 Floyd772Ha Ha Charade You Are.Premium
join:2005-04-04
Reading, PA | Worlds Largest Nuke Explosion Listen to what the guy says. " 4 times bigger then anything the US has tested."
»video.google.com/videoplay?docid···48211186 |
|
| Yes, you can see this place one day will not have a tree left standing, if that button gets pressed, as they say, god help us all |
|
| reply to Floyd772
That is freaking crazy. Three times around the world? that's insane. |
|
 BIGMIKEPremium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | reply to Floyd772
big nukes are inefficient and do not cause the damage most people think they do. It is more efficient to use several smaller weapons. Here is an interesting link of the subject:
»www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8976/nuke.htm
Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles
United States Nuclear Forces Guide
»www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/
--
Type "miserable failure" in Google |
|
|
|
| reply to deli_conker
said by deli_conker:That is freaking crazy. Three times around the world? that's insane. Not really insane.
Why do you think most people die of cancer when they're older? Over 1,000 nuclear bombs exploding around the world in a time span of less then 30 years. That's a lot of radiation
--
Amateur Stuff  |
|
 Snavely
join:2003-02-22
Davenport, IA | reply to Floyd772
This site is fun.... »www.vce.com/trinity.html
Click on "Atomic Central quick jump"- has a few Quicktime movies. |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to 35375105
said by 35375105:Why do you think most people die of cancer when they're older? Cause before they were dieing of other things such as the flu and and polio at the age of 40, and until recently cancer was called "Natural Causes".
--
Asking those who disagree with you to find support of your arguements is like asking an assailant if you can borrow his gun. |
|
| reply to Floyd772
quote:
big nukes are inefficient and do not cause the damage most people think they do. It is more efficient to use several smaller weapons. Here is an interesting link of the subject:
»www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8976/nuke.htm
Ummm. That was pretty interesting until I got to the part about M.D (mega damage if I remember right) and 3d6,2d6, etc. That article is for a role playing game (Palladium game system to be exact (Rifts, Robotech, etc.)). The disclaimer at the bottom cinches it...
quote:
Robotech® is a registered trademark owned and licensed by Harmony Gold USA, Inc. Characters for Robotech are copyright 1985 Harmony Gold USA, Inc./Tatsunoko Production Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
I'm not saying it's not accurate info, but at least get it from a non-fictional source. The guy in the video said that the Russians used a big bomb to offset their lack of accuracy. Makes sense to me... |
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | said by deli_conker:I'm not saying it's not accurate info, but at least get it from a non-fictional source. The guy in the video said that the Russians used a big bomb to offset their lack of accuracy. Makes sense to me... I believe it's accurate, maybe not for the reasons stated.
I mean think about it, a giant nuke that wipes out a whole large city or several smaller nukes that throw several large cities into total chaos...one just leaves your enemy pissed off with one less city; the other leaves your enemy pissed off with little effective control of several cities and the additional task of rescuing the surviving people and assets.
--
Asking those who disagree with you to find support of your arguements is like asking an assailant if you can borrow his gun. |
|
BIGMIKEPremium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | reply to deli_conker
said by deli_conker: quote:
big nukes are inefficient and do not cause the damage most people think they do. It is more efficient to use several smaller weapons. Here is an interesting link of the subject:
»www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8976/nuke.htm
Ummm. That was pretty interesting until I got to the part about M.D (mega damage if I remember right) and 3d6,2d6, etc. That article is for a role playing game (Palladium game system to be exact (Rifts, Robotech, etc.)). The disclaimer at the bottom cinches it... quote:
Robotech® is a registered trademark owned and licensed by Harmony Gold USA, Inc. Characters for Robotech are copyright 1985 Harmony Gold USA, Inc./Tatsunoko Production Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
I'm not saying it's not accurate info, but at least get it from a non-fictional source. The guy in the video said that the Russians used a big bomb to offset their lack of accuracy. Makes sense to me... Trident I C-4 FBM / SLBM
The TRIDENT I (C-4) is a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) developed to replace the Poseidon missile in existing strategic missile submarines and to arm the OHIO class SSBNs. Today it is carried by the eight OHIO class submarines operating in the Pacific. The C-4 missile was first deployed in 1979.
The TRIDENT C-4 is a long-range, multiple-warhead missile that is launched from submerged submarines. Depending upon the number of warheads carried, it has almost double the range of the previous Poseidon missile. The C-4 is a three-stage solid fuel missile which is powered only during the initial phases of flight. When the third stage is exhausted the missile follows a ballistic trajectory. When the first stage motor ignites and aerospike extends from the missile's nose, cutting the friction of the air flowing past the missile, thus extending its range. The third stage includes the bus that aims and dispenses the warheads at separate targets.
The missile's manufacturer, Lockheed Missiles and Space company, achieved the increase in range without a commensurate increase in physical dimensions over the Poseidon missile through several technological advances. Those advances were made in several key areas, including propulsion, microelectronics and the weight-saving material area. Missile range is controlled by trajectory shaping with Generalized Energy Management Steering [GEMS). In addition, TRIDENT I uses an "aerospike" to increase its aerodynamic performance. The spike is attached to the front end of the missile and telescopes into position after launch.
The first TRIDENT missile was launched from a flat pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida, on January 18, 1977. The missile was first deployed at sea aboard the USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN 657) in October, 1979. In February of 1995, Florida successfully launched 6 TRIDENT missiles in rapid succession. TRIDENT subs carry 24 of the missiles. Each can be independently targeted. »www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/c-4.htm
--
Type "miserable failure" in Google |
|
1 edit | reply to Floyd772
said by BIG MIKE :
---copy and paste---
Yeah, that was all from the second link you posted. I was commenting on the first link.
said by Combat Chuck :
I believe it's accurate, maybe not for the reasons stated.
The information in the article or the tactic of using smaller, more accurate strikes over large area blasts?
In my opinion, what's the difference? It would have to depend on your goals I suppose. If all you wanted to do was annihilate an area, there is no real advantage to 5 small and accurate nukes over 5 less accurate but larger area nukes. If you wanted to destroy a target, but not have lots of collateral damage, you would want the accuracy (regardless of warhead yield). But if you just wanted to blanket an area, then a large yield warhead would give you some leniency in how accurate it had to be. That's in line with what the man in the video said; the Russians didn't pursue accuracy.
I guess my point is that if nukes were used, it would most likely be several of them and not just one or two (against a nuclear armed country, that is). And if that did happen, I guarantee, the government/military is going to consider attacking the enemy before taking care of things at home. That will be left to local powers. |
|
 Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:10
 ·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to Floyd772
Kinda scary!!!
Here is the direct link :> »video.google.com/googleplayer.sw···3D119299 |
|
| reply to Floyd772
I'll try to clarify what's being said here about big nuke vs small nuke.
Big nuke can destroy a big area, but it's more expensive to make, heavier and hard to transport, and less accurate.
5 Small nukes strategically placed can destroy an even bigger area then that big nuke, and are much cheaper to make and lighter to transport.
See the attatched picture to see the diagram I made and see what I'm talking about. |
|
 guhunaR.I.P MikePremium
join:2001-03-31
Truckee, CA | reply to Floyd772
Good ol tsar bomba. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| reply to Floyd772
Tested at 50 MT. Capable of 100 MT if fueled with its third stage.
Learn more here - »nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/···mba.html
--
"...it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."
» Dick Cheney, April 29, 1991 |
|
 Dandy
join:2001-12-30
Brooklyn, NY | reply to Floyd772
aren't hydrogen bombs alot bigger then this ? |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| said by Dandy:aren't hydrogen bombs alot bigger then this ? You mean in terms of yield (megatons)? No.
--
"...it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."
» Dick Cheney, April 29, 1991 |
|
| reply to Dandy
It was a hydrogen bomb... |
|
| reply to Dandy
said by Dandy:aren't hydrogen bombs alot bigger then this ? Actually the one in this video is a hydrogen bomb, a long with the largest one the USA has ever tested.
Even though "hydrogen" has hydro in it which might make you think the bomb is made of water, it's not. It's a thermonuclear explosion similar to the other "regular" nukes. |
|
| The main difference is that hydrogen bombs are a collective term for fusion bombs. 'Regular' nukes are fission bombs.
--
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is free. |
|
