"Baby nuke". Well, this BABY is still enough to level one third of Manhattan's buildings and burn the remaining rest. It's so easy to get your brain mixed up about scale when dealing with nuclear weapons.
This is great video footage segregator thanks for uploading also this bomb had a yield of 1 Kiloton, or the explosive power equivalent to that of 1 Short Ton/2000 Pounds of the chemical explosive TNT. Which makes the Tsar Bomba ~57,000 times more powerful than this weapon, and also by the way this would make an excellent weapon to use in a rocket launcher!
@HiDefTutorials kiloton = 1000 ton ...so its one thousands ton of tnt ... small in nuke term ... but efficient in moving land ... i believe the us tested small yield devices for mining duties at some point too ...
We may need to. Scientists say that while using computers and testing the various parts helps, it's like testing all the parts of a car, but not putting the entire car together and driving it. If done properly, underground testing does not release any radiation into the atmosphere, and since we would be testing existing weapons to ensure our arsenl reliability, I think it would be within our rights.
I looked your statement up, thinking you confused it with test Baker from Operation Crossroads, and I had no idea that there was another Baker test. Well, I learned something new today. Thanks!
radiation from it too is preatty bad
helicopterfood 4 weeks ago
"Baby nuke". Well, this BABY is still enough to level one third of Manhattan's buildings and burn the remaining rest. It's so easy to get your brain mixed up about scale when dealing with nuclear weapons.
soberek 8 months ago
This is great video footage segregator thanks for uploading also this bomb had a yield of 1 Kiloton, or the explosive power equivalent to that of 1 Short Ton/2000 Pounds of the chemical explosive TNT. Which makes the Tsar Bomba ~57,000 times more powerful than this weapon, and also by the way this would make an excellent weapon to use in a rocket launcher!
HiDefTutorials 10 months ago
@HiDefTutorials kiloton = 1000 ton ...so its one thousands ton of tnt ... small in nuke term ... but efficient in moving land ... i believe the us tested small yield devices for mining duties at some point too ...
jkk20 8 months ago
Its still an atomic bomb and deadly.
CrazedNovaProduction 1 year ago
hahaha why do you want to know shiek927?
joep12319 2 years ago
What is the range of such a bomb?
Shiek927 2 years ago
@Shiek927
It's a bomb, dipshit. Bombs don't have "range". Stupid shiek
LCPStud 1 year ago
@LCPStud When I wrote that comment, I was trying to ask how far the blast would go. Don't be an asshole.
Shiek927 1 year ago
it doesn`t deadly like tsar bomb
munkhjn1996 2 years ago
no shit...
rollercosterrr 2 years ago
We should start doing nuclear test again.
Renaissancedehuaxia 3 years ago
We may need to. Scientists say that while using computers and testing the various parts helps, it's like testing all the parts of a car, but not putting the entire car together and driving it. If done properly, underground testing does not release any radiation into the atmosphere, and since we would be testing existing weapons to ensure our arsenl reliability, I think it would be within our rights.
calif1mc 2 years ago
Oh, God, has Samus visited Earth?!
phazonmetroid666 3 years ago
it was like a big fart
Ntalikeris666 3 years ago 2
No problem man.
brendonmilligan07 4 years ago
This is the Baker shot from Operation Tumbler-Snapper, 1952, 1 kiloton.
brendonmilligan07 4 years ago
I looked your statement up, thinking you confused it with test Baker from Operation Crossroads, and I had no idea that there was another Baker test. Well, I learned something new today. Thanks!
Halogen360 4 years ago
Yes, they used many nuclear test codenames more than once. It's very confusing.
Ryanyesryanno 3 years ago