It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Most Destructive Force "Tsar Bomba"

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Albert einstein once said:

[color=limegreen]“I don't know what weapons will be used in world war 3, but in world war 4 people will use sticks and stones.”



The 3 is inevitable. So powerful that it will take us back to stone age, or worse - Sticks & Stones.



Ingeniously Charting The Horrifying Power Of Today’s Nuclear Bombs

Infographic of the Day The mushroom cloud of Russia’s biggest nuke was 8 times the height of Mt. Everest. This infographic will give you a visceral feel for that that means.

It was called the Tsar Bomba, but the Russians nicknamed it the Kuz’kina Mat--or what roughly translates to the “We’ll Show You.” This 50,000-kiloton hydrogen bomb was the largest detonated nuke ever, and it’s considered the most powerful man-made creation in history.

Heck, it was immensely powerful on the galactic scale. If you built a bomb of the same size and shape from the material in the sun’s core, it would take 10 million years to generate the same amount of energy.

The human mind simply can’t fathom the numbers, but this extra-long infographic by Maximilian Bode , a former art director at The New Yorker, begins to put the Tsar Bomba into perspective, at least in terms of other nukes. It gives you, even just sitting at your desk, a sense of the horrifying scale of the bombs we’ve made. Working your way from the top, you can see how tiny Little Boy and Fat Man were--the devastating nukes that the US dropped on Japan during WWII. If you’ve ever seen media of the aftermath, you might be able to grasp some of the mass horror of those weapons. But they were tiny in comparison to Tsar Bomba. Tsar Bomba was 1,400 times more powerful than Little Boy and Fat Man, combined.





Scrolling through the image, seeing red square after red square as your fingers grow tired, begins to scale the true terror of the nuclear arms race between the US and Russia. We didn’t just decipher how to make nuclear weapons; we’d mastered them. When Tsar Bomba was dropped, the fireball had a 5-mile diameter that reached over 6 miles into the sky. From 62 miles away, the heat could still give you third degree burns. Windows were broken 560 miles away. Now consider this: Russia had actually planned to build Tsar Bomba twice as large, but they opted not to in order to reduce nuclear fallout.





0_o [color=grey]/ Shocking


edit on 16-7-2012 by iIuminaIi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The huge bomb is impressive, very impressive.

Its why the Government went to preventing the bomb from ever even getting here.

From the first Radar instillation to the modern Missile shield the US is pushing in europe.

Its the entire human history, Build a better Sword, someone will build a better shield, and so on till eventually we kill off everybody.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
coming to soon to a neighborhood near you



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Yeah, I think everyone here needs to see this graph. Thanks for fixing us up!!!



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Great....We have weapons that can destroy the entire planet.

Good job guys!!!

We can't feed the starving people in our own country but we can blow up anothers.

Humanity is the most stupid yet intellegent animal ever.

I will be proud when the day comes that we can say energy is free and everyone has food, water and shelter.

Until then...We are just stupid animals.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The biggest bomb on the graph was only 15,000 kilotonnes? That's nothing! Not even in the megatonne class!

Tsar Bomba was originally 100 MEGATONNES! But was then dialled down to be 50mt because the fallout would have landed in populated areas around the soviet union.
edit on 16-7-2012 by nostromo85 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
And this is nothing compared to the cobalt salted devices that were in development that were theorized at the 500 megaton plus range.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nostromo85
The biggest bomb on the graph was only 15,000 kilotonnes? That's nothing! Not even in the megatonne class!

Tsar Bomba was originally 100 MEGATONNES! But was then dialled down to be 50mt because the fallout would have landed in populated areas around the soviet union.
edit on 16-7-2012 by nostromo85 because: (no reason given)


Um, 15,000 KT would BE 15 megatons. So, yeah, in the megaton class.

Tsar Bomba is impractical. Above a certain size, you get rapidly diminishing returns in destruction area for your kilotonnage. Bigger is just NOT better.

Most of our stuff now is in the 125kt to 500kt range. That's the sweet spot. We've got some larger but not nearly as many. Over a megaton or so and you're only going to need it for specialty uses.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Big nuke bombs are USELESS...because of one simple thing : they need PLANES to deliver them, BIG and SLOW planes, that will be like target practice for AA guys.

Only the nukes on ICBM's (and not even all since the anti-missile tech is at least 80% accurate in Russia and USA and 90% in Israel) are a danger...but those nukes are , DUH, small.


As a romanian (my country was under soviet rule from 1947 till 1989) i know very well one thing about americans and russians :

Russians make BIG and USELESS stuff.Americans make small and good stuff.

In about every domain.


So, Tsar Bomba ? Very usefull for a Hollywood movie.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Recollector because: *

edit on 17-7-2012 by Recollector because: *



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Ok, Tsar bomba was built around the 60's or 70's, it was 30-40 years ago, what do they have today???? In comparation, take a look on the computers back in the 60-70's, and the computers today... technology evolved exponentially, so weapons evolved exponentially X 10.
That's why I don't doubt about climate weapons, space based lasers and so forth. Sci-fi is not only in the movies anymore.
Another interesting graph showing the power of nuclear bombs:

[ed itby]edit on 17-7-2012 by thecrippler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by thecrippler
Ok, Tsar bomba was built around the 60's or 70's, it was 30-40 years ago, what do they have today????


Much better nuclear weaponry than TB. Smaller. Lighter. More effective. No maintenance. Better very small yields for tactical use.



In comparation, take a look on the computers back in the 60-70's, and the computers today... technology evolved exponentially, so weapons evolved exponentially X 10.


Not in the direction of bigger nukes. Also a blatant assumption. For example, there's not a hotbed of activity in the realm of nuclear shaped charges, for example, although they were around about the time of TB. I don't think they've changed ANY. So where nukes have improved will be in lifecycle, deliverability, reduction of maintenance, reduction in size and detectability, design for smaller yields and so on. Also work for enhanced radiation options. If you want to make a better HAND, you don't need to emit lots of neutrons, you want lots of gammas.



That's why I don't doubt about climate weapons, space based lasers and so forth. Sci-fi is not only in the movies anymore.


Ah, the man on the moon fallacy. Space based lasers are old - but not effective against ground targets. Climate weapons are a CT meme.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Well... its the most ENERGETIC force humanity has ever released on a large scale... but not the most destructive. ICBMs now are not made larger; they are made smaller with multiple warheads that can be independently targeted to hit different areas. So while a 50 MT bomb will obliterate a large metropolitan area of 20 million... so will say, 20 or 30 warheads at 300 KT that are strategically detonated in some pattern to maximize infrastructure damage and/or lose of life, and it will do it much more efficiently with little chance of interception.

I think I read someone that an older Russian ICBM design had the specs for 50 MIRVs to be packed into one missile. It was nicknamed "Satan" by NATO (lol@propaganda and hypocrisy, the USs big ICBM was called the "peacekeeper"
)
edit on 7/17/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
4

log in

join