Talk:Fury tactical nuclear weapon: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:08, June 30, 2008

Size... of a football, eh? This could make a great weapon in Halo Custom Edition in a big map like Coldsnap or Hugeass... The Guardians 09:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Guesty-Persony-Thingy, you could have at least added something to this page... :( The Guardians 02:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Extremely clean..." I'm guessing that means, somehow, little or no radioactivity. Arm. Violently insert in Brute's mouth. Get in a vehicle and haul ass! StAraqiel 17:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, or just chucking them everywhere off a starship & nuke the planet to a crisp lololololol The Guardians 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Though you have to wonder what it is extremely clean in comparison too. For all we know, this still could release a whole lot of radiation, but compared to other UNSC nukes, is just a drop in the bucket. Beats me.XRoadToDawnX 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... uh... wait, you could use these things to destroy... Scarabs! If it does radiate, all the better to wipe out the survivors. The Guardians 07:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ranges?

It says 1.2km, but this seems wrong fora device of near 1 megaton magnitude. What is most likely is that this is the radius of the area that will cause vapourisation of targets from the gamma rays. According to some scrap calculations I did, (these are just educated guesses based off a current 1 megaton bomb) the resulting firestorm would extend out a further 4km, and the resulting pressure wave would extend a further 5km. Anyone within a 15-20km of the blast would be blinded, even further if you were looking directly at it.
By clean, I guess they mean relatively little nuclear fallout after the blast, meaning that the effects of irradiation do not remain for a very long period of time. Diaboy 13:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Had another look at the numbers and it makes no sense, so what I said earlier is probably inaccurate. I still think that 1.2km is too small for a device of near 1MT, though. Diaboy 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been stuck on my mind! It has to be a 1 kiloton nuclear device, as the effective blast radius of that is just under 1.2km. 1 megaton is just too big to have a blast radius of that size. Diaboy 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:39, June 23, 2008 (edit) Diaboy (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 10:08, June 30, 2008 (edit) (undo) Diaboy (talk \| contribs) (→‎Ranges?) Newer edit →
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Hmm. Had another look at the numbers and it makes no sense, so what I said earlier is probably inaccurate. I still think that 1.2km is too small for a device of near 1MT, though. [[User:Diaboy\|Diaboy]] 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)		Hmm. Had another look at the numbers and it makes no sense, so what I said earlier is probably inaccurate. I still think that 1.2km is too small for a device of near 1MT, though. [[User:Diaboy\|Diaboy]] 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

			This has been stuck on my mind! It has to be a 1 '''kilo'''ton nuclear device, as the effective blast radius of that is just under 1.2km. 1 megaton is just too big to have a blast radius of that size. [[User:Diaboy\|Diaboy]] 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)