[QUOTE=JgcxCub;32963604]Why are the strengths of really powerful weapons [B]always[/B] measured in Hiroshimas?![/QUOTE]
The Hiroshima is the standard metric measurement for how much shit something can destroy being used alone.
[QUOTE=cccritical;32967963]am I the only one that wants to see a nuke this size flung into an asteroid or something[/QUOTE]
Well, people think that a nuke detonated in space wouldn't actually be very big. It wouldn't last very long, either.
[QUOTE=Sir Gangster;32963168]This is what should happen to all nuclear bombs.[/QUOTE]
No, they prevent mass wars between nations because no one really wants to destroy the entire world, if nuclear bombs were never invented we would have huge conventional wars that would cause much more destruction.
[QUOTE=itak365;32968492]Well, people think that a nuke detonated in space wouldn't actually be very big. It wouldn't last very long, either.[/QUOTE]
Well, it would produce a flash of radiation, an EMP, and a good amount of dangerous debris. It just wouldn't create the massive shockwave that it would in an atmosphere.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;32963443]Hundred of times stronger than Hiroshima?
Wow. Like really. It's absurd to think of.[/QUOTE]
It's really n-t.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32963204]There are other weapons that achieve the same effect while not causing thousands of years of irradiated earth.[/QUOTE]
Conventional weapons don't have the scare factor, that is the main role nuclear weapons fulfil.
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;32968342]Why are these WMDs given such sissy names? Fat Man? Tsar bomba?
If I wanted to induce utter fear and terror in the hearts of my enemies, I'd name my nukes Rectum Rippers or something...[/QUOTE]
No offense, but that sounds more like the name of a porno or a novelty oversized sex toy.
[QUOTE=certified;32968373]The Hiroshima is the standard metric measurement for how much shit something can destroy being used alone.[/QUOTE]
Which is rather stupid, as nukes tend t- have a relatively small destructive radius. When s-mething is regarded as hundreds -f times m-re p-werful, it d-esn't have a radius - t-tal destructi-n hundreds -f times larger.
[editline]26th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Medevilae;32968192][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Comparative_nuclear_fireball_sizes.svg/582px-Comparative_nuclear_fireball_sizes.svg.png[/IMG]
[/QUOTE]
This sh-ws the issue well.
The Tsar B-mba is 35 megat-ns m-re, -r m-re than d-uble, but it has barely 50% m-re destructive radius.
Just what do you think is so funny about replacing every o you would type with a hyphen, you big jerk?
[QUOTE=Contag;32968904]Which is rather stupid, as nukes tend t- have a relatively small destructive radius. When s-mething is regarded as hundreds -f times m-re p-werful, it d-esn't have a radius - t-tal destructi-n hundreds -f times larger.
[editline]26th October 2011[/editline]
This sh-ws the issue well.
The Tsar B-mba is 35 megat-ns m-re, -r m-re than d-uble, but it has barely 50% m-re destructive radius.[/QUOTE]
You really hate o's, don't you?
Edit:
Goddamn ninjas...
Come on guys, he CLEARLY doesn't like the letter o
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;32968971]Just what do you think is so funny about replacing every o you would type with a hyphen, you big jerk?[/QUOTE]
He's not doing it to be funny, he posted earlier that he's having keyboard issues.
This is awful. They need to put it back together.
Why didn't they just blow it up?
[QUOTE=Jsm;32968883]Conventional weapons don't have the scare factor, that is the main role nuclear weapons fulfil.[/QUOTE]
explosions aren't scary enough?
Cant imagine what our future fireworks are going to be.
[QUOTE=Contag;32968856]It's really n-t.[/QUOTE]
Still broken I see.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32963204]There are other weapons that achieve the same effect while not causing thousands of years of irradiated earth.[/QUOTE]
Nukes would never realistically be used. MAD makes their use completely impractical.
The goal of nuclear weaponry isn't to be used as such. They are here for dissuasion.
Seriously what do you find the most intimidating between "If you attack us we will send a bomb on you and kill your population" and "If you attack us we will send a nuclear bomb on you, kill your population and spread horrible radiation poisoning all over your country, condemning the entire area for three centuries".
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32963278]it looks just like my [I]COCK![/I][/QUOTE]
Finally found you!
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN3eq5OORHk[/media]
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;32963412]Goddamn...
They said it was put into service during the Cold War...
Wouldn't be surprised if they intended for that thing to take out half of Russia...
(They said it was hundreds of times stronger than Hiroshima bomb.)[/QUOTE]hundreds of times stronger than the little boy isn't all that impressive, by the late 1950s that was pretty much all atomic bombs
Kinda relived that there are less nukes in the world now.
they should just blow it up in the desert
[QUOTE=HendoV2;32971448]they should just blow it up in the desert[/QUOTE]
Yes, because it's not like anything lives in the desert, or anything from the desert is transmittable to the outside world, say, through the [I]atmosphere.[/I]
I'd rather they used them for a mission through the oort cloud and beyond using a proto-type orion drive, and as a testbed for an antimatter catalysed fission drive
[editline]26th October 2011[/editline]
brb 1000s more artificial radiation belts
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32963204]There are other weapons that achieve the same effect while not causing thousands of years of irradiated earth.[/QUOTE]
It's not just the immediate destruction, the perspective of a land rendered useless due to radiation for hundreds of years helps create the deterrence effect.
[QUOTE=valkery;32963484]I really don't see there ever being a viable reason to use a bomb of that magnitude. Honestly. The social and ecological repercussions alone are enough to make me not want to use that.[/QUOTE]
When the only objective is to destroy the enemy a much as you can, you don't really give a shit about repercussions.
That's what M.A.D. was about.
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;32963604]Why are the strengths of really powerful weapons [B]always[/B] measured in Hiroshimas?![/QUOTE]
I don't know, it seems a bit arbitrary when we don't use Hitlers to measure loss of human life either. One Hitler should be around 6.0*106 human deaths. Harold Shipman killed enough people to account for 36 microhitlers.
This is a good way to quantitatively establish whether someone is "worse than Hitler". The EPA currently values one human life as being worth 6.9 million US dollars (6.9 megadollars). A simple unit conversion 1 hitler is equivalent to 41,400,000,000,000 dollars (~41 teradollars).
When the congress failed to pass a stimulus bill in 2008 the market lost 1.2 trillion dollars in one day, roughly equivalent to 29 millihitlers. Stalin's achievements clocked roughly 5 hitlers. When you're nailed with a 35 dollar fine, you can confidently tell the officer that they are currently fucking you over to the tune of 84 picohitlers and ask if they have a very tiny Auschwitz on their backyard.
[QUOTE=Sir Gangster;32963168]This is what should happen to all nuclear bombs.[/QUOTE]
We should still keep a few for large asteroids heading towards us.
[QUOTE=AzzyMaster;32971646]We should still keep a few for large asteroids heading towards us.[/QUOTE]
You can't use a gravity bomb like this to combat space threats anyway
[QUOTE=SnowCanary;32965867]These things should have never existed in the first place.[/QUOTE]
even the creator of them would have agreed with that.
[QUOTE=Source;32971796]even the creator of them would have agreed with that.[/QUOTE]
Who are you referring to there?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
