What's new

1 gigaton nuclear weapon

Does banghadesh even have nuke? Better to keep ur mouth shut

Now, intolerance is a sign of weakness. Either answer the question or you have the choice to ignore it, but your loud mouth won't establish your point.
 
. . .
The possibility of having just one, a decade after the first nuclear test, is not a very impressive record!

We don't need a report card from anyone , we are fine at our current Nuclear capacity its more then enough to get stuff done

The best aspect is we have some " interesting " delivery options its always good to keep some trump cards under our sleeves for our so called friends
 
. .
Does Pakistan have any weapon of megaton size? It seems it has only tiny nukes.

Sir, you have to fit the nuclear material into a ballistic missle. Definently, the material is going to be little to not weigh down the rocket..

And, yes, it does have Megaton nukes. Chagai Mountain was hit with a 5-10 megaton nuke. :kiss3:
 
.
Sir, you have to fit the nuclear material into a ballistic missle. Definently, the material is going to be little to not weigh down the rocket..

And, yes, it does have Megaton nukes. Chagai Mountain was hit with a 5-10 megaton nuke. :kiss3:
No man! we didn't use any nuke in Megatons within our Chagai mountains....Our nukes are not over 50KTons range.....The Megatons uses Fusion reactions and they are normally called H2 Bombs.....We used 10 to 25KTons Nukes in Chagai mountains and they were fission types.....For Fusion types we need to do another series of experiments in megatons ranges........:smokin:
 
.
If 1 gigaton explosion is Possible, Its after effect and waste of Land area will be huge. It becomes Threat to own country as well.:coffee:
 
.
For Fusion types we need to do another series of experiments in megatons ranges........

There's no need for this. It's not for bragging rights, it's for security.

The original H bombs were deployed primarily because accuracy of 1950's vintage systems was so poor. With modern digital electronics, you can smack the target dead on and you'll not need more than 50 KT. In most cases, 10 or less.

Remember that blast damage is either a square or a cube root function, meaning a 2 megaton bomb is NOT twice as destructive as a 1 MT bomb. It's just a few percentage more.

All else being equal, 20 50KT bombs are HUGELY more destructive than one 1MT bomb.
 
.
There's no need for this. It's not for bragging rights, it's for security.

The original H bombs were deployed primarily because accuracy of 1950's vintage systems was so poor. With modern digital electronics, you can smack the target dead on and you'll not need more than 50 KT. In most cases, 10 or less.

Remember that blast damage is either a square or a cube root function, meaning a 2 megaton bomb is NOT twice as destructive as a 1 MT bomb. It's just a few percentage more.

All else being equal, 20 50KT bombs are HUGELY more destructive than one 1MT bomb.
Oh Okay! so we dont need to create in maga tons .. The 50KTons are enough to test anywhere....Interesting information...We don't need to waste our energy then on R&D......Thanks ........:)
 
.
Oh Okay! so we dont need to create in maga tons .. The 50KTons are enough to test anywhere....Interesting information...We don't need to waste our energy then on R&D......Thanks ........:)

No need to waste it making larger bombs.. use it to make better delivery systems.
 
.
No need to waste it making larger bombs.. use it to make better delivery systems.
Yes! U're right we do need to develop better delivery syatems both stealth or non-Stealths, short range and the long ranges...:smokin:
 
.
go for icbms 50 to 70 kt are enough heck go for mirv and longer missiles and greater cruise missiles
 
.
My point - conservation of mass as a basic law of chemistry works because for all intents and purposes it holds true. The finest balances or scales ever made cannot weigh the difference before and after a strongly exothermic reaction. Yet energy is undoubtedly liberated, and energy and mass are interchangeable. The energy has to come from somewhere... It doesn't magically spring into existence. Therefore, at some level, mass is consumed in a chemical reaction. Conversely, an endothermic reaction must convert available energy to mass on some minute scale.

Not true?

I might be wrong ... but change in spin and change in vibrations ( state of exicement of atoms) can be the cause of the engery release you are talking about .... might not be even miniscule mass conversion. But yes ...Hypothetically you are right ... matter or enrgy cannot be created from nothing there is always conversion from one form to another ....
 
.
I might be wrong ... but change in spin and change in vibrations ( state of exicement of atoms) can be the cause of the engery release you are talking about .... might not be even miniscule mass conversion. But yes ...Hypothetically you are right ... matter or enrgy cannot be created from nothing there is always conversion from one form to another ....

the laws of conservation of energy were created in the olden days of classical physics now we are in the age of quantum physics where both matter and energy are known to come into existence out of nowhere...dimension hopping.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom