I´ve just dropped an average 200kt warhead over Disneyworld.
Enough to turn Mickey into ashes, but animal kingdom is fine.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
You're welcome. Although, unfortunately, the size of warhead I picked appeared to take out the Valley too. This means that the adult movie industry took a major hit. On the plus side, my friend's house in Hacienda Heights might have survived. Other acquaintances down in the Fullerton area should be fine too!
I´ve just dropped an average 200kt warhead over Disneyworld.
Enough to turn Mickey into ashes, but animal kingdom is fine.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
You bastard. Disneyland is amazing. I'm not even a fan of Disney, but that place is sacred. Where else in the world is there a pirate ship, fireworks, robotic hippos AND a tortilla factory that works for free?
@Climber: I'll check it out. I'm actually looking for a new book to read. Summary looks good.
there is a huge flaw in that application
it doesn't take account that most modern nukes are MIRV. They name the "Peacekeeper" with a head of 300 kt, which is correct, but the single missile contains 10 of them. Which means 3 Mt in the designed area.
By spreading smaller yield nukes, the effect is far more destructive on a somewhat wider area.
So you get a "Tsar Bomba effect" with smaller means. The old Tsar Bomba wasn't really operative more than as a test device.
My brother is quoted in an old art class book. In a paragraph about children and war, his class had to draw their own house getting destroyed by war. After they had to talk about what they felt and my brother said he didn't like the thought, so he drew fighterplanes bombing the neighbor's house instead.
US' largest nuke doesn't seem that impressive, when you put it into the right context.
![]()
nukes are overrated. Actually "smaller ones" would cause about the same damage than the conventional bombings of Dresden, Hamburg or Tokyo causing firestorms. The advantage is the smaller package compared to fleets of bombers over days. Nukes are cleaner (altitude bombing means that less soot and other shyte are sent up in the atmosphere), the radiation cleaner than in Fukushima or Chernobyl and locally decreases rapidly (the increase in cancer deaths after 20 years in Hiroshima/Nagasaki compared to an unexposed population was only in the hundreds, equivalent to the risk of smoking a package a year during that time). And the horrific radiation burns are probably not worse than being melted alive by white phosphorous.
the big no-no over nukes is that they fascinate the imagination of people. So much destruction in one "second". The same or even worse destruction over 3 nights of conventional bombing is so WWII, boring.
This little site is making me afraid that people will think "meh, whatever" about nuclear detonations.
This is funny to be honest. During the Cold War, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan was the 6th most likely place to be hit with a nuclear bomb from the Soviets because of 2 reasons:
1. Sault Ste. Marie locks (aka the Soo Locks); a major system of locks that help with commerce to/from Lake Superior and Lake Huron. Food crops and raw materials for steel like taconite are transported through there everyday.
2. K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base; Important air fields which were used to transport materials to Alaska. No longer used by the Air Force; instead it has been converted into K.I. Sawyer International Airport for comercial flights.