Why hasnt anyone developed nuclear weapons in the hundreds of gigaton ranges after Teller theorized it?

Why hasn’t anyone developed nuclear weapons in the hundreds of gigaton ranges after Teller theorized it?

I think it would be better to make just a few very large bombs that are capable of destroying the whole world because you can just detonate them in your own country under ground or on ground without risk of enemy interception

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hundreds of gigaton ranges
    go make the argument to the taxpayer that, no really, we need a bomb to kill ourselves with so nobody kills us.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They were fine with having 40000 individual warheads and you won’t be just killing yourselves everyone else will die too

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But we have to make good on our promise to the ayys, see bullet point 3.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ?t=44

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You could set the atmosphere on fire, you fool.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because then everybody would do it in an attempt to outdo each other, which we were trying to minimize post-cold war. Even the Russians recognized that it was a path with no happy ending, so they stopped with Tsar Bomba.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Yes Mr. Senator I need funding to make a bomb that will literally destroy the entire ecology of the Earth if ever used
    >Why would we ever fund that?
    >I think it would be cool, Mr. Senator.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not because it’s cool but because it’s a better way to guarantee your enemies destruction. Missiles have risk of interception

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it’s a better way to guarantee your enemies destruction
        While also guaranteeing your own. The goal of nuclear war is to be nuked as little as possible while nuking your enemy as much as possible. A weapon that gives a 100% chance of being nuked (by way of being so big it nukes the user) is a pointless weapon even in a full scale nuclear exchange.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A country like North Korea or China is already guaranteed its own destruction

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, still, why spend time, money, and manpower on a weapon that will doubly guarantee your own demise when you can just build a much more flexible conventional nuclear arsenal instead?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They aren’t flexible. If they launch one at any city or military target it’s over for them

              Because a bunch of smaller bombs is cheaper and more efficient.

              Doubtful that a few big bombs are more expensive then thousands of small bombs and their accompanying launch platforms

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well then you would be wrong Anon. MIRV is a thing. RAND ran the numbers back in the 60's and determined that a an ICBM with multiple warheads in the hundreds of KT range was better than dedicating the missile to a single megaton range warhead.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I’m not talking about a missiles with one 5 MT bomb on it. I’m talking about an extremely high yield bomb you blow up in your own country on the ground

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, if a megaton bomb was already a bad idea what makes you think a gigaton bomb would be less stupid? They determined that beyond a certain size, bombs became much less efficient. The destructive radius dropped off and became a bigger problem of diminishing returns. They didn't bother with a bomb that big because its so far beyond the point of moronation nobody who did it for a living gave it a moment's thought. Tsar bomba was already too big to carry on an ICBM and it was only 50mt. A gigaton bomb is not only a waste of resources, but you couldn't even deliver it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Again you don’t need to deliver it if it’s large enough

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If we make a bomb big enough to blow up the entire planet nobody will frick with us

                Anon, take your meds.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA, but the threat of global nuclear devastation is the only reason the world has put up with Russia for this long. NATO would have put an end to their bullshit years ago if we could have gotten away with it. Russians know they're fricked in a global nuclear exchange, but their pettiness in willing to take every first world nation with them is enough of a deterrent to put up with them. World ending nuke is the same concept.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                'ran the numbers' it's actually super simple. The 'area' of an explosion is 3 dimensional so a you need more than 2x the explosive power to double the area. Thus cluster bombs > regular bombs. You could probably destroy a European nations with a 100 10kt nukes and only make it very upset with a 1 Mt one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                let me put it this way, if they have a conventional nuclear arsenal and launch a nuke it's a 99% chance that their nation-state and way of life is destroyed. If they had and used an ultra giga nuke (which is more expensive to make than a normal nuclear bomb by the way) it is a 100% chance that their nation-state and way of life is destroyed. If you are in charge which would you choose; A less expensive 99% chance of destruction or a more expensive 100% chance of destruction?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you delusional morons think that everyone dies in a nuclear exchange it's just not true. most people would survive prompt and latent effects. saying
                >we won't accept 20-50% casualties
                >we MUST have 100% fatalities!
                is moronic.
                >no really nukes are magic
                they are just large stinky bombs.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your way of life is over. America wouldn’t accept the Kim dynasty continuing to have actual power just like in Japan. You would be reduced to impotent vasal

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You would be reduced to impotent vasal
                who do you think would have any military industry after the superfuzed MIRVs got their shipping labels?
                but then again, your English is breaking down, so I know you are some turdie wanking to the idea that maybe you could make somewhere else suck as bad as whatever shit-hole you live in.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If nooks are such a meme then why hasn't anyone used one in anger since Nagasaki?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                because having a big bomb go off inside a city is bad for business.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >le china doesn't have MAD meme
            It is an open secret China has about 10,000 warheads underground in mountain bunkers. Whether they have delivery systems for all those nukes is questionable but the "official" size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal being a 300 warhead 2nd strike force is a fricking joke to every serious analyst with a pulse. You really think a 1 billion person strong aggressive expansionist ethno-state run by a literal communist dictatorship is going to abide by a treaty limiting its nuclear arsenal to a token retaliatory force? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >the Chinese have twice as many nuclear warheads than Russia
              >based on?
              >well you see anon you must be a silly poopoo head if you disagree
              >yeah but do you have anything to prove this theory
              >le china an evil dictatorship and lots of people! DUH!
              >O-oh... okay
              >I am le smart
              Yeah, I'm sure the country that imports food is stockpiling nuclear weapons to the tune of 2x as much as russia and spending even less on maintaining them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>le china an evil dictatorship and lots of people! DUH!
                Yes.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >It came to me in a dream

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if we increase the yield of our nuclear arsenal it's less likely to get intercepted
      what the frick are you smoking moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        meant for

        Not because it’s cool but because it’s a better way to guarantee your enemies destruction. Missiles have risk of interception

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How are you going to shoot down a bomb that’s miles underground?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        NTA, but it makes sense. If you can make a nuke big enough, you can control the point of activation more than having to deliver it by whatever means to the enemy territory and activate it. It would require total fatalism that your own nation could not weather a nuclear onslaught though, so really, something like this would only be useful as a deterrent to prevent alien invasion. "You can have the planet, but all the green slime and clear goo goes with us."

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>Why would we ever fund that?
      Soviets are building one too
      >APPROVED

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        kek it's funny because it's tragically true

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because teller was a talentless hack who only rose to fame after Ulam did all the heavy lifting for him.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Same energy

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because a bunch of smaller bombs is cheaper and more efficient.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because people are gay and weak. We could have nuclear powered tanks launching tactical nukes right now but too many people care about muh ecology and muh fallout

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why should they?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: people thinking commiting suicune is MAD.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Past a certain point you don't really gain much more destructive power, most of it just goes out of the atmosphere into space.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The amount of fissile material becomes expensive
    The efficiency beyond a point delivers diminishing returns, and much of the blast effects would become extra-atmospheric wasted into space
    The utility of such a weapon is questionable
    Delivering such a weapon is logistically challenging
    There's a lot of reasons why massive nukes are moronic, and very good reasons why lower-yield, more precise Warheads in greater quantity are superior. Your question is shit, your thread is shit, and I hate you a lot.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Agree, though I think delivery is the biggest problem. Right now, having MIRVs with several hundred ballistic missiles is probably the perfect system. What other innovations are there at this point?

      big bomb is cool, but big bomb probably needs big bomber which is just all the eggs in 1 basket.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Big bomb doesn’t need to be delivered wherever it is is good enough

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Can't be intercepted if we set it off in our own country.
          Just make it big enough to take out the enemy from your own turf.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What other innovations are there at this point?
        Nuclear shaped charges for cracking Capital ships in orbit

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For one, it would weigh at least 100t so you’re not throwing it at anyone. For two, due to the explosion being omnidirectional, beyond a certain yield only so much of the energy is absorbed by the surroundings and a lot is basically lost to space. You’d be spending a lot of money and resources building something that is only marginally more destructive than a smaller, cheaper bomb.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can build it big enough to shatter the planet and turn it into an asteroid field. What happens to the atmosphere is irrelevant at that point

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You can build it big enough to shatter the planet
        no you can't.
        the gravitational binding energy of earth is roughly
        597,514,340,344,168,192 megatons TNT equivalent.
        now shut the frick up about shit you don't understand.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There’s enough fissionable material to do that

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            where? you get about 6 megatons per ton of bomb mass at theoretical maximum efficiency.
            >597,514,340,344,168,192 MT
            means you need 10 to the fricking 17th tons of fusile material. That's more than the entire world's lithium reserves, by a factor of ten million.
            so no, there isn't enough, now shut the frick up you stupid Black person.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Combine 10 warheads in a lithium triteride case and compress it after detonation

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                shut the frick up about things you don't understand.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                God you are so fricking stupid op
                Even if we magically took every last ounce of fissile material in the earth's crust, we'd have 65 trillion tons. We'd need one hundred quadrillion fricking tons of fissile material to "crack the planet". At which point you would be better off using whatever magic you used to get all the fissiles instead.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Compressing the explosions is what allows you to do it without a huge amount of material

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No you moronic ape Black person. Even if you somehow multiplied the yield compared to today's weapons by a thousand times you wouldn't have enough, not to mention all the other material you'd need.
                Your idea is impossible by every conceivable metric, and you are a gorilla brained dog in the image of man and i hope you go back to whence you came.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >they're like YOUSE TROLLING
                >and I'm like, I'm not trolling! I am Boxxy, you see? ^_^

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because nukes are not magic and bigger yield requires more material and as such more mass that needs to be moved to enemy location.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why hasn’t anyone developed nuclear weapons in the hundreds of gigaton ranges
    diminishing returns in practical terms, once the bomb gets big enough most of the energy just escapes into space

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A deterrent that kills yourself is not much of a deterrent

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because MIRVs do the same thing but more efficiently

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can do shoot down MIRVs when they are in their ICBMs

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no you can't.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even Russia has anti-ICBM anti-ballistic missiles. How many I don't know. The US has only a handful of them though.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            those don't shoot down MIRVs on the ICBM

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >You can do shoot down MIRVs when they are in their ICBMs
              >MIRVs when they are in their ICBMs
              Work on your reading anon. You shoot down the ICBM you destroy the MIRVs.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you can't shoot down the ICBM, that's my point you moron. there are no weapons systems that hits an ICBM on ascent.
                now shut the frick up about shit you know nothing about.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ndwm8m
                Laced Ors

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The American Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, formerly known as National Missile Defense (NMD), was first tested in 1997 and had its first successful intercept test in 1999. Instead of using an explosive charge, it launches a hit-to-kill kinetic projectile to intercept an ICBM

                >The Aegis ballistic missile defense-equipped SM-3 Block II-A missile demonstrated it can shoot down an ICBM target on 16 Nov 2020.[8]

                >In a November 2020 test, the US launched a surrogate ICBM from Kwajalein Atoll toward Hawaii in the general direction of the continental US, which triggered a satellite warning to a Colorado Air Force base.[9] In response, USS John Finn launched a missile which destroyed the surrogate ICBM, while still outside the atmosphere

                Durrrrr

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not enough tritium in the world for even one

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because it would be pointless

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >build giga nuke
    >stick it in a hole
    >make earth snap in half and eject from the solar system

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Could just build one that was similar in power to the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. It turned the atmosphere into a 400F oven

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Asteroid impact: 3×10^23 J
        Tsar Bomba: 2.1×10^17 J
        1.5 millions of them required, and that would cause the so called nuclear winter, it wasn't really the heat that killed them (those nearby yes) but all that aerosolized ocean floor blocking the sunlight.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what about a 10,000 MT one
          https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-biggest-nuclear-bom

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            1k of these would surely cause an extinction event, but still it won't make a scratch to the Earth itself tho.

            https://i.imgur.com/ZaebbZB.jpeg

            >build giga nuke
            >stick it in a hole
            >make earth snap in half and eject from the solar system

            The Earth allegedly survived a Mars-sized impactor and the remains of that impactor became the Moon.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Asteroid impact: 3×10^23 J
        Tsar Bomba: 2.1×10^17 J
        1.5 millions of them required, and that would cause the so called nuclear winter, it wasn't really the heat that killed them (those nearby yes) but all that aerosolized ocean floor blocking the sunlight.

        akshually turns out that there was a supervolcano that killed off most of dinosaurs before the Asteroid came

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Asteroid just sealed the deal and ensured the rise of the mammals.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ah yes, the Deccan Traps

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hundreds of gigaton
    Why do we need it at all? What kind of targets would require such a warhead?
    >destroying the whole world starting from your country
    Strategical advantage? Kamikaze and shaheed
    are ridiculously ineffective. You could just start a nuclear war with more "conventional" warheads with higher chances of winning or surviving it.
    >Chixulub
    >he kinetic energy of the impact was estimated at 72 teratonnes of TNT (300 ZJ).
    Even 72 teratones were not enough to wipe the life out. 700 Gigatones is just 1% of it, so with this explosion you will just blow up your country with some inconveniences.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the massive amount of radioactive fallout can help to snuff out life

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You don't need 700 Gigatons of TNT equivalent to cause massive radioactive fallouts over the world. Just blow up 10 - 100 MT at the Iron/Cobalt ore field and the physics will do the rest.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >physics
          you have no fricking clue what you are talking about.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At some point you'd hit the limit of what a nuclear bomb yield will be. This is because the explosion starts to rip apart the fissile material before it's had a chance to undertake fusion/fission.
    This was starting to occur on the low MT yield non-boosted weapons in the 60s resulting in lower than expected yields and lots of contamination.
    >Tldr - bomb blows itself apart before it's all gone boom and there's no way to prevent that from happening once you get to a certain threshold.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Once we figure out AM, it will be easy. In fact we can get a Gig device that would be man portable.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP, suppose you don't share a land border with your enemy because you're on different continents. What's your plan then?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bigger bomb so explosion reaches and destroys my enemy

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you can just detonate them in your own country under ground or on ground without risk of enemy interception
    Load it into submarine. You can easily build submarine that can carry 20000 tons payload.
    Park it USA coast.
    ....?
    Profit!

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Three reasons.
    Before the first nuclear tests they were scared they might reach ignition point of oxygen to cause a chain reaction of the world (possible).

    They had to come up with new math to find out what that number was.

    Finally tested it, and wasnt bad.

    Second; Tsar bomba detonated anywhere in the northern hemisphere meant russia would be eclipsed in radiation after it circles the globe. Decomissioned.

    Third, it has a limit. A true limit that requires tests, lots of them. Nobody wants tests.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So...what IS the ignition limit of the planets oxygen?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I've heard compelling evidence that it's simply not possible to string an arbitrary amount of secondaries together to make Le' Big Boom because the Munroe Effect is going to frick you and create just a big fizzle somewhere in the detonation chain.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're a fricking genious anon!

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People would rather let the enemy win then to have yourself and the enemy both lose

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >build a nuke big enough to blow up earth

    this sounds less like a weapon and more like a dead man's switch.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >just a few very large bombs that are capable of destroying the whole world
    You could make bombs in the gigaton range and still not achieve that. You could make bombs billions of times stronger than the largest ever detonated and still not achieve that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      10000 gigatons is enough to do it through fire and radiation

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs is still 10x that.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Asteroids don’t produce radiation

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The oceans wouldn't give a frick about that either. No matter what way you cut it, unless you literally crack the world in two you're not destroying the whole world or all the life on it.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              If the only food source for the survivors is the ocean that’s good enough destruction

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            dust-loft events increase global radiation levels.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And even with life being severely disrupted, Earth was still merrily orbiting the Sun like nothing much happened.
          The Earth formed shortly (geological time) after the Sun and survived until to this day, she's tough.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only way to truly obliterate the Earth completely is to find an equal sized Earth object composed entirely of anti-matter and collide the two. Nothing but pure radiation is left.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What about if you made a black hole on earth

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        black hole's eventually decay from hawking radiation and explode releasing their left over mass. So there would still technically be mass left over from the Earth, it would just be in a fine dust.

        anti-matter would turn it mostly pure energy. There will be some neutrinos and quarks left over though so I guess technically a small amount of Earth's mass will remain.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    shut about about shattering the planet. A very large hydrogen bomb surrounded by hundreds of tonnes of cobalt can kill most life on earth

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We could mine more radioactive material from asteroids to make a bigger bomb, but by then we could just launch asteroids at each other.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I asked ChatGPT what would happen if I lowered an original-design 100 megaton Tsar Bomba was lowered to the depth of the Kola borehole over the Yellowstone supervolcano and then detonated, and it got really upset and told me off.
    I told it "asking for a friend" and it said "got it!"

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Highlight of this ChatGPT conversation:

    >However, it's worth noting that turning Earth into an asteroid field would be catastrophic for life as we know it, and it's not something we should aim for or even consider lightly.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >what the Samson Option but moronic

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