America Vs China

[Beastro]

Originally Posted by Prince [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For instance, Fat man had a blast yield of 21 kilotons of tnt (88 terajoules of energy) and little boy had a yield of 13-18 kt TNT (54-75 TJ). Modern nuclear weapons (using the B83 as an example) have blast yields of up to 1.2 Megatons (1,200 Kilotons) of TNT, equivalent to 5,000 terajoules of energy. There's a pretty big difference between the impact that one of these bombs would have if detonated compared to the long term effect of fat man + little boy on Japan.

Most modern US weapons are geared to initiate below their maximum yield and, at least under Bush, there were projects looking to replace the US deterrent with warheads whose yields were below the first generation of nukes.

Big bombs are, for the most part, a waste. The only real advantage they give is that the initiation material is greater and thus the bomb doesn't been to be serviced and have parts replaced as much (mainly the tritium which has a fairly short half life).

Even a megaton+ nuke still wouldn't destroy a whole city, nor would the after effects be as bad as the Jap bombs, again because of air bursts.

[naez]

well you see the Hiroshima bombs were hydrogen. nowadays we learned how to enrich uranium and plutonium and shit. now i aint no rocket scientist but I think more neutrons = better dirty bomb for fucking the environment up

[wehrmacht]

Originally Posted by Beastro [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Keep say it, but it's bullshit until you describe exactly how one warhead would kill a billion people when it's insufficient to wipe out even a single city.

How can you pretend to know any of this stuff about war yet not know a MIRV is more than one nuke.

[Prince]

i am p sure a 1.2 megaton bomb dropped over manhattan would destroy all of new york city

[Beastro]

How can you pretend to know any of this stuff about war yet not know a MIRV is more than one nuke.

One warhead still = one MIRV warhead.

I still stand by that statement.

An MIRV "claw", in the absence of a ABM system or any chance of failure (expect only 1/3rd of your missiles to get launched: 1/3rd being serviced, 1/3rd expected to fail and 1/3 expected to work and they still have yet to face an ABM defence) would be capable of destroying the majority of a single city, but not wipe out a billion people.

FYI, ballistic missiles with MIRVs capability are not packed to their maximum capacity either, the typical SLBM, be it Russian, American, British or French (I'd assume China follows the same model) is only fitted with a single bus of 3 warheads because there are more missiles now than there are warheads to fill them all up.

i am p sure a 1.2 megaton bomb dropped over manhattan would destroy all of new york city

The buildings would soak up a ton of energy and prevent the ones furthest from the initiation from feeling the full brunt on the blast, even if it's still an air burst.

Of course, this is all trivial, nukes (at least all of the US ones, and most of the Soviet ones, China doesn't have enough to go over targeting.) are not targeted at population centers, they are targeted at targets of value, many of which happen to be inside population centers.

As a redundancy, several missiles are assigned to a specific target. For instance, the entire British nuclear deterrent would have be spent on the leveling on Moscow alone.

Funny thing is, Moscow was all smoke and mirrors, the Soviets had nothing of importance placed within the city and spread disinformation about it to turn it into a nuke sponge.

[Beastro]

Originally Posted by naez [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

well you see the Hiroshima bombs were hydrogen. nowadays we learned how to enrich uranium and plutonium and shit. now i aint no rocket scientist but I think more neutrons = better dirty bomb for fucking the environment up

Still fails in light of the face that all warheads bound to land on cities are air bursts and thus produce a minimum of fallout.

The only targets set for ground bursts would be underground military targets such as ICBM silos which are set well outside of population centers.

As for neutron bombs, if you're thinking of them, they were only built by the US with on thing in mind: to irradiate the Soviet tank waves which would flood into Western Germany.

Even then it was a faulty theory to work on and they didn't come to much.

[Beastro]

Originally Posted by naez [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

well you see the Hiroshima bombs were hydrogen.

And fuck again this lack of editing.

Little Boy was enriched Uranium, Fat Man was Plutonium.

No doubt you just said the BS above to troll as you always do Naez.

[naez]

So they were. From what I can tell hydrogen bombs may be even better than uranium weapons because of the type of reaction. But like I said it doesn't take a brain surgeon to be a rocket scientist.

[bman8810]

I considered responding to naez and then I realized that responding to the trolls just means the trolls win. Seriously though, you don't have to have a degree in physics, chemistry, nuclear engineering, or chemical engineering to understand the difference between a hydrogen bomb and an atomic bomb.

[naez]

you dont need a degree in anything to be an expert on the internet