Nukes

[Lynneth]

>>19.9 Mtons
>>19.99 Mtons
Everywhere.

I propose we just put the maximum at 20 Mtons and be done with it.
This x point 9 business is annoying.


Edit: Made poll public.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Lynneth

[Owned-You]

Voted Turnips on the basis that rounded numbers are superior to lesser decimals.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Damnit Lynneth, I know you put the turnips option in there just to get my vote!

[Voodoo Nova]

Doesn't change anything and removes a decimal. I support this.

[Sargun II]

Turnips 2012

[Mergerberger II]

I demand this vote be declared invalid because 'Potatoes' is spelled incorrectly.

[Lynneth]

Fizzydog, please explain your vote of opposition.

[Lestari]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1309117591' post='2742102']
Fizzydog, please explain your vote of opposition.
[/quote]
Oh god, please don't.

[Fizzydog]

19.99 is much more fun to read.

[Lynneth]

25 for, 1 against the change.
Looks pretty obvious to me what people would like.

Fizzy seems to want to be a hipster.

[Fizzydog]

You can tell they're just too cowardly to vote "No".

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1309139706' post='2742352']
You can tell they're just too cowardly to vote "No".
[/quote]

Yes, we are all too scared to vote "No" to an increase of .1 MT on nuclear warheads [s]because Lynneth may wipe our nations from the map[/s].

Edited June 27, 2011 by Voodoo Nova

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1309139498' post='2742347']
19.99 is much more fun to read.
[/quote]
Please tell me you're kidding.

[quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1309139706' post='2742352']
You can tell they're just too cowardly to vote "No".
[/quote]
Stop being such a hipster. It ain't funny.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1309139706' post='2742352']
You can tell they're just too cowardly to vote "No".
[/quote]
Lolwut.

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1309139810' post='2742353']
Yes, we are all too scared to vote "No" to an increase of .1 MT on nuclear warheads [s]because Lynneth may wipe our nations from the map[/s].
[/quote]
<3

[Fizzydog]

Oh for heaven's sake. You guys honestly think I cared about the .01 increase?


If you did, it's understandable.

[Lestari]

[quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1309139959' post='2742359']
Oh for heaven's sake. You guys honestly think I cared about the .01 increase?


If you did, it's understandable.
[/quote]
Stop.

Just....stop.

[Kankou]

I propose that we install a new rule where each IG nuke equals two megaton yield. Much better than all these inane 20 megaton droppings.

But aside from that, Potato[b]e[/b]s.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Kankou

[JEDCJT]

I like potatoes, but you made that into a 'No' option, so....

So turnips, it is.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Voted no on the premise that it is possible, but not done due to the arms race, to mount a warhead in excess of 20 megatons on a delivery vehicle. I think the max is 50 mt by bomber, 20 mt by ICBM.

If the system took delivery methods into account and specified a cap of 50 mt per bomber 20 mt per missile delivery, I'd be on board with the yes crowd.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1309207029' post='2742895']
Voted no on the premise that it is possible, but not done due to the arms race, to mount a warhead in excess of 20 megatons on a delivery vehicle. I think the max is 50 mt by bomber, 20 mt by ICBM.

If the system took delivery methods into account and specified a cap of 50 mt per bomber 20 mt per missile delivery, I'd be on board with the yes crowd.
[/quote]
You must be misunderstanding something.
There won't be any 50 MT bombs.
20 MT will be the absolute maximum as decided by the community here.
Which is 0.1 MT more than the previous absolute maximum per warhead.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1309209655' post='2742927']
You must be misunderstanding something.
There won't be any 50 MT bombs.
20 MT will be the absolute maximum as decided by the community here.
Which is 0.1 MT more than the previous absolute maximum per warhead.
[/quote]

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 actually.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1309217138' post='2742986']
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 actually.
[/quote]
It's mathematically been proven that 0.99999_ is equal to 1 if you just put enough nines after the oh-point, so don't use too many zeroes, Cent.

[Shan Revan]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1309207029' post='2742895']
Voted no on the premise that it is possible, but not done due to the arms race, to mount a warhead in excess of 20 megatons on a delivery vehicle. I think the max is 50 mt by bomber, 20 mt by ICBM.

If the system took delivery methods into account and specified a cap of 50 mt per bomber 20 mt per missile delivery, I'd be on board with the yes crowd.
[/quote]
The 50MT warhead, Tsar Bomba, the largest ever to be detonated in real life, that was dropped from a bomber, was dialed down to half power. In reality it was a 100MT warhead. Also since then miniaturisation of warheads has come a long way.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Shan Revan

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Shan Revan' timestamp='1309233701' post='2743170']
The 50MT warhead, Tsar Bomba, the largest ever to be detonated in real life, that was dropped from a bomber, was dialed down to half power. In reality it was a 100MT warhead. Also since then miniaturisation of warheads has come a long way.
[/quote]

I believe the largest miniaturized warhead is held by the US at 20 MT on the peace-keeper missiles. And it's only a theoretical design, has never been deployed. Largest deployed I think was 9 MT.

Correction, it was a Titan 2 missile and the yield limit was actually higher than I thought..

In 1963 DOE declassified statements that the U.S. had the technological capability of deploying a 35 MT warhead on the Titan II, or a 50-60 MT gravity bomb on B-52s. Neither weapon was pursued, but either would require yield-to-weight ratios superior to a 25 MT Mk-41. This may have been achievable by utilizing the same design as the B-41 but with the addition of a HEU tamper, in place of the cheaper, but lower energy density U-238 tamper which is the most commonly used tamper material in Teller-Ulam thermonuclear weapon.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Fizzydog]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1309833742' post='2749003']
I believe the largest miniaturized warhead is held by the US at 20 MT on the peace-keeper missiles. And it's only a theoretical design, has never been deployed. Largest deployed I think was 9 MT.

Correction, it was a Titan 2 missile and the yield limit was actually higher than I thought..

In 1963 DOE declassified statements that the U.S. had the technological capability of deploying a 35 MT warhead on the Titan II, or a 50-60 MT gravity bomb on B-52s. Neither weapon was pursued, but either would require yield-to-weight ratios superior to a 25 MT Mk-41. This may have been achievable by utilizing the same design as the B-41 but with the addition of a HEU tamper, in place of the cheaper, but lower energy density U-238 tamper which is the most commonly used tamper material in Teller-Ulam thermonuclear weapon.
[/quote]
No. Just, no. We'll stick with 20 mega-ton nukes, they're big enough as it is.


Just because you can doesn't mean you should.