![1465338515514[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/nXJ1gFA.jpg "1465338515514[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?
>>30201639
you can't make money if everybodys dead
the tsar was a shit bomb. much better results are had with multiple smaller bombs.
>>30201639
>How much have our weapons of mass destruction evolved over the past 55 years,
They are more accurate and have much smaller yields.
>and what kind of implications does this have if World War III were to break out?
A smaller percentage of the civil population would be killed in a nuclear attack.
>Would nukes immediately be the go-to tactic instead of boots on the ground?
Depends on the exact circumstances of the crisis that starts the war.
Oh boy a nuke thread.
Nukes have generally dropped in yield since the middle of the Cold War. High yields are incredibly inefficient, as most of the energy radiates away from the target, so, as delivery systems got more accurate, yields could drop. Nowadays, yields rarely go beyond 1 megaton.
>>30201639
They've become far more efficient. The Tsar Bomba was never anything more than a propaganda piece, it's yield left it with virtually no viable targets other than megalopolis busting and the fact that it required the bomber to be modified just to carry it made it doubly difficult to plan for.
If USSR wanted to use the Tsar Bomba against America how would they get their Tu-95s over the atlantic?
Why didn't the US build its own version of the Tsar Bomba?
>>30201780
Flying over the pole probably.
>>30201788
They didnt need it.
>>30201780
They did not. Device had no practical use.
>>30201712
what was the effect of this propaganda back then? i imagine it would have been pretty heavy
Stupid large megaton nukes that are buried deep underground near tectonic plates and fault lines can cause massive earthquakes and tsunamis
They can also be used to start volcanic explosion that can wipe out large portions of a continent
100mt is insane.
I wonder how feasibly massive you could make a Hydrogen bomb?
Like, could you imagine a bomb with a yield of 200mt?
Is such a thing even possible?
Such a silly concept.
Burying stupid large megaton nukes ensures that almost all the energy is used
>>30201856
That is bullshit.
>>30201859
>I wonder how feasibly massive you could make a Hydrogen bomb?
There is no theoretical limitations on a power of thermonuclear devices.
>>30201856
That is completely incorrect, the forces present in tectonic plate movements so vastly outstrip the power of nuclear weapons that they would make no noticeable difference.
>>30201780
Apparently the concept of supersonic cruise missiles is incomprehensible to ameritard trailer inbreeds.
>>30201877
No its not. All you need is a big enough nudge in a known point and let nature take its course. Its a domino effect. Like an avalanche
>>30201893
The bomb isnt doing all the work. Its just a small catalyst
>>30201912
>supersonic cruise missiles
With a Tsar Bomba as the warhead?
Are you insane?
>>30201918
Yes it is. Amount of energy required to make a difference in tectonic processes is extremely high. Even 100mt bombs can't give energy.
>>30201912
>Apparently the concept of literacy is incomprehensible to morons from whatever shithole I'm posting this from.
>>30201941
In a stable shelf yes. But go somewhere that is unstable and it will work.
>>30201941
100mt fuck that
Why not 300mt? Next to a unstable zone. Maybe next to a large volcano that is long due to pop?
Wasnt this in a movie or book or someshit
>>30201912
Yeah? You and what computers
>>30201912
You have no idea how this shit works, do you?
>>30201912
The Tsar Bomba weighed three times more than the maximum throw-weight of the world's most powerful ICBM, which has not even entered service yet.
It's only slightly less than 3x the carry weight of a TU95.
In other words, the weapon cannot be carried.
>>30201675
This
>>30201912
You'd need at least a Saturn V to deliver that thing and it wouldn't end good
>>30201639
>How much have our weapons of mass destruction evolved over the past 55 years
It's shifted from large, inaccurate warheads to smaller, accurate ones.
>>30202039
>The Tsar bomba cannot be carried by the Tu-95.
Well here is exacly that happening.
>>30201675
>>30202051
well in terms of pure spectacle and fear factor, you cant beat one big ass explosion
>>30202039
what about 10 smaller ICBM's that are strapped around tsar bomba
>>30202094
Spectacle, agreed, I love nig explosions. Fear? Don't know, both would kill you in a matter of seconds and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
>>30202121
At that point we might as well draft Kerbal Space Program players to design it.
>>30202121
What about a smaller tsar bomba capable of being delivered virtually anywhere? Oh, wait, we already have them.
>>30201834
To civilians? Significant as your entire city would be reduced to ash.
To the military and those in the know?
Minor. ICBM's were well into mass production by the time of the test.
Hell nuke bombers were considered obsolete with SLBM's but the DoD wanted to avoid the Air Force acting like the crybaby Navy did when they got the nuke boot
>>30202121
what about 10 tsar bombas strapped around one big ICBM
>>30202132
>nig explosions
WE WUZ NOOKS AND SHIT
>>30202220
atomic watermelons
watermelonuclear warfare
>>30202091
You are correct. I was going by the typical bomb load of a TU95. From wiki:
>In a series of nuclear surface tests that were carried out by the Soviet Union in the early through mid 1960s, on October 30, 1961 a modified Tu-95 carried and dropped the AN602 device named Tsar Bomba, which was the most powerful thermonuclear device ever detonated.[10] The bomb was attached outside underneath of the aircraft, and carrying the Tsar Bomba semi-externally, somewhat like a B.I Special version of the Avro Lancaster would with a Grand Slam eleven tonne "earthquake bomb", as the Tsar Bomba could not be carried internally inside a standard Tu-95's bomb-bay.
>>30202091
>They had to carry it outside.
Jesus Christ.
I don't think we have made much progress as it was only because of the cold war the super powers started mass development and research on nukes. There may be small improvements but the only reason nukes are around today is to ensure M.A.D.
>>30202418
There is still plenty of research being done on new types of nuclear weapons and how to deliver them. Most of that stuff is either secret or boring, so nobody ever talks about it.
The fact that we don't have to blow up nukes to test them anymore is another factor that makes it seem as if nothing's being done. It's all done with computer simulations and scale models now.
In fact, a huge portion of nuclear weapons research done presently is to ensure that our old weapons, which we have quite a few of, will continue to work in the future. Google "stockpile stewardship".
>>30202134
> construction halts due to lack of snacks
>>30201780
very carefully
>>30201639
>How much have our weapons of mass destruction evolved over the past 55 years
Probably by a lot.
However, none of us will ever know unless they actually get dropped.
Anyone who believes the official numbers regarding nuclear stockpiles is an idiot.
>>30203124
>Anyone who believes the official numbers regarding nuclear stockpiles is an idiot.
Why?
>>30203201
Israel
>>30203201
Because he's an infowars-tier conspiritard
>>30203221
What?
They have official numbers?
>>30201639
>what kind of implications does this have if World War III were to break out?
I think most of us won't have to worry about anything.
>>30203223
It's infowars to think that a nation wouldn't publicly reveal everything about its most destructive strategic asset?
Are you fucked in the head?
>>30203478
Its hard to hide the production of nuclear weapons.
>>30202039
The Tsar bomba was dropped from a TU95
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu88gb1EpmI&spfreload=10
>>30203501
Explain how.
>>30203501
What is your opinion on the whole Stuxnet thing?
>>30201639
Any bigger and most of the explosions go out into space making it impractical.
At least, that's what the russian scientists said.
>>30201639
The reason why they didn't go for 100 megatons,is because their data said that all the additional energy would just end up in space.
>>30203525
Fuel cycle is a massive industrial undertaking with a well known and understood process.
You can estimate the amount of fissile material with decent accuracy.
>>30203615
How would you even get access to that information?
And how do you know that such info is accurate?
>>30201877
if fracking can cause earthquakes, a fucking nuke will. that's just a fact/
>>30203627
>How would you even get access to that information?
Physics.
>And how do you know that such info is accurate?
Physics.
>>30203646
>Inferring something
>Fact
I know shit about dick, and am just here to read Oppenheimer's responses but come on
>>30203665
No.
I mean how would you get the information required to estimate fissile material being made?
I assume you'd need information like the amount of electricity being consumed by nuclear plants, raw materials being shipped, or some kind of actual data like that.
Where do you get it, and how do you know it's accurate?
>>30203521
Try reading the thread next time.
>>30203707
Are you asking him to explain this to you, or are you doing one of those faggoty little "I think you're wrong but I REFUSE to explain why!" things?
If the latter, just explain why you think he's wrong. Then we can go from there.
>>30203707
>I assume you'd need information like the amount of electricity being consumed by nuclear plants, raw materials being shipped, or some kind of actual data like that.
>Where do you get it, and how do you know it's accurate?
How big are the halls that house the fuel processing equipment? How many of what type of fuel processing equipment will fit inside that space?
How much fuel can that number of processors process over a given period of time?
And so on...
>>30203734
>How big are the halls that house the fuel processing equipment? How many of what type of fuel processing equipment will fit inside that space?
>How much fuel can that number of processors process over a given period of time?
Right...
AND HOW DO YOU GET THIS INFORMATION?
How do you know what capacity they're operating at?
There's a ton of factors that need answers here.
>>30201639
>How much have our weapons of mass destruction evolved over the past 55 years
They have become much more precise and material efficient so that it doesn't require a whole Proton rocket with a 100 MT warhead to inflict considerable damage to enemy infrastructure. Stuff like MIRV, MaRV and advanced penaid have become pretty much mandatory to a modern ICBM.
This thread is semi-bananas compared to many nuke threads, but if >>30201885 is correct (is it?) but also >>30203607 is correct (I don't question that it is, this one makes sense), then could it be possible to build a world-ending bomb? Not like crack the planet in half, Beneath the Planet of the Apes shit, but something that despite radiating much of its energy beyond the atmosphere, could irradiate enough of the earth to the point of mass extinction/fucking with the atmosphere enough to cause other cataclysmic events such that more humans die than don't? If tsar was the biggest (physically) built, and it can be scaled up, what would one the size of a skyscraper do?
>>30203759
Just explain why you think he's wrong. Then we can go from there.
What you are doing is called trolling, and it's for faggots. Don't be a faggot, just write what you think - or are you afraid that you might be wrong?
>>30203759
>AND HOW DO YOU GET THIS INFORMATION?
Satellite images.
>How do you know what capacity they're operating at?
You can make close guesses based on the amount of activity at the facility.
>There's a ton of factors that need answers here.
Yes.
And most of them are out in the open.
>>30203775
>The scientist Edward Teller, according to one account, kept a blackboard in his office at Los Alamos during World War II with a list of hypothetical nuclear weapons on it. The last item on his list was the largest one he could imagine. The method of “delivery” — weapon-designer jargon for how you get your bomb from here to there, the target — was listed as “Backyard.” As the scientist who related this anecdote explained, “since that particular design would probably kill everyone on Earth, there was no use carting it anywhere.”1
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bigger-boom/
Oppenchan, wasn't the US looking into utilizing anti-matter or anti-protons in future nuclear weapons in the like the 90s or something? If so, how and to what ends?
>>30202039
>The Tsar Bomba weighed three times more than the maximum throw-weight of the world's most powerful ICBM
Hello, I am UR-500 and I insist you to RTFM next time you try to make implications on the subject you have not idea about.
>>30201859
the tsar bomb was a fission bomb that hen detonated a hydrogen bomb that detonated a hydrogen bomb. you could do it again and again.
teller proposed a 10GT device called Backyard,
it would have been a chained teller-ullm device
>>30203839
>Several variants were originally planned, of which only three flew, and only two of which entered service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Rocket
>>30203525
Counting the number of trucks coming into and out of the factories? I mean, we have satellites.
>>30204032
Yes, just like its warhead, the ICBM was not accepted for service. The implication that it could not be carried by an ICBM is however absolutely wring and uninformed, since here's the ICBM that was developed to carry the full-power Tsar Bomb warhead with 100 MT yield.
>>30201639
>for fear of any ramifications of such a huge blast
Not really, they went with half-strength because the 100 Mt version would throw out too much fallout.
>>30204096
You could just admit that you were BTFO. It doesn't actually matter either way to me.
>>30204102
Fallout is a ramification.
>>30203775
Some sort of Doomsday Device?
>>30204118
>Say bullshit
>Get #rekt
>Anyone else is BTFO
Lol, go cry in a corner, ignorant faggot.
>>30204145
Yep, that's a pretty good summary of what you did. You should take your own advice, it's a pretty solid plan.
>>30204173
>You should take your own life
fixed.
anyone who gets this upset about something this trivial really has no business being alive.
>>30204102
The tsar Bomba was actually one of the cleanest nuclear weapons ever made. Generally speaking, the bigger the bomb, the less radioactive shit that gets pumped into the air. The really dirty ones were the Davy crockets and other cannon based warheads.
>>30203761
>that's the thing you will last see before you get annihilated
>>30204173
>>30204190
>Ignorant faggot goes defensive
No, ignorant faggot, last time I checked it was your retarded ass that implied the Tsar Bomb could not be carried by an ICBM or Tu-95.
Would 1 nuke going off in the upper atmosphere or high alt airblast really EMP the whole of North America?
>>30204248
But it can't.
What you've posted does not exist.
>>30201702
But anon, why not have a super accurate 100 megaton bomb?
>>30201856
Citation, pls
>>30204354
Because it's just wasted payload at that point. It's far more efficient to made multiple nukes that can hit a more widely spread target. Even if you're going for full blood-for-the-blood-god-skulls-for-the-skull-throne saturation, multiple smaller payloads would still get the job done better because you're wasting less of that energy radiating upwards.
>>30204321
UR-500 does not exist? Are you like mentally challenged? Proton rocket is literally UR-500 with an additional stage. It was developed to carry it on the first place, imbecile.
>>30204354
Because it is excessive. There is nothing you would need a precise 100 MT warhead for that can not be just equally destroyed with a couple of <1MT warhead hits.
>>30204316
Yes. But it's not as disastrous as you think.
It certainly wouldn't be "everything that uses electricity ever is instantly destroyed" like Hollywood would have you believe.
>>30204424
>UR-500 does not exist?
Correct.
>>30203759
Dude its fucking opp. Lurk more. His word is the word of the atom! The glorious cleansing light and the flame! Let his glorious light burn clean our sins!
>>30204406
He's just being silly. You don't need to give him a serious reply.
>>30203273
Israel deny having nukes but act like they do.
>>30204441
>>30204459
>He's just being silly. You don't need to give him a serious reply.
But how else can I autistically show off to strangers on the internet how smart I am?
>>30204497
By posting silly things, of course.
>>30204478
Prove to me that it does.
Ahhh, that's right. You can't.
Looks like you got BTFO again :)
all loven to Oppen
>>30204137
Na, I was thinking more of an Uh Oh Apparatus
>>30203759
Opp is the last good trip on /k/ you reddit faggg
>Its an Oppenheimer posts in a nuke thread episode
>>30204478
this is the part where I call you a vatnik
>>30204542
Here's one scheduled for launch in about an hour, if I am not mistaken. Looks like you simply enjoy being BTFO.
>>30204640
>Anyone who says Tsar Bomb could not be carried by Tu-95 or ICBM is a vatnik
Summer on /k, everyone.
>>30204696
>could be carried
*fix
>>30204674
>if I am not mistaken
You are.
>>30203805
Do you have any guns opp? which ones? No disrespect if you dont. I just want to know more about my favourite 4chan celebrity
>>30204630
>it's a "Fallout 4 is the reason we talk about nukes at all" thread
>>30204723
Indeed, the launch is scheduled for 8:10 Moscow time 8th Jine 2016, that is in two hours not one.
>>30204781
Exactly.
Good on you for admitting it, I was afraid you were about to have another meltdown like you did earlier in the thread.
>>30204777
Opp has been talking about nuke threads since fallout 3 faggot. Lurk more.
Also, fallout has no bearing on real life at all you waste of oxygen
>>30204757
>Do you have any guns opp?
Yes.
>which ones?
AR-15, S&W 5906, FN TPS, FNP .40, FN PS90, and the newest edition is a PTR A3R which I should be getting Friday.
>No disrespect if you dont. I just want to know more about my favourite 4chan celebrity
I'm not a celebrity. I'm just a guy who posts in nuke threads. I post far more often as anon than Oppenheimer.
>>30204871
Hey Opp, can you answer this anon's question please? >>30203833
I too am curious about this.
>>30204832
Except Opp wasn't OP, you idiot. The waste of space is you for encouraging every dumb monkey to bang their fucking keyboards for some half baked hypotheticals for things that will never happen.
At least break-ins and skirmishes occurs every now and then, Jesus Christ.
>Was the Pershing II truly the saber that Reagan rattled?
I think Army rocketry goes unappreciated. I talked to a few vets, and a problem is they get accused of stolen valor because no one believes them the Army had nuclear missiles. What normal people would find deeply troubling was the higher than usual, even for soldiers, consumption of alcohol that was rampant amongst Pershing batteries, and brings about romantic visions of missile crews firing their missiles then racing to the nearest brewhouse to enjoy a pint before the reality of World War 3 crashed their party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-31_Pershing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pershing_II
>>30204871
How do you like the fnp 40? I haven't found any reliable reviews, and I kinda want to buy one
>>30205098
Love it.
>>30202134
Some wonderful jackass on the forums made a TSAR bomba orbital delivery glider. its wonderful :^]
>>30203830
Was Teller a Serb?
>>30205276
He was Hungarian you disgusting serb rat
>>30201639
US castle bravo was still a more efficient bomb, also the other reason why they didn't test the 100mt one was that the bomber couldn't escape it in time, they barely escaped the 50mt one
>>30205406
Wasn't the Castle Bravo bomb though sort of a fluke? If I recall a national geographic article about it, it exploded with way more force than they intended due to the unstable nature of the tritium reaction. I can't recall if they ever got that issue fixed or not.
>>30204354
Needs bigger launch system or less survivable launch system like heavy bomber and free fall bomb. Either too expensive or just simply stupid.
>>30204424
>UR-500 does not exist? Are you like mentally challenged? Proton rocket is literally UR-500 with an additional stage. It was developed to carry it on the first place, imbecile.
Proton is big and expensive launch vehicle that takes a lot of time to prepare for launch. The fact it's one of few things that can lift shit like space station modules, big satellites/probes or lots of satellites to orbit in one launch justifies it's existence as orbital launch vehicle. As ICBM it would be stupid as hell. Dozen 300kt will be far more effective at destroying targets than single 100mt warhead.
Also Tu-95 that dropped the bomb in test was heavily modified to accommodate the bomb. It would have had massive range reduction due to increased drag caused by bulge made by the bomb. It would not have been heavy bomber with intercontinental range.
How big of a nuclear payload could we conceivably deliver with a single warhead?
>>30204497
Just tell us. I promise to believe you.
>>30205510
That depends on your delivery method.
IBCM? Depends on the size of your IBCM. Well-trained seagull? Not much.
>>30205578
I meant ICBM, of course. It's late here.
>>30205578
>2016
>not using seagull delivered antimatter warheads
>>30205602
>antimatter
Well if we're going to use antimatter weapons, then clearly a sandpiper is the preferred delivery method due to their reduced radar cross-section and unfailing loyalty.
>>30205652
Well, maybe for conventional antimatter. Kiwi birds are the method of choice for the tactical variant.
>>30205691
4.5 billion years of gradual cooling and continent formation followed by a brief burst of activity in MS paint
>>30205691
At what point does a flightless antimatter bird become a mine?
>>30205728
>Ordnance designation: Mine, Antimatter, Self-Scattering, Avian.
>>30202091
That single plane required heavy modifications, and IIRC, the Pilot said it damn near fell apart after the bomb went off.
>>30205724
kek
>>30203759
Jesus Christ take your faggotry back to /r/news
>>30203646
Geologist here. Fracking doesn't cause earthquakes due to the energy expended into the system, rather, the increase in loose groundwater + channels to channel it through decreases the amount of energy required to cause a slip by reducing the effective friction of the system. A nuke, however large, could only affect such a small area of a fault that it could only precipitate quaking in such small faults that it would hardly make a difference
>>30205762
Yes, MASSA.
>>30201856
Geologyfag here. Fuck you you aren't going to get anywhere NEAR deep enough to bury the nukes. Shallow earthquakes are up to 200km deep, you aren't going to be releasing anywhere near enough potential energy to cause the shock you hope for. And good luck going for the moneyshots at 700km deep. protip: the deepest we've dug is 12 km.
>>30206122
Geology friend? Where'd you study? I did my time in SDSMT
>>30206156
I'm still in university, studying at UTSA. I'm a senior now, but I'm looking to get a master's eventually
>>30206169
Good luck. What's your focus? I'm farting around in paleontology. Interesting as fuck
>>30204871
>FN TPS
Interesting. Does putting the stock directly inline with the barrel and raising the sights improve followup?
>>30206234
I'm interested in Mineralogy. But I'm also considering Seismology or Volcanology. My real goal is to get into Planetary Geology, space rocks man. The USGS offers programs in all of these so I'm looking into it.
>>30201639
well I can tell you the "nuclear weapons" they have designed for use today are considered "eco-friendly" in the sense that it causes less radioactive fallout than an equivalent TNT explosion.
Also, they have small fractions of kilo-ton smart bombs designed for tactical applications.
Don't even get me started on what they have regarding upper atmospheric doctrine for nukes. They detonate nukes within the upper reaches of the atmosphere to cause a shockwave effective that uses part of the earth's upper atmosphere bleeding off to cause an incredibly destructive effect on any ship/ships that are within "close" orbit of the earth... a.k.a. invasion
>>30201662
nobody got this it seems, but you are right.
We don't live in the iron age, or the industrial age, or even the information age... we live in the money age
>>30205467
No, castle bravo was way more powerful because it was the first to not use cryogenically cooled liquid deuterium. Instead, the deuterium was bonded in a hydride of lithium-6. What they didn't expect, was that lithium-6 participates in the fusion reaction. The resultantly larger neutron flux in the secondary stimulated a lot more fission in the(not fissile but fissionable U-238) radiation case than was expected.
>>30201958
do you realize how much mass a tectonic plate has?
do you realize they move because the force of literally 1/3 of the mass of the entire fucking planet is pushing on them?
do you have even the remotest possible inkling of how fucking retarded you sound?
>>30206447
>the force of literally 1/3 of the mass of the entire fucking planet is pushing on them?
Could you put that in some vaguely scientific terminology?
I'm not the guy you're responding to and I don't doubt you, just for our benefit. I wouldn't have any idea how to phrase that to some of my more educated friends to get some resources to verify.
I've always just kinda assumed
>it would break the earth comrade
is slav nonsense for we couldn't make it work on some technical, diplomatic or financial level.
>>30206496
Not him but here let me fill you in. The tectonic plates ride on the Mantle, where the rock circulates due to convection currents, hotter material rises and cooler materials sink. This is because Warmer materials are less dense and therefore rise over the cooler more dense material. Where the currents rise and split apart is where we have divergent plate boundaries, convergent plate boundaries occur where the currents converge and sink again. Plate boundaries that occur at convergent points result in earthquakes because plates are grinding against each other and building up tension that has to be released eventually. See pic related
>>30202198
what about 10 tsar bombas strapped around 10 tsar bombas?
I drop tsar bombas in the morning
I drop tsar bombas at night
I drop tsar bombas in the afternoon, it makes me feel alright,
I drop tsar bombas in time of peace
and drop tsar bombas in war
I drop tsar bombas before I drop tsar bombas and then I drop two more.
commisar once told me, SON WORK HARD FOR YOUR COMRADES,
and Ingrid she once told me, IS DO OF BEST YOU CAN
then one day, I met Ivan, he came to me and said HARD WORK GOD, HARD WORK FINE, NOW DROP TSAR BOMBA FOR MOTHERLAND
>>30206567
Sorry if I phrased that poorly.
I'm aware of the vague facts of plate tectonics and how the earth functions in that sense, I'm more interested in how much force is being exerted on the crust along various axes and how much exerted downward force you would need to crack or otherwise damage it to the point of faulting.
Maybe I just answered my own question actually.
Thanks guy.
>>30206621
No worries. I think it would be difficult to determine how much force is being exherted due to the fact that the temperatures and therefore the force of uprising mantle currents are not all identical. This is evidenced by the fact that the Mid Atlantic ridge does not spread at a uniform rate at all latitudes. But picture the fact that Oceanic crust has a density of about 3 grams per cubic centimeter. It's fairly dense and the North American plate is 75,900,000 km in area (admittedly this includes the continental crust which is less dense at 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter). and this plate is racing away from the Mid Atlantic ridge at a whopping 15 to 25 mm a year depending where you are latitude-wise. That might give a sense of how much force is being exerted.
>>30204354
25 MT is enough to turn Cheyenne Mountain into Cheyenne Crater.
>>30206001
>>30206122
>>30206156
>>30206169
>>30206234
>>30206282
I too like rocks
>Palestinian teen
>>30201805
ty based Oppenheimer, I was about to say guys just wait for Oppenheimer, it isnt a nuke thread without you
>>30202233
>Nuffin...
>Nuffin never changers.
>In the ashes of war we be all like 'yo niggas, we gonna nuke the shit out of these chinks.'
>Turned out they was racis and did some chinky shit and nuked us too, but we made us some cribs in the dirt yo, we think ahead.
>Now you the latest nigga we got in this crib, but you need to get out and find us some rims and shit.
>Fallout: Chicago
>>30207308
>Choose between the Mellonmen or the Brotherhood of Purple Drank
>>30206571
turn your trip off
>>30205497
That's why UR-500 has been dropped as an ICBM and instead was used as a delivery vehicle since then. But it is and ICBM that was developed specifically for this task, albeit outdated. The mere implication that the Tsar Bomb-like high yield device could not be carried by an ICBM is strictly uninformed and continuously pushing it despite having been proven wrong is simply ignorant and retarded.
>>30207501
Holy fuck you have been bitching about this for more than 24 hours.
Let it go you stupid insecure little faggot. It doesn't fucking matter if 1 goddamned person on the internet who was OBVIOUSLY TROLLING YOU doesn't explicitly agree with you.
>>30207510
just leave him alone, he has literally never, ever felt pussy before.
>>30207510
>>30207520
>Say bullshit
>Get #rekt
>Anyone else should let it go
Time has come for you to stop posting, retard.
>>30207510
>>30207520
>>30207543
the funniest part about all of this is that he's 100% wrong
there is no such thing as an ICBM that can carry a 30 ton warhead and the only plane that was ever equipped to do so couldn't possibly have carried it across the atlantic anyway.
>>30207543
My pussy comment was the first thing I posted in this thread. It sure worked. The other post you linked is some other anon who also noticed that you're assblasted.
>>30207547
The funniest thing is actually how at this point you are just desperately trying to pretend that you being retarded all this time was merely an act.
>>30207578
there is no such thing as an ICBM that can carry a 30 ton warhead and the only plane that was ever equipped to do so couldn't possibly have carried it across the atlantic anyway.
>>30207580
Keep trying, faggot.
>>30207580
>>30207586
>>30207586
there is no such thing as an ICBM that can carry a 30 ton warhead and the only plane that was ever equipped to do so couldn't possibly have carried it across the atlantic anyway.
>>30204424
>developed to carry it in the first place
That would imply there were ever any plans to put such a yield into use or even production, which there were not
>>30207593
There is just one fact here: there is UR-500 and it was designed as an ICBM with a 100MT warhead.
>>30207594
Keep trying, faggot.
>>30207593
>neither of them find this perfect meme sufficiently embarrassing enough to stop
>this bomb was totally an operational weapon, guys
>look at this rocket they never fully developed and this bomb they only made 1 of
>don't argue with me I'm an argument master
Vatniks are literally subhuman.
Pic related, another "operational" russian superweapon.
I would really want to see the Davy Crockett launcher become usable.
>>30207628
>become usable.
It was usable, though. It was a real weapon, produced and fielded for operational use, unlike the faggoty vatnik bomb that the retard above has been attempting to defend for 26 hours straight.
From wiki:
>Production of the Davy Crockett began in 1956, with a total of 2,100 being made. The weapon was tested between 1962 and 1968 at the Pohakuloa Training Area on Hawaiʻi island, with 714 M101 spotter rounds (not live warheads) that contained depleted uranium.[5][6] The weapon was deployed with US Army forces from 1961 to 1971. It was deactivated from US Army Europe (in West Germany) in August, 1967.[7]
>>30207638
Yeah, it was, but I'd like to be able to shoot one without getting cancer
>>30207646
Look dude, if you're not willing to risk dying to some sort of radioactive ugliness, stay home. You're clearly not cut out for the atomic battlefield if that's your attitude.
>>30207608
No, that would be directly pointing you at the fact that there was an ICBM developed specifically to carry such a high-yield warhead.
>>30207622
>This faggot is so BTFO he desperately tries to move goalposts
Too late, faggot. You got #rekt the moment you implied it could not be carried by an ICBM.
>>30207646
Then be upwind.
>>30207659
That's a good point, who the hell cares about cancer on a battlefield.
For some reason I was power-fantasizing about being able to shoot one in my civilian life.
>>30207666
You mean such a high yield device that was never made?
>>30207666
>You got #rekt the moment you implied it could not be carried by an ICBM
I've directly stated that it can't be carried by an ICBM 23 separate times.
Because it can't.
How are you still confused about this very simple thing? I don't understand.
>>30206371
i thought the issue with castle bravo was that they mistakenly thought lithium 7 would become lithium 8 and decay into beryllium when in reality it decayed exactly the same as lithium 6 with the addition of another neutron
>>30207674
No, an ICBM that was developed.
>>30207679
So you directly repeated your bullshit 23 separate times before starting to move goalposts? That makes you BTFO times 23, since there was an ICBM developed specifically to carry such a high-yield warhead.
>>30207705
>before starting to move goalposts?
Point out to me when this occurred.
Ah, right. You can't, because it didn't.
When are you going to quit making shit up? First it's bombs, then it was missiles, and now you're inventing, entirely out of whole-cloth, things that neither I nor anyone else ever actually said.
You are a serial fantasist who clings to the most trivial things imaginable. The fact that you are still here, and still attempting to defend this obviously lost proposition is pathetic. I sincerely doubt that you have ever seen a vagina.
>>30204221
Is there a reason for that, or is it just sort of historical happenstance?
>>30201639
>50 miles
You are a fuckwit.
>>30201639
I don't think anyone is still doing nuclear tests at all. So I'd guess there is not that much of a development on the bombs itself.
But the way people think a nuclear war would go has changed substantially. There is no focus on getting the maximum yield out of a single bomb anymore. Instead tactical nukes hitting critical targets is the main focus. The more modern view is that they should be carried by smaller aircraft or MIRV, and also should be feasible to launch in numbers in case they get intercepted.
Razing cities to be honest is no longer a valid point, mainly because once you do so there is no going back from a total war. But tactical nukes may (I dearly hope they won't) actually get some actual objectives done like preventing a strike group from moving, destroying a military base without making sure that mankind's demise.
>>30207712
>I don't think anyone is still doing nuclear tests at all. So I'd guess there is not that much of a development on the bombs itself.
See >>30202487
>>30207710
>To limit fallout, the third stage and possibly the second stage had a lead tamper instead of a uranium-238 fusion tamper (which greatly amplifies the reaction by fissioning uranium atoms with fast neutrons from the fusion reaction).
>This eliminated fast fission by the fusion-stage neutrons, so that approximately 97% of the total energy resulted from fusion alone (as such, it was one of the "cleanest" nuclear bombs ever created, generating a very low amount of fallout relative to its yield)
>>30207709
Right here >>30207622, imbecile faggot, since this was never about its operational state, but about sheer possibility for an ICBM to carry it.
>>30207727
Elaborate.
>>30207735
Elaborate what? There was an ICBM developed and tested specifically for this task, so saying that it could not be carried by an ICBM is wrong.
>>30207743
[citation needed]
The one thing most people forget is that nukes are only effective against organic material like people, wood, stone etc. Want a perfectly safe nuke shield? Hide behind glass, preferably in a glass bubble. With modern structures being made more and more glass, nukes are not so effective. This is one reason they used physical attacks ie airplanes when attacking the WTC. A nuke may have damaged concrete some but everyone behind the glass windows would be relatively unscathed.
>>30207754
I'm trying to figure out which part of this post is supposed to be amusing.
>>30207714
New designs cant be done without a actual test however. They do not consider the computer simulations reliable enough.
>>30203799
I thought he was being quite clear. The other person was saying "You can find out using x y z" and he was asking "How do you get x y z and can you trust it"
The government hides loads of black projects with a loads of means, I don't think hes trolling.
>>30207769
Just how detailed do nuke simulations get?
>>30207776
The sort of detailed that that requires some of the world's fastest supercomputers to spend months calculating.
>>30207753
UR-500.
>>30207769
Don't laboratories like Los Alamos use impact tests of core samples now a days? I remember reading something along those lines years ago when they were still working on the RRW (Fuck Obama and the Dems) to determine how well the physics packages have held up over time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
>>30203924
>10GT
>>30207769
I'm always interested in your posts about nuclear stuff, very informative and in these years I learned a lot. The other day I was reading something about Oppenheimer defining Trinity the first nuclear detonation in modern times, and him being interested in ancient Indian culture. I don't know how true that quote is, but what do you think of it?
>>30207667
I kek'd
>>30207816
>him being interested in ancient Indian culture
Well, the phrase he's famous for: 'I am death, destroyer of worlds', comes from Hinduism. So there's that.
>>30207776
Very.
>>30207797
Yes.
I should be more clear. You can design new warheads, but they will all use existing core designs because those are the things that would require an actual test.
>>30207784
I'm not the guy you were discussing with, but I can get supercomputers to spend months calculating to simulate a chip. But no matter how much I simulate I can't say for certain that it would work in real life. I'm not saying that they are not working on anything, it's just that there is no need for new nuke designs to be honest. Everyone is reducing their stockpiles with a few nations trying to take baby steps into being a nuclear power. Why would they even bother designing new weapons? Experimental reactors are much more relevant in nuclear physics.
>>30206297
This is bullshit.
>>30205194
Gliders are amazing.
>>30207844
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
Opinion on this Oppen?
I'm not miffed on what was actually traded as it wasn't warhead details or how the missiles are deployed (although having the exact number of missiles helps in guesstimating), but the gesture of undermining a key ally's second strike capability.
What's worse, the gesture of giving the serial numbers or actually giving the serial numbers?
>>30207308
Oh sheeeeeit, someone call Bethesda
>>30201979
Yes, but they used nukes to break off an ice shelf and the water displacement caused massive tsunamis
>>30207714
North Korea
>>30204096
Which doesn't mean that "smaller" (i.e. 20MT) was actually in service throughout the largest part of the cold war in the smaller R36.
Oppenhiemer has the U.S.A. or any other countries ever experimented with the idea of using nukes to set off earthquakes/tsunamis/volcanoes/any other large natural occurrence?
>>30207980
Whoa
>>30208526
Do you have any idea the sheer amount of energy it requires just to make a fault line 'slip' and create a barely noticeable tremor?
>>30207833
Wasnt Hitler into Indian culture too? I heard he was heavily influenced by samsara
>>30207833
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra_(Buddhism)
>>30208546
My friend you are assuming alot in your responses to me. There are different way to cause things than using a nuke on a stable fault line or shelf
>>30208570
>stable fault line
Who said anything about that?
It took almost 10,000 GT of energy just to make a relatively small movement of plates for the Indonesian Tsunami. Just getting the earth to shake isn't enough to get any real impact.
>>30208616
ok what about alternative indirect means like
cracking a huge chunk of iceberg into the ocean to cause a tsunami
A 100+mt nuke buried deep will have most of its energy transferred to the ground and not wasted like most above ground
>>30205305
What's "Kek" in Hungarian?
Hey man I dont have a problem admitting Im wrong about the whole "nukes used to set off natural disasters". I dont want to come off like a dick. Im just brainstorming
>>30201675
Why not multiple tsar bombs?
>>30208526
Look up Soviet T-15 torpedo project. 25x1.5 metres monster with a 100 MT warhead designed to attack cities and naval facilities ashore. It was among other things expected to cause a tsunami. Refused by the Navy and cancelled for being "too inhuman".
>>30203830
Wait, it says he was trying to make a hydrogen bomb before we even dropped fat man and little boy, if he had succeeded, would japan even exist today?
>>30207696
It eventually turns into a polymorph, Ice-9, and the entire worlds water supply "freezes". TEOTWAWKI
>>30209538
damn it's been a while since I've seen a Vonnegut reference.
>>30205762
>out hunting with only rifle of glorious NZ
>spotter picks out single plump flightless bird doing flightless shit
>load up countries only round, only to be used when absolutely necessary
>eatshitbird.jpeg
>round hits flightless bird
>massive world ending nuclear blast
>>30207754
My IQ dropped 2 points just from me reading this
>>30207923
>Opinion on this Oppen?
Terrible.
>>30208526
It has been talked about with regards to tsunamis, but thats as far as it got.
>>30206371
>>30207696
Interesting. Kind of amazing how people discover random stuff like this.
>>30202091
that was at 50mt though
>>30210783
Does China have enough nukes to be relevant in a nuclear exchange?
>>30211985
Define "Relevant"
They have a not insignificant chance of killing several million Americans.
It depends on the exact crisis if that is "relevant" or not.
>>30212029
Is that good enough or should they build more? Pretend you're one of them. What advice would you give them?
>>30212067
To avoid a nuclear arms race with the Americans at all costs. They have an almost insurmountable lead.
The costs could be better spent on conventional forces.
>>30212082
So you don't think China will be rolling out new nukes anytime soon. That's mostly what I wanted to know. They're a rising military power but we haven't heard much from them in terms of nukes in a long time.
>>30212195
Rising, but without the weight or past (direct) tension USA/Russia has. I don't know much on the subject, but I'd imagine their goal is to have enough to warrant not fucking with them, but they also don't need to slap their dick on the Monopoly board and start knocking other player's pieces off
>>30203501
So how many warheads do the chinese got ?
Official numbers say 400. Unofficial say 4000.
Who's right ?
>>30212883
>Unofficial say 4000
Who says this.
>>30207308
Fallout : redguard
>>30212883
Everything I have read says China probably has between 200 and 300 warheads. However, their delivery capability is limited (as far as the US is concerned).
Also you should consider that the US and Russia have about 1600 each (warheads) ready to go at any given time. So China having 4000 seems rather odd.
