No MIRV but maybee...more megatons pe nuke?

Ideas for expansions and improvements to Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
AtomAnt
level0
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:41 am

Postby AtomAnt » Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:41 pm

Actually, I can't see how you would profit from having less nukes with more power. The thing is, that nuclear weapon blast radius goes approximately with cube root of it's yield, thus making 100MT bombs radius only around 10 times greater than the one of 100kT. It does, of course, deliver 1000times more energy to the hitpoint.

Here are comparative blast radiuses and yields of some nuclear weapons. Note that for example Tsar Bomba (56MT), although having almost 4 times the yield of Castle Bravo(15MT), has less than twice the blast radius of the latter. Point of super strong thermonuclear weapons was more in being able to deliver immense power to a single point rather than having large blast radius.

Image

In other words: to have a nuke, capable of taking out two adjacent radars with a single hit, you would have trade up 20 or 30 conventional nukes for it.
Last edited by AtomAnt on Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:42 pm

Surely that's a result of the simple rule that the radius of a circle does not increase at the same rate as its area. ;)
Here is my signature. Make of it what you will.
Image
User avatar
AtomAnt
level0
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:41 am

Postby AtomAnt » Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:44 pm

shinygerbil wrote:Surely that's a result of the simple rule that the radius of a circle does not increase at the same rate as its area. ;)


Actually, it's about a sphere and it's volume. ;)
[colour:black]

Code: Select all

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." ~ Albert Einstein
[/black]
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:47 pm

Alright, alright. The principle's the same. ;)
Here is my signature. Make of it what you will.

Image
User avatar
torq
level3
level3
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby torq » Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:53 am

The same with MIRVs, by the way. Even though MIRVs theoretically have larger coverage, but not larger then some may think. For example, you can't hit cities located as close as Wash. D.C. and NY with a single missile (even the one equipped with MIRVs) since the distance between these two cities is already too great.

Look at the pictures:

ImageImage

These photos were taken during the Minutemen missile tests. As you see, the warheads enter the atmosphere very close to each other. MIRVs vere made for hitting multiple hardened targets within an area, not for hitting half of the continent.
NMO
User avatar
Cnl_Death
level2
level2
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:06 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Postby Cnl_Death » Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:29 pm

I think that larger war heads could be a good idea, however if you had M.I.R.V's you would be able to strike multiple targets with 1 missile. greatly increasing your chamces of disabling your opponents strike capabilities. Though this is just my opinion
User avatar
Crazy Ninja
level0
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: My padded cell

Postby Crazy Ninja » Sun Sep 09, 2007 6:32 pm

M.I.R.Vs for naval nuking - now theres a thought :twisted:

Return to “Think Tank”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests