- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Nuclear bomb question
Posted on 11/30/18 at 7:59 am
Posted on 11/30/18 at 7:59 am
Is a nuclear bombs destructive power limited by the size of the bomb that they can fit in a plane or on an icbm? Basically if size was not a constraint could a nuclear bombs destructive power be unlimited? I notice a trend of powerful countries trying to prevent other nuclear capable countries ability to attack another by anti missile technology. What if a country whose conventional military was weaker and they were easily contained by anti missile technology created a massive nuclear bomb built into the earth that was strong enough to cause planet wide destruction? Basically a nuclear device used as a suicide explosive on a global scale. Is this possible? How would such a device change the way a more powerful country would treat that country? How could such a device be defeated?
24
Posted on 11/30/18 at 7:59 am to feverish
You've come to the right place
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:00 am to feverish
Puffing early in the morning. I like it.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:00 am to feverish
Didn't read this but the answer is 7.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:02 am to feverish
You mean, a country that would use their nukes like a suicide bomb vest?
This post was edited on 11/30/18 at 8:03 am
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:02 am to feverish
First, how many pots did you smoke?
Second, I've wondered the same thing. I don't know shite about physics though so maybe someone else here has an answer.
Second, I've wondered the same thing. I don't know shite about physics though so maybe someone else here has an answer.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:02 am to feverish
quote:
Is a nuclear bombs destructive power limited by the size of the bomb that they can fit in a plane or on an icbm?
Yes
quote:
Basically if size was not a constraint could a nuclear bombs destructive power be unlimited?
In theory yes
quote:
What if a country whose conventional military was weaker and they were easily contained by anti missile technology created a massive nuclear bomb built into the earth that was strong enough to cause planet wide destruction? Basically a nuclear device used as a suicide explosive on a global scale. Is this possible?
Possible but not likely....the rest of the world wouldn't let it happen.
quote:
How could such a device be defeated?
By not letting it get built in the first place.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:02 am to feverish
Did you just watch Armageddon?
This post was edited on 11/30/18 at 8:06 am
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:03 am to feverish
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:03 am to feverish
quote:
Is a nuclear bombs destructive power limited by the size of the bomb that they can fit in a plane or on an icbm? Basically if size was not a constraint could a nuclear bombs destructive power be unlimited?
Theoretically, yes.
The practical idea is that you don't want to build it so big it can't be moved/delivered, otherwise you are just going to destroy yourself.
So, if you are a suicidal state (cough Muslim cough), then assuming you can accumulate enough fissile material, you could build a world ending device. It may not completely destroy the planet, but it would almost certainly set off a chain reaction that would incinerate the atmosphere at a minimum.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:04 am to feverish
quote:
How could such a device be defeated?
MacGyver is the only answer.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:04 am to feverish
Please don't give any Middle Easterners ideas.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:06 am to feverish
Largest nuclear bomb ever exploded was 50MT
The Earth is large and a singular nuclear blast cannot end life. It will take the combined nuclear weapons of the US or USSR to do it. Even then it would take years for the Nuclear Winter to finish off everything.
Matter/Anti-Matter bomb is what you need, but we have not developed the means to create and contain enough anti-matter.
The Earth is large and a singular nuclear blast cannot end life. It will take the combined nuclear weapons of the US or USSR to do it. Even then it would take years for the Nuclear Winter to finish off everything.
Matter/Anti-Matter bomb is what you need, but we have not developed the means to create and contain enough anti-matter.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:09 am to Wtodd
quote:
quote:
Is a nuclear bombs destructive power limited by the size of the bomb that they can fit in a plane or on an icbm?
Yes
Well, not exactly. From a tactical standpoint it’s more to do with the purity of the fission material and the efficiency of the explosion.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:09 am to DarthRebel
quote:
It will take the combined nuclear weapons of the US or USSR to do it.
So you see, working together we really can accomplish anything.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:10 am to feverish
quote:
massive nuclear bomb built into the earth
quote:
The Kola Superdeep Borehole was just 9 inches in diameter, but at 40,230 feet (12,262 meters) reigns as the deepest hole. It took almost 20 years to reach that 7.5-mile depth
The Earth's crust is about 25 miles thick. It would have to be a long process. There's a reason nuclear tests were regulated to being underground. I'd imagine the deeper the explosion, the less impact it would have.
This post was edited on 11/30/18 at 8:12 am
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:10 am to feverish
In theory, yes a planet destroyer can be built. But it would be incredibly hard to the point of near-impossibility.
The problem is the inverse-square law. Nukes are just as susceptible to this as anything else. In English, what this means is that if bomb A is 100 times more powerful than bomb B, then it still only reaches out ten times the distance. They "scale" very poorly.
This is why the early Cold War nukes were massively powerful, but as aiming systems got better the nukes got less powerful. More power = less efficiency. Smart conventional explosives are the most efficient.
So yes, it's theoretically possible but from a practical standpoint nobody has the resources or reason to try.
The problem is the inverse-square law. Nukes are just as susceptible to this as anything else. In English, what this means is that if bomb A is 100 times more powerful than bomb B, then it still only reaches out ten times the distance. They "scale" very poorly.
This is why the early Cold War nukes were massively powerful, but as aiming systems got better the nukes got less powerful. More power = less efficiency. Smart conventional explosives are the most efficient.
So yes, it's theoretically possible but from a practical standpoint nobody has the resources or reason to try.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:11 am to feverish
quote:
How could such a device be defeated?
According to Obama you fly a plane in the middle of the night loaded with pallets of cash.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:14 am to feverish
Posted on 11/30/18 at 8:15 am to feverish
quote:
Is a nuclear bombs destructive power limited by the size of the bomb that they can fit in a plane or on an icbm?
Yes and no.
quote:
if size was not a constraint could a nuclear bombs destructive power be unlimited?
Nothing is unlimited, but if you mean practically so, the theoretical limit of energy release for a fission bomb will be the mass of fissionable material.
quote:
created a massive nuclear bomb built into the earth that was strong enough to cause planet wide destruction?
That's not possible. Frankly, the explosive potential for nuclear weapons are incredible in scale, but ultimately this is a large planet and "physics" - the greater threat from any significant nuclear exchange isn't the explosions (for fun - Google pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the 1950s) - it is the long-term effects from fall out. Modern thermonuclear fusion designs are much cleaner (while also being of much higher yield) and are confirmed to be in the possession of the "Big 5" nuclear powers (USA, Russia, Red China, France, UK), but even today the lower tier nuclear powers are working primarily with implosion fission designs, more like Fat Man.
There is speculation about thermonuclear devices (a true "hydrogen" bomb, a Teller-Ulam device or variant) for India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. As far as Israel, the possession of a couple of dozen, up to perhaps 60 or so (at most), has been rumored but never tested nor confirmed. There is a dispute about India's arsenal containing true hydrogen bombs, but a soft consensus is that neither India nor Pakistan is working with true Teller-Ulam devices but are working with boosted fission devices.
North Korea's tests are consistent with thermonuclear yields in the 300kt range.
Now, having said that - the extremely high yield devices tested by the US (Castle Bravo, 15 megaton) and USSR (Tsar Bomba, 50 megaton) do not have the destructive potential to do damage as you've suggested.
Now, if someone had a high yield bomb seeded with cobalt? That could likely do the trick.
It wouldn't kill everyone right away, of course. But, eventually.
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News