I'm going to make a thread about this because I still see there is confusion about how large the moab is...

I'm going to make a thread about this because I still see there is confusion about how large the moab is. The moab does not have a one mile kill zone radius, it's 150 meters. If it was a mile it would make it comparable to little boy!

Let me explain.
Moab has a yield of 11 tons.
Little boy had a yield of 15,000 tons.
That's 15 kilotons compared to .011 kilotons.

Little boy had a blast radius of .8 of a mile, anything within that most likely died, few exceptions.
Moab has a blast radius of 150 meters, anything within that most likely dies.
And yes, they were both air blasts.

And I'll throw this in there for you all to ponder. We have bombs in the megatons, a megaton is 1 million tons.

So by your math a 15 MT radius is 8 miles?

It doesn't work like that, increasing blast radius gets exponentially harder because you're increasing a larger and larger volume. It's not linear at all.

who gives a shit.
the president of the world just wasted more money bombing dirt farmers instead of making America great again

>I'm going to make a thread explaining this even though I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about

retarded, user, you're retarded

That math wasnt linear at all. Quite exponential actually

I don't think you know what exponentially means...

Well look up castle bravo, it was about that yield.

So what did I get wrong? Never said I was an expert, but the whole "moab one mile kill radius" meme is just wrong.

I know, your tactical nukes (which are your small nuclear bombs with low yield) i believe are from 2 megaton and up so i guess the real ones or even the undisclosed ones are something quite terrifying.

.8 miles at 15 kt

Now increase the yield 1000 times to 15 MT
>800 miles


Why didnt i say the radius was 800 miles?

I hope you get nuked

Lemme see, here's your problem: you have absolutely zero experience in the physics involved.

Be honest: you're young, you think you're smart, and for some fucking reason you think that even though you have zero experience in what you're talking about that you can somehow clarify it for people.

I'll bite the bait, hell it's an excuse to bump my own thread.

He bombed isis.
He bombed them with a bomb that was about to be decommissioned due to a limited shelf life.
The money was already spent making the bomb, and instead of that money being wasted, it was used, and used well.

Ayyyy, I troll you, amigo.

It depends on the terrain and height of detonation as well. Really, all you can do is approximate.

Well fucking explain what I got wrong. I'm not doing the physics, I'm explaining the figures.

tsar bomb

Sunk cost fallacy

Call of Duty explains it all retard OP

Fallacy? A second grader could understand this.

If you buy a gallon of milk and wait until it expires so you throw it away, that money spent on the milk was wasted.

And we just killed 100+ of the fuckers, how's that a waste?
I know you're just a fucking shill, but let's discuss this, explain your reasoning.

Here's what you fucking got wrong, user, you didn't explain anything: you put some numbers together that *sounded right* to you (you being somebody who knows fucking nothing about bombs or physics) and figured that you could then immediately teach others

it's cringeworthy how dumb this is. you need more perspective on your own intelligence

I never claimed anything about my intelligence. I was explaining the figures which are available to all of us.

You have a big head dude. Get over yourself.

>So by your math a 15 MT radius is 8 miles?
I think that's actually close to the actual number

I just looked up castle bravo. Read it had a blast of 4.5 miles across, so 2.25 blast radius. Left a crater of over a mile, lol. Hell of a thing.
Watch a documentary on it sometime, it's pretty cool. That island they detonated it at is basically half gone now.

You're a fucking idiot for not explaining what's wrong and assuming who is the one explaining

GTFO

Oh, castle bravo was 15mt. Way larger than they were planning on. It was the first hydrogen bomb detonation after all.

the real question is:
Is it cheaper to drop a MOAB or a really small nuke?

But there is nothing wrong, we dropped a big bomb on isis and killed a bunch of them with a bomb that was going to need to be decommissioned soon. It was also a campaign promise.

>low iq

Little boy was nuclear fagboy

And still had a yield of 15,000 tons of tnt.
The same way moab actually had 8 tons of explosives, but it was stronger than tnt, so moab had an 11 ton yield.

MOAB, even if it's initially more expensive. Purely because treaties and the ramifications of using nukes unprovoked in current day politics will cost billions in the long term.

It doesnt matter, america has a loose canon in charge of the greatest military ever. 1v1 for istanbul!

Is the MOAB even worth using though due to its cost? Or is it more of a "Don't fuck with us" move?

The good thing about all of this is, they're now keeping track of how much money is being wasted in the Middle East, whereas before, they rarely spoke about it, and no one cared.

SHUT IT DOWN GOY WE ALL KNOW THAT IT KILLED GORILLION ISIS AND TRUMP WAS RIGHT AGAIN

Terrain will be important to the overall kill radius.

Dropping a nuke in a valley will limit its range, but at the same time amplify the effects within the valley.

IIRC from what I've read, even though the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was more powerful than Hiroshima the blast radius was not nearly as large as expected because of the mountain range.

No blast starts going more up than out blast radius levels out.

Lrn2munitions.

Trump will nuke and noone will stand up because the rest of the world are cucks.

wow.

All I can do is feel sorry for you. Life must be hard.