Why hasn’t anyone developed nuclear weapons in the hundreds of gigaton ranges after Teller theorized it?I think it would be better to make just a few very large bombs that are capable of destroying the whole world because you can just detonate them in your own country under ground or on ground without risk of enemy interception
>hundreds of gigaton rangesgo make the argument to the taxpayer that, no really, we need a bomb to kill ourselves with so nobody kills us.
You could set the atmosphere on fire, you fool.
Because then everybody would do it in an attempt to outdo each other, which we were trying to minimize post-cold war. Even the Russians recognized that it was a path with no happy ending, so they stopped with Tsar Bomba.
>>61565548They were fine with having 40000 individual warheads and you won’t be just killing yourselves everyone else will die too
>>61565537>Yes Mr. Senator I need funding to make a bomb that will literally destroy the entire ecology of the Earth if ever used>Why would we ever fund that?>I think it would be cool, Mr. Senator.
>>61565564 Not because it’s cool but because it’s a better way to guarantee your enemies destruction. Missiles have risk of interception
>>61565537Because teller was a talentless hack who only rose to fame after Ulam did all the heavy lifting for him.
>>61565571>it’s a better way to guarantee your enemies destructionWhile also guaranteeing your own. The goal of nuclear war is to be nuked as little as possible while nuking your enemy as much as possible. A weapon that gives a 100% chance of being nuked (by way of being so big it nukes the user) is a pointless weapon even in a full scale nuclear exchange.
>>61565601A country like North Korea or China is already guaranteed its own destruction
Same energy
>>61565606Okay, still, why spend time, money, and manpower on a weapon that will doubly guarantee your own demise when you can just build a much more flexible conventional nuclear arsenal instead?
>>61565537Because a bunch of smaller bombs is cheaper and more efficient.
>>61565614They aren’t flexible. If they launch one at any city or military target it’s over for them>>61565621Doubtful that a few big bombs are more expensive then thousands of small bombs and their accompanying launch platforms
>>61565606>le china doesn't have MAD meme It is an open secret China has about 10,000 warheads underground in mountain bunkers. Whether they have delivery systems for all those nukes is questionable but the "official" size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal being a 300 warhead 2nd strike force is a fucking joke to every serious analyst with a pulse. You really think a 1 billion person strong aggressive expansionist ethno-state run by a literal communist dictatorship is going to abide by a treaty limiting its nuclear arsenal to a token retaliatory force? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
>>61565631Well then you would be wrong Anon. MIRV is a thing. RAND ran the numbers back in the 60's and determined that a an ICBM with multiple warheads in the hundreds of KT range was better than dedicating the missile to a single megaton range warhead.
>>61565631let me put it this way, if they have a conventional nuclear arsenal and launch a nuke it's a 99% chance that their nation-state and way of life is destroyed. If they had and used an ultra giga nuke (which is more expensive to make than a normal nuclear bomb by the way) it is a 100% chance that their nation-state and way of life is destroyed. If you are in charge which would you choose; A less expensive 99% chance of destruction or a more expensive 100% chance of destruction?
>>61565537Because people are gay and weak. We could have nuclear powered tanks launching tactical nukes right now but too many people care about muh ecology and muh fallout
>>61565564>if we increase the yield of our nuclear arsenal it's less likely to get interceptedwhat the fuck are you smoking retard
>>61565643I’m not talking about a missiles with one 5 MT bomb on it. I’m talking about an extremely high yield bomb you blow up in your own country on the ground
>>61565680meant for >>61565571
>>61565537Why should they?
>>61565688How are you going to shoot down a bomb that’s miles underground?
>>61565643'ran the numbers' it's actually super simple. The 'area' of an explosion is 3 dimensional so a you need more than 2x the explosive power to double the area. Thus cluster bombs > regular bombs. You could probably destroy a European nations with a 100 10kt nukes and only make it very upset with a 1 Mt one.
are you gonna keep making this thread or
>>61565681Anon, if a megaton bomb was already a bad idea what makes you think a gigaton bomb would be less stupid? They determined that beyond a certain size, bombs became much less efficient. The destructive radius dropped off and became a bigger problem of diminishing returns. They didn't bother with a bomb that big because its so far beyond the point of retardation nobody who did it for a living gave it a moment's thought. Tsar bomba was already too big to carry on an ICBM and it was only 50mt. A gigaton bomb is not only a waste of resources, but you couldn't even deliver it.
>>61565680NTA, but it makes sense. If you can make a nuke big enough, you can control the point of activation more than having to deliver it by whatever means to the enemy territory and activate it. It would require total fatalism that your own nation could not weather a nuclear onslaught though, so really, something like this would only be useful as a deterrent to prevent alien invasion. "You can have the planet, but all the green slime and clear goo goes with us."
>>61565712Again you don’t need to deliver it if it’s large enough
ITT: people thinking commiting suicune is MAD.
>>61565537Past a certain point you don't really gain much more destructive power, most of it just goes out of the atmosphere into space.
>>61565725>If we make a bomb big enough to blow up the entire planet nobody will fuck with usAnon, take your meds.
>>61565631you delusional retards think that everyone dies in a nuclear exchange it's just not true. most people would survive prompt and latent effects. saying>we won't accept 20-50% casualties>we MUST have 100% fatalities! is retarded. >no really nukes are magicthey are just large stinky bombs.
>>61565537The amount of fissile material becomes expensiveThe efficiency beyond a point delivers diminishing returns, and much of the blast effects would become extra-atmospheric wasted into spaceThe utility of such a weapon is questionableDelivering such a weapon is logistically challengingThere's a lot of reasons why massive nukes are retarded, and very good reasons why lower-yield, more precise Warheads in greater quantity are superior. Your question is shit, your thread is shit, and I hate you a lot.
>>61565890Your way of life is over. America wouldn’t accept the Kim dynasty continuing to have actual power just like in Japan. You would be reduced to impotent vasal
>>61565950>You would be reduced to impotent vasalwho do you think would have any military industry after the superfuzed MIRVs got their shipping labels? but then again, your English is breaking down, so I know you are some turdie wanking to the idea that maybe you could make somewhere else suck as bad as whatever shit-hole you live in.
>>61565931Agree, though I think delivery is the biggest problem. Right now, having MIRVs with several hundred ballistic missiles is probably the perfect system. What other innovations are there at this point?big bomb is cool, but big bomb probably needs big bomber which is just all the eggs in 1 basket.
>>61565968Big bomb doesn’t need to be delivered wherever it is is good enough
>>61565639>the Chinese have twice as many nuclear warheads than Russia>based on?>well you see anon you must be a silly poopoo head if you disagree>yeah but do you have anything to prove this theory>le china an evil dictatorship and lots of people! DUH!>O-oh... okay>I am le smartYeah, I'm sure the country that imports food is stockpiling nuclear weapons to the tune of 2x as much as russia and spending even less on maintaining them.
>>61566006>>le china an evil dictatorship and lots of people! DUH!Yes.
>>61565537For one, it would weigh at least 100t so you’re not throwing it at anyone. For two, due to the explosion being omnidirectional, beyond a certain yield only so much of the energy is absorbed by the surroundings and a lot is basically lost to space. You’d be spending a lot of money and resources building something that is only marginally more destructive than a smaller, cheaper bomb.
>>61565537Because nukes are not magic and bigger yield requires more material and as such more mass that needs to be moved to enemy location.
>>61566025You can build it big enough to shatter the planet and turn it into an asteroid field. What happens to the atmosphere is irrelevant at that point>>61566025
>>61565968>What other innovations are there at this point? Nuclear shaped charges for cracking Capital ships in orbit
>>61566055>You can build it big enough to shatter the planetno you can't. the gravitational binding energy of earth is roughly597,514,340,344,168,192 megatons TNT equivalent. now shut the fuck up about shit you don't understand.
>>61565537>Why hasn’t anyone developed nuclear weapons in the hundreds of gigaton rangesdiminishing returns in practical terms, once the bomb gets big enough most of the energy just escapes into space
A deterrent that kills yourself is not much of a deterrent
>>61566076There’s enough fissionable material to do that
>>61566117where? you get about 6 megatons per ton of bomb mass at theoretical maximum efficiency. >597,514,340,344,168,192 MTmeans you need 10 to the fucking 17th tons of fusile material. That's more than the entire world's lithium reserves, by a factor of ten million. so no, there isn't enough, now shut the fuck up you stupid nigger.
>>61566003Can't be intercepted if we set it off in our own country.Just make it big enough to take out the enemy from your own turf.
>>61566173Combine 10 warheads in a lithium triteride case and compress it after detonation
>>61565741NTA, but the threat of global nuclear devastation is the only reason the world has put up with Russia for this long. NATO would have put an end to their bullshit years ago if we could have gotten away with it. Russians know they're fucked in a global nuclear exchange, but their pettiness in willing to take every first world nation with them is enough of a deterrent to put up with them. World ending nuke is the same concept.
>>61566189shut the fuck up about things you don't understand.
>>61565537Because MIRVs do the same thing but more efficiently
>>61566362You can do shoot down MIRVs when they are in their ICBMs
>>61566374no you can't.
>>61565639>It came to me in a dream
>>61565564>>Why would we ever fund that?Soviets are building one too>APPROVED
>>61566382Even Russia has anti-ICBM anti-ballistic missiles. How many I don't know. The US has only a handful of them though.
>>61566189God you are so fucking stupid opEven if we magically took every last ounce of fissile material in the earth's crust, we'd have 65 trillion tons. We'd need one hundred quadrillion fucking tons of fissile material to "crack the planet". At which point you would be better off using whatever magic you used to get all the fissiles instead.
>>61566454those don't shoot down MIRVs on the ICBM
>>61565537Not enough tritium in the world for even one
>>61566812Compressing the explosions is what allows you to do it without a huge amount of material
>>61566937No you retarded ape nigger. Even if you somehow multiplied the yield compared to today's weapons by a thousand times you wouldn't have enough, not to mention all the other material you'd need. Your idea is impossible by every conceivable metric, and you are a gorilla brained dog in the image of man and i hope you go back to whence you came.
>>61566816>You can do shoot down MIRVs when they are in their ICBMs>MIRVs when they are in their ICBMsWork on your reading anon. You shoot down the ICBM you destroy the MIRVs.
>>61565537because it would be pointless
>build giga nuke>stick it in a hole>make earth snap in half and eject from the solar system
>>61567284Could just build one that was similar in power to the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. It turned the atmosphere into a 400F oven
>>61567330Asteroid impact: 3×10^23 JTsar Bomba: 2.1×10^17 J1.5 millions of them required, and that would cause the so called nuclear winter, it wasn't really the heat that killed them (those nearby yes) but all that aerosolized ocean floor blocking the sunlight.
>>61567432what about a 10,000 MT onehttps://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-biggest-nuclear-bom
>>615674591k of these would surely cause an extinction event, but still it won't make a scratch to the Earth itself tho. >>61567284The Earth allegedly survived a Mars-sized impactor and the remains of that impactor became the Moon.
>>61565537>hundreds of gigatonWhy do we need it at all? What kind of targets would require such a warhead?>destroying the whole world starting from your countryStrategical advantage? Kamikaze and shaheed are ridiculously ineffective. You could just start a nuclear war with more "conventional" warheads with higher chances of winning or surviving it.>Chixulub>he kinetic energy of the impact was estimated at 72 teratonnes of TNT (300 ZJ).Even 72 teratones were not enough to wipe the life out. 700 Gigatones is just 1% of it, so with this explosion you will just blow up your country with some inconveniences.
>>61567735the massive amount of radioactive fallout can help to snuff out life
>>61566937>they're like YOUSE TROLLING>and I'm like, I'm not trolling! I am Boxxy, you see? ^_^
At some point you'd hit the limit of what a nuclear bomb yield will be. This is because the explosion starts to rip apart the fissile material before it's had a chance to undertake fusion/fission.This was starting to occur on the low MT yield non-boosted weapons in the 60s resulting in lower than expected yields and lots of contamination. >Tldr - bomb blows itself apart before it's all gone boom and there's no way to prevent that from happening once you get to a certain threshold.
>>61565537Once we figure out AM, it will be easy. In fact we can get a Gig device that would be man portable.
>>61567195you can't shoot down the ICBM, that's my point you retard. there are no weapons systems that hits an ICBM on ascent. now shut the fuck up about shit you know nothing about.
Ndwm8m>>61568936Laced Ors
OP, suppose you don't share a land border with your enemy because you're on different continents. What's your plan then?
>>61565537>you can just detonate them in your own country under ground or on ground without risk of enemy interceptionLoad it into submarine. You can easily build submarine that can carry 20000 tons payload.Park it USA coast.....?Profit!
>>61565548But we have to make good on our promise to the ayys, see bullet point 3.
>>61565537Three reasons.Before the first nuclear tests they were scared they might reach ignition point of oxygen to cause a chain reaction of the world (possible).They had to come up with new math to find out what that number was.Finally tested it, and wasnt bad.Second; Tsar bomba detonated anywhere in the northern hemisphere meant russia would be eclipsed in radiation after it circles the globe. Decomissioned.Third, it has a limit. A true limit that requires tests, lots of them. Nobody wants tests.
>>61569822Bigger bomb so explosion reaches and destroys my enemy
>>61565537You're a fucking genious anon!
>>61568936>The American Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, formerly known as National Missile Defense (NMD), was first tested in 1997 and had its first successful intercept test in 1999. Instead of using an explosive charge, it launches a hit-to-kill kinetic projectile to intercept an ICBM>The Aegis ballistic missile defense-equipped SM-3 Block II-A missile demonstrated it can shoot down an ICBM target on 16 Nov 2020.[8]>In a November 2020 test, the US launched a surrogate ICBM from Kwajalein Atoll toward Hawaii in the general direction of the continental US, which triggered a satellite warning to a Colorado Air Force base.[9] In response, USS John Finn launched a missile which destroyed the surrogate ICBM, while still outside the atmosphereDurrrrr
People would rather let the enemy win then to have yourself and the enemy both lose
>>61567817You don't need 700 Gigatons of TNT equivalent to cause massive radioactive fallouts over the world. Just blow up 10 - 100 MT at the Iron/Cobalt ore field and the physics will do the rest.
>>61573714>physicsyou have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
>build a nuke big enough to blow up earththis sounds less like a weapon and more like a dead man's switch.
>>61565537>just a few very large bombs that are capable of destroying the whole worldYou could make bombs in the gigaton range and still not achieve that. You could make bombs billions of times stronger than the largest ever detonated and still not achieve that.
>>6157385810000 gigatons is enough to do it through fire and radiation
>>61573880The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs is still 10x that.
>>61573931Asteroids don’t produce radiation
>>61573931And even with life being severely disrupted, Earth was still merrily orbiting the Sun like nothing much happened. The Earth formed shortly (geological time) after the Sun and survived until to this day, she's tough.
>>61573945The oceans wouldn't give a fuck about that either. No matter what way you cut it, unless you literally crack the world in two you're not destroying the whole world or all the life on it.
>>61573945dust-loft events increase global radiation levels.
>>61573971If the only food source for the survivors is the ocean that’s good enough destruction
The only way to truly obliterate the Earth completely is to find an equal sized Earth object composed entirely of anti-matter and collide the two. Nothing but pure radiation is left.
>>61574018What about if you made a black hole on earth
>>61567330>>61567432akshually turns out that there was a supervolcano that killed off most of dinosaurs before the Asteroid came
>>61574048black hole's eventually decay from hawking radiation and explode releasing their left over mass. So there would still technically be mass left over from the Earth, it would just be in a fine dust.anti-matter would turn it mostly pure energy. There will be some neutrinos and quarks left over though so I guess technically a small amount of Earth's mass will remain.
>>61574178Asteroid just sealed the deal and ensured the rise of the mammals.
>>61570079So...what IS the ignition limit of the planets oxygen?
shut about about shattering the planet. A very large hydrogen bomb surrounded by hundreds of tonnes of cobalt can kill most life on earth
>>61574178Ah yes, the Deccan Traps
We could mine more radioactive material from asteroids to make a bigger bomb, but by then we could just launch asteroids at each other.
I asked Chatgpt what would happen if I lowered an original-design 100 megaton Tsar Bomba was lowered to the depth of the Kola borehole over the Yellowstone supervolcano and then detonated, and it got really upset and told me off.I told it "asking for a friend" and it said "got it!"
Highlight of this ChatGPT conversation:>However, it's worth noting that turning Earth into an asteroid field would be catastrophic for life as we know it, and it's not something we should aim for or even consider lightly.
>>61570079I've heard compelling evidence that it's simply not possible to string an arbitrary amount of secondaries together to make Le' Big Boom because the Munroe Effect is going to fuck you and create just a big fizzle somewhere in the detonation chain.
>>61566425kek it's funny because it's tragically true
>>61565890If nooks are such a meme then why hasn't anyone used one in anger since Nagasaki?
>>61565537>what the Samson Option but retarded
>>61565548https://youtu.be/iKC21wDarBo?t=44
>>61579468because having a big bomb go off inside a city is bad for business.
