4 ms·

This is the scariest article I've ever read.

by openfly 16y ago

arethuza 16y ago
If you think that is bad then have a read of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upshot-Knothole_Harry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upshot-Knothole_Harry Not to mention some of the alarming Soviet tests, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
- izend 16y ago
  Not as scary as if the Tsar Bomb was detonated in space above North America. It would wipe out the entire power grid of the continent.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    At 27 tons, it would require a Delta IV-class vehicle to haul it there. That would be quite an impressive ICBM Now that I said that, we need to place a couple of there in LEO for the time non-EMP-hardened machines take over the world ;-)
    - pyre 16y ago
      > Now that I said that, we need to place a couple of > there in LEO for the time non-EMP-hardened machines > take over the world ;-) Just need to make sure that SkyNet doesn't know about/have control over them...
      - CapitalistCartr 16y ago
        When I was in the Air Force, our equipment was archaic by the standards of contemporary consumer electronics, lots of electro-mechanical stuff. But with its shielding, it was nearly bulletproof. No worries about EMP, or "Wargames" silliness.
    - hga 16y ago
      The SS-9/18 family had options for half that yield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29). Note that if you're willing to deal with the fallout, you can double the yield of a design like the Tsar Bomba by switching the fusion tamper from lead to U238. I'd suspect the SS-9/18 family 25 Mt warheads achieved their yield by using the latter due to the weight savings (a bit more weight doubles your yield, and if it's exploding on enemy territory...).
ScotterC 16y ago
We may have tested one to many nuclear warheads in our time but for the most part they did lead to a better understanding. The fallout's damage is negligible.

This is the scariest article I've ever read.

by openfly 16y ago

This is the scariest article I've ever read.

If you think that is bad then have a read of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upshot-Knothole_Harry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upshot-Knothole_Harry Not to mention some of the alarming Soviet tests, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

izend 16y ago
Not as scary as if the Tsar Bomb was detonated in space above North America. It would wipe out the entire power grid of the continent.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  At 27 tons, it would require a Delta IV-class vehicle to haul it there. That would be quite an impressive ICBM Now that I said that, we need to place a couple of there in LEO for the time non-EMP-hardened machines take over the world ;-)
  - pyre 16y ago
    > Now that I said that, we need to place a couple of > there in LEO for the time non-EMP-hardened machines > take over the world ;-) Just need to make sure that SkyNet doesn't know about/have control over them...
    - CapitalistCartr 16y ago
      When I was in the Air Force, our equipment was archaic by the standards of contemporary consumer electronics, lots of electro-mechanical stuff. But with its shielding, it was nearly bulletproof. No worries about EMP, or "Wargames" silliness.
  - hga 16y ago
    The SS-9/18 family had options for half that yield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29). Note that if you're willing to deal with the fallout, you can double the yield of a design like the Tsar Bomba by switching the fusion tamper from lead to U238. I'd suspect the SS-9/18 family 25 Mt warheads achieved their yield by using the latter due to the weight savings (a bit more weight doubles your yield, and if it's exploding on enemy territory...).

ScotterC 16y ago

We may have tested one to many nuclear warheads in our time but for the most part they did lead to a better understanding. The fallout's damage is negligible.