Image not available

250x212

IMG_2411.jpg

๐Ÿงต 1 Teraton Thermonuclear Blast

SGO No. 16592683

I have looked into the science a bit and I understand that around 2 thirds of all the energy released in almost any event is lost through mainly heat and particles/waves released, but with modern technology and a better understanding quantum physics compared to decades ago, could it be possible to generate a 1,000,000,000,000 tons of tnt blast without making a thermonuclear warhead for example the size size of a giant cargo ship? Perhaps it is possible to do something to split, melt, or change subatomic particles to release far more energy than atomic fission or fusion?

Anonymous No. 16592732

>>16592683
Positrons. However, storing them indefinitely is a problem...which is why we make them on the fly
>Polariton driven gamma ray laser ftw

Anonymous No. 16592883

>>16592732
Thats just a media narrative, they're making out that everything I do is part of their plan, its not, they respond to my actions and make up a load of shit.

Anonymous No. 16592918

theres no point in going that high
you are just wasting most of that energy, venting it into space for no effect on the ground
there is a reason why most nukes are 10kt

Anonymous No. 16593077

>>16592918
>Most nukes at 10kt
No. Most nukes are 250-500ish kilotons because the DoE/DoD did studies that there is a sharp drop in returns in regards to yield versus destructive capabilities past outside that window. The reason why multi-megaton weapons were initially a thing is partly because "why not?", but mostly because Russian ICBM circular error probability was shit and if you want to blow something up, you needed a giant warhead because they might miss the target by a literal mile. There is old US Peacekeeper MX MIRV test footage of them putting one through the front door of a building specifically built for the test. You can afford to go a lot smaller if you're measuring potential landing zone is measured in inches from the target instead of thousands of feet.