4 ms·

It was so large there was no feasible way to even transport such a device other than maybe building it on a suicide ship. It was purely a dick measuring contes

• flukus 10y ago
  > It was so large there was no feasible way to even transport such a device other than maybe building it on a suicide ship. Why is that not feasible? If they could get it on a submarine they could detonate in most of the worlds major cities.
  • M_Grey 10y ago
    Most of the world's major cities are not under water AFAIK.
    • vidarh 10y ago
      No, but most of the largest cities are coastal, and you are somewhat more likely to get into a harbour with a hostile sub than with a hostile warship.
      • M_Grey 10y ago
        I really doubt that. I can't imagine that the US and the UK for example, don't have sonar networks and other means to detect subs. It might be nearly impossible to track a boomer in open ocean, but they're not designed for littoral operations and sonar networks are much more effective there. You also have to cope with an airforce and patrolling navy. All in all, you're mostly likely to nuke the nearby ocean, rendering it mostly a radiological/environmental weapon. When you consider that you can far more easily launch a combined 100MT in smaller payloads, with a higher resulting degree of destruction than a single 100MT warhead...
        • vidarh 10y ago
          The key phrase being "somewhat more likely". I'm not arguing effectiveness. I was arguing against the "not under water" bit, after the person you responded to suggested a sub over a ship.
        • flukus 10y ago
          I'm sure they could detect the sub, but the also have to be able to identify it as hostile and act before it can reach the city, which can take much longer. I also wonder if it's possible to "hide" under a cargo ship to escape detection?
      • Retric 10y ago
        But at that point ~1/2 your detonation is over the ocean and useless. Further, unless you surface the water will dramatically reduce the bombs effectiveness.
        • vidarh 10y ago
          You're still going to do a lot better than approaching with a ship that is plainly visible to anyone, and which will be taken out before it gets anywhere close, was the point.
          • Retric 10y ago
            Sure, but an ICBM with a single 10MT detonation would be dramatically better than both as you want it up in the air and over the population center. Remember the closet km is always gone, it's a question of what appens further out that's important. And thus you don't want a line of buildings to protect anything.
            • vidarh 10y ago
              Maybe, but I was not discussing whether or not it was practical.
              • Retric 10y ago
                In warfare it's only the practical things that really matter. You might attach a grenade launcher, but you don't give people double barreled rifles.
            • deleted 10y ago
              [deleted]
            • flukus 10y ago
              If your target is the city/population. If it's the president then a surprise attack would be better, although I doubt a nuke carrying enemy sub would be able to get that close.