What if Russians got something bigger than Tsar bomb now?

What if Russians got something bigger than Tsar bomb now?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/russia-unveils-satan-2-missile-powerful-enough-to-wipe-out-uk-fr/
youtu.be/xieJItBPr10
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Are you trying to tell me something I don't know about leaf?

Hopefully they nuke canada

They have something bigger .

Its called the FOAB

Father of all bombs.

Of course this name would never be allowed in sweden because its patriarchy.

we are so dead then..

Then they'd have wasted a shit ton of time and effort. Tsar Bomba was so massive that it would throw off any missile you attach it to, and it was massively expensive. Sure, the devastation is impressive, but you'd get similar results with a hundred smaller, cheaper bombs. And even if technology has progressed in which all of those issues are solved, smaller bombs will benefit from the same advances.

It's needless extravagance for something you plan to blow up.

Don't their current standard nukes have a higher yield?

Nah only 19mt to 20mt.

well I made the GOAD
GOD OF ALL DESTRUCTION.

reply to this post to be assigned a designated waifu based off your likes on Facebook.

couldn't a country make a nuke so big that its explosion in the country itself would eradicate all life on earth??


nobody could do anything against that country lol.

No, even the Tsar bomb was pointless because a bomb that big will punch a hole in the atmosphere and most of the energy of the blast will escape into space. You could build a bigger bomb than it without actually increasing the destructive power much because it would just mean more energy flowing to space.

Both the Americans and the Russians eventually concluded that the most efficient way to target cities are MIRVs with much smaller bombs than the Tsar bomb.

Who cares?
It's not the size of nukes that matter, it's their nomber

Not bigger than Tsar Bomba

Fucking kids on this board

>smaller is better

yeah sure, so basically if we get hit by a smaller asteroid it is more dangerous than a bigger one according to your logic??

So what?

At the level of the Tsar Bomba, there is no extra Escalation Effect.

You are already blowing megalopolises with it. That's a whole Paris completely destroyed by a single bomb.

There is nothing an even bigger bomb could accomplish anymore.

Since the H bomb, the whole technological race has been about delivering the bomb, not making it more powerful.

pet manjih bomaba pocini vise stete ako se bace na odredjena mjesta
npr. pet bombi kad se bace na Zagreb rasporedjene kao petica na kockici za kockanje pocine vise stete nego jedna bomba sa istom kolicinom eksploziva onih ped bombi zajedno, ali napravi samo jedan ogroman krater u centru Zagreba a ostatak prezivi

ojljo oadi ofaosdf eeifja

im not even going to reply to you, faggot

If we somehow get hit by several smaller asteroids at the same time it can be more devastating than one big one, yes.

Asteroid impacts also waste much of their destructive energy into space. For a really big one like the dinosaur-killing one it doesn't matter because they're so staggeringly big that they have global consequences even if they waste 99 % of their energy, of course, but those are completely beyond what you could do with nuclear weapons. They're billions of times more powerful than typical nuclear weapons.

Why cant anyone make a bomb that doesnt explode in a ball but into a large ring that is gaping as it releases energy

I think the most dangerous thing is the kinetic energy of the asteroid, same with IBCM.. they would do much damage even without the nuclear warhead just with the kinetic impact.


but I guess it would be better to have more smaller once just because of the anti defence systems.

Nearly all of the kinetic energy of an asteroid will be converted into heat, radiation and shockwave so the effects are almost exactly the same as a nuclear bomb.

The earth gets hit regularly by meteors that produce releases equivalent to nuclear bombs but those are small asteroids (only a couple of meters across) and they generally get vaporized in the atmosphere before hitting the earth so all their kinetic energy gets turned into heat and shockwave.

Fun fact: if we get hit by a dinosaur-killing size asteroid, everything on the ground will already vaporize and the ground itself turns into lava before the asteroid even hits because the preceding atmospheric shockwave of the traveling asteroid will heat up so much. When a giant stone asteroid hits the earth there is never actually any contact of solid stone surfaces.

> Implyong the Tsar bomb was even usuable

>implying one US submarine cannot wipe out the entire russian nuclear arsenal

if NK is so bad at ICBM's.. couldnt they just nuke themselves with so many nukes that the shockwaves + radiation would destroy live all over the world lol??

why hasn't no dictator ever thought about this option? nobody would ever dare to take him out lol

>>implying one US submarine cannot wipe out the entire russian nuclear arsenal
if they could, wouldn't there already be a pipeline to Europe and wouldn't Assad be in Heaven next to Gaddafi by now you stupid tulip

Nope, the nukes NK has detonated are so small. Not even all the nuclear bombs ever built would have an impact like that and most of the world would not notice it if you blew them all up in one place. All the nuclear bombs mankind has ever made put together would be basically absolutely nothing compared to the dinosaur killing asteroid, 0.0001 % of its strength.

"The nuclear winter", "destruction of civilization" scenarios for nuclear war assume that after all cities are nuked the world would keep burning but they're doubtful and made by people like Carl Sagan who already proved themselves wrong with their climate predictions of Kuwait oil fires and so on.

Basically, even if we take the most destructive achievement of mankind and put ALL our efforts into building the biggest bomb we could build it's still unclear whether we'd be able to even build anything that would have any impact on the planet lasting more than a few years. We can't even make a crater big enough to stay around for thousands of years unless we make one in a desert or Antarctica.

so if that's true, what prevents WW3 from happening lol??

Or to put it in another way, if you took

a) The biggest nuclear device mankind could possibly build if we took all the nuclear material in the world and all the economies of the world would be 100 % focused on building the bomb

b) A small Chinese firecracker

c) The dinosaur-killing asteroid impact

As far as strength of booms go, a) and b) are much closer to each other and c) is so far ahead of both that the difference between a) and b) is completely meaningless in comparison.

Probably nothing. I think we'll eventually see nuclear weapons used in war and it won't have any global consequences, there will just be a lot of dead in India and Pakistan or wherever.

dude, if those claims are true, then the doctrine of mutual assured destruction makes no sense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

asteroids and nuclear weapons are not the same thing user

>Russia unveils 'Satan 2' missile powerful enough to 'wipe out UK, France or Texas'

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/russia-unveils-satan-2-missile-powerful-enough-to-wipe-out-uk-fr/

why would they need something bigger?

youtu.be/xieJItBPr10

the shockwave travelled 2.5times around earth, causing small earthquakes on the other side of the planet...

Дoбpo пoжaлoвaть в Sup Forums

got the weirdest boner

Why? Nuclear bombs are still big enough to destroy cities and any nation that loses all its major cities is dead for the purposes of war.

After such a bombing the disruption to society would be big enough that famine and disease would kill much of the remaining nation. Fallout would also be harmful to human society even though it is largely irrelevant to nature (see the boom of animal life in Chernobyl exclusion zone, for example).

MAD is perfectly applicable even if 90 % of Russian or American territory would be basically unaffected, if only the farmers are left trying to survive the superpower is gone.