I think Mexico City’s kind of cheating, since it’s about a mile closer to the blast than most of the main cities posted so far…
Seems that Fromberg Montana has less than zero strategic value.
I forgot Mexico City is at altitude. I wonder if the simulator takes that into account.
Does it appear the Tsar Bomba is an exercise in diminishing returns?
does not seem to matter where dropped
for the 10X increase in yield, you only get about X3 casualties.
You could do more cheaper with several 10MT bombs?
I might just be looking at things wrong? But it seems i can make a hell of a lot more mess with 10 10MT devices than a single 100MT device.
If that is in fact the case, what is the purpose of making a 100MT device other than to say Oooh look at my A-penis?
It is.
To prove it could be done. And the penis thing.
Which is also why there was only ever one Tsar Bomba ever made.
Weisshund, I suspect that the figures for Fromberg are a serious underestimate. There’s not much permanent population in that area, but the outer ring is covering half of Yellowstone, and the more popular half, at that. There are going to be a heck of a lot of tourists caught by that.
In addition to snfaulkner’s valid points …
For air bursts you’re both right that several smaller bombs spread around an area does a lot more damage. The term “overkill” was coined to refer to the area of excessive energy applied near the burst. Converting ordinary construction buildings to kindling, burning kindling, dust, or plasma is all equally effective. But all the incremental effort necessary to create plasma is useless.
For ground bursts things are different. Especially when aimed at underground or hardened facilities. It was (mostly still is) impractical to air-deliver a nice pattern of 10MT bombs. A single bomber can’t carry that many or hang around to lay a pattern. For things like Cheyenne Mountain you need a really big burst delivered as close as possible to create the requisite ground motion to wreck the place.
Tsar Bomba was part of that kind of effort. As ICBM accuracies improved the equation changed. Inverse square law applies and halving CEP let you quarter the yield. Improving accuracy by 10x means you can cut yield by 100x. Or, for the same investment in fissile material, build 100 weapons and target 99 more places. It’s pretty clear which way that calculus leads once they started solving the accuracy problem.
That web app is the modern version of General Turgidson’s handy “World Targets in Megadeaths” binder. And of course who can forget the Nuclear Bomb Effects slide rule from the 1960s.
Yes, it’s why 6 MIRVs are more use than a Castle Bravo.