4 ms·

Had wacky ideas for sure but calling him a quack after the Manhattan Project isn’t fair. Besides his foresight on the hydrogen bomb, he also was one of the firs

by habosa 3y ago

Had wacky ideas for sure but calling him a quack after the Manhattan Project isn’t fair. Besides his foresight on the hydrogen bomb, he also was one of the first major names in science to raise the alarm about climate change: https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

jonathankoren 3y ago
The hydrogen bomb is a quack idea though. The whole purpose is just to destroy cities. It has no legitimate military value. Just because it can be That is why he was controversial in the post war.
- adastra22 3y ago
  The hydrogen bomb is why the Cold War stayed cold. Deterrence is a military value.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
  - euroderf 3y ago
    In practice, "staying cold" often involved luck. A bit of Russian roulette, one might say.
- adonovan 3y ago
  > The whole purpose is just to destroy cities. It has no legitimate military value. Well, destroying cities was also the military purpose of the first two atomic bombs.
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    It was the largest bomb ever until then, yes. But to equate a fission bomb to a fusion bomb is a disservice. We’re talking multiple orders of magnitude more powerful. If you want to know the difference, I suggest nukemap. To put it in perspective, we’re talking about destroying lower manhattan with the Fat Man, versus incinerating all five boroughs and shattering windows in White Plains, NY. I’m not talking about dick waving stunt like the Tsar Bomba, I’m talking about deployed weapons.
- m4rtink 3y ago
  That is far too shortsighted - its a perfect propelant for in space propulsion - the best we know of right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls... Also there are much more eficient ways to use a fusion bomb, than destroying cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_shaped_charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_shaped_charge

by habosa 3y ago

jonathankoren 3y ago

The hydrogen bomb is a quack idea though. The whole purpose is just to destroy cities. It has no legitimate military value. Just because it can be That is why he was controversial in the post war.

adastra22 3y ago
The hydrogen bomb is why the Cold War stayed cold. Deterrence is a military value.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
- euroderf 3y ago
  In practice, "staying cold" often involved luck. A bit of Russian roulette, one might say.
adonovan 3y ago
> The whole purpose is just to destroy cities. It has no legitimate military value. Well, destroying cities was also the military purpose of the first two atomic bombs.
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  It was the largest bomb ever until then, yes. But to equate a fission bomb to a fusion bomb is a disservice. We’re talking multiple orders of magnitude more powerful. If you want to know the difference, I suggest nukemap. To put it in perspective, we’re talking about destroying lower manhattan with the Fat Man, versus incinerating all five boroughs and shattering windows in White Plains, NY. I’m not talking about dick waving stunt like the Tsar Bomba, I’m talking about deployed weapons.
m4rtink 3y ago
That is far too shortsighted - its a perfect propelant for in space propulsion - the best we know of right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls... Also there are much more eficient ways to use a fusion bomb, than destroying cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_shaped_charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_shaped_charge