| Topic List |
Page List:
1 |
|---|---|
|
Lokarin 01/05/20 9:15:23 PM #1: |
... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Mead 01/05/20 9:19:06 PM #2: |
I shit pieces of nukes for breakfast
--- Lemonheads ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
CTLM 01/05/20 9:22:35 PM #3: |
Weakest nuke still stronger
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-moab-mother-of-all-bombs-2017-4 Edit- "The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II had explosive yields of about 15 to 20 kilotons, equal to that of 15,000 to 20,000 tons of TNT. Lowther says the MOAB doesn't even represent a fraction of the destructive power of the US's weakest nuclear weapon" and that's not even taking into account radiation ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Sahuagin 01/05/20 10:32:55 PM #4: |
the smallest tactical nuke is something like 10-20 tons TNT (not kilotons, tons)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) the largest non-nuclear bombs are between 10 and 40 tons TNT. (MOAB is 11, FOAB is supposedly 44 but may be exaggerated) so I guess, the tiniest of tiny nukes is roughly comparable to the hugest of huge conventional explosives. --- ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
SinisterSlay 01/05/20 11:07:05 PM #5: |
Nukes are terrible weapons though. They are great for killing civilians and that's about it. Even Russia doesn't really just want to randomly kill civilians.
--- He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence Lose 50 experience ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Zeus 01/06/20 12:16:18 AM #6: |
SinisterSlay posted...
Nukes are terrible weapons though. They are great for killing civilians and that's about it Uh, what? Weapons that decimate large areas are pretty damn effective. As for killing civilians, you're better off just going with chemical weapons. --- (\/)(\/)|-| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
| Topic List |
Page List:
1 |
