Nuke strength

[faheem]

Nuke weapos

size is not everything. You still have to deliever it. A bomb is useless you have a effective method of delievering it. Gravity Atomic Bombs are not the same as a nuclear equiped ICBMs

It is sure that they have 100 MT nuclear weapons which are the most powerfu nuclear weapons on this planet.It is also mentioned in the guiness book of world records that russian has the worlds most powerful nuclear weapons which are of 100 MT. So If they have the weapon they will have also some plans to send it to enemys soil.And i think that the russian have such missiles "ICBMs" a and Aircrafts (T-90, T-120) which can easily deliver
these.

 

[Black Legion]

Yeah a 100MT is indeed very impressive and it certainly justifies the name of a weapon of mass destruction, but then again we are nothing compared to nature, for an example the Tsar bomb in its full strength is just like a fart compared to the strength of SouthEast Asia's earthquake that caused the tsunami...I ain't gonna post its estimated strength because you'll all most definitley think I'm talking BS, check it out and see for yourselves

 

[faheem]

Yeah a 100MT is indeed very impressive and it certainly justifies the name of a weapon of mass destruction, but then again we are nothing compared to nature, for an example the Tsar bomb in its full strength is just like a fart compared to the strength of SouthEast Asia's earthquake that caused the tsunami...I ain't gonna post its estimated strength because you'll all most definitley think I'm talking BS, check it out and see for yourselves

Hey buddy i donot know why are you comparing the militry weapons with the nature. we all know it is almost impossible to overcome the power of the nature. If you want to compare it ,compare it with weapons of other countries like USA ,China and UK etc.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I saw some fottage on the history channel too, what a show. They showed the device in construction, it was massive due to the ammount of Deutirium it needd to get such a massive yield. It must have weighed 15 tonnes pluss and they had to downsize it to fit under a Tu 95 Bear bomber. I highly doubt any of the SS sreies of ICBM's could carry it, let alone effectively controll it through re-entry. Anyway it seems that the general trend in both the weight and yeild of nuclear weapons have fallen scince the 1960's due to more accurate delivery systems so I doubt the ruskies have anything THAT powerfull anymore!

 

[olkiej]

nuclear weaponry is sooo pasé

 

[dioditto]

The biggest nuclear bomb ever developed is the Tsar bomb which has the yield of 100 MT. Although it is an experimental bomb, it is nevertheless highly likely, depolyable or weaponised, because it was after all, delivered to the test site using Tupolev Tu-95 (albiet modified version). Given that it was developed back in 1961, with weight of 27 tons, it can now be put on the largest Russian rocket Energia EASILY which has the throw weight of 100 metric tons. And since Energia is of modular design, it can be modify to carry upto 200 metric tons - which means if Russians so wish to, they can put SEVEN Tsar bombs (each with 100 MT yield) on the weaponised Energia delivery system and still have plenty of room left for decoys and chuffs, or even more (smaller yield - eg. 800 KT) warheads.

In term of single warhead, the most powerful deployed nuclear weapon currently is the SS-18 Satan, which can carry an warhead of 20 MT range.

The biggest MIRV version is also the Russian SS-18 Satan. It carries TEN 800 KT nuclear warheads. (Limit by the START treaty - in theory the most advanced version of SS-18 can carry 38x 250 kt yield, 24x 500 kt yield, or 17x 1 Mt yield). By comparison, the powerful in US arsenal (and recently decommission) is the LGM-118A Peacekeeper, which carries ten (W87) 300 KT warheads. (It is probably interchangable with W88 warhead which has the yield of 475 KT)


The reason why US/Russian stay away from making bigger nuke since 1970s, is because it only create bigger crater. The advent of MIRV makes larger nuke less desirable as it has higher chance of interception, and it cannot strike multiple targets, and lastly, it does not have a "nice spray" - for example, detonating a 25 MT nuke in the city will only make a really large crater guaranteeing the destruction of city, as most of the force is concentrated in the center, but the area it affect is not as large as having ten 800 KT nukes spaced optimally which can cover far more area therefore have more than 10 times the destructive power.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

Haha, best way to start a nuclear winter (... is that the appropriate term?)

Nuclear war -> everybody dies!

 

[Zzims]

Remembered that Space Cowboy Movie, gave me a thought if it was possible for a space base Missle battery. Does that include as a violation in the militarization of Space "treaty".?

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

Does that include as a violation in the militarization of Space "treaty".?

Yes. No weapons in space, treaty between USSR and USA in 1967.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Russia definate was able to deploy its monsters on missiles. They lead the way in heavy lift capability ever since the US finished the Saturn V program.

Russia knew its stuff wasn't that accurate, so bigger nukes were the answer.

I doubt 100Mt device would be deployable by plane unless on a one way ticket.

When they started to get accurate they started to make them smaller. With multiple re-entry vechicals. 10x100kt nukes could cause far more devistation over a larger area than 1 Mt nuke. Not to mention harder to intercept and redundant.

But for bunkers, armour etc the larger nukes were proberly more effective. Although neutron bombs would have been more effective at reducing armour.

But against unknown threats that you have to take out, large nukes are the ultimate solution.

 

[Rich]

If I remember right the biggest grav-nuke we ever deployed was 25 MT. We answered the Soviets mega-nukes with our Minutemen missiles which only blew at 350 KT, reduced from 1 MT+ because, "whats it matter"? http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367

If I remember right our old Titans blew at 9 MT. We had one of the missiles blow up once and out came the nuke right out of the silo. Our Trident D-5s blow at 475 kt, we have 14 of the subs and each boat carries 24 missiles. Each missile is capable of delivering up to 10 nukes.

Do the math.

Nature maybe stronger then mans weapons but nature doesn't concentrate her force so discriminantly. The only mass killings by nature, at least during the naked apes tenure, that can rival mans would probably have been the smallpox and Bubonic plagues in the middle ages. I mean just one crummy nuke would kill more then a tsunami. Maybe not "the Mother of all Tsunamis" but I bet emptying a few nuclear inventories would murder more then anything less then a nearby star going super nova.

Lets face it. We'd all be better off without nukes.

 

[LancerMc]

While of course nuke's are much more dangerous then most natural disasters, there are a events in nature that are worse. The best recorded examples are disease outbreaks, that's why bio-weapons are so dangerous. Let's not forget that the human civilization has been only around for about 10,000 years. Over 74,000 years ago, the super volcano Toba erupted and nearly killed of all human life on the planet. Geologists believe if another super volcano erupted; most likely the Yellowstone volcano, something similar to a nuclear winter but probably worse would ensue. The winter would happen for at least a few years, and probably cause the earth to enter another ice age. Billions would parish from starvation and disease.

So no matter how bad man can be, mother nature can be just as bad or worse.

 

[general]

russians were very advance in space and naval tech compared to the Americans. and in some cases air force too. Tzar Bomba was the biggest detonated bomd had a yield of 50 MT and almost no fallout.

the biggest russian sub is twice the weight of the biggest Amesrican sub

 

[Markus40]

Glad you mentioned we would be better off without Nukes. It doesnt matter which side has more or less nuke warheads "nature" would be obliterated anyway. Thats no way of winning a war. Nuclear weapons are "supposed" to be a "deterent" not a means for war.

If I remember right the biggest grav-nuke we ever deployed was 25 MT. We answered the Soviets mega-nukes with our Minutemen missiles which only blew at 350 KT, reduced from 1 MT+ because, "whats it matter"? http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367

If I remember right our old Titans blew at 9 MT. We had one of the missiles blow up once and out came the nuke right out of the silo. Our Trident D-5s blow at 475 kt, we have 14 of the subs and each boat carries 24 missiles. Each missile is capable of delivering up to 10 nukes.

Do the math.

Nature maybe stronger then mans weapons but nature doesn't concentrate her force so discriminantly. The only mass killings by nature, at least during the naked apes tenure, that can rival mans would probably have been the smallpox and Bubonic plagues in the middle ages. I mean just one crummy nuke would kill more then a tsunami. Maybe not "the Mother of all Tsunamis" but I bet emptying a few nuclear inventories would murder more then anything less then a nearby star going super nova.

Lets face it. We'd all be better off without nukes.

 

[Markus40]

If the Russian Sub is twice the weight of the American one, i wouldnt want to be sitting in the control room, while a obviously faster, more silent and more manueverable Seawolf American attack sub was on my tail. :unknown

russians were very advance in space and naval tech compared to the Americans. and in some cases air force too. Tzar Bomba was the biggest detonated bomd had a yield of 50 MT and almost no fallout.

the biggest russian sub is twice the weight of the biggest Amesrican sub

 

[Markus40]

Really.????? I think you might need to take a look at the fallout issues in relation to a Nuclear explosion. Just take Chenobyl for example. Today there is 2/3s of the Nuclear Reactor still active under the secophesus of the reactor along with a water table sitting under the concrete buffer. If the radioative material burns through this level and reaches the water table its the end of Ukraine. An explosion far worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki would mean evacuating the citizens of that country into neighbouring countries.

Now, only 1/3 of the radioactive material spread over Belarus (which by the way is 99% affected) Russia, Europe and reached as far as Alaska. Today the situation is worse than it was at the time of the explosion due to post radiation spread. This is found in child birth rates of deformities and biology and has in general. People are simply getting sick through Thyroid cancers and cancers in question. Even the natural biology of animals and vegetation has gone wild. IE Apples in the Ukraine growing as big as balls. This is due to the by product of radiation called cesium 90. The experts are saying that things will continue to get worse. Radiation to normal levels takes 1000 years my friend, before radiation decays and dissipates correctly. Which would you rather have? Radiation that deforms your children so grossly that your girl is born with her head sideways? And your boy has a second head after he is born along with only 4 toes on each leg shortened to the knee.??? Give it some thought.!

A natural disaster is far better in contrast than a Nuclear disaster. If i had a choice between a Tsunami and Nuclear radiation i would say BRING THE TSUNAMI ON. At least i have a chance of surviving, and rebuilding my life with my family joining me and start the rebuild process. Anything else is pure lunacy.

While of course nuke's are much more dangerous then most natural disasters, there are a events in nature that are worse. The best recorded examples are disease outbreaks, that's why bio-weapons are so dangerous. Let's not forget that the human civilization has been only around for about 10,000 years. Over 74,000 years ago, the super volcano Toba erupted and nearly killed of all human life on the planet. Geologists believe if another super volcano erupted; most likely the Yellowstone volcano, something similar to a nuclear winter but probably worse would ensue. The winter would happen for at least a few years, and probably cause the earth to enter another ice age. Billions would parish from starvation and disease.

So no matter how bad man can be, mother nature can be just as bad or worse.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Not this mind is bigger than yours BS again. Russian warheads were bigger and less accurate, US were smaller and more accurate. A US warhead for example may have had a CEP of 1km and required a yield of 1Mt to destroy a Soviet silo, a Soviet warhead may have had a CEP of 3km and required a yeild of 18Mt to destroy a US silo. So the US had smaller yields than the Soviets, so the Soviets were more advanced becaused they had bigger yeilds, hardly. If the US wanted a 50Mt yield, they had the ability to build it, just not the requirement.

The Tsar was a monster alright, and in its test confiquration was clean, not because it had little fallout, but because the fission trigger responsible for the fallout was comparitively small for the size of the weapon. For example, a 1Mt bomb with a 10Kt fission trigger and a 50Mt bomb with a 100Kt fission trigger. The second example has 50 times the yield and 'only' 10 times the fallout, making it a 'clean' bomb, but in reality it's fallout is hardly non existant. The Tsar was a 3 stage fission fusion fission design, where the fission trigger provides the heat and pressure to ignite the fusion stage, and this stage provides the neutrons to fission the 238 atoms of the uranium-238 tamper. If this had occurred there would have been massive fallout. In any case for the test the U238 tamper was replaced with lead, reducing the yield to 50Mt and reducing the fallout to that of the trigger.

50 Mt is 2.1×10/17 joules. The asteroid impact which may have formed the Chicxulub Crater, an event larger by some six orders of magnitude, released an estimated 500 zettajoules (5.0×10/23 joules) of energy, approximately 100teratons of TNT, on impact. Now that is a HUGH explosion!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

 

[Tasman]

We can take some steps to lessen the impact of natural disasters, for example installing a tsunami warning system and building new settlements on higher ground. In the case of a disaster involving nuclear power stations we can lessen the chances of catastrophe by continuing to work on improving safeguards and by locating them, as far as possible, away from major population centres. In the case of a disaster caused by nuclear weapons we have the power to collectively ensure that it never occurs. It doesn't matter who has the biggest or most accurate nuclear weapons, the important thing, IMO, is that no one country has such a huge lead in this area that they might be tempted to use them. As well as maintaining a balance between the existing nuclear powers I believe we should also do everything possible to stop the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. I would like to see the major powers continue to reduce their nuclear arsenels and lessen their dependence on nuclear weapons in the hope that they will never be used again.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

My total and full support to this thread and i think if there is a way then lets do it before its too late. BUT, in reality i think the Nuclear door" has closed and the technology thats out there amongst contries that support terror is a no brainer. We now have countries like Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, India, who now share this technology and if a country like Pakistan was able to hand on the technology to Iran like it did then i really dont think this region is safe. I have shared already what Chenobyl can do and now with the advent of a incident like this elsewhere, i am very doubtful for a resolution. In fact even if these countries decided to cancel their nuclear programs with the nuclear material thats still out there, it wouldnt make a difference. Someone would want to buy the technology, like a terror grp and once one bomb is used thats it. We have seen already the willingness of rouge states in the former Soviet Union who had this technology and now selling it across borders.

Nuclear weapons can turn the tide of battle but not one of war.

We can take some steps to lessen the impact of natural disasters, for example installing a tsunami warning system and building new settlements on higher ground. In the case of a disaster involving nuclear power stations we can lessen the chances of catastrophe by continuing to work on improving safeguards and by locating them, as far as possible, away from major population centres. In the case of a disaster caused by nuclear weapons we have the power to collectively ensure that it never occurs. It doesn't matter who has the biggest or most accurate nuclear weapons, the important thing, IMO, is that no one country has such a huge lead in this area that they might be tempted to use them. What matters to me is that we should do everything possible to lessen our dependence on nuclear weapons in the hope that they will never be used again.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

I spent 4 years around the types of systems I dont name, nor tell the Location of. They are no joke and the security of them is no joke. We played for keeps around them I can tell you that.

I'll also say something else. We haven't seen the end of their use yet either. Either by terrorism or by a release during a regional war. Theres no question in my mind special weapons will be used again. Spend some time researching The Khan network if you want a sobering hour or two. Such Government sponsored nuke networks are the wave of the future.

Its already to late. Without world unity, which aint going to happen, then the horse is already out the barn.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/pakistan/nytimes03.html