3 ms·

What a silly idea. Even at 50MT much of the energy was lost as it punched through the atmosphere and out into space. If you’re really a lunatic who wants to ext

What a silly idea. Even at 50MT much of the energy was lost as it punched through the atmosphere and out into space. If you’re really a lunatic who wants to exterminate life, many smaller nuclear detonations is inherently more efficient than one large detonation. Giant nuclear weapons are heavy, dirty, inefficient, and pointless even if you’re the kind of person who wants to obliterate whole populated regions for some reason.

mirimir 8y ago
The reason is obviously "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). One aspect of strategy was appearing to be crazier than your opponent. But on the other hand, it's arguably what prevented global nuclear war.
- ianai 8y ago
  MAD is still the dominant strategy. The threat of nuclear war is still an every day presence.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Someone 8y ago
If your targeting isn’t very precise and you want to destroy a hard target such as the Cheyenne Mountain Complex 50MT doesn’t seem overkill. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex it was “built to deflect a 30 megaton nuclear explosion as close as 2 kilometers”.
- Fej 8y ago
  Far easier to hit something with several single-digit-megaton weapons than with one 50 MT weapon. The Tsar Bomba was completely impractical and was shown off as a display of technological superiority, or slightly more accurately, dick-wagging.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> Giant nuclear weapons are heavy, dirty, inefficient, and pointless Pointless yes, but as bombs scale in size they actually become more efficient, burning more of their fuel. The primary reason behind this is that the cores of larger bombs maintain critical mass for a longer period of time before blowing apart, resulting in more fission/fusion per weight of fuel. So they are less radioactive, less dirty, than an equivalent number of smaller bombs.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  The burn is potentially more efficient, but the bigger it is past a certain point, you’re just blasting that energy out of the atmosphere. I suppose burying or submerging a massive device would deliver more energy, but it would be supremely dirty in that case. Airbursts are the best way to attack drag-sensitive targets due to the formation of a Mach stem, and as a bonus they’re cleaner than water or ground bursts. If you really want to destroy a target use MIRVed warheads of lower yield, in the 70kt-1mt range, with overlapping shockwaves. As a “bonus” that technology already comes standard and doesn’t require new testing or exotic designs and delivery systems.

mirimir 8y ago

The reason is obviously "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). One aspect of strategy was appearing to be crazier than your opponent. But on the other hand, it's arguably what prevented global nuclear war.

ianai 8y ago
MAD is still the dominant strategy. The threat of nuclear war is still an every day presence.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Someone 8y ago

If your targeting isn’t very precise and you want to destroy a hard target such as the Cheyenne Mountain Complex 50MT doesn’t seem overkill. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex it was “built to deflect a 30 megaton nuclear explosion as close as 2 kilometers”.

Fej 8y ago
Far easier to hit something with several single-digit-megaton weapons than with one 50 MT weapon. The Tsar Bomba was completely impractical and was shown off as a display of technological superiority, or slightly more accurately, dick-wagging.

sandworm101 8y ago

>> Giant nuclear weapons are heavy, dirty, inefficient, and pointless Pointless yes, but as bombs scale in size they actually become more efficient, burning more of their fuel. The primary reason behind this is that the cores of larger bombs maintain critical mass for a longer period of time before blowing apart, resulting in more fission/fusion per weight of fuel. So they are less radioactive, less dirty, than an equivalent number of smaller bombs.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
The burn is potentially more efficient, but the bigger it is past a certain point, you’re just blasting that energy out of the atmosphere. I suppose burying or submerging a massive device would deliver more energy, but it would be supremely dirty in that case. Airbursts are the best way to attack drag-sensitive targets due to the formation of a Mach stem, and as a bonus they’re cleaner than water or ground bursts. If you really want to destroy a target use MIRVed warheads of lower yield, in the 70kt-1mt range, with overlapping shockwaves. As a “bonus” that technology already comes standard and doesn’t require new testing or exotic designs and delivery systems.