US tests 'most dangerous nuclear weapon ever produced'

[SuburbanFarmer]

That's what I said. You can sort of get into an elliptical orbit if you are traveling at about 24,000 km/h. What you just gave shows the lowest circular orbital velocity at around 27,000 km/h.

I very much doubt an ICBM at apogee is going much faster than 20,000 km/h since it would risk just going into orbit.

So if you have a platform in orbit, it's already going to be upwards of 30,000 km/h. But that sort of makes the problem easier as long as you have warning of a launch and the platform is in range of the ICBM's projected apogee.

The bigger problem is that these ICBMs are mostly flying across the arctic and it's not like you can just park up there like you can near the equator. You'd need lots of platforms distributed in various polar orbits so that one or two of them are always covering the polar region.

In order to intercept, you have to be moving faster than the missile. When you're moving at suborbital speeds, that makes your altitude higher. Also, its going to be much harder to intercept in the upper atmosphere or low space, because that's actually when the object would be moving the fastest.

The slowest point would be right at launch, or after re-entry.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Was anyone else super disappointed when they found out the definition of 'gravity bomb.'

It is a very apocalyptic name for something that is very mundane.

Crank the dial-a-yield up on the FUFO B61-7 all the way to 340 kilotons; prolly gonna seem a little more supernova like then.

Around 50 million degrees F, so more than three times hotter than the core of the gravity bomb at the center of the Solar system.

Pfft,
Just another term for falling bomb.

Disappointed.

[Speaker to Animals]

Apogee would be about the slowest relative velocity, dude.

It's extremely difficult to intercept immediately after launch.You just don't have as much warning for that. Interception after reentry is pointless since the warheads will all have deployed.

[Penner]

Smitty......could you explain to us why this would be the most dangerous nuclear weapon ever?


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/847 ... rea-B61-12

More so than the Tsar Bomba?



Also, why are you posting all of your current events threads in the odds and ends subforum?

[Speaker to Animals]

Because Drumf is going to end the world when he drops the most dangerous nuclear weapon ever produced and covers the planet with a doomsday shroud.

[Penner]

[Smitty-48]

The RDS-220 was more a propaganda bomb, not a particularly practical weapon, and so unlikely to actually ever be used in a shooting war, and unlikey to ever reach its target even if was used, since it could only be delivered by a lumbering Tu-95.

In actual fact the RDS-220 was more a sign of Soviet weakness than strength, they were trying to compensate with propaganda, for what they couldn't really do in a operational sense in the face of SAC at the time, they didn't stand a chance against the Americans in 1961, and they well knew it, so it was the feline maneuver, trying to make themselves look bigger than they were.

The biggest practically deliverable Soviet warhead was maximum yield 25 megatons, on the R-36M heavy ICBM, NATO reporting name SS-18 Mod 1, which wasn't fielded until 1974.

[Ex-California]

I tactical nukes