The Hydrogen Bomb and its purpose

Serious time:

What is the need to have more than 10 hydrogen bombs at any one time. 10 bombs would wipe out all life on the planet. The threat is there, and anything past that is unnecessary.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs
deepspace.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Effects-of-Nuclear-Weapons-1977-3rd-edition-complete.pdf
ia802303.us.archive.org/26/items/ManhattanDistrictHistory/MDH-B8V02P01-LosAlamos-Technical.pdf
johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html
youtube.com/watch?v=tuj4WAnFxRk
imdb.com/title/tt0090163/
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0096340215571913
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

what if we need to wipe out all life on other planets

The missiles wouldn't reach that far, so a dumb argument.

Nuclear arsenal's are pretty much the dick measuring contests between countries. The bigger, the more respected. More likely to destroy that which it touches.

>10 bombs would wipe out all life on the planet
Lol

Still, anything past 10 is unnecessary. A better way to measure dicks is a military that wont wipe out all life.

over 2000 nuclear weapons have been detonated over the last century

>10 bombs would wipe out all life on the planet.
source please, this is the most hopeful thing i've read in my life

what about the waterbears?

>there will never be a 200+ megaton bomb

...

YOURE DUMB AS SHIT

>10 bombs would wipe out all life on the planet
nigga plese, only if you detonate them in ur mom's vagina and the stink spreads globally

Because sometimes, even world powers just need to say "fuck you" in the biggest way possible.

H-bombs are more powerful than normal nukes and the fallout can be pretty devastating if it picks up in the wind.

But yeah I doubt it would cause that much damage.

post pretty bombs

2 nuclear bombs wiped out 100,000+ people in Japan. A hydrogen bomb is 1000x more powerful. It's common sense.

Deterrence. You need to have enough to blow the shit out of every major city and military installation in at least a couple countries at once.

What good is that? Military still has to mobilize. Missile is just a press of a button so people know they cant fuck with you

It'd be cheaper to just build four 50's.

Fuck dude, go back to/b with the rest of the children

You couldn't wipe out all life on the planet even if you detonated every single nuke on the planet.

You could send humanity back into the stone age, sure, but the cockroach is symbolic of life in general. It's pretty difficult to exterminate.

That's just a bunch of city people. We're talking about all humans including all the Pitcairn cunts as well as all other lifeforms on earth, including the ones that live 10km below sealevel in the darkness.

You understimate life.

If you detonated all 4 in the same location would it be the same as one 200 MT bomb?

Shit would probably destroy everything in a 500km diameter

>Serious time
okay..

> 10 bombs would wipe out all life on the planet.
Your not serious. Youve done exactly zero research into this subject. Goodbye. Go read a bit if you want to talk about this.

I suggest :
On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey A. Larsen
On thermonuclear war by Herman Kahn.
Multiple reports and research documents of the effects of a large scale nuclear exchange by the by US and UK governments.

Btw, nuclear winter is a myth.

It would for the most part. The fallout/radiation would kill off pretty much everyone.

With conventional warfare, countries are much more likely to go to war as the destruction will not be instantaneous and initially close to home.

With nukes, it changes the playing field drastically. It's pretty much assured destruction for both sides. The most fearful threat being mass death and destruction back at home as civilians will be targeted. It's a nessecary evil.

Also if you have more nukes you'll be considered the greater power so that others will know not to mess.

But I am serious. 10 hydrogen bombs detonated off at the same time would kill off almost all life.

I agree completely.

>but the cockroach is symbolic of life in general
Go to bed, Erdogan.

Maybe an enemy preemptively destroys your ten hydrogen bombs. Then you have none, and they have them. You need to have multiple in different locations so that you always have *some*. A gun is no good if it gets broken.

How can you wipe out all life on the planet when things live at the bottom of the sea or insects like ants or turks or scorpions are mostly immune to radiation?

youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

Wrong

Well that's a given. The 10 hydrogren bombs would be spaced out across military bases.

That's why I said "almost" in a later statement.

Anything over 100 megatons won't do anything. At 100 megatons the explosion radius surpasses the edge of the atmosphere and any excess energy just escapes harmlessly into space.
A 100 megaton and 1 gigaton bomb would have very similar destructive capabilities unless it was buried underground or something.

Those are atom bombs. A hydrogen bomb is 1000x more powerful. Plus the bombs would have to be set off at the same time.

Fallout isn't THAT deadly. Not as in it's not as harmful, as in it's not truly "everywhere" and not every species has the same reaction to it. Yeah, millions would die, but the biggest killers after the apocalypse wouldn't be radiation, it would be the mass starvation and disease since every apparatus in our civilization that keeps people living past 30 would be gone.
No antibiotics. No IV. Break a leg? That's a death sentence. Pneumonia? Sorry buddy, you're a goner.

After two weeks most of the deadliest radiation is gone. After that, everything just has an increased risk of cancer.

If you want a good idea of how the post apocalyptic world would look like, turn the clock back and read "1632".

No. The effectiveness of the weapons dropped would diminish actually. Its better (and more destructive) to drop 5 5MT bombs dispersed than 1 200MT weapon.

No. Not even close. Even at the height of the cold war a full scale exchange would have been only estimated to kill about 700 million total. The GDP of the US (if it survived as a entity) was expected to rebound to current levels within 80 years.

No your not. If you believe this your either trolling or have never read into the subject.
There were thermonuclear tests exceeding this rate with high yield than any nation is using today in the cold war.

10 bombs would not wipe out all life. There's been hundreds of super megaton nukes that have been tested

Space threats

Half of those are Thermonuclear weapons.

Most of the bombs tested mid 1950's and onward are hydrogen bombs

20% of our current supply of hydrogen bombs would kill everyone on the planet 1000x over. You are wrong in that aspect.

Give me a break, we all know if we face threats from other planets all we have to do is drop a rock from that planet's moon onto said planet. That will destroy it. No need to even bother with nukes or space weapons.

I can sleep like a baby knowing this man has the codes: youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs

Underground or in safe locations.

Fallout isn't really shit, many life forms can handle it, it's only weak pussy mammals that can't.

Maybe in the 1970's onwards when they had treaties

They blew them up in Nevada and the Pacific Ocean

Not 10 at the same time in populated areas. Sure, they tested them in non populated areas. I hope you realize there are only two times were a nuclear weapon has been used in warfare.

>1000 * 100,000 / 2 * 10
>500,000,000

True. I'd honestly be more worried about an event like chernobyl than a few nukes going off at once (from a distance obviously).
The damage from nukes is large but can be mended. However something like chernobyl carries way more radiation and ruins the environment for thousands of years.

Wow youre a massive faggot. People who cant admit to being a know-nothing are pathetic.

Yes they did, there were literally multiple months throughout the cold war where they dropped close to a nuke per day or dropped multiple at once.

We gotta be able to deflect the meteoroids.

That's only including the radius of contamination for the bombs in Japan. Not a valid calculation.

This is the result of the largest nuclear detonation by America (15 MT). It was detonated at ground level (less destructive area, more fallout). One of these could certainly do a lot of damage if it detonated over a city. Five of these aren't going to end the world.

>at the same time
Literally makes no difference
>in populated areas.
There's way more than just 10 populated areas

It's literally bait

10 would collapse the global economy and possibly even industrial civilization but human life would still survive

The areas destroyed would be like Chernobyl but the wind will disperse most radiation to manageable levels

In populated areas? Fuck off mate.

>10 would collapse the global economy
10 is a dent and would only generate a katrina-level disaster and explosion on social media

>and possibly even industrial civilization
lol no

A single atom bomb killed 100,000+ people in Japan. Hydrogen bombs are 1000x as powerful.

Why the fuck does that matter?

You said dropping 10 H bombs would kill all life on earth you fucking retard. We've dropped well over 1000 and in rapid succession before.

humanity has tested more than 10 hydrogen bombs. Life... has found a way

This has to be bait. You are saying 1000 hydrogen bombs have been dropped in rapid succession. That is the single most retarded thing I have heard this month.

By populated areas I assume major cities

10 major cities hit would probably kill 100 million people, if you're talking about cities like New York, Tokyo, London, ect...

The economy would collapse, financial system collapses, nobody can move around money, supply chains break down and mass starvation begins basically everything would fall apart everywhere not just the areas nuked

Over 1000 H bombs have been dropped, and sometimes have been dropped in rapid succession.

Just admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

+1 for getting me to respond.

20% of our (USA) usable (turn key fire, or ready to load on bombers) thermonuclear arsenal is about 297 warheads of various sizes with a going average of about 250kt per warhead. The vast majority of these would be airbursted which produce minimal fallout. Assuming everyone got though, which there is an expected failure rate..., you couldnt even come close to your goal...

Honestly you would have better luck using those warheads to defect an asteroid in space to hit earth.

You really are that retarded aren't you? Or 13 years old. I give up. At Least try to educate yourself.
deepspace.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Effects-of-Nuclear-Weapons-1977-3rd-edition-complete.pdf


He's retarded man, just give it up. It was fun but only for so long.

You are not even worth talking to at this point. You have degraded your ethos to the point of retardation.

1000x more powerful doesn't mean 1000x more casualties. Only half the worlds population lives in cities and there is more than 5 cities in the world.
The most powerful bomb ever detonated only had a kill radius of about 13 miles and a burn radius of about 35 miles.

Seems like you're confusing childhood memories like a documentary on H bombs with something else that happened 1000 times in rapid succession.

youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

>You could send humanity back into the stone age, sure,

Actually. No, you couldn't. There was a study that found life would return to pretty much normal after ~30 years - 500 to 750 million people.

>10 bombs would wipe out all life on the planet

oh look this meme again.

ia802303.us.archive.org/26/items/ManhattanDistrictHistory/MDH-B8V02P01-LosAlamos-Technical.pdf

"it would require only in the neighborhood of 10 to 100 Supers of this type" to put the human race in peril.

johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html
Found the study, interesting read.

Basing the gist of the article on the loosely worded title again? For shame user

Hydrogen bombs, nuclear weapons in general aren't magic erasers. Blast, heat, radiation all are channeled by the environment, that includes detonations in built-up areas. Effects also follow the Inverse Square law and the effects become drastically smaller as you get further and further away from the epicenter. Cities are never targeted in nuclear exchange scenarios, things IN cities are targeted. You want to destroy, for example, a rail yard in Chicago that is 800 meters wide. A 300KT weapon would do it, but now you also have to worry about CEP, the odds that your nuke will actually -hit- the target at all. Since that can't be guaranteed, you have to launch multiple at the same target. And then, on top of that, you have to worry about things like ABMs or just how much stuff you actually can destroy in the first place.
In the cold war, the British list of nuclear targets was about 200, scattered all over Russia. However after the introduction of Soviet ABM systems that only could get 10% of the warheads, the new calculations meant that all 200 of those targets were in Moscow alone.

But say you actually did want to kill a bunch of people and destroy cities.
For example, let's say you detonated a one-megaton nuclear weapon in the heart of London. To maximize destruction of the city assets, you have to detonate the warhead while it's still in the air. This also drastically reduces the amount of radiation and fallout generated.

You'd "destroy" about 5% of the city's assets and only kill 20% of the population will survive (Around 1 million people). This means that, proportionally speaking, Londoners will be better off after a nuclear attack than they were before it took place. (This was the basis of at least one Get Rich Quick scheme proposed in The Business.)

youtube.com/watch?v=tuj4WAnFxRk

...

This report was in 1947. Before they had a built a thermonuclear weapon or even understood the effects of the few atomic bombs they had.

The "supers" are purely theoretical at this point. And imagined to be scaled up to huge (unfeasible) yields. Possible as H-bombs are infinitely scale-able but completely useless as a deliverable weapon, which is why bombs of that yield were never even put on the drawing board. (in fact bomb yield has fell over the years as accuracy has increased. Their mass would be too large to deliver, a Saturn V rocket would not even be able to do the job.

Edward Teller was simply using this report as a theoretical justification for the pursuit of a even larger bomb.

Context sir.

imdb.com/title/tt0090163/

friendly reminder that china is the only country with H-bombs in service

Back the fuck down, we can conquer your country at any time.

You should use them on those uyghur fucks in your west

Current Nuclear arsenals do no operate on the same principles that the media portray.

Why ruin the land and resources when you can simply eliminate a vast majority of the inhabitants?

Current nuclear arms operate at this level.

Successive high altitude gamma bursts will kill any lifeforms in the area in a matter of hours unless specifically shielded from the rays with dense matter.

They are much less dirty than the old atom bombs as well. Leaving little to no fallout to contaminate the land.

They refined the killing process to an art form.

The only thing that has prevented nuclear war is the fact that such a war would disrupt the lifestyles of the obscenely wealthy.

When money loses value; Who survives? The Baker or the Banker?

Friendly reminder that you also havent read anything either.

Every nuclear power with the exception of North Korea, Pakistan, and India has them in service.

H-Bomb is throw around term but any bomb which gains the majority of its yield through fusion (pretty much all of strategic weapons nowadays) is a thermonuclear or "H-bomb".

Yield is irrelevant. A W80 thermonuclear warhead with a yield of 150kt is still just as much an H-bomb as a 20Mt weapon.

...

There is no such thing as HYDROGEN BOMB !!!
Its just a common name, First Atomic synthesis "device" ( it was F* Huge 3 story building )... Had Hydrogen as active material.
Next using just Lithium Cylinders squeezed by atomic bombs to get lithium isotope temperature and pressure required to Atomic synthesis.

Why are Americans the worst posters?

I heard that if you used every nuke on earth, you could cover every square inch of land in nuclear explosion. Is that just a dumb normie meme? I realize "nuclear explosion" isn't exactly specific. But I imagine you can use common sense to translate it as "moderately affected by a nuke"

It's that good education they have

eh...not really...

Lithium doesn't fuse in a thermonuclear weapon. After he primary (fission part) detonates the lithium in secondary decays under radiation pressure into tritium (isotope of hydrogen) and an alpha particle.

This fuzes with the deuterium(another isotope of H) in the weapon which leads to a huge increase in energy and neutrons.

This in turn increases also the fission the tamper if made from U238, which adds to the yield.

Complete myth.

Truth be told this was probably a troll thread to begin with.

>Is that just a dumb normie meme?
Yes.

adding onto Think of it as 3 distinct parts.

Fission-Fusion-Fission

It's demonic and psychopathic dick wagging.

Earths surface area is 510.1 million km2

The world has about 9500 nukes in service and let's estimate the thermal radiation radius for each nuke is 75km.

Yeah each would be able to cover pretty much every corner of the earth if they are all denonated at once acros the global equally.

>Truth be told this was probably a troll thread to begin with
No shit, it's a successful slide.

In peril does not equal end of all human life or even stopping civilization. It would be horrible but it would not equal the end and an enemy country could easily survive an attack such as that. People thought pearl harbour would be enough to stop the Americans but it clearly wasn't. If you are planning on destroying all life or even incapacitating a large country that won't be enough. Mind you it could be enough to force a surrender, given that you have 1000 more nukes to back up that threat. The Japanese only surrendered after months of firebombing, the defeat of nazi Germany and two nukes. If the Emporer wanted they could have went even further. As long as they have enough resources to put up a decent fight they might risk it, ESPECIALLY assuming they also have nukes. You would create one of the most memorable disasters in human history but you could still lose the war. The purpose of nukes is to make it so the enemy has next to no chance, and with only 10 nukes you give them a chance. With multiple thousands they won't even dare think about it. It's all about the mind games.

Maybe 40 years ago. American currently has around 550 MT ready to go. Russia has about 720 MT. Other countries have an irrelevant amount of bombs compared to this, maybe a combined 40 MT.
This is enough to cover the eastern seaboard from Miami to Maine pretty thoroughly but not much else.

Sources.
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0096340215571913

People grossly over estimate the power of nuclear bombs. The asteroid impact that killed the dinos created an explosion equivalent to 100 million megatons of TNT, 20 thousand times more powerful than the total yield of all nuclear weapons earth combined. Guess what, the earth is still here. The dinos died but lots of other species survived fine.

And people always estimate the damage radius as if the bomb would be exploded in the desert with a completely flat, exposed ground, where the bomb can heat the ground and reflect its blast wave for maximum damage. In real world cities where there are lots of buildings, hills, and other structures blocking line of sight of the explosion and absorbing the shock wave so the damage is no where near what most people imagine.

For example, ~90k people were killed in Hiroshima, while the bomb that dropped on Nagasaki was 33% more powerful but only killed 40k because there were a couple hills while Hiroshima was extraordinarily flat. In modern cities with much taller buildings the bombs would be even less effective. And modern skyscrapers can take very high pressure waves without collapsing compared to the wood framed buildings in 1940s Japan.

Then there is the issue of actually delivering nuclear warheads, most ICBMs are way less reliable and accurate than governments would have you believe. I would not be surprised to see nuclear weapons used in future wars and be considered more and more "conventional" as their use becomes common place.