Do people still underestimate the power of a nuclear bomb? (Page 2)

[FýrdracaDócincel]

I've always wondered how Tibbet got out of there with no real issue.

Based on the pictures he looks like he's flying fucking right next to the mushroom cloud. Maybe it just looks like that?

[Anon-ymous1]

Yes, because people are idiots, Roland. You know this.

[Liam_Hayden]

People either underestimate, or overestimate by assuming that the increase in blast radius increases linearly with the yield.

[ChgzDaniel]

Nuclear bombs aren't real so there is no underestimating them. Just look at footage of them, all laughably fake. Looking back I find it strange how people could believe in something as ridiculous.

[RolandCuthbert]

Wow. I guess the folks who lived through Hiroshima were fake too.

[ChgzDaniel]

Oh no the attack on Hiroshima was real, it just wasn't a nuclear bomb. It was a lot of real bombs with real explosives... instead of one big make-believe one.

[Nadim171]

I don't know if this girls is right or not but anyway the Hiroshima bomb wasn't nuclear.. it was an atomic bomb. (However it was neccessary)

[goaded]

@Nadim171 The two atom bombs dropped on Japan were most certainly nuclear weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb

And they most certainly exist.

[Nadim171]

However I don't think we should abolish mass destruction bombs they're useful sometimes like in Hiroshima.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Nadim171 Tomato. . . potato, dude.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Nadim171 Yeah, you gotta be 13 to be say something like that.

[ChgzDaniel]

Believe what you want. It might be a "conspiracy theory" but seriously they are made up. Firebombs and dynamite are real, but that's about it.

[Nadim171]

No, there is too many 60 years olds who say the same thing. If Americans didn't drop the Hiroshima bomb the japaneese would have invaded America. It was the only way and Japan started that war anyway it's their fault

[goaded]

@Nadim171 No-one who's just 60 years old was alive when the bombs were dropped in 1945, do the maths. The war was already pretty much won by then, Japan never had a hope of invading the US.

(Quick reminder: you're a 13 year old Egyptian boy, try not to forget this time.)

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded He's probably not 13. And probably not from Egypt. But he sure posts like he is 13 sometimes.

So he can be convincing.

[goaded]

"His" profile literally has this image:

""Deus Vult" (“God wills it” in Latin) was a battle cry called out by Crusaders at the declaration of the First Crusade in 1095. Online, the historical phrase has gained popularity among fans of the strategy video game series Crusader Kings, as well as the alt-right camp on Reddit's /r/The_Donald and 4chan's /pol/ (politically incorrect) board, typically in the context of discussions relating to Islamic extremism and the moe anthropomorphized humanization character Christ-chan. The phrase can be seen as the Christian equivalent of "Allahu Akhbar", an Islamic Arabic expression that is most well-known as the battle cry of Jihadhists in Western cultures." https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/deus-vult

[Fattyvapes16]

That’s not the biggest

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, we are certain they have 100megaton plus weapons. I am only talking about the biggest test.

[DakotaNorth]

Duck!
And cover!

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, I remember. But who else here remembers the Atomic Cafe?

[johnDohe]

No. They underestimate nuclear missiles tho

[RolandCuthbert]

What would be the difference? The missile only delivers the payload. This is what a single warhead can do.

[johnDohe]

Warheads are more efficient and less powerful but there are more of them on a single missile

[RolandCuthbert]

Right. . . so. . . what was your point?

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh. . . just so what we are clear.

Missiles deliver warheads, right?

So without a warhead (s), why would I fear a missile.

It has no payload.

[johnDohe]

? That is not what I said. Also a missile with no payload can still be a kinetic weapon

[RolandCuthbert]

And, why would I fear that when one nuclear warhead can kill 1 million people instantly?

[johnDohe]

Kinetic weapons are a lot worse

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, says who?

[johnDohe]

Do your own research if you want but they are inexpensice compared to nukes. Less detectable. Almost impossible to stop once it has been fired. Much more easy to maintain. And have so much power that it is too dangerous to test one because of the size of the affected area and magnitude of their power.

[tartaarsaus]

@johnDohe A kinetic weapon with like a load of 2000 kilogrammes of explosives would only cause relatively neglectable damage to a target.

@RolandCuthbert I'd say that the threat of nuclear weapons is much more credible when launched with ballistic missiles. Virtually no country has the means to shoot ICBMs or IRBMs down in any meaningful way, whereas planes with nukes can technically be intercepted.

[0112358]

Rods from god.

[RolandCuthbert]

I know what a kinetic weapon is dude. I just showed you what a 57megaton weapon did.

You only have theory. And this is not your original point. You claimed the missile was more destructive than the warhead. That's nonsense.

I don't have time to play on the internet.

[johnDohe]

I was makeing a joke because nuclear bombs compared to nuclear missiles are impractical nowadays.

[lanabug]

I've always been naive when it comes to my safety.

[Fattyvapes16]

Yea don’t hit a nuke with a hammer

[lanabug]

It's not like I'll die. What's the big deal?

[ROCKS128]

Those who dont have or had not shot!😂

[mattk1]

Tsar Bomba Fucking doomsday machine

[RolandCuthbert]

I am pretty certain there are far worse weapons than the Tsar Bomb. It was dropped in 1961.

[mattk1]

Probably

[CoffeeWC]

cool

[Lightning8]

hmmm

[Secretgardenblood]

Nice take.