How come the US never countered the Tsar Bomba? At the very least

>>31764268
Who says they haven't?

>>31764268
The soviets had to use higher yield warheads because their missiles were less accurate at the time.

>>31764276

Well the US detonated fatman having never tested the design because they were so confident in the design. Maybe same deal with a 100mt weapon?

Nukes are old shit

Just aim a 100m rock at a city and you'd get a yield superior to any

For practical purposes?

It wasn't a very easy bomb to deliver to target and what it could do, could be done with several smaller bombs.

>>31764295
Grand testing of a 200mt come November.

I'm guessing that a smaller bomb is enough to level any city so it would just be a waste to make something bigger. Unless of course you can't reliably hit your target, then having a bigger bomb would make sense.

>>31764276
>Who says they haven't?
That sort of blast isn't easy to hide. We would know.

Law of deminishing returns

>>31764268
You're limited by what can be carried in an ICBM. 100MT was the limit for "safely" avoiding the blast with their bomber IIRC.

File: 1325768146301.jpg (2MB, 2944x2338px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2944x2338px

>>31764296

Yeah and where are you going to get a 100 meter rock and how much energy would it cost to retrieve such a rock VS just using a new, modern 1 GT nuke?

>>31764268

America retaliated by renewing and intensifying nuclear testing by exploding dozend(s) of warheads underground a year untill the end of the Cold War.

File: Detailed_M29.jpg (254KB, 1777x1177px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1777x1177px

How about the inverse? Did the Soviets try to scale down?

>>31764364

>what are suitcase nukes

Yes they did

File: Nuclear_Bomb_1.webm (895KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 1280x720px

Also, this is now a nuke thread with pics, webm's and other good stuff.

I'll dump my webm's.

>>31764268
Surgical (relatively surgical) strikes are just better.
It's carpet bombing vs JDAM's.

>>31764268
Because it was a useless propaganda design, we do what the tsar bomba did better with ICBMs

>>31764369

I mean as a military weapon system, not clandestine stuff.

>>31764268
>expense
>delivery method
>overkill
Russians had plans for a 100mt but after the Tzar Bomba demonstration, they figured that continuing their dick fighting contest with the US wasn't worth the possibility of seriously fucking the planet up

>>31764268
From what I've been told is that the bigger you make a bomb of that sort the more of the actual energy is simply ending up in the atmosphere rather than the actual aimed destruction.

>>31764268
Castle bravo had a more efficient yield tho

>>31764295
You got it wrong, Little Boy was the prototype, Fat Man was tested at Trinity first because the implosion design was a couple orders of magnitude more complex than the gun devices were.

But yeah, Tsar Bomba-sized warheads died with the liquid fueled Proton and Titan -sized missiles that were their only effective delivery mechanisms.

Though I'm surprised nobody ever thought of ordering a solid-fueled ICBM from ATL based off of the Shuttle's SRB's and carrying a 100mt warhead in a reentry vehicle the size of a Gemini or Apollo capsule.

Now that I think of it though, replacing all of our Minutemans with such a monstrosity would be an absolutely troll-tastic way to circumvent the treaty limits on warhead counts.

I would also think that a first strike amounting to tens of thousands of megatons that would strip each and every target down to bedrock with the initial blast and turn it's recipient nation into a decent facsimile of the surface of Mars would really up the ante as well.

One wonders if this "nuclear moonscape a-go-go" scheme hasn't been studied somewhere in the Pentagon.

>>31764442
This is true

>>31764440
Lol, that one guy shit his pants so hard he couldn't climb outtathat hole.

File: Sprint_ABM.webm (866KB, 484x360px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 484x360px

Out of nuke explosions. Posting nuke-related stuff.

>>31764461

Yeah, on accident lol

>>31764538
I'm always amazed that those old cameras had the ability to track things going mach 10 even back then.

>>31764268
Cause 10 small nukes are more usefull then one gigantic one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle

File: 1471064682335.webm (895KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 854x480px

And thats it for the Webm's.

File: 1474516455149.png (173KB, 704x614px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 704x614px

I got a question.

Lets say physics didn't work the way it does., lets say fission nukes could be made clean. just big explosions. no radiation, fallout all that shit.


How would nukes be utilized over other munitions? i can't see very many uses since blowing up half a city of """moderate""" muslims would be disastrous for PR.


Would the idea of nuclear deterrent still be viable without the lasting ecological damage? or would pure destruction be enough.
Feel free to call me an idiot if this offends you.

>>31764566
I'm always amazed that each generation can't believe there was technology before they were born. Or maybe even 400 years ago.

>>31764268
>red scare propaganda from 2002
>woops we're 35 years late for the cold war guys our bad

>>31764717
I'm not offended. Let's just blow half the planet off and just wobble around in space as a semi-hemispheroid. That would be cool, right?

>>31764418

>"Atom Bomb Baby" by The Five Stars plays

>>31764788
That's nice and all, but it doesn't really provide a thought provoking response to my question.

Essentially when you pass the 100 megaton threshold the amount of destruction per additional megaton isn't worth the cost all you end up doing is blowing larger.chunks of the atmosphere out of earths orbit.. though it's not a signifigant enough amount to pose any threat. I rember reading that if you used an apolo rocket as an icbm it could carry a thousand megaton device..

>>31764268
US technology was more accurate so they did not need a bigger blast to compensate. Additionally, 10 10MT bombs would spread out over an area would do much more damage than 1 100MT bomb.

/thread

>>31764369
The soviets had a large caliber mortar that had a nuclear round.

>>31764396
Sorry, quoted wrong post. See here:>>31764841

>>31764717
Our nukes are prettty clean 95 percent of the mass is converted into pure energy the rest is fallout and since we are only using 30 or so kg of radioactive material it isn't that much. Now if you do a ground detonation vs airburst some additional isotopes will be created although none of them are that long lasting mainly in the 30 day to a few months range.

>>31764749

Young people also arent aware that the progress of technology isnt linear at all. Sometimes, technology and the knowledge of that same tech, can and has been lost before.

See the Antikythera mechanism for an example.

>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

>>31764268
Because the tsar bomba was never made into a weapon. Only two cases for it were built, one for the test and the other for a museum.

>>31764268
I guess we'll wait and see what else hilldog spills out about our nukes come Nov

>>31764268
They didn't need to.

>>31764442
Yes. There is a point of diminishing returns.

>>31764474
>Though I'm surprised nobody ever thought of ordering a solid-fueled ICBM from ATL based off of the Shuttle's SRB's and carrying a 100mt warhead in a reentry vehicle the size of a Gemini or Apollo capsule.
Similar approaches were contemplated.

>I would also think that a first strike amounting to tens of thousands of megatons that would strip each and every target down to bedrock with the initial blast and turn it's recipient nation into a decent facsimile of the surface of Mars would really up the ante as well.
Yes.

>One wonders if this "nuclear moonscape a-go-go" scheme hasn't been studied somewhere in the Pentagon.
It was, but as strategy moved from inflicting unacceptable damage to populations and infrastructure towards hitting discrete targets of economic and military importance, this fell out of favor.

>>31764717
Fallout is not the effect that gives leaders pause when the idea of deploying nuclear weapons come up.
It is the sudden and immediate destruction of economic assets, population and infrastructure.
In a conventional bombing campaign, the same level of destruction can be reached, but only after many months or years of bombardment.
This allows the nation being bombarded time to react and adjust, marshaling resources and recovery operations where they are needed at the time.

This becomes very difficult with nuclear weapons, because those resources are needed everywhere, all at once. This requires that you have a very robust system of command and control, and governmental preservation to survive the attack.

>>31764933
She didn't spill anything out.

>>31764268
TSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Bomba

>>31764440
All of those guys die of cancer.

>>31765174
/sp/ pls go

>>31764749
More along the lines of it's really interesting what they managed to accomplish with vacuum tubes and analog electronics. They probably used a contrast seeking rig which is pure analog and pretty neat. I'm an electrical engineer and built a tracking rig a while back. Even with modern equipment it's not exactly simple.

But I'm never amazed that you're a faggot.

>>31764268
Becuase it was a very inefficient design that was pretty much worthless for any other reason than impressing slavaboos.

>>31764268
Because it was a dick wave, not a war-useful weapon.

>>31764268

>>31764840

This guys got it.

When it comes to destroying your target with nukes, one massive bomb is actually worse than several smaller ones.

In addition, one massive bomb is basically way easier to destroy.

At the time in the cold war, the US was mastering missile technology and the accuracy of such. The soviets couldnt match them for technological ability, so they did what soviets always did. Put all that effort into brute forcing it in a completely different way. They couldnt make accurate bombs and ended up with a bomb that didnt need accuracy to destroy its target. You just needed to hit vaguely the right continent with it.

And thats why everyone should be sad the cold war ended. The Soviet's were without a doubt behind technologically. but its when you try to do something within limits that you can create some things which are truly awesome.

Tsar Bomba is a retarded weapon. But its a damn awesome one.

>>31766447
It's also why they got Sputnik and Gagarin up first; they were focused on getting heavier warheads lofted so they had bigger rockets.

>>31764440
>>31764453
>>31764520

What are the vertical/diagonal lines of smoke you see after a detonation?

>>31766793
this
I've always wondered what they were

>>31766793
>>31767181
They're smoke rockets, not actually part of the detonation. They fired them during nuclear tests as reference markers. (By spacing them a certain distance apart, you could measure the size and speed of the blast by looking at the footage frame by frame, and see the shape of the shockwave by looking at how the lines got distorted.)

>>31767181
>>31766793
Some kind of signal flares to give some kind of scale when viewing the films/images from the detonation..

>>31766793
They are created to help see the pressure wave of the blast. It's for testing purposes. The nuke doesn't make them.

File: neat.jpg (43KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 480x270px

>>31767249
>>31767250
>>31767259
thanks

>>31764268
It was so big it stuck out of the Bear's bomb bay and during testing needed to be reduced to half power and given a parachute for the bomber's safety. It was little more than a compensation device and everyone knew it.

>>31764442
what about a nuclear shaped charge of 100mt?

nuclear shaped charges were developed but weren't ever built

>>31764440
My grandfather was offered a "posting" at that base for "experimental research" along with a generous raise but knew enough to realize bad shit was going to happen out there and went to a port instead.

>>31768932
For what purpose?

File: tsar.jpg (39KB, 564x430px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 564x430px

noice

File: BdaGl3DCIAA-QVF.jpg (130KB, 1024x679px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1024x679px

>>31764268
Pic related.

However, in a Congressional hearing, McNamara was asked about extremely high yield weapons. He said a 60 megaton yield bomb deliverable by B-52 could have been designed and deployed without any testing, which is a reasonable claim considering the B41. However he also claimed that with testing the US could have deployed a 35 megaton warhead on the Titan II, which points to insanely high efficiency.

>>31764268

>How come the US never countered the Tsar Bomba?

The Tsar bomb wasn't a good system. It fact, it was shown to be so powerful that most of the energy just ended up in space. The Soviets concluded that it was useless after 1 test.

>>31764453
holly mother of fuck. i'd probably shit everything i've ever eaten before being vaporized. shit looks fucking terrifying

>>31770462
If you're that close you'd be dead before you realized anything had happened.

File: OvTkHnF.jpg (44KB, 552x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 552x480px

>>31764268
The larger the nuke the more inefficient it is in delivering it's energy

3X larger, only twice the blast radius. Much larger device to deliver, more unintended effects. Most targets won't survive a 1 Mgt delivered accurately. Better to have put your efforts into more weapons delivered accurately.

>>31770758
To double the blast radius you need 8 times the yield.

>>31769350
For making a REALLY big hole.

>>31770802
Exactly, the inverse cube law applies to all blast weapons in a 3d space.

Hence the power of guided weapons. A 2x increase in accuracy is 8x the firepower; and the average cheapo PGM represents a 20x+ increase in accuracy over dumb weapons.

That 8000x increase in firepower caused Russian generals during the Cold War to define smart bombs as literally more powerful than some tactical nuclear weapons.

>>31770758
Would have been an amazing photo, seeing the mushroom of Tsar Bomba from space, sticking out over the usual cloud layer.

File: schlock20140218.jpg (200KB, 780x456px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 780x456px

>>31770841

>>31764268
Why one huge inaccurate bomb when you can have dozens of small but highly accurate bombs?

>>31770928
Howard Taylor is usually pretty accurate when he tries to do the hard scifi, but he neglected energy lost to neutrinos here. The effective yield of that amount of antimatter would probably be closer to 4 Mt

>>31769350
They were designed for space combat. It's rather difficult to intercept a plasma blast moving at hundreds or even thousands of kilometers per second.

>>31764402
fire that fucking cameraman.

>>31771173
Enjoying my pdf of The 70 Maxims of Maximally Effictive Mercenaries with the markups by the Tagons, Murtaigh, and Schlock, though.

File: 1466875757001.jpg (81KB, 1400x764px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1400x764px

>>31764497
>That feel when someone saved your webm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPIuWhUCwXw
Watch it with sound, the part where the narrator says "the sound of horrible power accompanies the advent of the blast wave" always gives me shivers.

>>31764268
Maybe with the new B61 which has a 3 meter CEP, that is a counter -- every aircraft can accomplish strategic effects now.

>>31764440
So can someone give me some story behind this?
Why were they made to walk TOWARDS THE FUCKING MUSHROOM CLOUD?
Did anyone survive without getting cancer?
If yes to the last question then how?

>>31769449
About time those uppity kikes got what was coming to them.

>>31771232
I still need to read mine. It astounds me that a flaming liberal Hillary supporter can come up with the 70 Maxims.

>>31771305
I remember one old film where they fired a nuke as a training exercise. The concept was that they were blowing a hole in Soviet lines, then sending troops in to secure the area. Including having the soldiers staged up in trenches and having the outer blast wave sweeping over them.

>>31770974

Because fuck you, that's why

>>31771277
>ball of heat and light capable of destroying entire cities
>our ancestors could only dream of this kind of destruction when imagining the power of their gods

>>31764474
The idea of nuclear weapons in space was contemplated by everyone, like >31764947 said, and the idea is so incredibly horrifying that everyone signed the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Orbiting nuclear weapons are a first strike weapon and are thus bad for everyone.

>>31771340
Operation Buster-Jangle

File: heretic.png (34KB, 213x200px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 213x200px

>>31764268
unlike the Russians we are not autistic retards and only build what we needed, ergo our economy did not collapse and we won the cold war.

>>31764268
Because multiple smaller warheads are better than one large one.

>>31764342
What about we strap a big bomb on a fast plane? B 1 is a fast bomber, why not?

>>31764308
When and were, I want to see this.

>>31771305
Someone has to find out what the best way to proceed into and secure an enemy held area you just nuked is.

>>31764268
A men with a small penis tells everyone how big it is.
A man with a large penis stays quiet until asked, at which point he swings it onto a nearby desk.

>>31764471
Even worse idiots than >>31764440

>>31764512
Jesus...

>>31764369

The really cool part of the suitcase nukes is they may already be here in America hidden in caches all around the country. I can't imagine what I would do with one if I managed to find one. I'd definitely consider using it but not sure what the target would be.

>>31772741
And then Lyndon B Johnson whipped it out as a negotiating tactic and peed on secret servicemen (accidentally, but didn't give a fuck once notified).

He also owned an amphicar and loved to pretend he lost control and drive it into the river while important people were riding with him.

>>31772865
DC obviously.

>>31772865
>The really cool part of the suitcase nukes is they may already be here in America hidden in caches all around the country. I can't imagine what I would do with one if I managed to find one. I'd definitely consider using it but not sure what the target would be.

>bumblefuck anon starts WW3, ends life on planet earth

>>31764418
I would love to see these suberimposed over a city to get a sense of scale....

>>31771305
We know it fucking kills you because of all the unlucky sods who were paid extra to die and confirm it's a stupid idea.

How dd you think we know how radiation kills you? Interviewing the corpses in Hiroshima?
No, they simply gave some guy extra money and blasted him with that shit until the point of no return.

>>31764268
Even the Soviets realized no one would be insane enough to use these things.
Heck, the Tzar was supposed to be twice the yield but they saw it for the massive over-doing that it already was at just half the size.

>>31773525
>Heck, the Tzar was supposed to be twice the yield but they saw it for the massive over-doing that it already was at just half the size.


With the secondary stage it would have fucked the planet up majorly. thank god they didn't do it-

>>31764717
Idiot

>>31764369
it's highly debatable whether suitcase nukes actually exist (no, dirty bombs don't count) there IS a size limit on nukes, not necessarily in how big, but how small you can make them, and depending who you ask, the smallest ranges from suitcase to so large as to at least require a small pickup truck to transport.

File: DavyCrockettBomb.jpg (268KB, 800x640px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 800x640px

>>31773891
>so large as to at least require a small pickup truck to transport.

reeeeeee

>>31764440

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkAp5gAYDUQ

>I'm NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCLEAR

>>31773918
well... I wouldn't say suitcase... but that definitely IS small enough to transport in a compact car or by hand, but it's made of metal so I'm gonna add one last thing.... by hand if you have a couple strong people. like careying the tailstock on a lathe.

File: Davy_Crockett_bomb.jpg (250KB, 800x628px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 800x628px

>>31773930
the warhead, which is the actual bomb and all you need, is small enough to fit in a hiking backpack. what are you talking about?

>>31764342
The Tsar Bomba was only 50 MT, they had a design for 100mt but this was never detonated due safety reasons.

Eg. People were burned 60km away with the Tsar Bomba. Eg. The fireball was 8km wide at only 50mt, that's 8km of pure fire. Eg. The bomber that dropped the Tsar only just made it to safety before the airbust

>>31772556
I think you misunderstood him. He was saying to use heavy lift rockets as ICBMs since they could conceivably carry something in the 50-100 MT range.

Which is stupid, because there are only a handful of targets that might require over 1 MT for a complete kill, and those could just have multiple warheads assigned to them. But he did say it was a troll weapon.

File: oO5KwvL.jpg (119KB, 800x628px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x628px

>>31770906
they could of at least hired a photography
crew

>>31764512
Entire island was raised 10 meters after this

>>31772648
A B1B can fly at mach 1.25. The closest squadron to Moscow is based at Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota. That's about a 5250 mile flight on a polar path. A bit over 6 hours one way, the last hour of which will have interceptors and SAMs attacking. And that assumes pre positioned tankers because even if Moscow is just inside of their theoretical range, they couldn't get back out without fuel.

An ICBM can hit just about anywhere in around 45 minutes. It cannot be intercepted by aircraft or most SAMs.

>>31764838
>apolo rocket
>The Saturn V wasn't the only rocket used in the Apollo missions.

>>31773929
gay-ass music right there

>>31773929
Great post anon, that song is epic, never heard it before...

>>31774579
Edgy kid with no taste detected

File: 1428351726450.gif (1MB, 294x224px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 294x224px

>>31764364
>Putting nuclear weapons under the control of junior officers

What could possibly go wrong?

File: Medium_Atomic_Demolition_Munition_(internal) (1).jpg (1008KB, 1605x1169px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 1605x1169px

>>31774925
:)

>>31774944
You could blow the supporting structure of very tall buildings with those if you were't careful.

>>31773930

That israeli nuclear scientist posted pics of what is alleged to be nuke small enough to fit in a suitcase

He get vant by mossad which may lend credibility to his claims.

Mordechai vanunu

File: Untitled.png (230KB, 557x774px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 557x774px

>>31764474
Megaton for megaton, mo warheads mo betta
>top and bottom, same total yield

>>31764276
Fucking idiot

If there was a blast that big, we would've known about it.

File: SADM.jpg (15KB, 300x380px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x380px

>>31773891
The XW-54 (Davy Crockett, SADM, Falcon, Walleye) was good for up to 6kt in the Hardtack II Socorro test, weighed about 51lb and could fit in a small backpack.
>it actually took some testing to make it produce a smaller yield consistently

>>31775253
>sparing gary

i really hope you don't do this

>>31764295
Or the Nuclear Test Ban treaty?

>>31764268
What's the point? How are you going to deliver that kind of weapon anyway?

>>31775356

Via shipping freight container, on a freighter porting in singapore, detonating and then erases half or the whole singapore island

>>31773442

DC might be the most obvious target and therefore difficult to attack. If for instance you tried a decapitation attack during the state of the union address you would most likely not be successful. There are other things to consider other than target.

>>31775738
And the US government by design has an extremely deep chain of succession and they purposely keep someone bunkered up during things like the state of the union to prevent that kind if thing.

File: Trumans strength unfolded.jpg (94KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x400px

Fun fact.
President Truman A.K.A the one who dropped the bomb considered himself a sissy. Ironic to think that he was the one to authorize the use of one of the most powerful weapons ever devised by mankind.

>>31775893

Yes I know that but it would be a really good way to piss off our elected leaders. Nothing gets someone's attention like when you are trying to kill them. Possibly nuke the oil terminal and refineries down in Houston and buy a bunch of put options against the oil companies?

>>31775034
You can find pics on wikipedia of nukes small enough to fit in a gym bag. The US has made atomic munitions for 155mm howitzers.

>>31765450
Nah, IIRC, most just had messed up kids down the line.

Thread theme https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXSUEU7ISfQ

>>31771305

I think this was a proof of concept to see if soldiers could actually be convinced to walk TOWARDS a mushroom cloud if they were ever used in combat

>>31770405
What if they had detonated while it was laying on the ground?

File: m-65-atomic-annie.jpg (44KB, 600x362px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x362px

>>31776120

This was/is a thing

File: we177-wessex-edited.jpg (59KB, 940x705px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 940x705px

>>31770758
Accurate delivery ;)

File: Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg (761KB, 3000x2272px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 3000x2272px

>>31764268

They never needed to. The US nuclear arsenal only needed to be big enough to provide proper deterrence to a Soviet attack. Also it was too big to fit on ICBMs making it effectively useless by the mid/late 60s. The introduction of MIRVs also meant that smaller independently targeted warheads could create a similar effect.

File: Genie Missile Test.webm (3MB, 582x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 582x360px

Make way for air to air nuclear missile.

>>31775332
Why bother nuking it? It's already a carcinogenic hellhole.

>>31777715

Why, tho?

>>31777857
Why not? Fit right in with with our stock of nuclear depth charges and artillery shells.

File: Convair_F-106A_Delta_Dart_1.jpg (1MB, 3000x2007px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2007px

>>31777857
In theory.
Incoming formation of Bears, very big boom, lots of splashes.
The other tech of the day wasn't up to much more than unguided one on one stuff.

>>31777715
I read somewhere that those 5 guys all died of cancer or some other radiation related illnesses.

File: atomic2.jpg (81KB, 500x652px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x652px

Detonation at 1 million fps

>>31775893
How would you keep a suitcase nuke out of a city.
Especially in the US. The high system runs Thru every city. You couldn't possibly check for that. Does the us monitor radiation via satellite?

>>31778744
A properly designed nuke is shielded.

The good news is that building a nuke requires such heavily controlled materials and high precision of manufacture that no non-state actor could even build a Little Boy/Fat Man equivalent primitive model. And we know who has the ability to even try the micro nuke smuggling attack vector. So that kind of attack is a suicidal declaration of war, since tiny = small yield = very little functional effect.

>>31778744

You can't they tried that in NY and they kept getting false alarms.

>>31778925

Your best bet would be to use a smaller bomb to knock out some key piece of infrastructure. Like I said before the port of Houston and take out the oil terminal, and the refining facilities. You could make a ton of money from placing put options against the oil companies as well.

>>31779980
ANFO or TATP is far easier to source than weapons grade Uranium/Plutonium. Not even fuel-grade stuff is good enough.

That was actually one of the biggest parts of the Iran deal. Removal and handing over of all centrifuges that could spin out weapons-grade isotopes, and a complete mine-refinery-power plant-waste storage accountability and tracking system that allows them to shift away from fossil fuel for power generation, but also prove to the UN that they aren't trying to build weapons.

>>31780269

Maybe but you're talking multiple 2k pound bombs scattered all around the port and the refinery. You're bound to draw some attention with dozens upon dozens of nondescript vans parked all over the place. A single well placed nuke on the other hand could knock out the entire facility from the fires alone.

>>31780390
Use a BLEVE

Propane tanker truck with safety mechanisms disabled, a secondary fuel source for a heating fire, and a third vehicle to evacuate the conspirators.

Maybe a fourth vehicle and fifth vehicle filled with portable gas bottles to scatter and create secondaries.

https://youtu.be/K-tUQTw_Vtk

>>31764392
This.

The Soviet Union was routinely criticized for its doctrine of "bigger is better". The Tsar Bomba was both a test of the limits of the design, and a propaganda tool. It was very impractical as a weapon.

>>31768932
>nuclear shaped charge
What.....is this? Do you mean a MOAB? A fuel-air bomb? What?

By the way, as touched-on earlier, anything bigger than the Tsar Bomba (57Mt) just starts blowing holes in the stratosphere. They're impractical as weapons.

>>31777593
Then it would have had less of an impact due to the ground (solid) absorbing the blast or reflecting it upward. This is the reason why really big booms (nukes, MOABs) are done with air bursts, so the maximum diameter of the blast sphere goes right where you want it.

But they DID do extensive testing of nukes vs. hardened installations (bunkers). The world powers know what nukes are capable of, believe you me. This is where (and why) you start reading about "tactical nukes" etc. And guys like Kim Jong Il only wish they had the technology. All they've got is a Trinity Test -type bomb and some airplanes.

>>31781130
You know how a normal shaped charge works? Directs a percentage of the energy of a blast along a single axis? Same thing. Of course, a 100 MT charge is silly. Current materials might be able to harness one in the KT range, but much higher would destroy the focusing medium before it could divert a significant percentage of the energy.

>>31773497
>bumblefuck anon starts WW3, ends life on planet earth
I'd watch that movie

File: mogggka9p47jggk3t9xo.jpg (17KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x250px

>>31764268
Why not a False Vacuum bomb instead?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijFm6DxNVyI

>>31781430
I can appreciate what you're getting-at, although what you meant by "nuke shaped" evades me.

I've read stuff to the effect that the scientists and tacticians take into account all of the effects of the blast bouncing off the ground, the surrounding mountains and layers of the atmosphere. As to whether they have tactics in place to direct blasts off the Ural mountains, I dunno.

>>31782287
Read it again. Never said a thing about "nuke shaped". I recommend you read up on shaped charges:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

>>31772713
If she wins, Hillary is going to start a war with Russia as a quick way to strip away all remaining rights and remain in power indefinitely. If Trump wins, they will still start a war before he is sworn in to prevent him from taking office and halting the progress of the globalists pulling the strings from behind the curtain.

>>31782376
OH not a nuclear-shaped charge, you meant a (nuke) shaped charge. Sorry amigo, I've had too many this evening.

Yeah, that'd be interesting. I think the entire phenomena of the chain reaction and the secondary thermo reaction kind of outpaces the shape-charge science, but I've never seen anything on it. Cool idea tho.

>>31764562
basically a UFO, werent a bunch of UFO sightings most likely test versions of this baby?

>>31771173
what about an antimatter triggered fusion device using similar concepts to the teller Ullam?

>>31783000
Because he gives the exact amount of anitmatter, which works out to a 5 MT explosion when you neglect neutrino loss.

File: wat.jpg (3KB, 125x119px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x119px

>>31774944
Is that a nuclear EFP?

Or is that drum just for transportation?

>>31775974
Motherfucker was a wwi war hero, he was just being modest. He was a turn of the century Missouri boy, of course he wanted to nuke gooks.

>>31785586
drum.

look up project orion if you want a nuclear efp

>>31764342
>implying that the bombers were ever expected to return.

It was always a one way mission.

>>31786149
The USAF had reconstitution teams that would go to other airports to refuel and rearm returning bomber aircraft.

>>31773918
The Davy Crockett makes the cutest little mushroom clouds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHiihPD7bLM

>>31764268
Tsar Bomba was never actually a weapon, it was a nuclear test essentailly. It was never transportable and very wasteful. It wasn't an actual weapon(size and weight were way way way too high).

>>31785586
>>31785988

More accurately, the Star Wars program.

One of the idea of nukes in space was to use them to power a bomb pumped x-ray laser and the other was to have the bomb detonate over a platter and direct the relativistic shrapnel at a target.

>>31782396
Lmao uncuck yourself crackerjack

File: 800px-N1+Saturn5.jpg (80KB, 800x1478px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x1478px

>>31786543
>It wasn't an actual weapon(size and weight were way way way too high).

Not if the soviets had made this thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)

>>31764512
Assuming you weren't in water or got hit by a resulting rock slide, how survivable would this be?

>>31781493
Because that doesn't fucking exist.

These kind of threads make me wish Opp was still with us.

>>31786583
There were ground-based versions of that too, built as a theoretical repellant of alien invasions because you could make them relatively inconspicuously and cheaply, producing "ghetto relativistic cannons" as it was once put.

>>31764598
>Banephh
>Ykanob

fucking cyrilic

>>31764471
>dudes in gas masks and fatigues on horseback, charging towards a mushroom cloud, waving sabers

FUCK

FUCK

WE ARE ALREADY LIVING IN MAD MAX

File: 1469953323336.jpg (3MB, 3456x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x2160px

>>31764268
-most of the energy would be wasted into the atmosphere/ outer space.
-feared potentially igniting the atmosphere.

File: Did I fucking stutter.jpg (86KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x450px

>>31781493
What could go wrong?

>>31764334
>That sort of blast isn't easy to hide. We would know.
Implying the US needs to actually detonate it's nukes to see if they work anymore.

>>31771305
It's TNT.

>>31778110
They didn't.

>>31792178
They did:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21937/men-stood-under-nuclear-test-1957/

>>31764291
>higher yield warheads
Tsar bomb wasn't a missile warhead (far too heavy), it was a good old simple airdrop bomb, obsolete at the time, but excellent at demonstrating dick size

>>31764296
How do you plan to accelerate said rock to speeds exceeding 25k mph without using nukes as propellant?

>>31792841
An electric-ion engine and gravitational boosting?
Just use one of those stones floating around beyond Mars. It will pick up speed as it enters Earth's gravitational well.