Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 11,744
- 8,275
- 136
Yeah. Just ignore me I know nothing....
Day that ends in 'y'
Yeah. Just ignore me I know nothing....
Many people are saying….Yeah. Just ignore me I know nothing....
Outside of fallout which is dependent on air currents, the size of a warhead that could actually cover anything close to that area would be well, well beyond anything mankind has created. I have doubts we even could develop something of that size with our materials sciences, and would probably constitute a moonshot program to develop, costing trillions and being quite immobile (think city sized).Yields are just a forbidden subject. If you ever been around a weapons nuke, they say nothing about nothing.
No doubt. The point is, the subject should never be some hyperboled BS. Especially, when its someone in authority. People unfortunately assume someone is that position and on that subject would only deal with facts.Outside of fallout which is dependent on air currents, the size of a warhead that could actually cover anything close to that area would be well, well beyond anything mankind has created. I have doubts we even could develop something of that size with our materials sciences, and would probably constitute a moonshot program to develop, costing trillions and being quite immobile (think city sized).
But it is hyperbole bs. It's like saying we can blow up the sun. It's probably debatable that it would actually be possible to develop a system that could create a detonation that large, much less actually build it.No doubt. The point is, the subject should never be some hyperboled BS. Especially, when its someone in authority. People unfortunately assume someone is that position and on that subject would only deal with facts.
Something that large would have to be assembled in place. It would be huge.
Nope. Has to do with what is easily deliverable. Plus we built thousands of weapons so having a few super big bombs really doesn’t add anything in the way of tactical or strategic value.I know nothing about our nuclear arsenals, but it surprises me that our largest (at least stated) are "only" 1.2 megaton. Not that it's anything to scoff at, don't get me wrong...I just thought we had some that were as large as 10 to 20 megatons. I guess not.
The Titans carried 5 megaton warheads.I know nothing about our nuclear arsenals, but it surprises me that our largest (at least stated) are "only" 1.2 megaton. Not that it's anything to scoff at, don't get me wrong...I just thought we had some that were as large as 10 to 20 megatons. I guess not.
The H bomb design is such that one really can increase yield simply by making the bomb longer, adding on more fuel and tamping. The design is sometimes referred to as a neutron wick. Want a bigger boom? Make the wick longer.But it is hyperbole bs. It's like saying we can blow up the sun. It's probably debatable that it would actually be possible to develop a system that could create a detonation that large, much less actually build it.
It would actually be easier for us to redirect an asteroid to create the devastation that would impart long before creating a hydrogen bomb that size.
Shit we could probably encourage Yellowstone to erupt before we could create that thing.
They're not necessary unless you intend on destroying civilian infrastructure. And if you intend on doing that, you're probably in an end of game scenario where you're using mirv weapons to delivery dozens of those 1-2MT warheads across large swathes of population centers, not one.I know nothing about our nuclear arsenals, but it surprises me that our largest (at least stated) are "only" 1.2 megaton. Not that it's anything to scoff at, don't get me wrong...I just thought we had some that were as large as 10 to 20 megatons. I guess not.
Yeah but you need massive amounts of material that isn't easy to procure, and that's just the unclassified design details. Deuterium and tritium, that shit doesn't grow on trees.The H bomb design is such that one really can increase yield simply by making the bomb longer, adding on more fuel and tamping. The design is sometimes referred to as a neutron wick. Want a bigger boom? Make the wick longer.
Nuclear weapon design - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I know nothing about our nuclear arsenals, but it surprises me that our largest (at least stated) are "only" 1.2 megaton. Not that it's anything to scoff at, don't get me wrong...I just thought we had some that were as large as 10 to 20 megatons. I guess not.
My memory is a little vague about this, I kind of remember something from maybe the early 80s where there would be a MIRV with hundreds of small nukes on it and I *believe* the example given was one missile could blanket the East coast.What you are describing sounds like a ICBM Missile with MIRV (Multiple Independently targeted Reentry Vehicles) capabilities. We have lots of those, but the warheads have to be smaller in order to have them delivered by one missile.
Weren’t there larger ones in let’s say the 60s but those were decommissioned as part of the arms control agreement?I know nothing about our nuclear arsenals, but it surprises me that our largest (at least stated) are "only" 1.2 megaton. Not that it's anything to scoff at, don't get me wrong...I just thought we had some that were as large as 10 to 20 megatons. I guess not.
My memory is a little vague about this, I kind of remember something from maybe the early 80s where there would be a MIRV with hundreds of small nukes on it and I *believe* the example given was one missile could blanket the East coast.
The Soviets detonated a 50 Mt device; by comparison the largest U.S. device tested yielded 15 Mt:I know nothing about our nuclear arsenals, but it surprises me that our largest (at least stated) are "only" 1.2 megaton. Not that it's anything to scoff at, don't get me wrong...I just thought we had some that were as large as 10 to 20 megatons. I guess not.
Yep, we also started out with larger warheads until our missiles got better. The Minuteman was designed for one larger warhead but when we figured out that we could rely on it to hit what we were aiming at, we cut the size of warhead. This opened the door to MIRVs.We also use smaller warheads because ours are actually accurate. Russia made their warheads bigger in significant part because they weren’t confident in their ability to hit the target well.
H bomb designs went to using lithium as it is easier to deal with. The first stage reaction splits the lithium to form tritium on the fly. Some tritium is still required for the first stage.Yeah but you need massive amounts of material that isn't easy to procure, and that's just the unclassified design details. Deuterium and tritium, that shit doesn't grow on trees.
Then we'd fry like the planet's supply of lithium (as well as refining an incredible amount of tritium) to develop one immovable superweapon to ... destroy our own country?H bomb designs went to using lithium as it is easier to deal with. The first stage reaction splits the lithium to form tritium on the fly. Some tritium is still required for the first stage.
The U.S. is in an interesting spot as we shut down most of the weapons complex and we are relying on refurbishing and recycling old stockpile to maintain the active stockpile.
Also, for folks who are interested, good reads:
^ one of the best books I've ever read.Amazon.com
www.amazon.com
^ Not as good as the first book but still very respectableAmazon.com
www.amazon.com
^ While focused on clean-up, the report provides more insight into the weapons complexe.Closing the circle on the splitting of the atom: The environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production in the United States and what the Department of Energy is doing about it (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Informationwww.osti.gov