[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 499 KB, 500x281, nook.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7456606 No.7456606 [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone heard of the concept of Arbitrarily Large Yield nuclear weapons? Basically, it's hypothetically possible to have multiple fusion stages in a Teller-Ulam device, each one boosting the yield higher and higher, even into the gigaton range, and higher. However, there haven't been any confirmed designs made for any of these.

Thoughts?

>> No.7456617

>>7456606
I've never heard of it before, but I don't really see the point in it. It would become impossible to deploy, take the Tsar bomb for example, that couldn't fit in the bomb that was going to drop it, so large parts of the aircraft had to be striped to make room for it. It's much more sensible to have relatively low yeild devices that can easily be deployed to quickly hit high density population centres.

>> No.7456627

>>7456617
Of course, from a military perspective, anything larger than a couple of Mt is nearly useless. MIRV systems and modern targeting allow for actual precision, letting you cripple a nation's warmaking capability instead of genociding its population. I'm talking about the purely theoretical here--how would you go about building the biggest bomb possible without antimatter, black holes, or kinetic kill.

>> No.7456654
File: 957 KB, 500x305, strangelove.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7456654

>>7456617
>Well, it's remarkably simple to do... when you merely wish to bury bombs, there's no limit to the size!

>> No.7456660

One hell of an astroid smasher once you get into gigatons

But even then, you're better off with a line of megaton weapons that create standoff blasts by detonating near the surface. You want to nudge the thing, not shove it.

>> No.7456671
File: 38 KB, 682x400, Oh, child.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7456671

>>7456627
>letting you cripple a nation's warmaking capability instead of genociding its population.
It's adorable that you think countervalue strikes aren't still a major part of modern nuclear strategy.

>> No.7456696

>>7456654
kek.

>>7456660
Yeah, if you fuck up a big blast, you just get a radioactive shotgun. Enjoy your extinction.

>> No.7456731

>>7456606
what would be the purpose of such a device?

they've already done the research.

multiple smaller yield warheads have several advantages:

1. cover a wider area (a large one would kill the shit out of anything close, moderate get radiation poisoning and die in a few days, further die slowly, possibly enough time for good enough medical treatment to stand a chance of survival, provided the radiation exposure was gradual (i.e. maybe due to aerial particles of fallout?))

2. more likely to get past defenses (interceptions can only do 1 at a time)

3. no need to be as accurate (MIRV can blanket a large area)

4. better area denial (radioactive particles spread more evenly)

not as pretty to look at though.

imo, if i had to pre-empt a country, hypothetically. id just smuggle dirty bombs onto their land, detonate in major cities such that the population suffer from radiation poisoning and nuclear fallout.

then id try to pin it on a different country whom the country in question were on shaky relations with, maybe by planting evidence.

then id just wait.

their economy would suffer from the fallout.

a proportion of the population will die relatively fast <3months

and plus you save on rocket fuel costs!

>> No.7456737

>>7456731
Oh, none. As I said in >>7456627, this is just speculation.