Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 11,594
- 8,049
- 136
Outside of fallout which is dependent on air currents, the size of a warhead that could actually cover anything close to that area would be well, well beyond anything mankind has created. I have doubts we even could develop something of that size with our materials sciences, and would probably constitute a moonshot program to develop, costing trillions and being quite immobile (think city sized).
hal2kilo
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2009
- 23,444
- 10,333
- 136
No doubt. The point is, the subject should never be some hyperboled BS. Especially, when its someone in authority. People unfortunately assume someone is that position and on that subject would only deal with facts.
But it is hyperbole bs. It's like saying we can blow up the sun. It's probably debatable that it would actually be possible to develop a system that could create a detonation that large, much less actually build it.
It would actually be easier for us to redirect an asteroid to create the devastation that would impart long before creating a hydrogen bomb that size.
Shit we could probably encourage Yellowstone to erupt before we could create that thing.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 32,229
- 14,928
- 136
Pohemi
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 8,885
- 11,423
- 146
I know nothing about our nuclear arsenals, but it surprises me that our largest (at least stated) are "only" 1.2 megaton. Not that it's anything to scoff at, don't get me wrong...I just thought we had some that were as large as 10 to 20 megatons. I guess not.
Nope. Has to do with what is easily deliverable. Plus we built thousands of weapons so having a few super big bombs really doesn’t add anything in the way of tactical or strategic value.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 69,053
- 26,939
- 136
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 69,053
- 26,939
- 136
The H bomb design is such that one really can increase yield simply by making the bomb longer, adding on more fuel and tamping. The design is sometimes referred to as a neutron wick. Want a bigger boom? Make the wick longer.
Nuclear weapon design - Wikipedia
They're not necessary unless you intend on destroying civilian infrastructure. And if you intend on doing that, you're probably in an end of game scenario where you're using mirv weapons to delivery dozens of those 1-2MT warheads across large swathes of population centers, not one.
If you have need to use just one, it's for a very specific type of target where a big fucking bomb doesn't cut it, but you're willing to pull out the nuclear card. There's very, very few relevant situations for that, and we likely don't have good ones for anything larger than that.
Plus the big bastards are easier to intercept, ruining your attack. If you send down dozens of small warheads, you win.
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,323
- 4,447
- 136
Yeah but you need massive amounts of material that isn't easy to procure, and that's just the unclassified design details. Deuterium and tritium, that shit doesn't grow on trees.The H bomb design is such that one really can increase yield simply by making the bomb longer, adding on more fuel and tamping. The design is sometimes referred to as a neutron wick. Want a bigger boom? Make the wick longer.
Nuclear weapon design - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,323
- 4,447
- 136
The thing is you can air burst three triangulated small reentry vehicles around a large target area and do as much damage as you can with one huge bomb.
Everything in the shock wave convergence area is toast.
Last edited:
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 34,585
- 15,799
- 136
My memory is a little vague about this, I kind of remember something from maybe the early 80s where there would be a MIRV with hundreds of small nukes on it and I *believe* the example given was one missile could blanket the East coast.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 34,585
- 15,799
- 136
Weren’t there larger ones in let’s say the 60s but those were decommissioned as part of the arms control agreement?
I am no expert.
Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia
Max Russian was 16, and max US was 14 warheads
The Soviets detonated a 50 Mt device; by comparison the largest U.S. device tested yielded 15 Mt:
Tsar Bomba - Wikipedia
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 69,053
- 26,939
- 136
Yep, we also started out with larger warheads until our missiles got better. The Minuteman was designed for one larger warhead but when we figured out that we could rely on it to hit what we were aiming at, we cut the size of warhead. This opened the door to MIRVs.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 69,053
- 26,939
- 136
H bomb designs went to using lithium as it is easier to deal with. The first stage reaction splits the lithium to form tritium on the fly. Some tritium is still required for the first stage.
The U.S. is in an interesting spot as we shut down most of the weapons complex and we are relying on refurbishing and recycling old stockpile to maintain the active stockpile.
Also, for folks who are interested, good reads:
^ one of the best books I've ever read.
^ Not as good as the first book but still very respectable
Closing the circle on the splitting of the atom: The environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production in the United States and what the Department of Energy is doing about it (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information
www.osti.gov
Then we'd fry like the planet's supply of lithium (as well as refining an incredible amount of tritium) to develop one immovable superweapon to ... destroy our own country?H bomb designs went to using lithium as it is easier to deal with. The first stage reaction splits the lithium to form tritium on the fly. Some tritium is still required for the first stage.
The U.S. is in an interesting spot as we shut down most of the weapons complex and we are relying on refurbishing and recycling old stockpile to maintain the active stockpile.
Also, for folks who are interested, good reads:
^ one of the best books I've ever read.
^ Not as good as the first book but still very respectable
^ While focused on clean-up, the report provides more insight into the weapons complexe.Closing the circle on the splitting of the atom: The environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production in the United States and what the Department of Energy is doing about it (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information
I have to agree with PCGEEK. 
There is no way the US would have such an impractical weapon when smaller multiple precision guided nukes would suffice. There is no practical reason to develop and maintain such an atrocity. Makes no sense. Just incoherent rambling hyperbole by the Orangolini per normal.
There is no way the US would have such an impractical weapon when smaller multiple precision guided nukes would suffice. There is no practical reason to develop and maintain such an atrocity. Makes no sense. Just incoherent rambling hyperbole by the Orangolini per normal.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter