How much more powerful is a small Nuclear Bomb?

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

Yet another Internet PhD.
I presume there are various factors are to why one would employ one or the other.
Liberals don't even approve of using a MOAB on ISIS.

I didn't ask about the reasons of their use and deployment, it's a simple question really. People conceptualize things vis-a-vis other things.

I have a feeling Conservatives think MOABs are about as powerful as small Nuclear Bombs.

Not because they think the MOAB is so powerful, but because they think Nuclear Bombs aren't as powerful as they really are.

This paradigm means Conservatives are more willing to use Nukes, not realizing that even North Korea's Nuke is powerful enough to completely wipe out an American city and tens of millions of Americans in one hit.

I have a feeling Conservatives think MOABs are about as powerful as small Nuclear Bombs.

I have a feeling you're an idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

And just so you know, we've built nukes with a 10-20 ton TNT equivalent yield.

 

[MarathonMike]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

Yet another Internet PhD.
I presume there are various factors are to why one would employ one or the other.
Liberals don't even approve of using a MOAB on ISIS.

I didn't ask about the reasons of their use and deployment, it's a simple question really. People conceptualize things vis-a-vis other things.

I have a feeling Conservatives think MOABs are about as powerful as small Nuclear Bombs.

Not because they think the MOAB is so powerful, but because they think Nuclear Bombs aren't as powerful as they really are.

This paradigm means Conservatives are more willing to use Nukes, not realizing that even North Korea's Nuke is powerful enough to completely wipe out an American city and tens of millions of Americans in one hit.

Your presumption that Liberals certainly know the relative strength of the MOAB to a "small" nuclear weapon is annoying and wrong. Just as your presumption that Conservatives don't know the relative strengths of the weapons is annoying and wrong. Try again Professor Pompous.

You tell me why FOX News always refers to MOAB by its weight, instead of its yield.

Obvious answer: it's weight at 22,000 pounds is close to the yield of a Hiroshima sized Nuclear weapon.

Conclusion is obvious: FOX news and American media want to compare MOAB to Hiroshima.

Doesn't even come a gnats eyebrow close.

So in your mind all Conservatives and Fox News are equivalent? Wrong. And who or what is the American Media? Do you mean Liberal media? If so, aren't you contradicting your own premise that Conservatives/Fox = stupid and Liberals/American Media = smart?

 

[airplanemechanic]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

Yet another Internet PhD.
I presume there are various factors are to why one would employ one or the other.
Liberals don't even approve of using a MOAB on ISIS.

I didn't ask about the reasons of their use and deployment, it's a simple question really. People conceptualize things vis-a-vis other things.

I have a feeling Conservatives think MOABs are about as powerful as small Nuclear Bombs.

Not because they think the MOAB is so powerful, but because they think Nuclear Bombs aren't as powerful as they really are.

This paradigm means Conservatives are more willing to use Nukes, not realizing that even North Korea's Nuke is powerful enough to completely wipe out an American city and tens of millions of Americans in one hit.

Your presumption that Liberals certainly know the relative strength of the MOAB to a "small" nuclear weapon is annoying and wrong. Just as your presumption that Conservatives don't know the relative strengths of the weapons is annoying and wrong. Try again Professor Pompous.

You tell me why FOX News always refers to MOAB by its weight, instead of its yield.

Obvious answer: it's weight at 22,000 pounds is close to the yield of a Hiroshima sized Nuclear weapon.

Conclusion is obvious: FOX news and American media want to compare MOAB to Hiroshima.

Doesn't even come a gnats eyebrow close.

WTF are you talking about? The Hiro-Nagi nuclear weapons were thousands of times more powerful than a MOAB.

 

[Hossfly]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

And just so you know, we've built nukes with a 10-20 ton TNT equivalent yield.

He apparently doesn't know that Combat Engineers have small nukes, MADM and SADM for blowing dams and mountain passes.

 

[fncceo]

Got one in my garage ...

Saving it for next New Years.

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

Yet another Internet PhD.
I presume there are various factors are to why one would employ one or the other.
Liberals don't even approve of using a MOAB on ISIS.

I didn't ask about the reasons of their use and deployment, it's a simple question really. People conceptualize things vis-a-vis other things.

I have a feeling Conservatives think MOABs are about as powerful as small Nuclear Bombs.

Not because they think the MOAB is so powerful, but because they think Nuclear Bombs aren't as powerful as they really are.

This paradigm means Conservatives are more willing to use Nukes, not realizing that even North Korea's Nuke is powerful enough to completely wipe out an American city and tens of millions of Americans in one hit.

There is a large diversity of the knowlege of the population. There are plenty of people on both the left and right that suck at math and plenty on both sides that don’t.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Got one in my garage ...

Saving it for next New Years.

Davy.....Davy Crockett.....

 

[airplanemechanic]

That thing only had a range of about 3 miles and if you shot it into the wind you got your own nuclear fallout.

 

[fncceo]

That thing only had a range of about 3 miles and if you shot it into the wind you got your own nuclear fallout.

Makes a man out of you.

 

[JoeMoma]

How to survive a nuke!

 

[fncceo]

Government approved method...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How to survive a nuke!

They don't make fridges like that anymore......

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

The W54 warhead had a yield that could be as low as ten tons, or as high as a kiloton, depending on how it was configured.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

Yet another Internet PhD.
I presume there are various factors are to why one would employ one or the other.
Liberals don't even approve of using a MOAB on ISIS.

I didn't ask about the reasons of their use and deployment, it's a simple question really. People conceptualize things vis-a-vis other things.

I have a feeling Conservatives think MOABs are about as powerful as small Nuclear Bombs.

Not because they think the MOAB is so powerful, but because they think Nuclear Bombs aren't as powerful as they really are.

This paradigm means Conservatives are more willing to use Nukes, not realizing that even North Korea's Nuke is powerful enough to completely wipe out an American city and tens of millions of Americans in one hit.

How is lil Kim going to do it?

By a fishing boat?

 

[Indeependent]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

Yet another Internet PhD.
I presume there are various factors are to why one would employ one or the other.
Liberals don't even approve of using a MOAB on ISIS.

I didn't ask about the reasons of their use and deployment, it's a simple question really. People conceptualize things vis-a-vis other things.

I have a feeling Conservatives think MOABs are about as powerful as small Nuclear Bombs.

Not because they think the MOAB is so powerful, but because they think Nuclear Bombs aren't as powerful as they really are.

This paradigm means Conservatives are more willing to use Nukes, not realizing that even North Korea's Nuke is powerful enough to completely wipe out an American city and tens of millions of Americans in one hit.

How is lil Kim going to do it?

By a fishing boat?

Phishing boat?
Come on! Get with the times!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

Yet another Internet PhD.
I presume there are various factors are to why one would employ one or the other.
Liberals don't even approve of using a MOAB on ISIS.

I didn't ask about the reasons of their use and deployment, it's a simple question really. People conceptualize things vis-a-vis other things.

I have a feeling Conservatives think MOABs are about as powerful as small Nuclear Bombs.

Not because they think the MOAB is so powerful, but because they think Nuclear Bombs aren't as powerful as they really are.

This paradigm means Conservatives are more willing to use Nukes, not realizing that even North Korea's Nuke is powerful enough to completely wipe out an American city and tens of millions of Americans in one hit.

Not true, as we have no 100% reliable estimate on how powerful their tested weapons actually are.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Also, you insult liberals with your LIES.

Obama approved the use of the MOAB on ISIS in the caves of Afghanistan.

Your support of Trump and his lies is pathetic, if not disgusting. You must be compensating for things lacking in your life.

Obama approved it? That's funny! He had been out of office for almost 3 months before it was ever used.

Your support of Obama and your lies are pathetic, and disgusting. You definitely are compensating for things lacking in your brain.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm curious if Conservatives truly understand the power of a Nuclear weapon, honestly.

Ok, so for this thread a poll to have fun. Select your partisan leaning (right or left, where right is Conservative left is Liberal), and whether you think Nuclear Weapons are close to MOAB in strength or much stronger.

For definitions, consider Hiroshima sized bomb in Kilotons when comparing to a MOAB.

If you want physical comparisons: GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

The blast yield of a MOAB is approximately 11 tons of TNT.

The blast yield of a Hiroshima's bomb is approximately 20KT.

Making a small yield Nuclear Bomb like Hiroshima about 1,818x more powerful than a MOAB.

Yet another Internet PhD.
I presume there are various factors are to why one would employ one or the other.
Liberals don't even approve of using a MOAB on ISIS.

I didn't ask about the reasons of their use and deployment, it's a simple question really. People conceptualize things vis-a-vis other things.

I have a feeling Conservatives think MOABs are about as powerful as small Nuclear Bombs.

Not because they think the MOAB is so powerful, but because they think Nuclear Bombs aren't as powerful as they really are.

This paradigm means Conservatives are more willing to use Nukes, not realizing that even North Korea's Nuke is powerful enough to completely wipe out an American city and tens of millions of Americans in one hit.

Your presumption that Liberals certainly know the relative strength of the MOAB to a "small" nuclear weapon is annoying and wrong. Just as your presumption that Conservatives don't know the relative strengths of the weapons is annoying and wrong. Try again Professor Pompous.

You tell me why FOX News always refers to MOAB by its weight, instead of its yield.

Obvious answer: it's weight at 22,000 pounds is close to the yield of a Hiroshima sized Nuclear weapon.

Conclusion is obvious: FOX news and American media want to compare MOAB to Hiroshima.

Doesn't even come a gnats eyebrow close.

Wow, your an idiot.

The standard ordinance is referred to by its weight. That is when they talk about bombs, they talk about pounds.

"He dropped a load of thousand pounders on them!"

A "MOAB" is a standard ordinance. It's just really big. So they say it weighs 22,000 pounds.

The obvious answer is that you have an immature need to try and insult people.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Just big ones, like our huge American penises.

Speaking of... next time you PM me pics I'm reporting you.

Did he send you pics of Obama? He's the biggest prick around.