How destructive would the "Rods of God" be /k/? What

>>32460571
Much devastation

>>32460571
would it be cheaper to attach rocket engines to asteroids and steer them to your targets

>>32460571
Depending on the size?
>Telephone pole?
A block to maybe two blocks.
>My dick.
The eastern seaboard is fucked.

>>32460629

'Payload is hot. Repeat, payload is hot. Splashdown in .... uh... about two years.'

>>32460629
Cheaper? Probably. But now you have much less accuracy (compare a supersonic bullet to a supersonic pebble - you get the idea), and it's gonna take for fucking ever to actually hit your target. You could maybe park a bunch of asteroids in orbit, but safety issues aside this is still wildly inefficient with regards to deltaV, to the point where a "rods from god" setup might actually require less shit being launched into space anyway.

a few tons of TNT. so not nuclear, about the same as a cruise missile.

>>32460571
A simple physics could calculate the damn thing, man

E=½mv2 (m=mass, v=terminal velocity)

>>32460823
Knowing how many joules it would have rught before impact isnt what op was after.

>>32460571
If it got the whole city, it could be beneficial rather than destructive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0zkhQFHNac

RFTG was meant to be a penetration based weapon, launching something with (relatively) extreme mass and speed compared to conventional missiles means that you can pass through a lot of terrain. Ideally this platform would be used against mountain based bunkers like Cheyenne. If it failed to completely penetrate a base, it would at least destroy a section of it's protective shell for subsequent bombardment with nuclear weapons.

It'd be interesting to know exactly what the effect would be relative to an explosion, but that's not the purpose of the system.