How powerful would a nuclear weapon set off by the U.S. be?

[dabuddha]

oh boy typical liberal SnapIT comments
I'm sure you'll still be against attacking Iraq after "so damn insane" drops a few nukes here and there

why not grow your hair long and hold a peace rally im sure that'll be effective

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: bleeb
I dont' think we should even consider using Nukes.... they are just so devastating...during and the aftermath...

that all depends. we could use neutron bombs, which are "technically" nuclear weapons, however, the contamination lasts about 5 minutes. and it doesnt destroy buildings. they really are wonder weapons.

Neutron bombs only kill living things. they dont destroy buildings, they dont leave radiation. they are the perfect weapon, essentially.

besides, we have plenty powerful conventional bombs.


oh, and our bombs now can get over a thousand times more powerful than the hiroshima bomb.

 

[FoBoT]

U.S. Nuclear Weapon Enduring Stockpile

i would guess if a nuke was used, it would be submarine launched or maybe air launched from a B-52 (cruise missile , not bomb)

this is only a guess, but that link shows only the "W80" are on cruise missiles and they are the newer weapons so that may be the most likely to get used

the yield on them is only 5-150 kilotons


the hiroshima bomb was roughly 20 kilotons

so i don't think you would see anything close to "300 times more powerful than the atomic bombs used in WWII"

more likely about the same yield up to 6-7 times larger

the largest yield nukes are on ICBM's, those would NOT be used on Iraq

 

[Kilgor]

If you uses a 300 times more powerful nuke? any nation that has tried to take over the world has failed...

If the US wanted to take over the world we would have started at the end of world war 2, instead of forking over money to rebuild it.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU
Does it really matter.

Hmmm, let me see.

First we shoot, then everyone else shoots, then all the missles land.... Then ants, cockroaches, and sewer rats will rule the world!!! Or atleast what little bit of the world that is left.

Its called mutually assured destruction.

or the balance of terror...

If the US uses WMD's they are the enemy of the civilized world, if they use nukes, to hell with the US... i doubt americans and even their government realizes how something like that will be handled by the rest of the world.... Suddenly, the US will be the rouge nation who will stop at nothing to get their will through.... it will not be pretty... it will be WWIII

NEVER again...

 

[jurzdevil]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

the largest yield nukes are on ICBM's, those would NOT be used on Iraq

i agree
in the slim chance that we would use them it would be an incredibly weak bomb compared to what we could use.


what was the name of the russian bomb that was the largest ever dropped? it was a 60 or 80 megaton hydrogen bomb.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: idNut
My friend said that the weapons the U.S. has now are 300 times more powerful than the atomic bombs used in WWII. Is that true? How many casualties would their be should something horrific like that happen now?

Yes it is true, if the US would use it, WWIII and the US would have to face nuclear, ground, sea and airforces from every country in the world...

Bullsh!t

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: idNut
My friend said that the weapons the U.S. has now are 300 times more powerful than the atomic bombs used in WWII. Is that true? How many casualties would their be should something horrific like that happen now?

Yes it is true, if the US would use it, WWIII and the US would have to face nuclear, ground, sea and airforces from every country in the world...

Bullsh!t

Yep I agree with HP. SnapIT is just trying to find a way to feel ok about his own country's shortcomings.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: idNut
My friend said that the weapons the U.S. has now are 300 times more powerful than the atomic bombs used in WWII. Is that true? How many casualties would their be should something horrific like that happen now?

Yes it is true, if the US would use it, WWIII and the US would have to face nuclear, ground, sea and airforces from every country in the world...

Bullsh!t

Agreed, Snapit you really think any country would be that stupid even collectivly.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
oh boy typical liberal SnapIT comments
I'm sure you'll still be against attacking Iraq after "so damn insane" drops a few nukes here and there

why not grow your hair long and hold a peace rally im sure that'll be effective

I couldn't, i shave my head....

Every comment you make makes you look more stupid, if the US use nukes, they have crossed the line... oh, and tuck in that shirt, your ignorance is showing...

 

[XZeroII]

Funny how people think nukes are the worst type of weapons out there. In actuallity, Biological Weapons are far worse. A bio weapon can wipe out new york easily and can be pulled off much easier. With a nuke, you might kill 200,000 people instantly and 1 million later via cancer. With a bio weapon, you can kill 2 million easy. Just release it into the air, and by the time someone gets sick, it's all over for everyone in the area.

 

[Jugernot]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Jugernot

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: idNut
My friend said that the weapons the U.S. has now are 300 times more powerful than the atomic bombs used in WWII. Is that true? How many casualties would their be should something horrific like that happen now?

Yes it is true, if the US would use it, WWIII and the US would have to face nuclear, ground, sea and airforces from every country in the world...

Ok, so lemme get this straight. You think that if the US used a nuclear weapon, every country in the whole world would try and invade and kill us? Riiiiggggghhhhhhtttttt........

If you uses a 300 times more powerful nuke? any nation that has tried to take over the world has failed...

SnapIT, SHUTIT! The U.S. isn't trying to take over the world... dumbass.

 

[idNut]

Could a warhead (or warheads)be so strong as to actually knock the earth off its orbit? I heard about it in a movie. Sounded kind of logical, the U.S. detonated one and the Russians detonated one also but somewhere else and the earth was "out of its orbit".

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: idNut
My friend said that the weapons the U.S. has now are 300 times more powerful than the atomic bombs used in WWII. Is that true? How many casualties would their be should something horrific like that happen now?

Yes it is true, if the US would use it, WWIII and the US would have to face nuclear, ground, sea and airforces from every country in the world...

Bullsh!t

Agreed, Snapit you really think any country would be that stupid even collectivly.

Yes, actually i do think so... and i think it is inevitable...

 

[jteef]

I think i read somewhere that at some point russia had a 100 megaton bomb. can anybody verify this claim?

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: jurzdevil

i agree
in the slim chance that we would use them it would be an incredibly weak bomb compared to what we could use.


what was the name of the russian bomb that was the largest ever dropped? it was a 60 or 80 megaton hydrogen bomb.

the tsar bomba (or whatever the real name is) 50Mt, but able to be 100Mt in the same body. damn useless though, because it needs to be plane dropped..

If i was arming myself i'd prefer an ICBM with a 20Mt warhead

 

[Kilgor]

If the US uses WMD's they are the enemy of the civilized world, if they use nukes, to hell with the US... i doubt americans and even their government realizes how something like that will be handled by the rest of the world.... Suddenly, the US will be the rouge nation who will stop at nothing to get their will through.... it will not be pretty... it will be WWIII

Iraq used WMD's and you seem to love them. If the rest of the world cant even deal with a itty bitty rouge nation like Iraq why should we be worried.

 

[NetWareHead]

Originally posted by: Walleye
that all depends. we could use neutron bombs, which are "technically" nuclear weapons, however, the contamination lasts about 5 minutes. and it doesnt destroy buildings. they really are wonder weapons.

Neutron bombs only kill living things. they dont destroy buildings, they dont leave radiation. they are the perfect weapon, essentially.

Not true...neutron bombs still have a considerable blast radius and will level a nice sized city. They are small atomic bombs that are engineered for a higher radiation release. Nuetron bombs still leave residual radiation which takes time to decay like normal nuclear weapons.

Nuetron bombs were developed for use againt armored formations (tanks etc...). The extra radiation is an effective method of penetrating the armor killing the crew inside.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Jugernot

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Jugernot

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: idNut
My friend said that the weapons the U.S. has now are 300 times more powerful than the atomic bombs used in WWII. Is that true? How many casualties would their be should something horrific like that happen now?

Yes it is true, if the US would use it, WWIII and the US would have to face nuclear, ground, sea and airforces from every country in the world...

Ok, so lemme get this straight. You think that if the US used a nuclear weapon, every country in the whole world would try and invade and kill us? Riiiiggggghhhhhhtttttt........

If you uses a 300 times more powerful nuke? any nation that has tried to take over the world has failed...

SnapIT, SHUTIT! The U.S. isn't trying to take over the world... dumbass.

Well, this was a hypothetical situation (look up that word) where the US was going to use that nuke, i responded to that accordingly...

 

[Jmman]

Soviet Union detonated the largest nuclear device ever.....50 megatons.....a simply massive explosion........

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
For your contemplation from here.

The largest H-bomb found in the present U.S. arsenal
is 1.8 megatons in yield. Until 1987 we had 112 9 megaton warheads on the titian two icbms.Until 1975 we had devices in our arsenal with a yield of up to 25 megatons.
These were on the atlas, and delta icbms which were decommissioned in 1975

We use many small H-bombs such as the W - 88 and similar devices. Such devices have something like a 20 kiloton trigger, and then a natural uranium or steel or lead bottle
that contains perhaps 2 kilograms of lithium 6 or 7 duteride
inside of it. 2 kilograms of this is about right for a 100
kiloton warhead, like those we use on the trident missiles in our trident submarines.On our icbms today the highest
yield found for a single warhead is about kilotons
.

These are on the minuteman 2 Icbms. A 300 kiloton
or so warhead may have a 20 kiloton primary and a bottle containing about 7 kilograms of lithium 6 or 7 dueteride.

A standard U.SA.F 200 kiloton warhead may contain
a 20 kiloton primary and a bottle that contains about 4 kilograms of lithium 6 or 7 dueteride. These are the kinds of devices that make up most of the U.S nuclear arsenal.

Efficient Pure fission devices can produce most of this range of yields without using any nuclear fusion at all.

But the pure fission type device has one disadvantage.
It will be bigger and heavier then a small H-bomb of the same yield.

The blast radius of a nuclear explosion is equal to the cube root of the yield in kilotons. The fire radius is eqaul to the sqaure root of the yield in kilotons.

Let us comapare the effects of a 20 kiloton A-bomb with those of a 20 megaton H-bomb which is 1000 times more powerful.

The blast radius of the 20 kiloton device is 2.67 miles.
The blast radius of a 20 megaton device is 27 miles.
The fire radius of the 20 kiloton device is 4.47 miles.

The fire radius of a 20 megaton device is 141 miles.
As you can see the H-bomb makes a good incendiary
device over a vast area. 20 megatons will ignite
everything within 141 miles in every direction under ideal
conditions of terrain and weather.

This will incinerate a 242 mile diameter area with a giant firestorm. This is useful only for terrozing, and exterminating civilian populations on an enormus scale of apocalypse. This has very little miltary value especially when H-bombing targets is a game that two belligerents can play, but this will only annhilate both sides completely.

An H-bomb war results in total apocalypse for both sides,
but an A-bomb war will not necessarily result in
such an appocalypse, although heavy/appalling damage
will be done, but it would be no worse then say world war
2 was in the degree of damage to the civillian population,and cities of Europe , and Japan:

1000 A-bombings might destroy 1000 large cities and kill 80,000,000 people: But a large target nation will survive, without suffering total annhilation from a mere atomic war.

A thermonuclear war however with 1000 multimegaton
H-bombings however will incinerate literally everything and almost nothing will survive a thermonuclear war, resulting in total apocalypse. Notice that theorecticly an attacker
could explode only 10 20 megaton H-bombs across the United States from coast to coast in a straight line through the middle , and this would literally incinerate the whole U.S.A. with a coast to coast fire fire storm that would burn all the lower 48 states to ashes.That is what just 10 20 megaton H-bombs can do in theory, imagine what 1000 or 10,000 20 megaton H-bombs can do.In the cold war this threat was a good thing because it forced both sides to keep the peace instead of fighting a thermonuclear world war 3. This what was meant by M.A.D. ( mutaul assured destruction).
Perhaps a similar threat like Mad will force the countries of India and Packistan to keep the peace between them, like
occurred in the U.S. Soviet cold war.

.

Cool. I think I'm getting a woody.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: jurzdevil


what was the name of the russian bomb that was the largest ever dropped? it was a 60 or 80 megaton hydrogen bomb.

link

Weapons developments continued throughout the Cold War. In 1961, the Soviet Union tested the largest bomb ever built. Dubbed the "tsar-bomba," it was designed to yield 100 megatons of explosive power (the equivalent of nearly 7,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs), and the test itself, adjusted to be less powerful, yielded 50 megatons. Overall, the Soviet Union conducted approximately 715 nuclear tests.

 

[Jmman]

"Tsar Bomba" ("King of Bombs"): The World's Largest Bomb
Time: 30 October 1961
Location: Parachute retarded airburst, 4000 m altitude
Over Novaya Zemlya Island test range (in the Arctic Sea)
Yield: 50 Megatons
Shown here in the Russian Atomic Weapon Museum, the "Tsar Bomba" was the largest nuclear weapon ever constructed or detonated. This three stage weapon was actually a 100 megaton bomb design, but the uranium fusion tamper of the teritiary (and probably secondary) stage(s) was replaced by one made of lead to eliminate fast fission by the fusion neutrons. The result was also the cleanest weapon ever tested with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions.

This weapon was developed in a remarkably short time. On 10 July 1961 Nikita Khruschev met with Sakharov, then the senior weapon designer, and directed him to develop a 100 megaton bomb. This device had to be ready for a test series due to begin in September so that the series would create maximum political impact (a bomb this size is virtually useless militarily). Sakharov returned to Arzamas-16, and selcted a design team consisting of Victor Adamskii, Yuri Babaev, Yuri Trunev, and Yuri Smirnov (who later oversaw the transformation of this design into a fielded weapon). The bomb was tested only 14 weeks after the initiation of its design.

The effect of this bomb at full yield on global fallout would have been tremendous. It would have increased the world's total fission fallout since the invention of the atomic bomb by 25%. The fabrication of the massive parachute disrupted the Soviet nylon hosiery industry. It weighed 27 metric tons. Some were actually stockpiled.

The bomb was air dropped by a Tu-95 strategic bomber piloted by A. E. Durnovtsev (made Hero of the Soviet Union).

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Kilgor

If the US uses WMD's they are the enemy of the civilized world, if they use nukes, to hell with the US... i doubt americans and even their government realizes how something like that will be handled by the rest of the world.... Suddenly, the US will be the rouge nation who will stop at nothing to get their will through.... it will not be pretty... it will be WWIII

Iraq used WMD's and you seem to love them. If the rest of the world cant even deal with a itty bitty rouge nation like Iraq why should we be worried.

Yes, i LOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE IRAK... you goddamn idiot... is it strange that sometimes you just get tired of the idiots here....

Oh, so you don't want to go to war against china, well then you love china, your logic is... whatever...

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: dabuddha
oh boy typical liberal SnapIT comments
I'm sure you'll still be against attacking Iraq after "so damn insane" drops a few nukes here and there

why not grow your hair long and hold a peace rally im sure that'll be effective

I couldn't, i shave my head....

Every comment you make makes you look more stupid, if the US use nukes, they have crossed the line... oh, and tuck in that shirt, your ignorance is showing...

sure it does

i pity people like you actually. You really aren't too bright but make assumptions based on wrong information. You really need to pull your head out of your ass, i beg of you. But of course you'll come back with some pathetic attempt at a witty mark.
which country are you from btw? im just curious
by not doing something about a criminal's behavior does mean that you condone it. Of coures you'll think sending 100 times the inspectors in Iraq will make a difference.
lol i really think zuni added the

emoticon just for your idiocy. or should we call it cowardice?