Posted on 11/17/2015 9:59:10 AM PST by amorphous
I agree with you 100%, however I have to correct you,
Yuge= Huge
Food= Foot
hahaha.
The fault probably would not 'notice' it much at that range. That's a lot of earth and rock to move.
My wife is not going to like or go along with your suggestion. But, thanks anyway.
:-)
Russians are still commie liars. I’ll bet Putin gets a hole in one on every golf hole.
I was thinking the same thing. Why go through all the trouble of building a torpedo, to get the same effect as you would launching an ICBM?
Look up the 1958 Lituya Bay AK tsunami.
Part of a mountain slid off in a earthquake creating a 1700’ tsunami. Its all about displacement.
How much water would 100MTs at say a depth of 10,000' displace?
Makes me think about a famous surf-boarding scene from a classic novel.
Makes me think about a famous surf-boarding scene from a classic novel.
Shades of “Dr. Strangelove” and the doomsday weapon.
Tsara Bomba in 1961 was ~50-58MT. Assume an overpressure of 2 lbs per sq inch required to knock over brick buildings in the following narrative. Water displacement would have to be massive.
All buildings in the village of Severny (both wooden and brick), located 55 kilometres (34 mi) from ground zero within the Sukhoy Nos test range, were destroyed. In districts hundreds of kilometers from ground zero wooden houses were destroyed, stone ones lost their roofs, windows and doors; and radio communications were interrupted for almost one hour. One participant in the test saw a bright flash through dark goggles and felt the effects of a thermal pulse even at a distance of 270 kilometres (170 mi). The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62 mi) away from ground zero. A shock wave was observed in the air at Dikson settlement 700 kilometres (430 mi) away; windowpanes were partially broken to distances of 900 kilometres (560 mi).
I guessing at even 50MTs, the fireball would reach the surface, even at a depth of 10'000'? You're right, that would be a massive amount of displacement.
Thanks!
I think 100MT is a theoretical limit?
If this torpedo was actually real it seems to me that the real use would be to attack shipping like carrier or amphibious task forces.
I saw the mention of cobalt. Could that up the yield? Then there is the possibility of using two or more simultaneously, though 100MT warheads in multiple subs spaced an equal distance apart may have even greater effect than a single, larger explosion.
So Putin is a Bond villain now I guess? LOL.
Originally Posted by LordDartz:
I saw a documentary on the Tsar Bomba, which mentioned someone thought of a 1,000 megaton bombs during the development process.
Poster asnys:
At any point between then and now could the Soviets or Americans have created and tested nukes in the gigaton range? How far could we go? What about teraton-range? The ability to deliver it by air is irrelevant. In a memoir by a weapons physicist, I read that several hundred megatons is actually the largest possible size, because if you try to chain too many fusion stages together the light from the first stage blows the later stages apart before they can actually ignite. However, I know that Teller, among others, did investigate multi-gigaton-range weapons, so I'm not sure what to make of that. If there really is an upper limit on yield, it's probably classified.
Bombs larger than 100MT seem doable now, even if not practical, unless new technology permitting such has been discovered. Found info on the use of Cobalt too.
I now believe we really could destroy the planet, if one of these bombs were placed at just the right geographical location.
Scary stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.