Comments by "Stephen Villano" (@spvillano) on "Task & Purpose" channel.

  1. There's plenty of evidence in support of their supercavitating standard torpedo, complete with some, ahem, acquired samples. However, refueling a nuclear powered torpedo of the specifications they've semi-provided... Yeah, nope. We're talking about an exposed reactor core, contaminating the entire ass end of the weapon. They'd be dumping trainloads of the things into the nuclear dump area they're already regretting and simply moving the warhead and replacing the electronics for each refit. And no tsunami, we couldn't manage it at Bikini, it just ain't gonna happen. The laws of physics don't yield to anyone's politics. And 100 megatons, yeah, possible. Most of the blast would go straight into space, having pretty much zero impact on earth. Hell, a fully configured 50 megaton Tsar Bomba would've broken into space, lowering its effective yield effects. Nukes don't really scale well at a certain point. See the laws of physics vs politics. Now, is it practical for attacking ports? Iffy. Any currents, rogue waves, deep waves, etc can broach the thing, spreading wreckage, rather than delivering a warhead to extremely shallow water of a port. If it got in, yeah, it could wreck a port - just as a conventional nuclear torpedo could. Or a nuclear missile. Or me with a can of beans. They're nukes, not Harry Potter's magic wand. Interesting though that it's been scarce since certain European pipelines had their mysterious, ahem, accidents.
    1