>>65218151
i wouldn't worry about it

I'm a big fan of 1950s era hydrogen bombs
No fancy fuzes or targeting shit. The only strategy for destroying enemy bunkers and strongholds was to build the biggest fucking bomb possible.
Fuck yeah

>>65218176
I think they are cool but obsolete

>>65218176
Nobody at any point ever built the biggest bomb possible

>>65218151
My dick

>>65218151
The best "bang for your buck" has to be the Trident II. Being a sub launched, extremely accurate (independent sources have a CEP of 5 meters) and carrying a substantial payload.

File: Davy_Crockett_bomb.jpg (232.0 KB)

>>65218151
I'm a W54 enjoyer myself.
He's just a funny lil guy

I can guarantee you that nobody here knows shitfuck about the latest and greatest and if they did they certainly couldn't post about it here.

File: PPH-25-145671.jpg (528.6 KB)

>>65218151
The B61, as long as you're the first one nuking. The F-35 or B-21 can penetrate virtually any airspace, and warning will be very short to nonexistent. It's also gotta be the cheapest way to nuke somebody, given that no one makes nuclear artillery anymore to my knowledge.

>>65218254
>ask for a bang
>only get a fizzle

File: d5_19.gif (13.4 KB)

>>65218151
I'd say the Trident series like the D5. 1980s design with relatively low maintenance cost, good accuracy, MIRV capable with 8-14 W76/W88 rentry vehicles at about half a megaton per vehicle and it the missile has a far smaller interception window than a conventional silo launched ICBM. One sub can carry 16-24 of the missiles with 8-14 warheads each, that at a top end is about total 160,000 kilotons or 160 megatons of firepower per active sub like an Ohio class. It just werks.

File: Slammin.gif (196.8 KB)

The best nuke is the one that hits me. I'd like my first experience of nuclear warfare to be a B61 gravity bomb having all its telemetry systems fail and smack me straight in the forehead on a clear summer day.

inb4 project pluto

>>65218497
Not really a nuke but more so a delivery platform

Theoretically? Russia's RS-28 Sarmat. 18000 km range, 10 MIRV with 1 MT payload per. Silo based ICBM. Does it work? Probably not.
In practice the absolute best nuke is the Hwasong-17 for obvious reasons.

File: AMERICA.jpg (62.5 KB)

>>65218151
Not strictly a nuclear device, per se, but one of my favorite developments in the history of nuclear weapons is when the USAF figured out how to air-launch an ICBM just to flex on the USSR.

>Kissinger says "I need something for SALT in 18 months, gimmie something impressive"
>USAF says "lol okay" and after some literal napkin math a couple of engineers figure out that they can cram a Minuteman into a C-5
>Over the next year or so they build and test what's basically a sled on rails in a C-5's cargo bay
>Works like a charm and now every C-5 anywhere on earth represents a potential 800kt nuclear threat to the USSR
>Soviets shit a brick and it gets used as leverage during SALT
>Before the program wraps up the engineers go back to the brass and say "you know, we did some more math and we think we could stick two or three of those things in there if we really wanted to"

>>65218151
Minuteman III is over 50 years old and is getting hard to keep maintaining and its replacement can’t even get put in the ground. The Trident is a superior platform so long as US Boomers can’t be tracked under the water