Quote:

---

twighead said:
5 10mt nukes are far more useful than one 50mt or even one 100mt, the effects of a nuclear bomb reduce exponentially in relation to the size.

MIRV's for the win...


every single one of those lines represent what would be a 5-10mt warhead.

---

Quote:

---

twighead said:
5 10mt nukes are far more useful than one 50mt or even one 100mt, the effects of a nuclear bomb reduce exponentially in relation to the size.

---

Quote:

---

rodfarva said:
no, im sticking to this.

I dont care who built the tallest, biggest, or badist.

you cant put any nuclear detonation in front of the first because they had no idea what would happen. There was even the thought that a blast of this type would create a chain reaction that could burn off the earths atmosphere. (they tried it any way, lol)

If i told someone in 1950 that there was a bomb that could melt the city of chicago they would have shrugged and said damn, thats bad, but i wouldnt want to be in chicago if any nuclear bomb went off there.
If i told you in 1930 that there was a bomb that could destroy downtown chicago in one burst and leave the rest of the city pretty much unlivable you would have been shocked and terrified of such a weapon (if you believed me.)

---