Bombs Bombs Bombs

stana · « **on:** 25/06/2007 20:55:03 »

First of all, I`d like to clear something up, i LOVE nuces..but im not a master at radiation and stuff like that. Can someone answer me 2 questions. First of all
This is total TRASH right? A nuce wouldnt have that much force

And second of all. What is this tsar bomb i hear people talk about? Ive heard it was a hell of alot more powerfull than a nuce..but dangerous and expensive.

Thanks

paul.fr · « **Reply #1 on:** 25/06/2007 21:08:33 »

Quote from: stana on 25/06/2007 20:55:03

First of all, I`d like to clear something up, i LOVE nuces..but im not a master at radiation and stuff like that. Can someone answer me 2 questions. First of all
This is total TRASH right? A nuce wouldnt have that much force
And second of all. What is this tsar bomb i hear people talk about? Ive heard it was a hell of alot more powerfull than a nuce..but dangerous and expensive.

Thanks

1. right
2. check out the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba and a video clip on youtube

when you say "Ive heard it was a hell of alot more powerfull than a nuce..but dangerous and expensive.", are you sying that Nukes on the whole are not dangerous and expensive?

stana · « **Reply #2 on:** 25/06/2007 21:12:43 »

Quote from: paul.fr on 25/06/2007 21:08:33

Quote from: stana on 25/06/2007 20:55:03
First of all, I`d like to clear something up, i LOVE nuces..but im not a master at radiation and stuff like that. Can someone answer me 2 questions. First of all
This is total TRASH right? A nuce wouldnt have that much force
And second of all. What is this tsar bomb i hear people talk about? Ive heard it was a hell of alot more powerfull than a nuce..but dangerous and expensive.

Thanks

1. right
2. check out the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba and a video clip on youtube

when you say "Ive heard it was a hell of alot more powerfull than a nuce..but dangerous and expensive.", are you sying that Nukes on the whole are not dangerous and expensive?

What i meant was, that they costed more than a nuce would cost, and were more dangerous than a nuce

paul.fr · « **Reply #3 on:** 25/06/2007 21:17:49 »

Quote from: stana on 25/06/2007 21:12:43

What i meant was, that they costed more than a nuce would cost, and were more dangerous than a nuce

Now obviously i know nothing about anything, but the tsar bomb is a early 60's nuclear bomb. what makes this special is that it is (reputedly) the largest bomb ever detonated/tested. i don't think this bomb is still in use today...heck i could just be talking rubbish..someone will be along soon to correct me.

Batroost · « **Reply #4 on:** 25/06/2007 22:28:58 »

The thing to note here is that most fusion devices are triggered by the x-rays from a fission device e.g. you use a (relatively) small nuclear explosion - e.g. from fission of Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 - to trigger a thermonuclear explosion in which you fuse hydrogen atoms (e.g. in the form of duterium/tritium); this then becomes a 'Hydrogen Bomb'. The trick is that there is nothing stopping you wrapping a third stage around the original fission and fusion stages to increase the yield by more fission or fusion. The Tsar bomb is believed to have had one (or more) third stages with a total yield of about 50Megatonnes - or 3,000 Hiroshimas.

They are all 'nukes'; fission, fusion or multi-stage.

There is nothing really stopping anyone making a bigger bomb. But why would you need one? The suggestion towards the end of the cold war and since is that small 'battlefield' nuclear weapons are more useful (?!!?) as they could be politically acceptable i.e. without bringing massive retaliation on the user. Personally I'm not convinced...