Why does everyone get so fucking paranoid about nukes when Hiroshima/Nagasaki showed that they just destroy a small...

Why does everyone get so fucking paranoid about nukes when Hiroshima/Nagasaki showed that they just destroy a small area. The whole idea of MAD was dumb because even 200 nukes would just destroy 200 cities

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

www.google.com

atom bomb vs hydrogen bomb

none of those ever destroyed anything so those are just theories. the only empirical evidence we have is from hiroshima/nagasaki
read above

Empirical data are used for extrapolations and modelling, dummy.

none have ever been tried on actual cities just fake shit or over the ocean. no way to know how much damage it would actually have. just like we didn't know before we dropped them on japan

Because modern nukes can be up too 1,400 times more powerful. That, by your calculations means that one nuke would take out 1,400 cities. This is of course not entirely true since your calculations are off. But think for a second. At the height of the Cold War the soviets had around 40,000 of those motherfuckers. Also scientist say that if just 100 major cities were hit with the bombs that the energy from burning those cities would cause a nuclear winter, essentially blocking out the sun because of so much debris.

>Because modern nukes can be up too 1,400 times more powerful.
according to theories and lab tests. not real world experiments, so to speak.

You're an idiot.

By your thinking, gravity is only a theroy. Space and the speed of light are only a theroy. And some larger ones have actually been tested. Not actually used in a war but they have actually dropped them on unpopulated areas like the dessert to test them. It's not even a theroy, they have used them and they work as expected. The tsar bomb was never tested but many close to its size were.

yeah heard this all before. you're not bringing anything new to the table

>disregarding mathematical and scientific evidence

>not real world experiments
you are factually incorrect. google Christmas Island

>considering a "theory" that has only been tested in a few studies as credible
I'd only accept them if nuke tests were subject to peer review and everything else all science is, not just a few government tests.
>Population: 0
thanks for proving my point

1) Radiation
2) Clearly you have no fucking idea how big the nukes are today compared to those dropped on Japan. Think ping-pong ball vs hot air balloon.

>not real world experiments, so to speak.

What is Tsar Bomba?

Moron.

>I only read a handful of posts in a thread before posting
kys

...

It only took 2 to prove you're an idiot.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

I suggest you read this, and then consider the fact this bomb was developed in the FIFTIES, to think they don't have bombs tens to hundreds of times as powerful 60 years later isn't a stretch

>Literally plotted on a histogram with labeled axes
>not empirical

"Megaton" isn't a made up word, user.

Assuming OP's logic wasn't retarded, he obviously fails to recognize that even taking out a handful of key cities would collapse the nation economically.

there is literally no limit to h bomb. i bet we will eventually have a city vaporized since people have forgotten and cant understand the basics, and all leaders are too young to have lived through it. humans are idiots

Not sure if troll or stupid...

Tsar bomb was tested

>the only empirical evidence we have is from hiroshima/nagasaki
well, that's not true by a long shot.

>doesn't know about tests

maybe but even a few hundred or a few thousand cities doesn't seem like MAD to me. maybe Mutually Assumed Enonomic Collapse.

>Doesn't seem like MAD to me...

Have you any idea what would happen in the USA if the economy collapsed? Civil war. The country would tear itself apart.

As would any first world nation. MAD assured.

He's right. Nukes can easily be defeated by deactivating the atoms.

MAD is about causing complete annihilation so you're wrong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust

MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction. If the aftereffect of a nuclear strike still manages to destroy the country, the theory holds.

I'm not going to argue fucking semantics with a guy who doesn't even know what a kiloton vs a megaton is.

"Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender (see pre-emptive nuclear strike and second strike).[1]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

That matches what I said much more than what you said

No. Moron. Wrong.
nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

There. You can simulate the effects of the end of times. Not including tge ensuing atomic winter. If the chernobyl plant had a thermal explosion the entire north of Ukraine would be uninhabitable for a hundred years. You goddamned idiot. Now multiply that by tens of thousands and no sunlight for a generation. You goddamn millennial scum this is the second most retarded thing ive seen today behind the college kids that wrecked the 911 memoral.

Tzar bomba was detonated
Its not therotical
It blew out windows 1,000 miles away.
Largest nuclear bomb detonated, everyone stopped large-scale tests afterwards.

But I wanted da biggest bomb dough

That bomb was so big it rang the magnetosphere like a bell. Everyone stopped making them bigger because it was starting to get to the point where even a test could literally break the planet. Same thing with upper atmosphere tests.

Plus 100 moderately sized nukes is more effective than 1 ultimate nuke anyway.