232
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Colorcodedresistor@lemm.ee 78 points 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.

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.

[-] Kayel@aussie.zone 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I got real excited to learn the physics of a nuclear gravity bomb.

We have gotten to the point in modernity where so many bombs are technologically guided we must define bombs which fall, and are guided by, the force of gravity.

[-] SuperJetShoes@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago

Yeah I also wondered if "nuclear gravity" was some fascinating new branch of physics.

Got real disappointed when I realised that it meant dropping 'em.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

[-] GONADS125@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago
[-] SuperJetShoes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah man, that scratches the itch!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Siegfried@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Oh... thats why i couldnt find any cool youtube video describing it... cool name though

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah it's just a fancy way of saying "dumb bomb."

You don't need guided accuracy with a megaton nuke pooped out by a plane.

[-] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It should've been "nuclear powered, gravity operated bomb", but that doesn't have the same ring to it. /s

My question is:

This has to he dropped from a drone right? The explosion would kill the pilot if they were that close.

[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Wouldn't even technically be nuclear powered, it just has a nuclear payload. I feel like the use of "gravity" in this article was an unnecessary addition.

When most people think "bomb", they don't think immediately think of "guided missile", they thing something that is either planted or dropped from above, and in this case the latter describes exactly what kind of bomb this is.

[-] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

『geekout about the cold war』

Nope. We have planes that fly really high and are shielded enough to withstand the effects at distance. Our air-dropped nukes are the most potent used by the US at 2.1 megatons (which is a sweet spot involving physics I don't understand.)

Soviet bombs were bigger and more plentiful to compensate for their inaccuracy (so they'd shotgun strategic targets to assure a likely hit). This turned into justification for the arms rwce in the 1960s to get ridiculous with General Electric pushing the missile gap. It's how we ended up with so many nukes we could wipe out humanity many times over, not just by carpeting all the continents but with nuclear winter and lingering radioactive fallout.

At that point, the doomsday device in Doctor Strangelove, a really huge cobalt bomb or salted bomb became the more cost-efficient deterrant. While there were actual designs, I don't think anyone actually built it.
『/geekout』

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Basically the sweet spot is because nuclear explosions, for that matter all explosions, are spheres. So to double the radius it takes 8 times more "oomph." So a big bomb like the 100MT Tzar Bomba could be replaced by 16 × 1.2 megaton bombs and blow up the same area of ground, without blowing up the 20 cubic miles of air above the ground at the same time. It would also use about 1/4 the fissionable material to produce the 16 bombs as opposed to the one big one.

We are basically being cheapskates with nukes. Yay! I see No PoTeNtIaL iSsUeS aRiSiNg" directly because of this.

[-] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The explosion would kill the pilot if they were that close.

Nah they'll be fine. The initial blast radius of a nuclear bomb isn't that big at all. It's the radiation that's terrible and a lot of that comes from the fallout/dust downwind of the blast.

As high up as they would be air, it'd just be a momentary bright light and not a direct one since they will be flying away from the blast.

... if the enemy has fighter jets though ... you're probably going to try and shoot down the bomber. Which might encourage using a drone.

[-] ours@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I don't know if they still do this but during the Cold War, they would practice tossing nukes.

The plane flies low and fast, at the right time it climbs hard, belly up and at the top of the loop releases the bomb. While the plane continues its loop downward, the bomb continues in a ballistic trajectory. By the time it hits the target, the plane spends a minimum of time at altitude and a good distance from its target and can GTFO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_bombing

[-] Strykker@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

The Russians dropped a 50 megaton bomb from a manned plane without killing the pilots, unless the us is going for the record of largest bomb ever it's not much of a concern beyond ensuring a high enough drop altitude fast enough plane or slowing the bomb with a parachute.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] MycoBro@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I thought to myself “well. We did it again. This time with gravity” I was both disappointed and relieved.

[-] Dasnap@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Time bombs have always been a disappointment also.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

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

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 year ago

Why would you drop a power plant?

Gravity bomb

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You wouldn't download a power plant

[-] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Don't copy that floppy

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hotdogman@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

But how are we going to protect the power plant without the bomb? /s

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Drbreen@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago

Just in time for the latest conflict in the Middle East.

[-] ours@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Gazumi@lemmy.world 21 points 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 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Wouldn't be in realtime for very long

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Did we ever leave?

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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"?

[-] Joker@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 year ago

Because they can glide a long way and are stealthier without propellant. It’s still a standoff weapon. The B21 is a stone cold killer. It can get in fairly close undetected and drop from high altitude in still relatively safe airspace. The bombs are away without anyone ever knowing it was there. Then you’ve got a stealthy bomb gliding in silently. It probably shows up on radar like a raindrop.

[-] Jumpinship@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Randrops are falling on my head

Soon we will all be dead

[-] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 15 points 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.

[-] vale@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

Laws of physics? What are you, a narc?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] thelastknowngod@lemm.ee 8 points 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 3 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 0x0@programming.dev 11 points 1 year ago

Of course, just what the world needs, more weapons.

[-] imgprojts@lemmy.ml 9 points 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"

[-] Grass@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Will they come up with a better name than aeromorph?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
232 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

59583 readers
2381 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS