SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
GPS Info
pocotrader
To: Maurice Winn who wrote (302920)9/18/2024 10:46:32 AM
From: combjelly2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 360544
 
The biggest about 100 megatons. But one or 10 megaton are more normal.

No and no. The largest nuclear weapon ever built was the Tsar Bomba. While it had a design yield of 100 megatons, it was derated to about half that for its single test. That was decades ago, though. And no others have been built. Large nuclear weapons were in vogue back in the days where the Circular Error Probable(CEP, or the weapon has a 50% chance of landing within a certain distance) was measured in miles. So you needed a bigger boom so your limited number of warheads had a chance of killing its target. But that has changed quite a bit over the decades since those halcyon days of analog and mechanical controls. Too lazy to look it up, but I don't think any existing weapon clocks in above 1 megaton. Because there is no tactical or strategic reason for them. Other than compensating for certain personal shortcomings, they make no sense.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News