Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sm00gz t1_is56uae wrote

Reply to comment by Mal-De-Terre in [OC] Tableau predicts the estimated nuclear stockpile in Russia and NATO by eqqqxy

And megatonne-age because they're not equal, you can't compare all atomic weapons on principle.

There's a website that allows you to point at a map and it shows you the different effects of differing sizes of the bombs and it gets really dark really fast.

3

857477459 t1_is58bv3 wrote

Most ICBMs are in the same size range. Those massive bombs you can bring up in the simulations are extremely wastful and not commonly used.

2

Sm00gz t1_is58rhm wrote

They did seem a bit overkill,

when you can evaporate the entire city of L.A. with one tsar bomb its just kind of jarring to think one bomb can just do that much raw damage, of course I guess you could do the same with a lot of its smaller counter larts just as if not more efficiently.

1

857477459 t1_is59mi9 wrote

Using 7 smaller warheads in a pattern across the city is a lot more efficient. Also the Tsar bomb was just physically too large to even fly to LA. Its just a dick measuring bomb.

PS: The Tsar Bomb design was twice as destructive as the one they actually detonated. They replaced the uranium tamper with lead in the test bomb to reduce fallout.

3

mmarollo t1_is5rg4b wrote

One US submarine cam obliterate Russia. 160 warheads, each of which can do severe damage to a city. The Russians would just flood the skies with ICBMs and we’d only stop a few.

1

ZetaZeta t1_ishmgxs wrote

"Not commonly used."

Not used... At all. Lol. Unless there's been a nuclear war they've done a good job hiding for over half a century.

1