Quote Originally Posted by Storm View Post
I thought the Mt. St. Helens eruption disproved that theory, as the blast wave hugged the ground and decimated trees on the far side of the hills for miles around.
A volcano is similar to a bomb in some ways, different in many others (primarily the heat "wave" and radiation)

Soil and rock will absorb some of the heat, blast, and radiation, while also deflecting much of it. This is why the altitude of the blast makes such a huge difference (and why we fuse most nukes to detonate in the air instead of on the ground). Hiroshima and Nagasaki both detonated at 1500+ft above the ground, but the devastation would have been considerably worse if both areas were not so mountainous. No, a 40ft tall rolling hill may not make much of a difference, but being North of Monument Pass in a scenario where Colorado Springs gets nuked would make a huge difference. I know Denver isn't exactly full of mountains, but even something as simple as being in your basement is a considerable improvement over being on the main floor of a house in terms of radiation, heat, and pressure exposure. It's probably safe to assume that just about any nukes used against Colorado targets (with the sole exception of Cheyenne Mtn) will be an airburst several thousand feet up, precisely because it maximizes the destructive effects of the weapon.