Current Events > How big was the MOAB compared to the Nuke we dropped on Japan?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm trying to get a perspective of how big this bomb really is
---

It's pretty small. The MOAB is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, Little Boy was 15 kilo-tons.
---

AlephZero posted...

It's pretty small. The MOAB is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, Little Boy was 15 kilo-tons.

It's not small, it's just an example of how fucking huge nukes are.

The MOAB had a blast radius of one mile.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

AlephZero posted...

It's pretty small. The MOAB is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, Little Boy was 15 kilo-tons.

It's not small, it's just an example of how fucking huge nukes are.

The MOAB had a blast radius of one mile.

See I read that it had a blast diameter of one mile
---

plus we dropped the moab on a bunch of cave dwelling assholes instead of a city full of civilians

lots of innocent Japanese died, but the people killed by that moab were probably all human trash
---

TheGoldenEel posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

AlephZero posted...

It's pretty small. The MOAB is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, Little Boy was 15 kilo-tons.

It's not small, it's just an example of how fucking huge nukes are.

The MOAB had a blast radius of one mile.

See I read that it had a blast diameter of one mile

I heard "a mile in each direction" which would mean radius.
---

07% as powerful as the Hiroshima atomic bomb, and .0009% as powerful as the the largest nuke currently in the US arsenal.

.07%* nc

NintendoFanGirl posted...

07% as powerful as the Hiroshima atomic bomb, and .0009% as powerful as the the largest nuke currently in the US arsenal.

Jesus. I'm afraid of what happens if someone drops a Nuke anywhere.
---

known2FAIL posted...

NintendoFanGirl posted...

07% as powerful as the Hiroshima atomic bomb, and .0009% as powerful as the the largest nuke currently in the US arsenal.

Jesus. I'm afraid of what happens if someone drops a Nuke anywhere.

or if someone accidentally activates one
---

We're at the point of mutually assured destruction, someone drops a nuke today and the human race is probably done for.
---

Found a video of one of them being tested. It was incredibly underwhelming.

Still think the Fuel Air Bombs have a much more impressive explosion.
---

known2FAIL posted...

NintendoFanGirl posted...

07% as powerful as the Hiroshima atomic bomb, and .0009% as powerful as the the largest nuke currently in the US arsenal.

Jesus. I'm afraid of what happens if someone drops a Nuke anywhere.

Lol, yeah, now you can understand why Cold War paranoia was so strong.
---

The Tsar Bomba had a 100 Megaton Payload when it was originally architected but they dialed it back down to about 50 megatons because the plane they were going to drop it out of wouldn't be able to get out of the blast radius of the 100 megaton version.

By the way, you only need a few kilotons to level a whole city.
---

Fart_Tzar posted...

Found a video of one of them being tested. It was incredibly underwhelming.

Yeah I posted the YouTube video in another thread. Isn't very impressive at all.

ChromaticAngel posted...

The Tsar Bomba had a 100 Megaton Payload when it was originally architected but they dialed it back down to about 50 megatons because the plane they were going to drop it out of wouldn't be able to get out of the blast radius of the 100 megaton version.

By the way, you only need a few kilotons to level a whole city.

I think the real question is, yeah you can "level" (not really, you still have standing structures with those bombs) a city with current bombs, but what about those bombs you see in anime that 100% vaporize everything in a perfect sphere around the bomb. What kind of energy would be required for that kind of absolute destruction?

EDIT: Like this http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SphereOfDestruction
---

Fart_Tzar posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

The Tsar Bomba had a 100 Megaton Payload when it was originally architected but they dialed it back down to about 50 megatons because the plane they were going to drop it out of wouldn't be able to get out of the blast radius of the 100 megaton version.

By the way, you only need a few kilotons to level a whole city.

I think the real question is, yeah you can "level" (not really, you still have standing structures with those bombs) a city with current bombs, but what about those bombs you see in anime that 100% vaporize everything in a perfect sphere around the bomb. What kind of energy would be required for that kind of absolute destruction?

EDIT: Like this http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SphereOfDestruction

You can achieve that effect with the nukes we already have.

The reason why it doesn't happen is you'd have to let the bomb hit the ground to get that effect. If you did that, the blast radius would be reduced and the bomb would be overall less destructive than if you didn't go for the crater effect.

note that most buildings standing would be towards the perimeter of the blast. A nuclear explosion has "4" areas of destruction.

1. "Ground Zero" or "Impact Radius" if you are here you are vaporized
2. The Explosion area, where things are destroyed because of the force of the bomb itself
3. The fireball area where things are destroyed because of the heat/radiation from the bomb.
4. The fallout area, where things are really fucking banged up or dead from a weaker amount of radiation but many buildings would remain standing.
---

Fax_Machine posted...

Fart_Tzar posted...

Found a video of one of them being tested. It was incredibly underwhelming.

Yeah I posted the YouTube video in another thread. Isn't very impressive at all.

The bomb is nicknamed the tunnel buster because it penetrates the ground slightly before exploding as the main purpose is to blow up bunkers / tunnels that people are hiding in. So it looks underwhelming but it's pretty fucking nasty.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

The Tsar Bomba had a 100 Megaton Payload when it was originally architected but they dialed it back down to about 50 megatons because the plane they were going to drop it out of wouldn't be able to get out of the blast radius of the 100 megaton version.

By the way, you only need a few kilotons to level a whole city.

I vaguely recall reading that the full payload would have cracked the earth's crust or some insane shit like that
---

I found this interesting comparison chart a few years back on nukes.


---

butthole666 posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

The Tsar Bomba had a 100 Megaton Payload when it was originally architected but they dialed it back down to about 50 megatons because the plane they were going to drop it out of wouldn't be able to get out of the blast radius of the 100 megaton version.

By the way, you only need a few kilotons to level a whole city.

I vaguely recall reading that the full payload would have cracked the earth's crust or some insane shit like that

The earth's crust is extremely thick. While it is the "thinnest layer" it is still so fucking thick that we drill over 10km to get to oil and still don't get anywhere close to piercing all the way through to the mantle.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

butthole666 posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

The Tsar Bomba had a 100 Megaton Payload when it was originally architected but they dialed it back down to about 50 megatons because the plane they were going to drop it out of wouldn't be able to get out of the blast radius of the 100 megaton version.

By the way, you only need a few kilotons to level a whole city.

I vaguely recall reading that the full payload would have cracked the earth's crust or some insane shit like that

The earth's crust is extremely thick. While it is the "thinnest layer" it is still so fucking thick that we drill over 10km to get to oil and still don't get anywhere close to piercing all the way through to the mantle.

I always heard that they thought it might burn up the atmosphere... side from also killing the poor guys that dropped it.
---

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

I always heard that they thought it might burn up the atmosphere... side from also killing the poor guys that dropped it.

The "Burn the atmosphere" legend comes from while USA was R&Ding the first nuke (the one we tested in Arizona and not what got dropped in Japan), there were several scientists concerned that if we actually set it off, it could start a reaction that might not stop and set the atmosphere of the whole planet on fire.

now, granted, there were probably other scientists saying that wouldn't happen, but still.
---

NintendoFanGirl posted...

07% as powerful as the Hiroshima atomic bomb, and .0009% as powerful as the the largest nuke currently in the US arsenal.

So our largest nuke has a 9000 mile blast radius? Wouldn't that basically fuck the whole world up?
---

Payzmaykr posted...

NintendoFanGirl posted...

07% as powerful as the Hiroshima atomic bomb, and .0009% as powerful as the the largest nuke currently in the US arsenal.

So our largest nuke has a 9000 mile blast radius?

It doesn't quite work like that. The more power you have, the more extra power you need to further increase the blast radius.
---

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

I found this interesting comparison chart a few years back on nukes.

Holy fuck
---

littlebro07 posted...

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

I found this interesting comparison chart a few years back on nukes.

Holy fuck

More reason why we need to be friends with Russia and not enemies.
---

Payzmaykr posted...

NintendoFanGirl posted...

07% as powerful as the Hiroshima atomic bomb, and .0009% as powerful as the the largest nuke currently in the US arsenal.

So our largest nuke has a 9000 mile blast radius? Wouldn't that basically fuck the whole world up?

Diminishing returns.

Pi r cubed to fill a sphere, iirc.
As the sphere grows the energy required to fill [have created it] grows quicker.

Also, .0009% times 1000 is only 1% so you're off a couple factors.
---

Payzmaykr posted...

littlebro07 posted...

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

I found this interesting comparison chart a few years back on nukes.

Holy fuck

More reason why we need to be friends with Russia and not enemies.

lol if you think USA isnt hiding shit more powerful than that
---

What would the destructive power equivalent be if we measure it in tornados? Are we talking like El Reno levels of destruction or Tri-State Tornado?
---

Ganon19 posted...

Payzmaykr posted...

littlebro07 posted...

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

I found this interesting comparison chart a few years back on nukes.

Holy fuck

More reason why we need to be friends with Russia and not enemies.

lol if you think USA isnt hiding shit more powerful than that

To quote Dr. Strangelove,
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you KEEP IT A SECRET! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?
---

Ganon19 posted...

lol if you think USA isnt hiding shit more powerful than that

The time for 'more powerful' has long past. The game has shifted to speed and accuracy.

Fax_Machine posted...

Ganon19 posted...

lol if you think USA isnt hiding shit more powerful than that

The time for 'more powerful' has long past. The game has shifted to speed and accuracy.

Yeah. What's the point of more powerful weapons if the blast is mostly wasted, several smaller bombs are more efficient at blowing up a city instead of sky.
Hence why we use MIRVs.
---

Psycho_Poodle posted...

plus we dropped the moab on a bunch of cave dwelling assholes instead of a city full of civilians

lots of innocent Japanese died, but the people killed by that moab were probably all human trash

yeah I wonder how many of the 26,000 bombs that the american government detonated last year alone hit human trash.
---

Go read some first hand accounts of the Hiroshima bombing. The stuff is literal nightmare fuel at times. For instance, a woman tries to help an old man sitting on the step of a house as the fires burn around her, only to find his skin sloughs off when she grabs his hand, and his body slumps to the ground leaving a silhouette burned on the wall behind him. The actual effect, on people, of those in the burn radius is absolutely horrifying (And, of course, those who slowly die from exposure to fissile fallout).
---

Neo7 posted...

What would the destructive power equivalent be if we measure it in tornados? Are we talking like El Reno levels of destruction or Tri-State Tornado?

Tornados are extremely destructive but they only damage small areas.

In terms of natural disasters (not counting astronomical events), from worst to least worst you've got...

Stratovolcano eruption.
High-end Richter earthquake
Hurricane
Flood

A tornado would rank between the volcano and the earthquake but covers very little amount of area. Small nukes (Hiroshima-level) are probably weaker than some volcanoes. Tsar Bomba is probably much more powerful than anything else except for the theoretical supervolcano underneath Yellowstone.
---

Arcanine2009 posted...

Psycho_Poodle posted...

plus we dropped the moab on a bunch of cave dwelling assholes instead of a city full of civilians

lots of innocent Japanese died, but the people killed by that moab were probably all human trash

yeah I wonder how many of the 26,000 bombs that the american government detonated last year alone hit human trash.

a shitload?
---

yem69420 posted...

Arcanine2009 posted...

Psycho_Poodle posted...

plus we dropped the moab on a bunch of cave dwelling assholes instead of a city full of civilians

lots of innocent Japanese died, but the people killed by that moab were probably all human trash

yeah I wonder how many of the 26,000 bombs that the american government detonated last year alone hit human trash.

a shitload?

Honestly, probably all of them including the one that blew up the Doctors Without Borders hospital.

It's not a matter of hitting or not hitting human trash, it's a matter of is the collateral damage worth it.
---

To note, it is very easy for us to build bombs stronger than the Tsar Bomba. In a thermonuclear warhead, you can continue to increase the potency by merely adding more fusion stages to the bomb indefinitely. Theoretically, you could build a bomb strong enough to literally destroy the world, assuming you had a way of effectively deploying it.

The problem is, there isn't a point. When you have enough warheads to effectively end society, you don't need something more powerful. Hell, you don't even need better ways to deploy them at this point. It is clear, if both armaments are fully spent, the effect on the world would be so unappreciably devastating that it doesn't made if only 10% actually hit.
---

Just read a bit about Tsar Bomba. Apparently, it leveled a village over 20 miles away, and could have caused 3rd degree burns at 60 miles away. It also cause the airplane that dropped it to fall a little less than a mile at 24 miles away. Crazy shit, I can see why they reduced the yield.
---

Do you think the US has a secret way to disable nukes if they are targeting us?
---

Neo7 posted...

What would the destructive power equivalent be if we measure it in tornados? Are we talking like El Reno levels of destruction or Tri-State Tornado?

Shark level.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

MIRVs

Name the last city we blew up.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/emacdonald/the-end-of-mirvs-for-u-s-icbms

Oh whats that they're phasing out MIRVS because there are better alternatives.

known2FAIL posted...

Do you think the US has a secret way to disable nukes if they are targeting us?

It's not a "secret" way. We have a variety of missile defense shields that intercept ballistic missiles en route. Even neutron nuclear warheads that are designed to create a chain reaction explosion in air.
---

If I remember right anything more powerful than the Tzar Bomb wouldn't do all that much more. As it was the fire ball of the Tzar Bomb didn't touch the ground as the reflected blast wave pushed it back up. After a certain point most of the downward blast wave gets reflected by the earth and disrupts then expanding part of the wave that's moving horizontally.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Neo7 posted...

What would the destructive power equivalent be if we measure it in tornados? Are we talking like El Reno levels of destruction or Tri-State Tornado?

Tornados are extremely destructive but they only damage small areas.

In terms of natural disasters (not counting astronomical events), from worst to least worst you've got...

Stratovolcano eruption.
High-end Richter earthquake
Hurricane
Flood

A tornado would rank between the volcano and the earthquake but covers very little amount of area. Small nukes (Hiroshima-level) are probably weaker than some volcanoes. Tsar Bomba is probably much more powerful than anything else except for the theoretical supervolcano underneath Yellowstone.

Nah krakatoa was much larger than the tzar bomba and that's not even the largest volcano eruption in modern history
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

it's a matter of is the collateral damage worth it.

Phrases like this always make me weep because it shows how good we've become as dehumanising killing innocent people.
---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Go read some first hand accounts of the Hiroshima bombing. The stuff is literal nightmare fuel at times. For instance, a woman tries to help an old man sitting on the step of a house as the fires burn around her, only to find his skin sloughs off when she grabs his hand, and his body slumps to the ground leaving a silhouette burned on the wall behind him. The actual effect, on people, of those in the burn radius is absolutely horrifying (And, of course, those who slowly die from exposure to fissile fallout).

Just reading this alone made my stomach churn.. awful.. absolutely fucking awful.
---

Fax_Machine posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

MIRVs

Name the last city we blew up.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/emacdonald/the-end-of-mirvs-for-u-s-icbms

Oh whats that they're phasing out MIRVS because there are better alternatives.

You should read articles if you're going to post them.

They're not phasing them out because there are better alternatives, they're being phased out because they're so scary effective, that it promotes a climate of fear that a first strike might be the only way to survive.

And we're only getting rid of them on ground based missiles (Minuteman 3) because it's putting your eggs in 1 basket. Our nuclear subs still carry them because the chances of their missiles being knocked out of the sky is fucking slim to none.
---

Robin_Dude posted...

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Go read some first hand accounts of the Hiroshima bombing. The stuff is literal nightmare fuel at times. For instance, a woman tries to help an old man sitting on the step of a house as the fires burn around her, only to find his skin sloughs off when she grabs his hand, and his body slumps to the ground leaving a silhouette burned on the wall behind him. The actual effect, on people, of those in the burn radius is absolutely horrifying (And, of course, those who slowly die from exposure to fissile fallout).

Just reading this alone made my stomach churn.. awful.. absolutely fucking awful.

I've been to the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum.

It's... certainly quite something.

My best comparison is that it's like going to a Holocaust Museum, except everyone and everything was wrecked at once instead of over a period of time. Of course, there is also the effects after the blast.
---