4 ms·
Yes, four 1MT explosions in a spaced square do more damage than a single 4MT in the centre of that square, plus if one of them is a dud or completely misses the
by implements 5y ago
Yes, four 1MT explosions in a spaced square do more damage than a single 4MT in the centre of that square, plus if one of them is a dud or completely misses the target then the target is still effectively destroyed by the others. (Not the case if the single large weapon fails). Also, small weapons means more warheads per missile, some of which can be decoys - which increases the chances of defeating any anti-ballistic missile system.
- amelius 5y agoSounds like a cluster bomb, weren't these declared illegal? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Muniti...
- chmod775 5y agoThe US is one of the few western countries that are not a signatory to that treaty and a few other weapons/human rights related treaties. For... obvious reasons. Signing a treaty when you would just be ignoring it is typically not a diplomatically smart move. Better to not sign the treaty if at all possible.
- tokai 5y agoOnly if you ignore what a cluster bomb actually is.
- Sharlin 5y agoCalling MIRVs cluster bombs is, uh, probably stretching the definition of “cluster bomb” a bit. The problem with the latter is unexploded (but still dangerous) submunitions that are difficult to find and dispose of once the conflict is over, compare antipersonnel mines. But if you’re hit by a MIRV nuclear strike… well, the issue of post bellum disposal of potential duds is very very far down the list of your problems!