4 ms·

As in another thread, it seems like the word "Tactical" is key here. The new weapon that was recently released to the US is particularly objectionable to many

As in another thread, it seems like the word "Tactical" is key here. The new weapon that was recently released to the US is particularly objectionable to many because it allows its' yield to be 'dialed down'. There are also air-to-air nuclear weapons designed for planes to shoot at each other, which might not have a yield much larger than a Hellburner. I share your concern about an interpretation of history that lends arguments to dangerous attitudes in present-day politics, just having recently read a great deal about nuclear yields, the humongous detonations we imagine are not the only type possible, they're just the only type of weapons which have ever been deployed, with many weapons simply not even having been ever tested.

sandworm101 11y ago
Nuclear weapons are not unique only in terms of blast size. The radiation they create is a wholly new danger with no historical president. The creation, handling storage and eventual disposal of nuclear material is also new. The hellburners had, perhaps, a few tons worth of explosive. And it was blackpowder rather than TNT. A relatively tiny nuke, such as the AIM-26 air-to-air missile, explodes with the equivalent of 250 metric tonnes of TNT. The smallest ever nukes are in the 10-50 tonnes range, still well beyond the blackpowder in any hellburner. The proportion of energy released as radiation and/or fallout is generally inversely related to yield (less confinement of the critial mass > less efficient burning). So Be afraid of tiny nukes. The the future they will likely use antimatter, not as explosive but as a neutron source. That would allow for much smaller nukes once they figure out how to keep the antimatter suspended within the uranium shell. Such weapons could burn uranium very efficiently, resulting in much reduced fallout.
afarrell 11y ago
The problem with that comparison is that the only place I've heard of tactical nuclear weapons being used is Starcraft.
- eru 11y ago
  Read some texts from the cold war, perhaps?

sandworm101 11y ago

Nuclear weapons are not unique only in terms of blast size. The radiation they create is a wholly new danger with no historical president. The creation, handling storage and eventual disposal of nuclear material is also new. The hellburners had, perhaps, a few tons worth of explosive. And it was blackpowder rather than TNT. A relatively tiny nuke, such as the AIM-26 air-to-air missile, explodes with the equivalent of 250 metric tonnes of TNT. The smallest ever nukes are in the 10-50 tonnes range, still well beyond the blackpowder in any hellburner. The proportion of energy released as radiation and/or fallout is generally inversely related to yield (less confinement of the critial mass > less efficient burning). So Be afraid of tiny nukes. The the future they will likely use antimatter, not as explosive but as a neutron source. That would allow for much smaller nukes once they figure out how to keep the antimatter suspended within the uranium shell. Such weapons could burn uranium very efficiently, resulting in much reduced fallout.

afarrell 11y ago

The problem with that comparison is that the only place I've heard of tactical nuclear weapons being used is Starcraft.

eru 11y ago
Read some texts from the cold war, perhaps?