@SG-17: It is true that they deliberately held down the potential yield (thus my statement that 100 megaton devices are possible), but 'igniting the atmosphere' is chemical nonsense. (and was originally asserted with the first thermonuclear test at Bikini Atoll)

@Dylan Carey: Nope. But your fears should be based on an understanding of how these things really work, and what 'a thousand times more powerful' means in the real world.

@Arken: (sigh) Naturally if you're anywhere near ground zero, that's useless. That advice is for those who might be many miles away. (and you can't know that you won't be)

@FrankenPC: Because (as WW II has shown) nuclear wars most assuredly can be won...when yours is the only side that has them.

@Hatzegopteryx: As the son of a soldier who had already served in Europe, and expected to be part of a high-casualty (on both sides) invasion of Japan that nukes made unnecessary...I'm okay with that.

@CodenameV: "

@a.seivewright: But are you up against someone who does not believe in the no-win scenario...?

"The Hiroshima bomb exploded with a force of about 13 kilotons of TNT. Basically, it incinerated a city. The H-bombs developed in the next decade were roughly 1,000 times more powerful."

@Loi-B: Because there are so many ways to die...

@Ravennl: Depends on just what happened. The series 'Life Without People' assumes everyone suddenly and quietly disappears at the same instant, Rapture-ish, so they can make their points about what happens to our stuff afterward.

I thought it rather strange at the time that 'The Day After,' was primarily about the days just before the nuclear attack...

@phantom_K9: That, and they obstruct my view of Venus...

@SharpnPointy: "f you were an advanced species of life that had developed some sort of of FTL drive; we are so far down the list of places to visit it's unreal."

@Arken: Maybe Clark Kent should have been 'Super Reporter...'

"Understand you, I do..."

@a.seivewright: Unfortunately, it was mostly about the schedule in the 60's. 'Before the decade is out' and before the Soviets, whichever came first. That led to a program optimized to that end, and not one that not one that was affordable and sustainable. (And when it was clear that they were losing, the Soviets…

@reddingofish: "We need to spend money on faster than light travel..."

@TemporalSword: Constellation would not have gotten men back to the Moon (not a 'colony' or even a 'base' now mind you, just three guys for a month or so, once or twice a year for an insane cost per mission) before 2025 at best (and requiring a serious increase in the NASA budget), and not to Mars by itself, in any…

@bma2192: "...why not get into the habit of building space craft and space suits that can handle it..."

@Jester21: You speak as if they're mutually exclusive...