The power of nuclear bombs is vastly overestimated.

The power of nuclear bombs is vastly overestimated. The only reason so many died in Hiroshima is because they built their cities out of wood, but we don’t do that in the first world.

If you want to destroy New York you would need to use hundreds of bombs because only the fireball itself could knockdown concrete reinforced buildings and the fireball is relatively small. The people inside the buildings would be killed but there’s thousands of cities and not enough bombs for them all so repopulation wouldn’t be difficult

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hiroshima bomb is like a little girl slap compared to current nuclear weapons anon.
    Also current ones drop on you 5 o 6 at the same time.
    Yeah, they are not overestimated at all.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hiroshima couldn’t even destroy a building 600m below it. The bombs mostly derive their killing power from the thermal effects

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You might be literally moronic. The building in OP's image was directly underneath the blast. All the energy pushed it downwards instead of sideways. The same thing happened to the asteroid blast in tunguska. All the trees around the blast were flattened while the ones in the center remained upright.

        Nuclear bombs only have a blast radius of 5 or so miles. You would need more than one to take out an entire city. Which if you have seen literally any nuclear targeting plan that's exactly what they plan on doing. Even in the fricking fallout series the show multiple blasts on a single city.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Hiroshima couldn’t even destroy a building 600m below it.

        Hiroshima was hit by the little boy bomb which had a yield of 15,000 tons of TNT.

        Current in service minuteman III missiles carry multiple warheads which are 350,000 tons of TNT each. These are weak by comparison to advanced fusion bombs which they found produced up to 15,000,000 tons of TNT in the castle bravo test.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I feel that /k/'s IQ has dropped by 30 points lately

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yea, disinformation and other shit has had a serious up tick.
      I guess it's us election time...

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Surely there must be countless articles on nuke efficiency from the cold war tests? Or are they classified? Just go read those.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    smoking status?

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i take shits that smell better than ny

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Also radiation only lasts a few days so you can just stay inside and wait it out

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't guess... know for sure! :

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      According to nuke map the building in the OP would be demolished

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > implying it models individual buildings

        You really are a little whiny b***h when presented with actual science, eh Pajeet?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It doesn’t model anything. It’s just pseudoscience to make rubes like yourself think you are smart

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is this model pseudo science?
            Amuse me

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What? Anon, you literally just acknowledged that the nuke map was wrong and that's the other dudes point.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't acknowledge anything you.
                Is that what you have to resort to?
                Just plain lying?
                You are talking out of your ass, pajeet, and you know it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your cope of "but it doesn't model individual buildings" is a tacit admission of it not correctly modeling the building in this case, if you want to make an actual point you'll need to compare results from other nuke detonations showing that nuke maps predictions are valid, sweaty.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're moronic.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >absolutely seething moron seethes moronicly

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are a pathetic little loser and I am not wasting my time with your stupid games.
                Frick off to /misc/

                Lmao I didn't even have a dog in this race I'm just pointing out your shits moronic and you argue like a gay
                >Captcha: xSAD

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are a pathetic little loser and I am not wasting my time with your stupid games.
                Frick off to /misc/

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Haha you’re so mad and so wrong

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s just pseudoscience
            ... he says, axiomatically, without bothering to make an argument in support of his completely unfounded belief

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >According to nuke map the building in the OP would be demolished
        Nope. Little Boy was detonated at ~2000'. Here is a link to the effects:
        >https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=15&lat=34.39468&lng=132.45462&hob_opt=2&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=1968&psi=200,20,5,1&zm=12
        Guess what? 200psi, which is necessary to ensure destruction of heavy concrete, stone, reinforced concrete/steel and similar structures, doesn't even exist at all at that altitude, need to be under half of that. The 20psi level needed merely to heavily damage/partly demolish such buildings (and that one is heavily damaged and partly demolished) was also only about 1100' across, and the altitude isn't optimal for it either. It was a crude effort of course, the first one.

        If we change that to the 350kt yield of a W-78 and optimize for 20psi, the radius increases to 1.23 miles (6500'). 6-8 of those on MIRV would be plenty to near obliterate a city in terms of killing most of the population.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You would need a lot more than that. Cities are 50 miles across

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hiroshima got nuked
    >is a beautiful and prosperous city
    >nukes are shit
    No, this is solely thanks to the US occupation and western investments. That's the true power of good allies.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Detroit had a lot of western investment, too. We all know the real reason that Japan prospered.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        cool it with the racism anon this is a blue board

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Detroit is becoming a tech bro haven. It’s only a matter of time before it turns into a generic gentrified city and loses it’s gritty appearance.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    New York will be one of the first cities to be destroyed in WW3, tho. The future generations will talk about it and LA like Sodom and Gomorrah.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >they built their cities out of wood, but we don’t do that in the first world.
    anon, I...

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this is a fricking slide thread. This ESL homosexual deliberately ignores the posts that say most cities would be hit by more than one nuke.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *