World Nuclear Arsenal status as on 2012

[LeGenD]

Yes so thinking about Nuclear weapon are not as deadly as people make them out to be.
people think nukes could destroy a country, but you would need many of them.

Actually no.

Nuclear blasts are the least of the worries. The after-effects in the form of radioactive fallout, climatic disturbances, and EMP are actually much more feared.

Make no mistake; a global nuclear war will end human civilization and make Earth unsuitable for life for many many years.

? I'm talking about yield too.

Ok.

However, no missile has been developed that could carry Tsar Bomba sized warhead.

This was a bomber based nuclear weapon.

 

[punjabimunda]

Actually no.

Nuclear blasts are the least of the worries. The after-effects in the form of radioactive fallout, climatic disturbances, and EMP are actually much more feared.

Make no mistake; a global nuclear war will end human civilization and make Earth unhabitable for life for many many years.Ok.

However, no missile has been developed that could carry Tsar Bomba sized warhead.

lets do it

 

[nishmith]

so what............it doesnt matter.........we are concerned with pak.........

 

[Skull and Bones]

Yes so thinking about Nuclear weapon are not as deadly as people make them out to be.
people think nukes could destroy a country, but you would need many of them.

however if anti matter bombs get created, they will make nukes look like firecrackers.

You don't target each and every town, city, village to destroy a country. 10 Nuclear warhead of 100 KT yield can send country like US back to stone age.

Think about it.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

Actually no.

Nuclear blasts are the least of the worries. The after-effects in the form of radioactive fallout, climatic disturbances, and EMP are actually much more feared.

Make no mistake; a global nuclear war will end human civilization and make Earth unhabitable for life for many many years.

I am talking about the blast wise. anyway that is why I do not like nukes, it is because they punish un born people who have done nothing wrong. as soon as terrorist nation like USA gets rid of their nukes and the other will follow then the world will be a safe place.

You don't target each and every town, city, village to destroy a country. 10 Nuclear warhead of 100 KT yield can send country like US back to stone age.

Think about it.

sure but you can send a country bankrupt without nukes.
Think about it.

 

[Skull and Bones]

sure but you can send a country bankrupt without nukes.
Think about it.

I see your point, but having nukes help.

 

[Audio]

Ok.

However, no missile has been developed that could carry Tsar Bomba sized warhead.

This was a bomber based nuclear weapon.

But they did half of that in the 70's.
In any case the concept of a mega bomb is pretty much obsolete. I read in some scientific journal that calculations were made if the Tsar bomb would be actually 100 Mt as intended the force would be so big it would tilt Earth a little off it's 23,5 degree axis.

 

[LeGenD]

I am talking about the blast wise. anyway that is why I do not like nukes, it is because they punish un born people who have done nothing wrong. as soon as terrorist nation like USA gets rid of their nukes and the other will follow then the world will be a safe place.

Nukes can make life hell for survivors.

sure but you can send a country bankrupt without nukes.
Think about it.

Flawed economic model can do that.

But they did half of that in the 70's.
In any case the concept of a mega bomb is pretty much obsolete. I read in some scientific journal that calculations were made if the Tsar bomb would be actually 100 Mt as intended the force would be so big it would tilt Earth a little off it's 23,5 degree axis.

I do not think that a bomb of this size is useless.

A single bomb of this size can send a large country back to stone age.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

I see your point, but having nukes help.

Yes but Iran does not have any.

 

[Audio]

I do not think that a bomb of this size is useless.

A single bomb of this size can send a large country back to stone age.

So can 10 MIRV's. More thoroughly. Also it is debatable if a blast radius of 5 km would bring a large country back to the stone age.

Look you have to understand...back in those days guidance was really bad and it was intended that even if the bomb falls a several kilometers off target the sheer scale of it would assure target destruction.
Also in a total war, yield per bomber would count. There was no telling how many would get shot down and so the ones that didnt had to pack an apropriately big punch.

In terms of physical destructiveness, much of its high yield was inefficiently radiated upwards into space. It has been estimated that detonating the original 100 Mt design would have released fallout amounting to about 25 percent of all fallout emitted since the invention of nuclear weapons. Hence, the Tsar Bomba was an impractically powerful weapon. It was decided that such a test blast would create too great a risk of nuclear fallout and a near certainty that the release plane would be unable to reach safety before detonation.

Also from wiki's vast reservoir of wisdom Comes from a shady source though.

The weight and size of the Tsar Bomba limited the range and speed of the specially modified bomber carrying it and ruled out its delivery by an ICBM (although on December 24, 1962, a 50 Mt ICBM warhead developed by Chelyabinsk-70 was detonated at 24.2 Mt to reduce fallout)

Code Name: ???
Time and Date: December 24, 1962 (GMT)
Location: D-2 Sector, Zone C,
Sukhoy Nos Peninsula, Novaya Zemlya
Height: 12000 feet
Type: Air Burst - Air Drop
Predicted Yield: ---
Actual Yield: 24.2 megatons

This was a 'clean' test of a massive 50 megaton ICBM warhead being developed by Chelyabinsk-70. The yield of the warhead was scaled down by half for the test to reduce fallout that would have been caused by a full-scale test. Andrei Sakharov unsuccessfully tried to stop this test on the grounds that it would unnecessarily increase global nuclear fallout.

Shady source

 

[Skull and Bones]

Yes but Iran does not have any.

Then Iran should keep low profile until they have one.

 

[LeGenD]

So can 10 MIRV's. More thoroughly.

Multiple nuclear explosions would be obviously more effective and more destructive. They will cripple a nation at rapid pace.

Also it is debatable if a blast radius of 5 km would bring a large country back to the stone age.

Again! blast radius is not important. The span of its radioactive fallout and EMP coverage will do the trick. Think about its economic ramifications.

Look you have to understand...back in those days guidance was really bad and it was intended that even if the bomb falls a several kilometers off target the sheer scale of it would assure target destruction.
Also in a total war, yield per bomber would count. There was no telling how many would get shot down and so the ones that didnt had to pack an apropriately big punch.

I agree.

 

[ali786]

Actually we have Total Fissile Material reserves for 189 Nuclear Warheads of 100 KT yield as of 2010 , and India no longer produce Weapons Grade Plutonium , this was as part of Nuclear deal signed between India-USA

I read somewhere , that India can assemble 105+ Warheads in 6 Months , apart from 80+ Deployed , should a push comes to shove

Yes ok. But what if shove comes to push?

Joking aside though, does anyone know the highest yield warhead that pakistan have and what is Indias?

 

[Varunastra]

Yes ok. But what if shove comes to push?

Joking aside though, does anyone know the highest yield warhead that pakistan have and what is Indias?

just know the fact that we have thermo nukes while u have not!

 

[ali786]

just know the fact that we have thermo nukes while u have not!

alright mate, no need to go all hyper