Politics

[Brent in Az]

I wonder if Russia has Nukes more powerful then the Tsar Bomba they tested in 1961?

 

[Ray B]

Well said sir, your son deserved better, and your family deserves better.

The USA and the world deserve better, at least those who didn't vote for Bidet/Kampala- those who voted Bidet/Kampala voted to go to Hell, so it's okay with me if they go- just don't take the rest of us for the trip.

 

[Newboomer]

Well said sir, your son deserved better, and your family deserves better.

I hope and pray more family members of slain warriors stand up and speak out. It is way past due.

 

[Tanner Lee]

I wonder if Russia has Nukes more powerful then the Tsar Bomba they tested in 1961?

I bet both Russia and the US have something sitting in a bunker somewhere. Though it has never been tested so who knows if it would even work.

 

[Red Leg]

I bet both Russia and the US have something sitting in a bunker somewhere. Though it has never been tested so who knows if it would even work.

I wonder if Russia has Nukes more powerful then the Tsar Bomba they tested in 1961?

Who needs anything in a bunker? The US Minuteman III missiles carry three independently targeted 170+ kt warheads with great accuracy. All will work as advertised and Russia has no intercept capability. They will hit 1200 targets.

Every Trident sub launched SLBM carries 6-10 Independently targeted warheads of 100-150 kilotons. It is useful to remember that the Hiroshima blast was around 10 Kt. The US has 14 SLBM Ohio class boats of which six to seven or on station at any given time. Assuming six, and 20 missiles per boat, that means another 700 to 1200 serviced targets. Neither the Ohio class boats nor their missiles can be intercepted by anything in the Russian arsenal.

None of this. of course, counts the third leg of the US triad which includes B-52, B-1, and B-2 bombers most of which will be launching nuclear equipped cruise missiles.

Obviously, the Russians have a huge arsenal as well, though fewer means to deliver it than during the Soviet era. They also spend relatively little on maintenance and modernization compared to the US. But we would have to assume a strike would be extremely destructive. The strategic standoff of "mutually assured destruction" had that name for a reason.

That said, while I have no idea who would "win" a nuclear exchange with the US, I am certain that were it the Russians on the other end, regardless of the destruction visited upon our country, their nation, culture, economy, and history would be erased from the planet.

Bellicosity aside, I am certain that no one realizes that more clearly than Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Somebody better inform Commie Joe's beer police that I've exceeded my weekly limit.
Might have to round me up, and haul me off to a conservative concentration camp......

A man walks into a bar and asks the bartender for his two allotted beers. The bartender says well I have to ask you a couple of questions first. The man says OK. The bartender asks him if he owns a gas stove and the man replies “yes”. The bartender says well that’ll cost you one of your two beers. Then the bartender asks if he has a ceiling fan in his home and the man replies “yes”. The bartender then yells bouncer! And the man is thrown out of the bar. Brandon’s America. LOL

 

[Brent in Az]

Any nuke launch is something we never want to see. Most of these WMD's range from 100-170 kilotons. In comparison, the Tsar Bomba was 50,000 kilotons, or 50 megatons.
I was just morbidly curious , if the mad scientists have created a device that far exceeds that nuclear yield.? We will probably never know, until it lands on us.

 

[Trogon]

In a neighbor's yard....lol

 

[steve white]

Any nuke launch is something we never want to see. Most of these WMD's range from 100-170 kilotons. In comparison, the Tsar Bomba was 50,000 kilotons, or 50 megatons.
I was just morbidly curious , if the mad scientists have created a device that far exceeds that nuclear yield.? We will probably never know, until it lands on us.

Russians have always been known for keeping solid propellants simple--"big dumb rockets" vs more sophisticated systems like we would use to launch a space shuttle, etc. That gives me pause, because their old stuff might just work after all.

 

[Red Leg]

Any nuke launch is something we never want to see. Most of these WMD's range from 100-170 kilotons. In comparison, the Tsar Bomba was 50,000 kilotons, or 50 megatons.
I was just morbidly curious , if the mad scientists have created a device that far exceeds that nuclear yield.? We will probably never know, until it lands on us.

My only point is that it doesn't matter.

 

[Red Leg]

Russians have always been known for keeping solid propellants simple--"big dumb rockets" vs more sophisticated systems like we would use to launch a space shuttle, etc. That gives me pause, because their old stuff might just work after all.

With respect to ICBMs and SLBMs, it shouldn't. The US designs are both mature, robust and easily maintained solid fuel boosters. The complicated maintenance is with regard to the warheads themselves. Assuring a thermonuclear warhead detonates as designed is a business that requires enormous hands own vigilance (and expense).

The US spent $44 billion last year on its warheads - a large portion of that devoted to assurance. Russia spent $8 billion.

Obviously, we will plan and assume the Russian arsenal will perform to its peak potential. But the likelihood that it would is something else again. And that is something the Russian leadership has to figure into the reality of its saber rattling.

 

[Brent in Az]

My only point is that it doesn't matter.

I understand that. Once ,hundreds, if not a couple thousand, nuclear weapons are launched, its all over. I live close to a military target. DMAFB. I would be vaporized in the blink of an eye.
My point is......the nuclear super powers were all on a quest to build the biggest and baddest nuke on the planet.
Is there a Super Nuke out there that could level an entire city by itself? It's a moot point really, but after watching some documentaries, it just got me thinking.

 

[Red Leg]

I understand that. Once ,hundreds, if not a couple thousand, nuclear weapons are launched, its all over. I live close to a military target. DMAFB. I would be vaporized in the blink of an eye.
My point is......the nuclear super powers were all on a quest to build the biggest and baddest nuke on the planet.
Is there a Super Nuke out there that could level an entire city by itself? It's a moot point really, but after watching some documentaries, it just got me thinking.

My point is that It doesn't take a super nuke - or even the biggest and baddest. A single independently targeted warhead from a Minuteman (there are around 1200 total) is 17 times more powerful than the nuke that destroyed Hiroshima. Anything more than that is just bouncing the rubble.

 

[Wathe208]

Us poor bastards near Yellowstone are just hoping they don't pop that pimple. On the brighter side, it would get rid of all the Dutton wannabe's!
IfYKNK....

 

[Brent in Az]

Us poor bastards near Yellowstone are just hoping they don't pop that pimple. On the brighter side, it would get rid of all the Dutton wannabe's!
IfYKNK....

I've spent close to 2 years total up and around that caldera, and even a mini earthquake or two. I always though about the outcome of standing on top of a super volcano while I was flyfishing if it happened to pop.

 

[fourfive8]

I wonder if Russia has Nukes more powerful then the Tsar Bomba they tested in 1961?

That thing exceeded their design estimates of 50 megaton yield and could been larger than a 55 megaton equivalent. After that test, there were generals and military-industrial complex types in the Soviet Union who wanted the physicists and engineers to design and build one exceeding a 100 megaton equivalent. They probably could have done it because the fusion process simply requires a compounding series design involving more deuterium.
The scientists with a sane brain talked the politicians in charge at the time out of it.

I doubt they have anything that big now. Guided MRVs pretty much eliminate that necessity. Even the first US test of a fusion bomb exceeded the yield and effects estimates by quite a margin.

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[Wathe208]

Me with my post apocolyptic Yellowstone cutthroat. Atomic lake...? Hold my beer.

 

[Brent in Az]

Me with my post apocolyptic Yellowstone cutthroat. Atomic lake...? Hold my beer.View attachment 554309

Maybe that thing could eat all the Lake Trout that are devouring the smaller Cutthroat trout in Yellowstone lake?

 

[Brent in Az]

Read an article that stated one of the inventors of the H-bomb had ambitions to build a gigaton bomb. Something that could basically blow a hole in the atmosphere if detonated

The invention of atomic weapons really is something that never should have happened.