US to build new nuclear gravity bomb::Experts say this new higher-yield nuclear bomb appears intended to pave the way for retiring the older B83 megaton bomb.

  • ColorcodedResistor@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The physics package contained within the B83 has been studied for use in asteroid impact avoidance strategies against any seriously threatening near earth asteroids. Six such warheads, configured for the maximum 1.2 megatonnes of TNT (5.0 PJ), would be deployed by maneuvering space vehicles to “knock” an asteroid off course, should it pose a risk to the Earth.[10]”

    …If you have even half the comprehension to understand that amount of force. fuck…that’s a lot of damage.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      The crazy bit is that the energies involved in a meteorite large enough to cause serious problems striking earth are like an order of magnitude larger than that. No radiation, sure, but that doesn’t help you much when you’re getting broiled by a ball of plasma.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe do a nuclear gravity power plant first? Provide the tax players cheap clean energy instead of more threats of war.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yet as the article says: directly linked with the new arms race with Russia and China.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      While glassing Gaza would streamline the conflict a bunch, I doubt these weapons are because of them

  • Gazumi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Holy crap! We have been here before and it leads to the brink of extinction due to fecking ego’s.

    • RedWeasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but this time we can all talk about it in realtime with the rest of the world.

      • Gazumi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do agree, but it’s confounded by the story that’s told. We have sequentially followed the same arguments for the people that we are asked to fear right now. MAGA are a classic example of “live updates” and very poor thinking

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In a follow-up statement, a Pentagon spokesperson said that will include the B-21 Raider stealth bomber the Air Force now has in development with Northrop Grumman. But the U.S. now does not plan to deploy it on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon said.

    This feels so out of date to me. We have guided ballistic missiles, drones, etc. Why are we still thinking about dropping an unguided bomb like this from an aircraft with a human in it? It’s >1 megaton ffs - close should be “good enough”?

    • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      What happens when someone takes control of the guidance? A bomb dropped from the sky is going to obey the laws of physics and that’s it.

    • thelastknowngod@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dispersal of liability if something goes wrong?

      It’s not the ground-based targeting system so that company can’t be sued. It’s not the onboard nav so that company can’t be sued. It’s not the software so that company can’t be sued. It’s not communication latency or interference so we can’t blame it on a bad command decision to push forward without more reliable data points.

      The only thing that will ultimately result in a nuclear weapon being dropped is if the guy with human eyes is looking at the target, makes a judgement call, and pushes the button.

      All that being said, we should not be building more nukes regardless. This is dumb.

    • bonus_crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can probably fit more bomb in the same package if you odnt have to worry about propellant

    • RedWeasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would lean to reliability and speed. Ballistic missiles don’t get a lot of testing while the bombers are flown regularly and takeoff/land pretty much anywhere .

  • imgprojts@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No gravity waves generated or anything. But if they dropped one on you, you won’t complain about the name. Why not call it the Barbie warhead and Ken missile? Again, no one would come back " excuse me but I did not get any Barbies or Kens when this thing was dropped on my house yesterday and I would like to complain to management"