- 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
re: Nuclear bomb question
Posted on 11/30/18 at 11:25 am to feverish
Posted on 11/30/18 at 11:25 am to feverish
Honestly, making a bomb big enough to cause planetwide phyiscall effects as you describe is basically impossible.
While it MIGHT be theoretically possible to design it (considerations of the bomb itself being physically destroyed causing problems are marginal: a multistage nuclear weapon has pretty much expanded its entire energy budget before the blast of the C4 triggering explosives have moved an inch outward), the problem is the lack of nuclear isotope materials to build a bomb of that size.
It’s far, far easier to achieve the same result with some variety of “salted” bomb where the casing contains an element that is easily irradiated to generate higher amounts of fallout.
Even then, it is likely to require multiple bombs to attain globally lethal coverage.
While it MIGHT be theoretically possible to design it (considerations of the bomb itself being physically destroyed causing problems are marginal: a multistage nuclear weapon has pretty much expanded its entire energy budget before the blast of the C4 triggering explosives have moved an inch outward), the problem is the lack of nuclear isotope materials to build a bomb of that size.
It’s far, far easier to achieve the same result with some variety of “salted” bomb where the casing contains an element that is easily irradiated to generate higher amounts of fallout.
Even then, it is likely to require multiple bombs to attain globally lethal coverage.
1
Posted on 11/30/18 at 12:15 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Even then, it is likely to require multiple bombs to attain globally lethal coverage.
True, but even a single device of say, 15 to 20mt, heavily seeded could get you to 40 or 50 percent coverage of pretty significant radiation and globally significant radiation for centuries.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 12:50 pm to Ace Midnight
There is really only one way to destroy the world with one device
Posted on 11/30/18 at 12:53 pm to txbd
Posted on 11/30/18 at 1:22 pm to Peazey
They were waiting for the May Day Parade to announce it. Every one loves a parade and big surprises.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 9:20 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
Anti-matter weapons will be a game changer if they ever figure that out.
Antimatter is not readily found in nature. You need to create it, which will require exactly as much energy as you're hoping your "bomb" to release in the first place.
Antimatter is a perfect battery, but it is not an energy source you find lying around waiting to be released.
Posted on 12/1/18 at 12:06 pm to foshizzle
quote:
Antimatter is a perfect battery, but it is not an energy source you find lying around waiting to be released.
Actually no, it isn’t.
You lose 99.99999999999% of your energy attempting to create it.
But you are right, antimatter in a doomsday set up is absurd.
But I can see it being used to shrink conventional explosives into packages incredibly small for special ops though.
1000lb bombs within a zippo lighter can be used to devestating effect.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News