Aug 292017
 

America tests ‘the most dangerous nuclear bomb ever produced’: F-15 drops $1trillion super-nuke that has an adjustable yield and is more accurate than ever

The B61-12 is called “dangerous” because it’s yield is *ridiculously* low, variable between 300 *tons* and fifty kilotons. How it’s a “super nuke” I can’t say.

Entertainingly, in an effort to define this bomb as “dangerous,” the author of the piece refers to both International ANSWER (a communist front group) and Russia Today (Putins mouthpiece in the west). these organizatiosn don;t want the US to have this or any other new nukes. Which means it’s probably a good idea to keep developing, testing and fielding new nukes.

 Posted by at 9:06 pm
  • sferrin

    Jesus. One of the more retarded leftist headlines I’ve seen in a while. A “$1 trillion super-nuke”? FFS, people are stupid these days.

    • Paul451

      Actually, Daily Fail is a rightist tabloid. These days, that seems to mean being in bed with Team Russia.

      • sferrin

        Journalists in general are idiots.

  • JohnCandysGhost

    It’s considered bad because the idea is that it’s lower threshold may tempt the president to use it in a conventional battle or attack setting, hence allowing other nations the go-ahead to use nukes in conventional warfare as well, so yes developing this nuke is retarded

    • Siergen

      A deterrence that potential enemies know you are afraid to use is not a viable deterrence.

    • Nick Gaston

      Yep, just like in the 60s…they introduce the Davy Crockett strictly as a “deterrent against mass armor attacks,” and the next thing ya know, there are Ontoses loaded up with half a dozen of the things merrily nuking their way through Hue.

      • That is the most Marine idea I’ve ever heard. Outstanding.

    • Scottlowther

      So you’re saying if the US develops this, then countries like Iran and North Korea might start nuclear weapons programs of their own?

      • KrakenJack

        Or maybe Iran and N Korea are developing nukes because we ring them with offensive military assets and they see this as the only deterrence to being attacked?

        • FelixA9

          So what’s your explanation for the US drastically cutting back it’s number of nuclear weapons to a fraction what they once were yet Russia and China respond by drastically increasing their nuclear forces? You child-like view of things would be precious if it weren’t so dangerous. It’s as naive as believing the only reason people steal is because we put locks on things.

          • KrakenJack

            You leave out the fact that our “cut backs” still leaves us with an insane more amount of nukes than Russia/china’s “increase”, it’s like us cutting down the size of the pacific ocean 10% and worrying that some backyard swimming pool has doubled in size

          • sferrin

            You should probably just quit now. Every time you open your mouth you demonstrate once again how much you don’t know.

          • Scottlowther

            > You leave out the fact that our “cut backs” still leaves us with an insane more amount of nukes than Russia/china’s “increase”

            Say what now?

            COUNTRYSIZE OF ARSENALUnited States6,800 warheadsRussia7,000 warheads

            Russia already has more nukes than the US. And Americas nukes are FRICKEN’ OLD. How many of them would even *work*?

        • Scottlowther

          And yet Iran doesn’t have nukes, has never had nukes, and the US has somehow managed to avoid bombing them into oblivion. North Korea went from the end of the Korean War up till their first detonation of a nuke in, what, the late 1990,s without the US attacking them. So in what insane alternate reality do they need nukes *now* to prevent a US attack?

    • sferrin

      I’ll say it again, “FFS, people are stupid these days”. (And in case you were wondering, I’m speaking of you.)

      • KrakenJack

        Nice non-argument there, you went to the school of SJW comebacks I assume?

        • FelixA9

          You make the mistaken assumption that your “argument” (such as it is) actually has merit. It doesn’t. So sorry.

  • robunos20

    A yield variable from 50kT to 300 TONS . . . is such a wide range possible?

    • Scottlowther

      Sure. You design your nuke for the high yield, then design modifications that crew that up Dial-A-Yield bombs have been around since the 1950’s. The modifications are some variation of tinkering with the timing of the detonation of the chemical explosives, or perhaps even mechanically *moving* the chemical explosives, in order to make the atomic explosion less and less optimal. The real trick is to make the lower yields repeatable. You start messing with an atom bomb and things can go screwy in a hurry, so I’d bet that the differences between 50 kilotons and 300 tons is probably not far off form standard manufacturing tolerances

      • publiusr

        I want to see Athena III with Orion pulse units for asteroid mitigation.

  • Thucydides_of_Athens

    For a “trillion dollar supernuke” I would expect the 5 gigaton weapon mounted on an ORION nuclear pulse drive booster that I read about on Anthony Zuppero’s NEOfuel site….