
In Search of a Bigger Boom (2012) - empath75
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bigger-boom/
======
otp124
I just listened to Dan Carlin's "Destroyer of Worlds" [1] podcast episode, and
it was very enlightening. I was modestly familiar with nuclear history, but
still learned a lot from this episode.

[1] [https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-
destroyer-...](https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-
worlds/)

------
SiempreViernes
The nuclear armed forces and its supporting structure sure is a scary place.

Working with making new weapons capable of little else but genocide is not for
those who think too much about the ethics of engineering.

~~~
jhayward
That is a particularly naive view of the role that nuclear weapons have played
over the past 75 years. It is also clear that many of the original designers
thought very deeply, much more so than 99% of all the people who opine away
from their armchairs today.

Nuclear weapons ethics are a very tricky subject to deal with in an informed,
realistic, and even-handed way. Most people who give knee-jerk opinions
haven't done a good job of dealing with them.

------
DmenshunlAnlsis
What a silly idea. Even at 50MT much of the energy was lost as it punched
through the atmosphere and out into space. If you’re really a lunatic who
wants to exterminate life, many smaller nuclear detonations is inherently more
efficient than one large detonation. Giant nuclear weapons are heavy, dirty,
inefficient, and pointless even if you’re the kind of person who wants to
obliterate whole populated regions for some reason.

~~~
sandworm101
>> Giant nuclear weapons are heavy, dirty, inefficient, and pointless

Pointless yes, but as bombs scale in size they actually become more efficient,
burning more of their fuel. The primary reason behind this is that the cores
of larger bombs maintain critical mass for a longer period of time before
blowing apart, resulting in more fission/fusion per weight of fuel. So they
are less radioactive, less dirty, than an equivalent number of smaller bombs.

~~~
DmenshunlAnlsis
The burn is potentially more efficient, but the bigger it is past a certain
point, you’re just blasting that energy out of the atmosphere. I suppose
burying or submerging a massive device would deliver more energy, but it would
be supremely dirty in that case. Airbursts are the best way to attack drag-
sensitive targets due to the formation of a Mach stem, and as a bonus they’re
cleaner than water or ground bursts. If you really want to destroy a target
use MIRVed warheads of lower yield, in the 70kt-1mt range, with overlapping
shockwaves. As a “bonus” that technology already comes standard and doesn’t
require new testing or exotic designs and delivery systems.

