5 ms·

Not more powerful than the Tsar Bomb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

heavyset_go 5y ago
I can't even begin to imagine the scale of utter destruction a 50 Mt bomb like Tsar Bomba can yield if that eruption was 10 Mt.
- ars 5y ago
  Not as much as you would think - damage is around the cube root of energy, so: (50^1/3)/(10^1/3) = 1.7 times as much damage.
  - deeviant 5y ago
    What, exactly, is the formula for "damage"?
    - ars 5y ago
      There are more exact things, but at a bare minimum "damage" needs to fill the volume it's interacting with, and the volume of a sphere goes up by the cube of distance. It's what led to the development of the smart bomb - they figured out that it's a losing game to increase the power of a bomb - that cube root is painful. So instead they made small, but more accurate, bombs. It's also why the nuclear bomb is not as useful as people think: It's strong, but a large number of accurate, small, smart bombs works better to destroy your target (as opposed to digging holes in the ground).
    - tyingq 5y ago
      This web page is interesting in that space https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Pick a spot, the yield of the weapon, and it will draw radius circles for the fireball, ionizing radiation, 3 degrees of blast damage, and finally, the broad thermal radiation damage. I imagine there's others with things like fallout, etc.
    - dboreham 5y ago
      There are books on this (I own one, but don't have it to hand right now), but I suspect it's related to the area within which blast impulse energy is above some threshold (enough to damage stuff to some agreed level).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hdivider 5y ago
In the early nuclear age, DARPA had proposals for a 10,000 megaton thermonuclear weapon [1]. In principle, we can design weapons horrendous enough to crack this entire planet apart forever. Four billion years of life up in smoke (or out in debris, I should say). The question of whether humans are the most intelligent life form on the planet is still under active consideration. :) [1] The Pentagon's Brain by Annie Jacobsen
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pm90 5y ago
  If we manage to not kill ourselves, we will ultimately advance into a type 2 civ (and higher), and harnessing enormous amounts of destructive energy for useful work will probably be par for the course.
  - ffhhj 5y ago
    We won't even need a lot of energy. Changing the trajectory of a few rocks is enough to destroy civilizations on the surface of the planet.
    - pm90 5y ago
      I would assume that we have some sort of planetary defense systems by that point.
      - King-Aaron 5y ago
        Replace "assume" with "hope"
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      It takes a lot of energy to aim those rocks.
      - 5y ago

I can't even begin to imagine the scale of utter destruction a 50 Mt bomb like Tsar Bomba can yield if that eruption was 10 Mt.

ars 5y ago
Not as much as you would think - damage is around the cube root of energy, so: (50^1/3)/(10^1/3) = 1.7 times as much damage.
- deeviant 5y ago
  What, exactly, is the formula for "damage"?
  - ars 5y ago
    There are more exact things, but at a bare minimum "damage" needs to fill the volume it's interacting with, and the volume of a sphere goes up by the cube of distance. It's what led to the development of the smart bomb - they figured out that it's a losing game to increase the power of a bomb - that cube root is painful. So instead they made small, but more accurate, bombs. It's also why the nuclear bomb is not as useful as people think: It's strong, but a large number of accurate, small, smart bombs works better to destroy your target (as opposed to digging holes in the ground).
  - tyingq 5y ago
    This web page is interesting in that space https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Pick a spot, the yield of the weapon, and it will draw radius circles for the fireball, ionizing radiation, 3 degrees of blast damage, and finally, the broad thermal radiation damage. I imagine there's others with things like fallout, etc.
  - dboreham 5y ago
    There are books on this (I own one, but don't have it to hand right now), but I suspect it's related to the area within which blast impulse energy is above some threshold (enough to damage stuff to some agreed level).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hdivider 5y ago

In the early nuclear age, DARPA had proposals for a 10,000 megaton thermonuclear weapon [1]. In principle, we can design weapons horrendous enough to crack this entire planet apart forever. Four billion years of life up in smoke (or out in debris, I should say). The question of whether humans are the most intelligent life form on the planet is still under active consideration. :) [1] The Pentagon's Brain by Annie Jacobsen

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pm90 5y ago
If we manage to not kill ourselves, we will ultimately advance into a type 2 civ (and higher), and harnessing enormous amounts of destructive energy for useful work will probably be par for the course.
- ffhhj 5y ago
  We won't even need a lot of energy. Changing the trajectory of a few rocks is enough to destroy civilizations on the surface of the planet.
  - pm90 5y ago
    I would assume that we have some sort of planetary defense systems by that point.
    - King-Aaron 5y ago
      Replace "assume" with "hope"
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    It takes a lot of energy to aim those rocks.
    - 5y ago