2

4/21/2010 3:09:02 PM

this SaabStory character is seriously deranged.

4/21/2010 3:11:53 PM

why do yall keep calling it Tsar Bomba, are you fucking commies?

Its called Monster Bomb, son, thats what Americans call it, sons

4/21/2010 3:59:18 PM

2 words for ya, inflight refueling


they would do it just prior to entering hostile airspace and as much as they could after penetration

the same argument about heavy bombers goes for our B-52 as well....

or used to bomb say, LA, or used as a region denial weapon.

(not saying it would have ever been a good idea)

[Edited on April 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM. Reason : s]

4/21/2010 4:00:50 PM

I understand what refueling is and:

1) They didn't even have many of these bombers at the time.
2) The bomb does not even appear to have been developed into a "stockpile-able" weapon.
3) The bomb had no use to them tactically or strategically.
4) You don't actually know what the range of the aircraft was when it carried the Tsar Bomba and neither do I. It was carried externally though, which may have limited the aircraft's range quite a bit. Even if you do know the range and even if it could make it were it re-fueled just outside our airspace; in flight refueling requires a lot of logistical preparation, all of which would have, in and of itself, thrown a red flag that would have caused us to launch our own interceptor aircraft, bombers, ICBMs, etc.
5) The whole "B-52" crap you bring up just demonstrates you think I'm arguing against the capabilities of an intercontinental bomber, rather than SPECIFICALLY the Tsar Bomba. Note that when this bomb was detonated, we already had reached the advent of the ICBM. At that point, the bombers on both sides were relatively obsolete but could still prove useful in certain scenarios. One caveat, though, is that they needed to have a lot of range without aerial refueling because if they couldn't reach the target on their own, they became even less likely to make it to the target under such conditions. The only thing I ever said before you butted in here with your wikipedia "knowledge" was that the Tsar Bomba was not a design that could be deployed (AND I MEAN SPECIFICALLY AT THE TIME OF TESTING, NOT LIKE, "HAD IT BEEN DEVELOPED 8 YEARS PRIOR" OR SOME SHIT). Then someone mentioned that it was "air dropped, thus deployable". I responded with only one of SEVERAL arguments which demonstrate that the Tsar Bomba was never intended as a deployable weapon, the argument that they had no means with which to properly deploy it at that time other than a "handful" of TU-95 bombers which lacked the range to get to the US were they sent here on a surprise strike loaded with Tsar Bombas.

You're acting like I'm saying the aircraft ITSELF is incapable of attacking the US in any configuration, which you know damn well is not what I'm saying. It's also rather hilarious to see you acting like I, as someone who has been following aviation since I was about 5 years old, have no clue what aerial refueling is. I keep telling you the aircraft is an intercontinental bomber, intended to attack the US, but WITHOUT having to refuel. This is because you want to have some kind of element of surprise. Having refueling aircraft ready outside our airspace to re-fuel the bombers means having aircraft near our airspace before the bombers arrive, which means surprise goes out the window, which means our interceptor aircraft (Themselves armed with nuclear air-to-air missiles which can take an aircraft out at quite a distance even if chaff and flares are dropped or even a number of aircraft if they're in close formation and it gets in the middle of them, mind you) are beyond ready to go and can catch the "handful" of bombers WITH EASE. The re-fueling tanker may not even survive long enough for the bombers to get there and then, MISSION FAILED. This also means we would have been readying our own counter-strike, and with fucking ICBM's no less. That is NOT a proper tactic in a nuclear attack strategy at all in my opinion, of course I'm not a nuclear war strategist so maybe I'm just way the fuck off there.

4/21/2010 4:48:15 PM

Basically what you're saying is that in IDEAL, DEFENSELESS conditions, it is POSSIBLE for them to hit the Triangle. This is true. How the fuck could you think I'm disagreeing with that? Any "re-fuelable" aircraft has practically unlimited range as long as it has refueling tankers waiting for it at the right places. My point is that in REAL LIFE, THE TSAR BOMBA WAS NEVER A DEPLOY-ABLE WEAPON. Your "strategy" would fail in an era of ICBM's, which we were in by the time this bomb was tested. Not to mention the fact that, by the time the bomb would have been a ready to deploy weapon, ICBM's were far enough along to render such a strike completely idiotic. It would fail considering the fact that they'd be sending a handful of prop driven aircraft against our nuclear missile armed fighter interceptors AND we'd be certain to launch a counter-strike with ICBM's. By all means, disprove that statement if you want, but that is the consensus of most analysts who have spent a lot more time on this matter than you have.

You also need to consider that part of stockpiling nuclear weapons involves maximizing the damage you create with a given amount of nuclear fuel. The fuel for these bombs is not unlimited and making huge warheads requires a lot of fuel. The military would generally prefer to have many medium sized nuclear warheads instead of a few huge ones. Efficiency is generally preferred and the Tsar Bomba threw efficiency right out the window. Why carry a 100Mt warhead in a "handful" of slow TU-95's when you could EASILY carry countless 10Mt warheads in other aircraft? Covering an area in multiple 10Mt warheads will "deny" MORE land than a single 100Mt warhead would. Somehow you come across as someone who simply refuses to accept reality and then tries to prove their point with ridiculous theoretical bullshit that anybody in here already knows is true. Yes, they can hit the US if they have a bunch of refueling tankers waiting around just outside our airspace. Is that a feasible plan in 1962 (Which would be the earliest I could see the bomb being deployed, considering the detonation took place in late 1961)? Fuck no.

4/21/2010 4:49:16 PM

son

4/21/2010 6:49:58 PM

jesus christ wall of text

4/21/2010 6:54:56 PM

^ Jesus christ, a dumb bitch.

4/21/2010 6:59:54 PM

This thread makes me disturbingly happy.

Nuclear explosions are terrible and all but they sure are purdy.

4/21/2010 7:17:25 PM