Forum:Bomb crater locations from the great war only found 3

So Far Ive Found The Locations Of 3 Bomb sites when china nuked d.c. one around jury street metro, the white house, and the school in vernon square near vault tec headquarters.if u know of more please tell me

p.s. i found the bomb storage at fort constantine there are around 10 nukes with ten missing possibly a sign to how many bombs the u.s. used during the great war


 * There's a big one out by Fort Bannister. And I mean big.--Niksilp 09:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the one outside the statesman hotel? oh,wait,that was an aircraft. The great molerat. 15:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That one, my friend, is the remains of the white house. Broeman 12:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

yes i do bleve i found a crater while up out on the balcony of tennpenny tower to the south it is on the map ( i think) but it is too far south you would have to leave the map to walk over this location.Maccy Man the man with no plan. 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a gigantic one in Fallout 1, near Los Angeles. That Furry Bastard 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, there`s at least 2 in the Mojave, the cottonwood crater and in Ivanpah dry lake (seen from Mojave outpost)

why do fallout one fans keep coming into f3 threads?Maccy Man the man with no plan. 06:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Megaton is built into a crater. PlasmaFox 10:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

but not a bomb crater.

Technically it is a bomb crater, as the crater has a bomb in it. Ratchetdude099 01:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Manya says the bomb did not make the crater. She talks about commercial airliners falling from the sky so I assume that's what made it. I really don't understand how the bomb landed in the exact same spot though. 70.130.42.245 04:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that could be the case. Maybe the plan was carrying the bomb, and somehow, it didn't detonate in the crash? Ratchetdude099 07:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

your close, but still a little confused, you see there was a civilian 747-esc plane that went down outside springvale, that made the crater. this then sparked the residents to head to vault 101, and others to go to springvale school. then when the chinese bomber came over to "drop the bomb" (pun intended) on the town, they targeted the plane, but it failed to detonate. the bombers saw it as a waste to drop another, so they just went along their path, which i would assume was downtown D.C.

Perhaps the bomb dropped but didn't detonate, so it just made a small crater from the impact? Broeman 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

well megaton is a lot bigger than a "small" crater isnt it? 2-seaters that fall from the sky dont leave a giant crater when they land, But a 787 does! /=D Legofan94 14:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Megaton looks like the bomb made the crater when it fell, with later excavation by the new residents to set foundations for building. The town was built from aircraft parts from the nearby airbase. Interrogate Manya about the founding of the town. Skorpychan 02:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you stand on the Tenpenny balcony, you can see a very large crater in the distance. (I forget which side, I think it's either south or west) Tzaro the Outcast 21:05, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

The bomb located in the Megaton crater is of US design. It is unlikely that it was being carried by a chinese bomber. A more likely scenario is that a US bomber crashed with the bomb as its cargo. The bomb remained intact and all it needed was to be armed, thus the reason why Mr Burk gives you the fuse charge. This would explain why the bomb didn't detonate in the crash. The crater is far too big to have been caused by the bomb falling from the sky as it wouldn't have the velocity to shift that amount of earth. A fully fuelled plane could create a big enough blast to form the Megaton crater. Especially if it was carrying conventional explosives at the time.


 * No, it could not. Crashing planes don't create craters. Besides, if it was loaded with high yield explosives powerful enough to blast a crater this size, the bomb would have been blasted to smithereens too. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/4/4a/Naglowaa_se.gif/11px-Naglowaa_se.gif Tagaziel (call!) 07:11, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

What about the entrance to Vault 87? 3000+ rads per second, decaying over 200 years, must have been hit by the bombs. Liam Spencer 00:09, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Vault 87 is an arbirarily placed kill zone. It has no rationale whatsoever. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 00:21, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Vault 87's radiation comes from the rads from the G.E.C.K. being pumped to the surface. It didn't get hit by a bomb.


 * GECKs are not radioactive. Otherwise, Vault 13 would be equally bad. Ausir(talk) 00:48, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * In the very clumsily retconned FO3 take on GECKs, most of the Vaults didn't receive the 'genuine' GECK, just a relatively low tech briefcase full of designs and seeds and so on. I know its stupid, but thats the official canon now I'm afraid. Anyway, something damaged the door, so I think its likely a bomb did hit. And the reason the GECK chamber is so radioactive is because they couldnt pump the rads to the surface. Ishotamaninnewreno 01:48, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Flight 93 seemed to have left a decent sized crater for a commercial liner. There are also good images of an airplane crash in Iran that left a large crater. Another possibility is that a plane did crash there in a pre-existing crater. There is a lot of earth missing to suggest one bomb or one aircraft removed it. Depending on how long the people of Megaton have been there, they could have removed land as well. Instead of poo-pooing peoples ideas, Tagaziel, perhaps you could offer some constructive suggestions yourself. Thats all I'll mention about that. According to a terminal in Vault 87, it suggests that the entrance to the Vault was damaged by presumably a nuclear weapon. This would explain the massive amount of rads present. It would be safe to bet that Vault 87 is another crater location. Does the FO3 canon apply to all GECKS, or just those on the east coast? —Preceding. Please sign your posts with ~ !


 * Nuclear weapons don't create insane amounts of residual radiation that lingers for 200 years. Hell, even Chernobyl doesn't have that amount of rads and it's considered to be the biggest nuclear disaster known to man. And no, I'm not going to stop doing it, because most of the so-called ideas don't make a speck of sense. Craters left by crashing airplanes don't come near the giant gaping hole Megaton is built in. And crashing into a pre-existing crater? Seriously? If you haven't noticed, there's a highway standing right in the way the plane would come. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 07:58, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Chernobyl has a sarcophagus placed over the reactor which blew up. The levels inside there are still more than enough to kill a person. Even the moss outside is still strong enough to cause illness. Its pointless trying to relate that to a video game though... Irregardless of your views about the radiation outside of Vault 87, the terminal inside the game states that the entrance was hit by a nuclear weapon. The thread was about bomb crater locations. Its easy to see why nobody respects what you have to say when all you do is moan and complain about Fallout 3. Contribute to the thread or go back to the Fallout 1 & 2 forums. —Preceding. Please sign your posts with ~ !


 * 1. Do not backseat moderate.
 * 2. Sign your posts.
 * 3. Yes, it is relevant, because it accurately shows how radiation behaves when fallout is created. Your point is illogical, since there is no sarcophagus over Vault 87 to contain the radiation - it's in the open, arbitrarily placed. Generally, radioactive dust would be blown away in the two centuries that follow and the passageway would be perfectly passable in 2277. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:15, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, this post is in the "Fallout world discussion" forum, not the "Fallout 3 general discussion" forum, so Fallout 1 and 2 information is not out of place here. Ausir(talk) 12:59, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the terminal which states that the V87 entrance was hit by a nuclear weapon was cut from the game, i.e. it's not canon. It also has some entries which contradict the final game. So while the radiation is there, there's officially no explanation how the entrance got radiated.

What is canon is that somehow excess radiation builds up in the GECK chamber which needs to be purged regularly. Whether it's coming from the GECK itself or from the auxiliary systems in the chamber is not mentioned either however. -- Porter21 (talk) 10:40, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

The GECK is defianately not radioactive. If it was, when you carry it after Fawkes gives you it, the rads would kill you I think. Might not be right. Liam Spencer 12:45, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Your point is illogical, since there is no sarcophagus over Vault 87 to contain the radiation <- First you said that Chernobyl doesn't have enough radiation to be dangerous anymore. Now you're changing your mind? It is more likely that the ground outside the Vault entrance has become irradiated over time. Maybe the radiation from the initial bomb has disipated, but irradiated material can still be quite dangerous. Example being the vehicle graveyard located in the Red Forest. Its also just a game and the Fallout world has Science! You also firmly stated that planes don't create craters when they crash. Oh, you changed your opinion about that too. Google image searches even show several pictures of craters caused by planes crashes. Seriously? If you haven't noticed, there's a highway standing right in the way the plane would come <- I dont think planes that fall out of the sky really get a say in where they crash. There aren't highways surrounding or covering Megaton and it is entirely plausible that a crater could have been caused by a plane crash. Remember that it would have been a bomber and these fly at least as high as commercial liners, so 10 000m if not higher. One falling vertically from that height traveling at around 700kmh would be enough to put a giant hole in the ground. (I'm using a general speed based on B-52 specifications. A fully laden B-52 can also carry 160 tonne of ordnance.Its just an example, please don't get wound up over it.) Thats more than enough bang to clear a mighty big hole. I imagine a nuke could survive as that would be part of the design. The Megaton nuke looks rather worn and dinged up and it wouldn't have been overly weathered if it was sitting in a hole all that time. A real world example of this happening is the Thule incident. Again raising the issue of Science! at play. Hopefully no more threadshitting / derailing occurs. To contribute, it looks like there is a radioactive crater near the Springvale school, to the NE I think. Fort Bannister also looks like it took a flogging and there are a few craters in the area. The National Guard Depot may have also been hit, judging by the damage and the debris. I think the Delta IX crash site could be considered a crater being that the Delta IX was being used as a nuclear weapon.


 * The Red Forest is irradiated because contaminated, dead plantlife was specifically piled up and covered with dirt there. It's a deliberate attempt to contain radiation by stockpiling hazardous materials in a single place. Vehicles, being susceptible to irradiation were also piled in there and remain radioactive to this day, but they are not nearly as irradiated as you make them out to be - certainly not enough to be instantly lethal. So, unless mutants were stockpiling insane amounts of radioactive waste in a single spot, there is no way in hell a single gorge would be irradiated so much.
 * Second, nuclear weapons explode, as in, send debris flying everywhere, accompanied by irradiated dust and other materials. As such, radiation would've been all over the place, instead of being focused in a single spot.
 * Third, plane crashes generally don't create craters - certainly not the size of Megaton. It's funny how you try to prove your point by stating that an aircraft falling out of the sky vertically can create enough hit power. Problem is, aircraft, especially strategic bombers, aren't really going to crash perfectly vertically. Hell, in any combat situation, a pilot would attempt to make an emergency landing and even if he was dead, the plane would still glide for a bit, before steering out of control and crashing. But to crash perfectly vertically? It's impossible.
 * Fourth, the plane exploded and the nuke survived pretty much intact? That's bullshit and you know it. If several tons worth of explosives went off, if the nuke didn't go off, it'd become a dirty bomb. If it didn't, it sure as hell wouldn't have stabilizing fins still intact.
 * Fifth, the National Guard Depot was not hit by a nuclear weapon (on the virtue of it being still intact), while the crater north of the Springvale school is far too small to be from any kind of nuclear munition. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 21:17, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping at some point the administrators can tell you to stop being a douche and shitting up the thread. Everything is susceptible to becoming irradiated. Chernobyl was a tiny incident in comparison to what was unleashed during the Great War, so its a valid example. The craters in the Fallout world would be like several Chernobyls at once and with the sarcophagus still full of very deadly radiation levels 20+ years on, its relevant. Remeber its a game and the Fallout world utilises Science!. who knows, maybe the scientists of the Fallout world worked out a new way or creating nuclear explosions. You're also thinking of and air burst nuclear munition. Surface burst nuclear weapons in a Fallout world using Science! may behave differently. The ground itself is heavily irradiated and accounts for the high rads output. (remember, Science!). Its good to see you've changed your stance on planes creating/not creating craters (generally don't cause craters now), its funny how you ignore previous statements you've made if they no longer work for you, thats some good integrity there. Glide for a bit? If a plane is that high in the air with a dead pilot, its still going to hit the ground with a whopping velocity, enough to create a large crater. Look at some World War footage, good examples of planes crashing impossibly vertically. You shouldn't take things literally. Close to vertically still counts, anything with a sharp angle. An explosive payload is more than ample to create a hole the size of Megaton. And I'll bring you back to whats been stated before (it's just a game, the developers would put an intact nuclear weapon in the crater so people can tell what it is. Also, Science!) Remember how I said that the B-52 CAN carry that much? Remeber the Thule incident? I also said don't get wound up about it. It was just a generic example of how a crater that size could have been created to, oh I don't know, stay in line with the thread discussion. The nuke wouldn't function if it was caught in an explosion, thats not how they operate. Ever try setting some plastic explosives on fire? How else would you explain a radioactive crater in Sprinvale. Its plausible especially considering that the vehicles create a nuclear explosion when destroyed and that you carry something called a Fat Man which launches mini-nukes. Thats a pretty small nuclear munition. I'm sure the US military had developed other nukes that were more than capable of the Springvale crater.(Just a game). Also, you contradict yourself completely in your fourth statement. What a joke

I'm still yet to see how you're actually contributing to the thread. All I've seen is ego stroking and e-penis measuring. Good job, being a mod and all. Admins, can you please tell this guy to shut the hell up and stop being an irritating douche. Its annoying to a lot of people and even mentioned in other threads. (Science!)
 * Here, The Vault:Administrators. Just don't go to this guy, he hates my guts. Now, back to business. Your ignorance is painfully obvious when you claim Chernobyl is comparable to an atomic bomb detonation. Put simply, they're totally different. In more technical terms, the Chernobyl incident was caused by a terminal buildup of steam in the reactor, which led to an explosion of catastrophic proportions, when the pressure became too much for the installation to handle. The result was that tons of irradiated material (pretty much everything inside the reactor chamber) and debris were sent into the atmosphere and settled in what is now known as the Zone of Exclusion, remaining hazardous for years (but not extremely long - fauna and flora is flourishing in the unintentional nature's reserve).
 * Now, a nuclear bomb operates on the principle of fission and the energy that is unleashed is the enegy created by the splitting of the atom. It's a reaction that has nothing in common with the steam explosion of block 4 of the Chernobyl NPP, therefore making comparisons between atomic bombs and Chernobyl quite baseless, I'm afraid. And that's ignoring the fact that radiation from a nuclear bomb is just a byproduct (usually kept to a minimum in any modern nuclear weapon), while in Chernobyl the fallout was all that came from the explosion, because there was no nuclear explosion in the first place. "Just" a reactor blowing open and sending tons of radioactive Fallout everywhere.
 * Next point. It's funny how you use the "SCIENCE!" excuse to handwave anything that might possibly disprove your point, completely ignoring that SCIENCE! is used to explain mutations and energy weapons, but the rest is very much rooted in reality. In fact, we know how nuclear weapons work in the Fallout world, courtesy of the Fallout manual, something you should read to get a grasp on the setting.
 * Another thing you might want to consider reading is a book entitled "How To Understand The Differences Between World War II Aircraft And American Strategic Bombers". A B-52 is nearly four times bigger and has nearly six times more lift area than the most popular German Ju-88, again, making such comparisons flawed. And then there's your claim that the Thule incident proves that Megaton could be reasonably created... which is amusing, to be honest. You're citing a bomber crashing onto sea ice, exploding and losing the nuclear bombs it carried without actually breaking through the ice (which melted away as a result of the raging inferno that resulted) as proof that a bomber would explode on impact with solid ground, create an enormous crater and leave an intact nuclear bomb at the bottom, which wouldn't have gone off in the crash, explosion or the raging inferno that surely resulted. I'm speechless, I really am. Your ability to make leaps of logic (and miss the landing spot by a kilometer) is amazing.
 * As for the Springvale crater, it's easy. Any conventional explosive can be used to make a crater, so it's entirely possible sometime in the 200 years that passed someone blew someone/something up and somehow radioactive waste ended up being there. It doesn't take a genius to imagine several scenarios like that. Maybe the building was used as a storage spot for irradiated debris by public services, who tried to perform radiation cleanup after the War (and miserably failed eventually).
 * Now, let's see your comeback. And please, try to make it something more intelligent than appealing for admin help or accusing me of ego stroking. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:58, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

when you claim Chernobyl is comparable to an atomic bomb detonation. Didn't claim that, sorry to burst your bubble. I'm well aware of the differences between a reactor explosion and the detonation of a nuclear device. Remember, its an alternate history. All I did was suggest that they had a different style of nuclear weaponry as opposed to ours. Just a suggestion as to why there is so much contamination outside the Vault 87 entrance. You were the one who has started to make a relation between nuclear weapons and Chernobyl. I used Chernobyl as an example that radiation of an area lasts a long time, you decided to twist it after you were proven wrong about the levels of radiation present today. Then you tried turning it around saying that there is no sarcophagus over Vault 87. Ok... I guess... Dont know exactly what you're going for there but good luck. Much better than your 'It makes no sense and is just arbitrarily placed' suggestion. And that's ignoring the fact that radiation from a nuclear bomb is just a byproduct (usually kept to a minimum in any modern nuclear weapon) Modern? For the most part, the Fallout world was 1950's-esque technology. How modern do you actually mean? It was all part of the actual thread which is titled "Bomb crater locations from the Great War". Not "Lets watch MikaelGrizzly stroke his ego and shit all over a thread". Another thing you might want to consider reading is a book entitled "How To Understand The Differences Between contributing to a thread and derailing one". Again I'll refer you back to the part where I said I used the B-52 as an example. A generic example. I think it was just before the part where I said not to get wound up over it. Just throwing it out there, but the Americans in the game might not have had them. Oh you poo-pooed that example without providing anything substantial. Have you ever thrown a dart? If you throw one from high enough, it will point down and drop quite quickly. Same thing happens to a plane. Its heavier than air and will drop like a dart. None of this gliding business you suggested. At least you conceded now that planes are more than capable of crashing vertically, whch was the original suggestion of how the Megaton crater could have been formed. Oh and you may want to re-read the reason why I mentioned the Thule incident in the first place. It had nothing to do with the creation of the Megaton crater. What was your suggestion on how it was formed by the way? I cant recall seeing one from you. If you read what was written, it was detailing that a nuclear weapon can survive a crash. Again, this was something you thought was ridiculous. Welp, looks like it actually happened in real life. So you're saying a nuclear bomb didn't survive a crash? That it didn't detonate? Other factors would have come into play for the Megaton crater. It also looks like the villagers there have done a fair bit of modification to the original area. I'm sure you said it would have been blown to smithereens. Funny how you ignore what you've previously said in order to make yourself sound like you've been correct the whole time.

As for the Springvale crater, it's easy. Any conventional explosive can be used to make a crater, so it's entirely possible sometime in the 200 years that passed someone blew someone/something up and somehow radioactive waste ended up being there. Are you serious? You absolutely shit all over everyone elses ideas and suggestions and this is possibly the best you could come up with? someone might have blown something up and somehow it got full of radioactive waste? You're kidding me. So instead of saying that it could entirely be a bomb crater from a nuke, you offer that... Awesome "easy" suggestion. Oh and appealing for admin help is ridiculous? You're supposed to be an admin and the only time you tried being one is when you accused me of backseat modding. Why dont you stop shitting up the thread? At least you contributed one thing finally, even if it was completely retarded. Now its easy to see why you dont offer contributions as readily as you shitcan everyone elses ideas. Yours suck. And please, try to make it something more intelligent than appealing for admin help<< Just quoting you again here, but that doesn't sound like something an admin should be suggesting. I think you're taking this a little too much to heart. Aren't you as an admin supposed to prevent things like threadshitting and derailing from happening? It looks like you've caused most of that in this thread alone. you should take a look at yourself and perhaps start acting like an admin should. Its pathetic.

Anyways, I've lost interest in the whole thing now. Its like squabbling with a 4 year old. I've contributed to the thread which is more than you've done and I'm going to take the moral high ground.


 * "Have you ever thrown a dart? If you throw one from high enough, it will point down and drop quite quickly. Same thing happens to a plane. Its heavier than air and will drop like a dart. None of this gliding business you suggested."


 * Well, look who doesn't know how a fricken plane works. Air under the wings moves faster than the air above the wings, creating a low pressure spot that causes the plane to lift. Jet engines and propellers provide forward motion. If a plane shuts off the engines, it'll glide. That's the whole principal of Gliders. Nitty Tok. 22:08, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this is your last comment here, I feel obliged to reply. I brought up Chernobyl, yes, but as an indication of how fallout is distributed by an explosion and how it is impossible to create an exploding device that irradiates a specific, very small area. You claimed that nuclear bombs are like several Chernobyls at once, which is not true, because atomic weapons don't work that way, conventional ones, at least. There is no mention being made of special irradiating warheads or similiar in the nuclear weapons background section in the Fallout manual, and since this is the only source we have, it's a pretty clear indication nukes of the Fallout world function just like our nukes. Next, I didn't twist out of my argument about Chernobyl. Yes, radiation lingers on to this day. No, it's not nearly as dangerous as you make it out to be - most of natural areas (like forests) are already pretty much habitable, except for some specific areas where radioactive waste was dumped. What's horribly irradiated are man-made things, like vehicles, buildings etc. You have missed the point of the argument - I proved that V87's radzone is completely arbitrary, because radioactive fallout or irradiated stuff would not accumulate there without either a. a sarcophagus placed over it, filled with radioactive junk or b. radioactive waste stacked mile-high. Neither of which are true.
 * Next, don't try to weasel out of your own argument by twisting words. You proposed a model in which a B-52 crashes vertically into solid ground and instead of properly disintegrating, creates a crater with a perfectly intact nuclear weapon on its bottom. I disproved it by punching several Eurotunnels in your concept, and I will continue to, as (as Nitty pointed out) airplanes do not work like a dart. At all. They are balanced, they have wings in addition to stabilizing fins and have propulsion. You can compare a bomb to a dart - but not a plane.
 * Next, Thule incident. You can't pick specific segments from an event and call them proof. You treat the event as a whole and the entire Thule incident, well, it disproves your point. No nuclear weapons were recovered from the crash, one weapon exploded (exploded), the plane crashed on ice (not solid ground, but ice), yet failed to make even the smallest crater and burned down completely, contaminating the area. End result, the weapons were destroyed in the crash. Neither of the nukes survived. Your point is dead.
 * Last, Springvale crater is not from a nuclear munition. It's from an explosive, but not nuclear, otherwise, there'd be a lot more destruction around. I could work out an example, modeled with actual physics etc., but it's simply not worth the effort, not for this itty bitty crater-chan.
 * And so far, you are far less civilized and far more aggressive than me. May I remind you that using this Wiki is a privilege, not a right. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 08:52, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't most of the bombs dropped be airburst anyway? The idea is just to cook everything, it's not like a regular "Boom" bomb. Well... I mean there is a boom. The point is, airburst bombs usually don't make much of a crater, as they usually explode a couple thousand feet above ground. And NO! NO NO NO NO NO! Jet crashes do not leave craters. They're large shells made of light alloys. That doesn't make a crater. It's like if you dropped a watermellon off of a tall building. No crater. Better yet, an egg. Honestly I found it kind of dumb that Megaton is obviously supposed to be some sort of crater left by an explosion, but for some reason there is an intact and armable nuclear weapon at the bottom of that crater. It doesn't make sense. That bomb wouldn't be giving off radiation after 200 years anyway, nor would it be able to explode. At all. Tagaziel isn't being a douche, he's making not only one but several extremely rational arguments, and you guys are getting mad because he won't play Barbie with you. Metalfrenchtoast 08:19, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Argument argument argument flamewar.

The way I see it, the Megaton crater was originally caused by the bomb hitting the ground at speed. Being a nuclear weapon, it was hardened, but not fully.

Now, the material inside it isn't really radioactive, being weapons-grade plutonium. However, after all that time, it's still armable. This implies some sort of atomic power source, an RTG or something, to keep the electronics ticking over and the tubes warm. That RTG is irradiating the local groundwater.

However, note the level of rads. It's not much more than taking a dip in any other pool, or the potomac. Most of THAT radiation is from the nuclear waste dump and the nuclear-powered beached aircraft carrier with a broken back laying in the mud.

Why's it so big?

Excavation. Look at the sides of the crater. That was dug to provide for adding the sheet metal, and for sinking piles in to hold things up.

Tagaziel, why are you bitching?

You say that F3 isn't realistic? What about the glow? That thing is so full of radiation IT GLOWS... Seriusly?

And if the nuke blew a hole straight trough 3 floors of the complex, there wouldn't be much left of those 3 floors. And if anything was left, it would be burned to a cinder by the "hot as the sun" heatwave.ChaplainDMK 16:56, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the same mechanism that punched a hole through the Pentagon on 9/11. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 08:01, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Tagaziel and the I.P., both of you please calm down. As for the Megaton bomb crater, I agree that Megaton's residents probably enlarged it greatly themselves. Tagaziel, you're right when you say a bomb couldn't gain enough velocity to create such as massive crater, and a plain crash... ehh, it's rather iffy. It seems perfectly logical and reasonable, however, for Megaton's residents to have enlarged the hole for greater protection. Telos 05:28, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, they'd have to move the bomb. And moving crashed nuclear bombs is generally not conductive to your general health. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 08:01, June 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Glow is not named so because it "glows" from the background radiation left from the nuclear warhead that struck it. It is a metaphor that describes the immense amounts of radiation, period. Radiation doesn't glow green, or any shit seen in movies; it is invisible to us. The particles and gamma waves that would result from nuclear fission - or fusion - are far too small to be detectable to the human eye. Even in large amounts, as would result from a massive nuclear explosion. And what is not logical about the warhead piecing 3 levels of an underground installation? The ground access building had to have been small, considering the radius of the point of entrance not nearing more than the width of a typical building, like Harold's shack in the Hub. Getting through it would be like cutting through butter with a hot knife. Then, seeing as a propelled (not free-falling) nuke would have enough velocity to pierce through many meters of reinforced steel before it was detonated, it could keep going. And then, when it goes "boom" and discharges massive amounts of radiation and heat energy, it would simply charcoal the walls. What's it going to do? Blow out the walls underground, where there is a ton of pressure focused inwards by the Earth's crust surrounding the place? No. Ghouly89 (Talk)02:34, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

They're games where radiation made scorpions grow to twelve feet in length after a few dozen generations. The franchise isn't inordinately concerned with realism.205.188.116.206 05:16, July 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that brings up a good point. Giant radscorpions are indeed a great example of realism, but not in our universe. Fallout provided a completely different view on long-term effects of radiation, where things like mutations and lifespan longevity (various ghouls living since before the great war) were commonplace, whereas real-life outcomes of prolonged exposure are usually cancer and severe radiation sickness. It is not illogical that by this differentiation in physics that over a few generations of mutations, scorpions - and other animals like mole rats - could begin to see such drastic changes in their biological make-up, and thus their physical being. Ghouly89 (Talk)03:48, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point, in fact, I wholeheartedly endorse it. I was simply trying to point out the inherent absurdities involved in trying to apply physics as we know them to problems created by the 1950's sci- fi physics of the Fallout universe, as some people on this forum appeared to be doing. 205.188.116.206 04:55, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Grizzly is a troll. I have to say that. He makes me vomit with the pessimistic position he has against Fallout 3. If you don't like it, shut up. I know anons are trolls about the past games, but I have had to read your posts about your hatred for Fallout 3. You make me sick. Nukey (talk) User blog:AreYouGoingToEatThatNuke? 04:02, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Grizzly is a troll. I have to say that. He makes me vomit with the pessimistic position he has against Fallout 3. If you don't like it, shut up. I know anons are trolls about the past games, but I have had to read your posts about your hatred for Fallout 3. You make me sick. Nukey (talk) User blog:AreYouGoingToEatThatNuke? 04:02, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Grizzly is a troll. I have to say that. He makes me vomit with the pessimistic position he has against Fallout 3. If you don't like it, shut up. I know anons are trolls about the past games, but I have had to read your posts about your hatred for Fallout 3. You make me sick. Nukey (talk) User blog:AreYouGoingToEatThatNuke? 04:02, July 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg to disagree, young petowan. From his first comment, all he has done is provide grounds for discussion. He does not display any signs of "hatred for Fallout 3", but rather argues his position as to why some of the in-game occurences and locations are illogical. The real troll is the anon who repeatedly accused him of said things like "thread-shitting", "straying off-topic", and "being a douche". Accusing another user of these things (with two out of the three being personal attacks) is misconductive of a few of the Vault's policies. Honestly, he did bring the disccusion away from the original topic (and I as well, but I too wanted to express my stance on a few topics that were brought up), but not before the anon attempted to downsize him in a crudely ineffective way.


 * No offense intended to you, Nukey :] I just don't find evidence of him displaying hate for Fallout 3 here. And I'm not one to say he does or doesn't, but he stayed completely civil, so there are to be no more accusations here. This is a great wiki, so let's keep it that way. ;) Ghouly89 (Talk)05:17, July 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * @Anon You sir, are very right. *Erases comback post in the the event anon starts trolling* :P
 * Maybe the area that is megaton was hit by a nuclear bomb, leaving a crater, not long after another bomb detonated and the EMP from this second bomb hit an american bomber which crashed in the megaton crater. Clueless93 23:47, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * if you imagine the crater without the bomb and the building the crater is angled down at about 50 60 degrees then on the other side you have a 60-80 degree hill so something hit it from the east and pushed up the dirt so i say it was the bomb but those planes are dropping their payload from 30,000 ft so its completely logical that it could have made that crater Peters 007 03:58, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * if you imagine the crater without the bomb and the building the crater is angled down at about 50 60 degrees then on the other side you have a 60-80 degree hill so something hit it from the east and pushed up the dirt so i say it was the bomb but those planes are dropping their payload from 30,000 ft so its completely logical that it could have made that crater Peters 007 03:58, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * if you imagine the crater without the bomb and the building the crater is angled down at about 50 60 degrees then on the other side you have a 60-80 degree hill so something hit it from the east and pushed up the dirt so i say it was the bomb but those planes are dropping their payload from 30,000 ft so its completely logical that it could have made that crater Peters 007 03:58, August 2, 2010 (UTC)