Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Xanthro
A 100-megaton bomb is 5,000 times more powerful than the 20-kiloton bomb that took out Hiroshima, a medium-size city.
1. No such device has ever actually been built or test.
2. No, it has 5,000 times the yield. It is not 5,000 times more powerful. There is a huge difference. Again, the largest actually built and tested device had a 50mt yield, it's fireball radius was 23 times that of FatMan.
Bombs smaller than 100 megatons were tested by the US in the Pacific, and the mushroon clouds could be seen in California 4,000 miles away. They were so huge the generals themselves were appalled.
All devices tested by any country were less than 100mt, because no device larger than 50mt has even been tested. Just how dense are you?
Millions of people can see the moon at night, it doesn't kill them. Just being able to see a mushroom cloud doesn't mean it's deadly.
BTW, the cloud shape is the result of the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. There is a strong temperature deferential at this boundary, which inhibits mixing of the the two layers of the atmosphere. The raising cloud has cooled to much by the time it reaches the tropopause, and lacks the energy to overcome this boundary, this cause the expansion to move horizontally, producing the mushroom effect.
Any large explosion, even conventional, can create a mushroom cloud, but very few can actually reach the tropopause to create the classic shape ingrained in most people's minds.
But I get your propaganda game. Like Rumsfeld, you want people to think that nukes aren't a big deal in order to make them 'acceptable'. Rumsfeld's wanted to nuke Russia for forty years under the theory than 80,000,000 US casualties in the counterstrike would be worth it.
Counteracting your misconceptions about nuclear devices, and your ignorance of nuclear technology, does not mean I advocate that nuclear weapons aren't dangerous.
They just aren't what you are stating they are.
You and Rumsfeld should be sharing Hannibal Lecter's old cell. You're a danger to civilization.
-- Godot..
Typical, you can't actually defend your positions, and hope to tie opponents to someone unpopular, or have them in jail.
It's an admission that you internally feel defeated.
You're attempting to keep the subject off the fact that Palin is a religious nutcase - one dangerous enough to start Armageddon with nukes.
All you've done is prove that you yourself are a nutcase as well. And an idiot trying to palm himself off knowing something besides.
-- Godot..
Like almost everything you write about, Palin's religion is what you want to believe it is, not what she actually believes in.
Someone can take parts of any denomination theology and make them sound silly or dangerous.
Do holy wafers really actually turn into the blood and body of Christ? If not, are all Catholics dangerous religious nutcases.
You want to attack Palin on religion, because you believe anything you read or hear and have no ability to critically think.
You wanting her to be a religious nutcase doesn't make it so. Anymore than people attacking Obama's religion is correct.
Xantro-Creating a sustained critical chain reaction is an exceedingly complicated process.
Ridiculous.
All you need is a large enough piece of fissionable material. NO 'process' needed.
Next.
-- Godot.
No, a sustained critical chain reaction is hard to maintain, the very process blows itself apart.
If you really think that just bringing enough fissionable material together will just create a sustained critical chain reaction, you are far more stupid than I thought.
A large pile of fissionable material of the proper type, could start a chain reaction, which would very quickly blow the mass apart. Exactly as happened in your example.
What can't happen is the sustained critical chain reaction which would be required for a nuclear detonation.
Xanthro-Should I assume in the future that your grasp of the subject matter is about that of a sixth grader?
You're the brain-dead neocon who think a pound is more than a ton. A mistake a sixth-grader wouldn't make.
Your bible-school lack-of-education serves you badly, wingnut.
-- Godot.
It's quite apparent that I'm far more educated about this subject than you are.
Really, your post here is that of a sixth-grader just calling people names. It address no points, it advances no points, it's a sign of surrender and abject inability to comprehend the subject matter at hand.
While I'm not adverse to a little name calling and needling, while a post consists wholly of such things, it's the sign of a little mind.
Again, your claim was that the US could destroy all life on Earth. That is incorrect.
You've attempt to argue that yield is linear in terms of destructive capability, despite being given fireball radius of various devices.
It's clear you are wrong, and have no idea what thermonuclear devices are past a comic book level of understanding.
Again, your claim was that the US could destroy all life on Earth. That is incorrect.
I made my case and cited evidence. Your counterargument is meaningless.
You aren't even aware that a ton is more than a pound. You said so.
It's clear you are wrong, and have to fake an "understanding" of nuclear devices out of web sites that are over your head.
I've already rubbed the facts in your face, neocon.
No, a sustained critical chain reaction is hard to maintain, the very process blows itself apart.
You're contradicting yourself.
You do that constantly.
Xanthro-None of your "documentation" supports your utterly silly notion that the US can destroy all life on Earth
30,000 bombs (your number) up to 100 megatons (5,000 times bigger than 20 kilotons) is an explosive yield up to 150,000,000 times greater than the bomb used to take out Hiroshima, a medium-size city (which you think was faked anyway).
Perhaps I over-estimated your grade level education. Any average intelligence sixth-grader would understand that you can't take the largest of something and multiple it by the number to get the total of something.
I think worms understand that basic concept.
Again, no nuclear device in history has reached 100mt.
No US device has reach 20mt.
Yield is not linear to destructive capability.
Hiroshima suffered 25% casualty rate. Life wasn't destroyed
How much would be enough, neocon?
How much to do what? Destroy the Earth, destroy life on Earth, Billions of times more nuclear devices might be able to destroy life on Earth.
The point is, Palin could start up Armageddon with a lot less than that, couldn't she?
-- Godot..
1. No, contrary to popular opinion, the President cannot launch nuclear weapons, only initiate the process. It would have to be verified by SAC and one active launch site. In fact, three active silos could launch weapons on their own.
2. Claiming Palin wants to start Armageddon is as stupid as arguing that Obama wants to kill all White people because his religions states that Jesus was Black and killed by Whites, and that Whites carry a special sin because of this act.
Your argument is basically this, Palin is a Republican and thus shouldn't be President. It's stupid beyond measure.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
