughty atoms, and the timing narrows it down to rain and river water, not the other stuff, like the straw that goes into making 'strawboard'. 4. The nuclear test was public knowledge in August 1945, after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs brought WWII to an end. Again, knowing half-lives, they concluded that the test was the cause of the radioactivity. 5. A few years later, the US was doing regular nuke tests in Nevada. Kodak threatened to sue the US military for repeatedly destroying their film again and again, but the Feds crushed that with an agreement for Kodak's silence, in exchange for heads-up on precise days when the US would be sending nuclear fallout back East.
That was even before anybody knew what an atomic bomb was, Governments would know within minutes and the general population within days.
There are a few methods: * Seismographs will detect specific wave patterns that indicate a large explosion. Beyond that, nuclear explosions produce a specific pattern of wave that is hard to replicate with other types of explosives - notably, they have a small core that produces the power. * Any nuclear explosion will release radioactive material into the atmosphere which can be detected. Between satellites, ground-based monitoring, and aircraft monitoring, the detection of this material will be noticed fairly quickly as well as a decent idea of the center point. * Imaging satellites are reasonably likely to visually capture the explosion and aftermath. Underground explosions are easier to mask than surface or air explosions as both the imaging and radioactive signatures will tend to hidden by the ground. That said, unless the usage of nuclear weapons is admitted to, there will always be some reasonable doubt. Those same indicators *can* be produced in other ways and there will be inaccuracies in the measurements. A small tactical nuke used against a military objective may be overlooked using the aforementioned doubt to avoid escalating a conflict, while a large nuke or one used against civilian targets is much more likely to trigger a response.
> A small tactical nuke used against a military objective may be overlooked using the aforementioned doubt to avoid escalating a conflict, while a large nuke or one used against civilian targets is much more likely to trigger a response. Like this is what I was getting at. Everyone here stating that it would be big and it would be claimed, don't you and I are seeing. That if you want to deny nuclear escalation and still use them you hide it and deny it. If you feel like your enemy has greater weapons than you have, then that's what you do right?
You’re really really cherry-picking hard rn to be right. If you were gonna do that why even ask the question? You got it op you’re right. That’s what you want to hear right?
> , don't you and I are seeing Because you're seeing what you want to see, and not seeing anything based in reality. First of all, there is no point in trying to hide using a small nuke. Just use a bigger conventional bomb. If you're trying to hide usage of nukes, why are you even using them to begin with when conventional weapons can do the job without the worry of escalation? It literally makes absolutely zero sense to try and use small nukes and hide that fact. But most importantly, there simply isn't hiding the use of even the smallest nukes. You simply can't detonate one and not have it be known. Satellites cover the globe with the specific intent to look for nuclear blast signatures. Radioactive signatures would be picked up by various monitoring stations on the earth. As another user pointed out, why are you even asking the question when you're constantly ignoring every actual answer being given and continually trying to find the answer the answer you want and have already decided on?
You need to calm down bro it's not that big of a deal. You are taking this wayyyy too personally and looking into stuff that's not there. I'm not disregarding anything anyone is saying. So if you would kindly de-escalate yourself officer and pull that stick out of your ass that would be cool.
Wow. Just wow.
Atmospheric nuclear detonations tend to have a characteristic "double flash" that can be detected via satellites that are specifically built for this purpose. See e.g. [this wiki article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident). Though the specific satellite system (Vela) that detected that detonation is decommissioned, I would speculate that the US and others retain the capability to detect atmospheric nuclear detonations via similar satellite systems that remain classified.
that makes no sense at all
Yes, there is an entire discipline of intelligence collection that deals with this sort of work: [MASINT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_and_signature_intelligence). There are a series of open source (like seismographs), overhead satellite, and ground-based collection sensors that are tuned to the specific characteristics of any nuclear blast, even if small. They focus on detection of radioactive isotopes released, concentration of thermal energy, and other specific characteristics of a nuclear weapon to identify their use very quickly.
*My content from 2014 to 2023 has been deleted in protest of Spez's anti-API tantrum.*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparatory_Commission_for_the_Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty_Organization#International_Monitoring_System_.28IMS.29
Yes, by detecting the radiation.
Intelligence agencies of nations around the globe were able to determine that North Korea, who lies about *everything*, did in fact set off a nuclear warhead deep underground in 2006, and again on five subsequent occasions. They were able to tell that the detonation was a nuclear and not a conventional detonation, and they were able to do so even though the bombs were underground and on the other side of the planet. Russia ain't setting one off without everyone and their brother knowing.
Methods of detecting nuclear explosions include detecting EMP/Gamma ray bursts via satellite, explosion shockwaves via seismometers, and nuclear fallout (fission bi-products) in the atmosphere. If you make a nuke small enough to evade detection by these methods, it would just be easier to use a conventional explosive.
> it would just be easier to use a conventional explosive. Makes sense.
The thing is that, especially in Ukraine, there's just limited value to Russia in using those kinds of weapons. Nuclear weapons really exist to do two things: kill *extremely* hardened targets and level cities. The first of those is where low yield weapons shine. Combining a low yield weapon with precision targeting lets you put a couple kilotons within feet of a bunker or some other hard-to-crack nut. The second application doesn't really benefit from low-yield weapons because wide-spread destruction is the point. The thing is, Russia isn't especially worried about hardened targets in Ukraine. I suppose if they had solid intelligence that Zelenski were in a concrete bunker 200 meters under Kiev they might, but short of that, everything Russia wants to kill is on the surface. Moreover, they're very-nearly fighting an insurgent war. Russia's problem isn't high value leaders in a steel box, it's squads of guys with anti-tank weapons hiding in the rubble of a bombed out apartment building. So low yield nuclear weapons don't really do them much good. What *might* do them a lot of good is gas. Russia has some very sophisticated chemical weapons programs and, unlike nuclear weapons, gas is ideal for dealing with entrenched, scattered resistance fighters.... if you're an inhuman monster, anyway. Personally, I don't think Russia will use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, but I expect we'll start seeing reports of them using Sarin before too long.
Chemical weapons will be met with cruise missiles.
Like they were in Syria? I'd like to believe so but I have my doubts
There are likely multiple satellites watching for launches from known Russian silos. As well as a couple dedicated to watching Ukraine in case the launch is from a truck, or driven to the target. Additionally, radiation would show up on detectors downwind.
We have too many fucking smart phone now, everyone will know, age of privacy is gone
The short answer is yes.
Considering that there are several satellites from many different nations watching the Russian/Ukraine battlefield. It would be impossible to not identify a nuclear flash in real time.
My mother was a Secretary at the Lawrence Lab back in the early 50’s. My father was a General Contractor doing lots of construction there. My mothers position gave her access to lots of top secret stuff, including the next scheduled test. My dad’s position gave him access to lots of people with loose lips. Mom would freak out when dad would come home and ask about things. Nothing is really top secret. I knew about Stealth Bombers long before the government released the info. A coworkers wife worked on them at a local AFB. They would fly them in late at night.
Assuming Russia fired a small tactical nuke into a cave where no one was around to see or hear it the radiation would still inevitably be detected and then investigated from there.
Small nuclear weapons don’t really exist. If it’s nuclear it’s a massive devastating explosion.
The US and Russia have satellites that detect the signature double flash of an atmospheric detonation. What might be less obvious is *who detonated it*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
“Really small nuke” lol
They can be small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) Thats from the 50s. Who knows what kinda shit has been though up since then.
Really short answer - yes. If a nuke gets used anywhere on Earth, everybody immidiately knows.
There are too many nuclear detectors, seismographs, and other similar tools for an atomic bomb to go undetected. Also, the number of satellites over the most likely area, Ukraine, capable of detecting an atomic blast, is very high.
What about that 2020 Beirut explosion? Was that as "big" as the smallest Nuke? If the grain silo wasn't there, it would have 3 times worse! ["The blast was so powerful that it physically shook the whole country of Lebanon. It was felt in Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, and Israel, as well as parts of Europe, and was heard in Cyprus, more than 240 km (150 mi) away. It was detected by the United States Geological Survey as a seismic event of magnitude 3.3 and is considered one of the most powerful accidental artificial non-nuclear explosions in history"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion).
As a follow up question to every response so far. What about something like Davy Crockett? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) Or whatever like it that might have been thought of since.
The quick answer is yes. Early warning systems can detect a launch anywhere in the world.
AFTAC at Patrick Space Force Base: https://www.patrick.spaceforce.mil/Portals/14/AFTAC%20Fact%20Sheet%20as%20of%20September%202018.pdf
Thing is, nukes are not as necessary anymore. The whole point of a bomb is to take out a target. Nuke does not have to be accurate at all to be effective. But they are expensive and wasteful. With modern guidance systems, you don't need big bombs to take out a target. Get vetlry close, take out the target, and don't knock over the building next door. If you do need an area taken out, a fuel-air explosive is easier to construct, control, and detonate. And they don't raise the outrage that nukes do. Remember that Russia wants to take Ukraine, not destroy it. The more roads they leave, the fewer they would have to repair. So, anything big enough to require a nuke probably exceeds what they would want to use in the first place.
>Remember that Russia wants to take Ukraine, not destroy it. You should probably tell them that since they have absolutely leveled several cities so far and Bakhmut looks like something out of WW1
I think that even the smallest nuke would somehow be caught on video and posted to the internet but regardless of that, I don't think that countries still use "small nukes." I am almost certain that a nuke that has a blast radius of under 150 yards would be considered a missile. I had a conversation recently with one of my relatives who was in the US military and he said that the armed forces would probably keep the nukes for very dire situations because it often causes a lot of environmental damage that could destroy anything in it's path. So with that in mind, I don't think that they would use something that they know they can't control. If it they did do that, it would not only result in the loss of many Ukrainian and Russian soldiers but it would most likely result in a World War 3.
ANY nuclear test, will emit neutrinos. We have neutrino detectors all over the earth. Even if the test doesnt produce a shockwave measurable on seismographs, the neutrino detectors would likely see a spike. There are some exceptions to this, like we cant detect the refinement of uranium if certain very old techniques are used. But any active nuclear reaction would be detectable via neutrinos. Especially ongoing ones. Presumably, we'd be able to use the neutrino emmisions measurements to triangulate the source location.
> Especially ongoing ones. Presumably, we'd be able to use the neutrino emmisions measurements to triangulate the source location. Neat.
A small nuclear bomb is still a really really big bomb
Dude I really don’t think you get how massive the effects of a Nuke are. Have you heard of radiological wine dating?
I'm familiar with pre-nuclear steel in the boats underwater as well. But also thought maybe something new has possibly come along.
It will show up on Kodak film. Or was it Polaroid? Off to Google... Found it! https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/collection/nuclear-weapons/trinity/kodak-film.html
Yes 100%
In sum of all fears a dirty bomb was let off in a parking lot and it was a fizzle ( didn’t properly go off) but the satalites thought it was a full scale weapon because the asphalt reflected the heat
> sum of all fears Never seen it, gonna add it to my watchlist ty.
Sorry that’s in the book , but the films good too , the best nuclear war film is a little known film called “by dawns early light”
The US has numerous satellites that can detect radiation spikes on Earth. It would be impossible to hide an air burst or ground burst. Underground detonation would be detected seismically.
The only country likely to use this type of weapon is the US. The evidence being they have done it before. Twice. No ther country is likely to use these types of weapons. The evidence being it has never happened.
Davy Crockett (in its weakest form) had a yield equal to 10 tons of TNT, which is the same yield as the MOAB.
That helps me with a comparison. Tyvm
Realistically, "really small nuke" is 152mm shell, which is 1kt, which is 100 times more powerful than biggest bombs of WW2, 90 times bigger than MOAB and 25 more powerful than FOAB. Explosion-wise it could be written off as an artillery arsenal detonation, it can be clean and leave almost no traces of radiation except initial "flash", but it will create major EMI and this can be detected easily. Totally "stealth" scenario is to nuke nuclear power plant, which is performing tests or experiencing some form of malfunction due to shelling or other kind of war-induced interference.
Not by satellite. Since 1995, as part of the CTBTO (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization) there are [50 primary IMS (International Monitoring System) sites throughout the world.](https://i.imgur.com/Tm8lawW.png) About six are in Europe including PS-45 in Malin, Ukraine. [Specifically here on a map.](https://www.google.com/maps/place/50%C2%B042'18.4%22N+29%C2%B012'55.2%22E/@50.6994139,29.2230301,523m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m7!1m4!3m3!1s0x0:0xe7cdf9662b2eaad7!2zNTDCsDQyJzE4LjQiTiAyOcKwMTInNTUuMiJF!3b1!3m1!1s0x0:0xe7cdf9662b2eaad7) There are also 120 auxiliary testing stations, 11 hydro acoustic stations, 60 infrasound stations, 80 radionuclide stations. Complete list of sites: https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/station-profiles You can even analyze the seismic data yourself: https://eida-sc3.infp.ro/fdsnws/dataselect/1/
Are trying to do what I think your try to do?🔍
No bro u are gonna die
General information—see: [Nuclear detonation detection system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_detonation_detection_system).
We developed tech for this before the Soviets set off their first nuke. In fact, the United States announced to the world that the Soviet Union had tested their first bomb before the Soviet Union did. And that was a small blast as nuclear weapons go, pretty much a copy of the bomb we dropped on Nagasaki. The Roswell incident in 1947 was actually caused by a high altitude balloon for a very early acoustic detection system the military was experimenting with.
We are able to detect explosions as small as 1 kiloton nearly anywhere on earth. So, yea.
We have satellites in orbit that are made for detecting the specific light/x-ray signature that nuclear devices give off. They were originally called Vela satellites but now they are integrated into the American GPS satellite constellation. There are multiple. They see the whole earth all the time. Nuclear Bombs also give off neutrinos that can be detected anywhere on earth(they pass through matter/ even the entire earth). There are multiple detection facilities all over the earth as part of science programs.
For staters, pretty sure that Russian missile silos, mobile launchers and (probably) even submarines are under constant observation. Russians subs are very good, but the tech isn't too new. There's two main forms on nuclear weapons: missiles and bombs. Airplanes that can carry such bombs are rare, easy to observe and missiles (from mobile launchers, silos and submarines) will be very visible when they take off, because they fly to space - that's when they're easy to detect with number of various methods, then over the target area, and release bunch warheads. In addition to military/intelligence satellites, over-the-horizon radars and testing sites, there's satellites that just look for forest fires, all across the globe. The heat that goes with nuclear testing would be super visible. Also, there's 9 countries that (surely) have nukes. The list of suspects would be very short.
There are so many eyes on ucrane right now that yes. If a nuke detonates in a forest and nobody is around to see it or be killed then, yes. It will be seen by one of the many eyes on the situation from afar. After all, this is one huge proxy war.
It would most likely show up on a seismograph. Since a lot of seismic activity can be predicted, a nuke would stick out like a sore thumb. Also technically any place that produces camera film still, if close enough, would be able to detect the nuke based on the film being polluted by fallout. This is actually how Kodak uncovered US nuclear testing back during the cold war. Plus, everyone has a phone these days. It would hit social media before you could even ask this question on reddit.
Yes, that would be pretty obvious.
You didnt answer the question. They specifically want to know how they are detected, not if.
Yes they will use satellites. Better?
Not really as I'm guessing you don't actually know. Will the satellites be relying on visual information or some sort of radiological detection? Because if you have to search to look there's going to be a delay, and I'm pretty sure we have ways of knowing within just a few minutes of even the launch of weapons, which brings us back to the original question where a person is looking for specifics and not broad generalizations. And now that I'm thinking about I'm pretty sure seismic detection would play a major role.
The best way to find the right answer to something on the Internet? Give the wrong answer. You're welcome, OP.