![18bl3bjw14st3jpg[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/svdfg1t.jpg "18bl3bjw14st3jpg[1].jpg")
The Tsar Bomba was detonated 55 years ago, and had the power to raze entire cities with a radius of nearly 50 miles. They didn't even test the most powerful Tsar Bomba (100 megatons) but instead tested one half the strength, for fear of any ramifications of such a huge blast.
How much have our weapons of mass destruction evolved over the past 55 years, and what kind of implications does this have if World War III were to break out? Would nukes immediately be the go-to tactic instead of boots on the ground?
>>1255073
>history
>talks about the present
>>1255073
nuclear yields haven't changed since the 70's.
hell, I'm pretty sure most of our missiles are from the 70's, which is why we've started a nuclear missile replacement program.
there's also the B61 tactical nuclear bomb, also quite old by now, that baby can be dropped from F-16's, and soon the F-35.
>>1255073
Interesting topic, but /his/ is for events +25 years old. Ask for Oppenheimer on >>>/k/ or search their archives.
>>1255073
We can fit 100 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb into a small rocket-shaped shell.
>>1255073
>for fear of any ramifications of such a huge blast
Nah.
According to their calculations they thought that any more than that would just send a blast further up/out of our atmosphere rather than causing any more damage on the ground.
>>1255073
>Would nukes immediately be the go-to tactic instead of boots on the ground?
Since 1945 the plan has always been that Nukes should be used in conjunction with other arms. Otherwise, you're mostly pissing them away.
>>1255073
WWIII
2. We, the planet, are in the midst of WWIII. It is a conflict based on religious ideology, rather than political ideology or territorial ambitions. So... No, nuclear weapons have not been used in this conflict.
2. Nuclear weapons are more accurate but general less destructive than the Big weapons tested back in the day. Larger weapons are difficult to deliver to their target.
>>1255073
>They didn't even test the most powerful Tsar Bomba (100 megatons) but instead tested one half the strength, for fear of any ramifications of such a huge blast.
They were worried about nuclear fallout, and the life of the pilot. If they detonated a 100 megaton bomb, the pilot would most likely be blown out of the sky.
>>1255310
>>1255323
While it may be better suited for /k/ I would say that threads like this belong in the technological advancements/military history, since these sort of fit into humanities and human civilization. I would also say that we should allow discussion on predicted events, social/technological changes and general world history future since it is all general based on an understanding of history and humanity.
Autism aside, I'm pretty sure new nukes haven't been made for some time now, and the US may need to soon conduct maintenance checks since the weapons haven't really been attended too in some time. I also think that while we have come very close to it, the nature of modern diplomacy and ways of thinking between nuclear powers apart from maybe NK would not make a full scale nuclear exchange possible even in the event of a new war between major powers.
>>1258142
>While it may be better suited for /k/ I would say that threads like this belong in the technological advancements/military history, since these sort of fit into humanities and human civilization.
True if only because a few Russian posters are needlessly combative on /k. We had this same thread over there a few days ago.
To going into the topic of the Tsar Bomba and its effective on weapons of mass destruction designed it did not do much. The scaled down Tsar Bomba was 27 metric tons. Four years in 1965 the soviets got their strongest in terms of payload limit ICBM that they would ever get. It could get a payload of 22.5 tons onto a ballistic trajectory. The Tu-95 has a normal limit of only 15 tons of bombs and missiles. A heavily modified Tu-95 did carry the smaller version of Tsar Bomba on its test. However it was carried outside the air frame. I am no engineer however with almost double the load and a huge parasitic drag a Tu-95 likely have a much smaller combat radius and a laughable cruise speed.
In short it the soviets did not have a delivery system for it and did not make on either. The Tsar Bomba was a show piece.
> How much have our weapons of mass destruction evolved over the past 55 years
Rather then looking at nuclear weapons, try looking at chemical weapons.
This goes into the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzpAQu2jDZo
The TLD is that the protective gear did not work very well for the Irans. Current US protective gear is good for four hours against Sarin at best. Far less against a V series or a Novichok agent.
Chemical weapon use and stock piling also does not have the same level of negative political effects as nuclear weapons do. Nuclear weapons have not been used in anger since WWII. Chemical weapons have been used many times since WWII. They are also cheaper.
