News U.S. Nuclear Weapon is a GAME CHANGER According to our Military Strategists.

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: SaturnFX
How many ways do we need to blow up the world?

Anyhow, game changer? currently the game is don't use a effin nuke.
Anything that changes that game, I don't want part of regardless of what side "wins"

Game changer because the new line of thinking is if these bombs are dialed to a small enough yield, they can be used in the battlefield when previously they were taboo.

Dangerous thinking IMO.

Seems like a waste of money. Like buying a Ferrari, but never taking that baby over 70mph.

a reply to: carewemust

We used to call them "dial a bomb" back in the late 60s and early 70s. You could set the yield for different targets.. The big improvement in this weapon is the ability of making it also a bunker busting penetrator....so you can really go deep to touch someone.

earth-penetrating attacks, low-yield strikes, high-yield attacks, above surface detonation and bunker-buster options.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Aye, but they get rather hot when used.

a reply to: ANNED

Well, they do say that the third time is the charm.

Personally, i imagine if America were ever to use another nuclear weapon in anger, tactical or otherwise, your nation will seal her own fate.

The implications of such on the world stage would not be received well, not well at all if truth be told.

Is there any fissile/ nuclear material wastage with 'dial a yield' nuclear bombs? Surely you need the nuclear material available within the bomb in order to switch between low yield or high yield so then you're just wasting valued enriched nuclear material.

Especially when there's countries out there that need it! Haha I JOKE!!!

Furthermore, with such a critical, high stakes mission surely you don't want to be making such big descisions on the fly, you should know exactly what you intend to do with a nuke before it gets of the ground, not picking between a shed destroyer and city wipeout in flight.

You prep and plan beforehand lol.

What's the point in increasing the tactical deployment options of said B-61 when the result of that nuclear strike is a nuclear counter-strike? I get why this evolution occurs strategically, but why must we continiously persuit things that can and will wipe us out? Wasn't there a treaty between Russia and the US to dismantle their respective nuclear arsenal, and not go all crazy with funding R&D of MIRVs and mini-nukes? Whatever happened to that START treaty?

Edit:
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

The same amount of fissile matter is present in all of these. The different yields result from the different mechanisms or "settings" used to initiate nuclear reaction. Some mechanisms convert to more of a boom than others.

Look at it this way(one example), you have a total of 1 meter square of explosives and you can control the detonation at a 5% interval (5% 10% 15% 20% etc.) If you use 50% of those explosives to initiate the nuclear reaction, you get X kt yield. If you use more/less, you get a higher or lower yield. Modern stuff is probably more advanced than this but you get the idea.


IT--