4 ms·
From the outside this sounds like rationalisation.
by paganel 6y ago
From the outside this sounds like rationalisation.
- jjoonathan 6y agoThat's why the USSR did it. Tsar Bomba is still serving its purpose 60 years later! The USSR's followup actions give it away, though: they stopped pursuing higher yields, even though there was no theoretical or engineering limit prohibiting them, and instead chased the USA down the path of miniaturization. SLBMs and MIRVs were the future and everyone knew it.
- monocasa 6y agoEveryone stopped pursuing them because the massive falloff of effectiveness at higher yields. The explosions got large enough that the difference in air pressure at higher altitudes meant that more and more of the energy released was going straight up rather than directed at the ground. I'd call that an engineering limit.
- jjoonathan 6y agoIt's an engineering limit to effectiveness but not an engineering limit to higher yield. I think we agree and are just nailing down the terminology here.
- SubjectToChange 6y agohow do you think the missive Tsar bomb was going to be delivered? It would need a bomber which is a vastly inferior method of delivery compared to ICBMs.
- monocasa 6y agoBoth the US and Russia still use bombers despite having ICBMS and SLBMs. Bombers are an important piece of the nuclear triad.
- paganel 6y agoThe Tupolev Tu-95 is a very nice piece of machinery [1]. Speaking of ICBMs, I also think the Soviets were better at this compared to the Americans, their military had a dedicated Army branch for it, unlike the US. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Missile_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Missile_Forces