(09-08-2023, 08:05 PM)Ninurta Wrote:(09-08-2023, 06:22 PM)Snarl Wrote:(09-06-2023, 11:04 AM)OmegaLogos Wrote: And worse case scenario is Russia deploys all 1200 ICBM's and 200 are shot down [67% kill ratio by Aegis missiles] = leaving 1000 ICBM's making it through that protective net, to hit their targets world wide.
In a worst case scenario if each ICBM carries a single warhead then 200 Satan-1 and Satan-2 missiles [each carrying a 20MT warhead = 4GT] and 800 other ICBM's [each carrying a 225KT warhead = 180MT] then the world would suffer 4.180 GigaTons of damage.
Scientists worked out that if 100 x 20KT nukes were detonated world wide in the same hour the planet as we know it would be destroyed = a mere 2MT which is 25 times less than the Tzar Bombs [50MT] damage.
We knew better than that back in the '80s. "Destroyed" is more like their buzzword. I mean, I wouldn't want to instantly revert back to the Stone Age ... but, we wouldn't all be killed outright.
And, truthfully, the things that are strategic targets are things that might make you go, "Huh!! I never would have thought off that, but that's pretty damned smart if you really wanna knock a country down and keep it down for good."
Amen to that! It looks like someone dusted off their old 1980's propaganda playbook and gave OL an unhealthy dose of it.
Someone is blowing smoke up someone's ass to claim that any ICBMs have 20 MT warheads. Even during the height of the Cold War frenzy, the largest warhead deployed was THREE MT, and that was very few. There is a good reason for that. In terms of nuclear bombs, bigger is not better. The destructive power increases as the CUBE ROOT of the yield, not linearly. In other words, the smaller the explosion the better, not the bigger the better. You get more bang for your buck.
In simpler terms, "the cube root of the yield" means that an explosion gets less efficient as it gets more "powerful", and exponentially so. To double the destructive radius of a nuke, you have to increase it's explosive power by EIGHT times (2x2x2), not just two times. To merely triple the destructive radius, you have to increase the yield by TWENTY SEVEN times (3x3x3). That is because the explosive force radiates in three dimensions, not just one. A lot of it gets wasted just moving air molecules around instead of blowing up buildings and people.
Because of that property, a distributed barrage of 100 kt bombs does a lot more damage than one big Tsar Bomba. So nuclear forces have gone mostly to smaller warheads, 100 to 300 kt,and loaded them into MIRV warheads for a shotgun effect. So far as is public knowledge, ALL of the 1 to 3 MT warheads, the biggest we had deployed during the Cold War, have been decommissioned and replaced with smaller 100 to 300 kt warheads, each having about 1/10th the "power" of the bigger boys we used to deploy.
But wait - there's more! Everyone worries about "fallout", but fallout is not always present. Matter of fact, in the explosions with the biggest destructive radii, it is often not present at all. That is because all explosive weapons, nuclear or otherwise, destroy with the shock wave produced. In order to maximize that shock wave's radius for a given overpressure, it must be exploded at a predetermined height above ground, which allows the shock wave to travel from the center of the explosion unimpeded by things like hills and buildings so that it can destroy the most area. The energy used to destroy a building or try to move dirt around on a hill is used up at that point, doesn't get to move onward, and consequently reduces the destruction radius.
As that impacts fallout production, it means that less or no dirt or debris is close enough to get sucked back up into the nuclear fireball to produce fallout. It just gets blown up and pushed forward, not backward. The fireball has to have ground contact in order to produce appreciable fallout at all - the dirt and debris has to be vaporized and sucked up into the fireball to have any chance of condensing, combining with radioactive isotopes, and then fall back out as radioactive fallout.
Taken together, these two properties of nuclear weapons means you can have either fallout OR maximum destruction, but you cannot have both. You have to choose one in planning.
The Lefties used the same tactics on us back in the 80's as they have tried to use on OL. They would rush in, make a claim of just how much "destruction" a 100 MT nuke would do to try to scare us, and neglect to mention that no 100 MT nukes have ever been developed or deployed. In other words, they'd try to scare us with big numbers, but not tell us those big numbers were impossible to achieve. Even the Tsar Bomba, billed as being "100 MT", only had between 50 and 60 actual MT of power when it was tested. That's why there was only one, and they never built another - it was just infeasable to make a bomb that big.
That is why I know about nuclear weapons - they scared me into doing my own due diligence in the matter rather than just taking their propagandistic word. When I did, and dug into the actual physics of explosions, I saw just what they were doing there, all in an effort to scare the hell out of kids with lies to mobilize them against nuclear anything. Next thing you know, even nuclear power plants were under fire from the Lefties, because they "wuz NUKULUR!"
Itr was all just a propaganda fear campaign, and they seem to have dusted that playbook off for a new generation to try it again.
ETA: A 67% "kill ratio" by Aegis on 1200 ICBMS would take out 800 of them, not 200.
ETA 2: Another trick they used was using a low overpressue to represent the "destructive radius" of a bomb. They usually chose 0.5 PSI as the overpressure for the "destructive radius", and neglected to tell you that at 0.5 PSI, about half of the glass windows perpendicular to the blast would break, and that is the worst damage that would occur at that distance. They left us thinking that the "destructive radius" was all like those spectacular movies of buildings getting disassembled by the shock wave during test explosions, and allowed us to think that level of damage went all the way out to their "destructive radius", when it really, REALLY isn't. Reality is that the overpressures fall off just as exponentially as the destructive power over distance.
.
Explanation: That is excellent to find out that Russia doesnt have 20Mt warheads on 300 Satan-1 and Satan-2 missiles!
Lets say it was a typo and they actually meant 2Mt warheads NOT 20Mt warheads...
I shall do the maths again with the new 2Mt figure in mind ...
300 Russian Satan-1/2 Missiles - 67 [33%* {half of 67%} shot down by 100 Aegis Missiles] = 223 Russian Satan-1/2 Missiles x 2Mt = 446Mt + (900 remaining Russian ICBM's - 133 [34%** {other half of 67%} shot down by remaining 200 Aegis missiles] = 767 x 225Kt = 172.575Mt) = 618.575Mt of damage which is way less that 4.180Gt of damage ... still a lot ... but far more reasonable end total amount of damage done.
Still enough that on their own they can destroy the entire world as we know it in a single hour.
Personal Disclosure: But I still must correct the record on Aegis missiles ... the west ONLY has 300 Aegis land-based missiles in TOTAL so a 67% kill ratio would mean only 200 Aegis Missiles [300 - 200] hit their Russian counterpart Missiles ... meaning that 1000 Russian ICBM's would make it through the protective net of 300 ONLY Aegis Missiles in a worst case scenario!
* & **: ... 33%* + 34%** = 67% of 300 Aegis Missiles = 200 Aegis Missiles hit their Russian counterpart targets.
The 1200 Missiles figure IS Russian ICBM's ok ... NOT Aegis Missiles!!!
1200 Russian ICBM's - 200 [67% of 300 or 200 total Aegis Missiles shoot them down] = 1000 ICBM's remaining!
I hope that makes more sense now.