3 ms·
We already have hundreds (thousands?) of Mt devices. A handful of Gt devices is not going to change anything as regards humanity's threat to itself. In fact I
by biorach 3y ago
We already have hundreds (thousands?) of Mt devices. A handful of Gt devices is not going to change anything as regards humanity's threat to itself.
In fact I believe that anything over the low tens of Mt is considered impractical for military use.
- 93po 3y agoYeah I don't think anyone, even the craziest of dictators, want to take over a country and then have to deal with a giant smoldering radioactive hole in the ground the size of rhode island.
- jdewerd 3y agoYes, and for the most cynical of reasons: the fireball and dirt-digging go with r^3, but the people killed and infrastructure destroyed go with r^2, and the purpose of a nuclear weapon isn't to light a fireball and dig dirt. Agreed, a big device doesn't really alter the balance of power, which is why both the Americans and Soviets abandoned the path of bigger and bigger devices by 1962, leaving lots of engineering possibilities on the table to instead focus on miniaturization.