We're never actually given the bomb's exact kilotonnage. Nuclear yields can range from a few kilotons (level a couple of city blocks) to sixty megatons (level a whole city). Maybe the Megaton was one a lower-yield one.

It could also be 1 Megaton? xD

How much damage were you really expecting? It is a game afterall.

But, to put it into perspective:

Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 had a blast radius of 1 mile at the epicenter and a field of collateral damage of 2 miles due to the resulting "fire-storm" caused by the shock wave. Little Boy was an "air burst" detonation and was detonated a little over 1000 feet in there air. There was no nuclear fallout past the 2 mile mark due to ash and dust. There was however radiation damage within that 2 mile mark but nothing past that.

Fat Man albeit a much larger bomb cause much less damage to Nagasaki especially considering it was detonated closer to the ground due to Nagasaki being incredibly hilly.

So, given the terrain of the DC area in Fallout I'd say the detonation of the bomb in Megaton is pretty damn good. especially given the fact that the bomb in Megaton was probably an air burst weapon and it was lying in a crater on a hillside. Detonating the bomb in Megaton wasn't going to do too much damage. Oh, and don't forget. If it was an air burst bomb to begin with and it didn't detonate that meant something was wrong with the bomb to begin with.

Nah, i think the explosion was big enough.

I apologize if I have ruined your gaming experience with the game but I think thats little over reaction what you did if it's not joke. Come on now, after all it's just a game and that isn't even a main mission... and it's not your life right?

Except that bomb was modeled after the Fatman, witch was a implosion weapon. Conventional explosives do decay over time.

Oh, and the effect would be lessened by the fact that the bomb is sitting in a giant crater.

EDIT: Correcting the type of bomb Fatman was.

I too thought it was pretty underwhelming, but I still enjoyed the spectacle nonetheless. Mushroom clouds make me happy, which is why I have a Fat Man at home (I don't use big guns) for messing around.

[quote name='Morgrid' date='19 August 2010 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1282233132' post='16296439']
Except that bomb was modeled after the Fatman, witch was a implosion weapon. Conventional explosives do decay over time.

Oh, and the effect would be lessened by the fact that the bomb is sitting in a giant crater.

EDIT: Correcting the type of bomb Fatman was.
[/quote]

Read.

[quote name='NuclearHolocaust] As i said we're talking extreme exceptions here, it cóuld be possible, but it's profoundly unprobable.[/quote]

The remark about this Nuke being an airburstweapon by the way, is the first real credible thesis about the Bomb's low yield in practice i have encountered so far.

You have to understand that the nuke is over 200 years old plus its been leaking radioactive fluid for a long time.

well TECHNICALLY....it wasnt a nuke...it was an A-bomb.

Please read what the others, as well as i, have posted already, appearently you haven't, so get to it if you want to make any kind of an intelligent remark.

A Nuke is a Nuclear weapon, both A-Bomb's and H-Bomb's qualify for the term.

A US or Chinese nuclear weapon in 2077 would almost certainly be a thermonuclear device..a H-Bomb, as it were. The Megaton bomb is probably Chinese and was on a bomber that was brought down before it could drop it on Washington. What's left of the bomber got built into a building or the city walls.

I read on Fallout-wikia that the Nuclear Arsenals in Fallout were mainly composed of low kiloton yield Nuclear weapons, yet in vast amounts, mostly in the range of 200 to 750 Kiloton's, way to low to be ThermoNuclear Bombs.

You seem to be quite the nuclear bomb expert, what are you doing on these forums? Shouldn't you be out making nuclear equiptment? The truth is you don't know anything about nuclear bombs. You judge it based off of videos and what you have read on wikipedia. lol If you were a rocket scientist I would agree with you but you're not and saying that other peoples opinions are wrong without any solid proof makes you look like a idiot.

It wasn't meant insultfull, but yóu are making yourself look like an *sshole by stating that the bomb was over 200 years old, yet 529059 others have already said that and argued over the validity of the argument. Thát's why i made the remark i did, so again: READ. As for my knowledge, no i am not an "expert", but i'm not exactly ignorant either, especially compared to the wealth of wisdom you have been able to present, just don't act like a an *ss and read back the arguments and ideas others have already brought up.

How is stating my opinion being an *sshole? Disagreeing with you is being an *sshole then? Okay. You try to make yourself sound intelligent but fail to spell simple words let alone know everything there is to know about nuclear bombs. After all any of these theories can be correct because its just a 'VIDEO GAME'. It's pretty pointless argueing over why the bomb didn't explode as big as it should have, maybe it didn't because its not a 'REAL LIFE' nuclear bomb.

There's nothing wrong with stating your opinion, i didn't even say it was wrong, i meant it was an unnecessary and redundant statement since it had been suggested by so many others already. You have blown this argument between us completely out of proportion, all i did was post a tiny little reaction to your irrelevant remark, just because it annoys me when people don't even take the effort to read two f*cking pages on a topic so that they know what has been suggested already, that's all. As for your attitude towards the physics of the gameworld and the appearant reasons of the Bomb's low yield i don't understand why you post in this topic at all. If thinking "it's just a game", "it's not real-life""maybe that's why it wasn't corresponding to real nuclear weapons yields", is your attitude towards the topic than why bother with it in the first place? Most of us here have a different attitude towards the gameworld and try to think over the physics behind the Nuclear weapon and why it didn't produce the blastyield as ought to be expected by the size, nature, location and history of the Bomb. As for my incorrect spelling, i so happened not to have been born or live in the half of the globe that is english, but in the Netherlands, and considering my current knowledge and understanding of the language i'd say i do pretty well, not to mention the stupid mistakes even your natively english speaking fellows make every once in a while. And please, to come down to me with an incipit remark about my degree of spelling in an argument like this, that's just lame, everyone makes mistakes from time to time.

I THOUGHT THAT THE NUKE EXPLOSION IN MEGATON WAS AMAZING!!!

To put it simply as others said its a game, its bethesda you should ask or a moderator, plain as can be the reason could be bethesda's choice in explosion size so for a explaination ask them.

How do you know its irrelevant? You're not an expert on the physics of nuclear weapons, so saying whether it has been stated before irrevelant is quite ignorant. The reason I said it is because it seems like the most plausible explanation to why the bomb didn't explode as big. In Megaton theres a big radioactive puddle surrounding the nuke so i assume those were leaked out after it had impacted. To add to the fact thats its over 200 years old and been out in the sun and harsh weather conditions for a long time it would contribute to the fact that its explosion wasn't as effective as it should have been. Well I think the arguement is pointless because there is no way to know what type of bomb it was or what chemicals were inside of it. The real explanation is its a game and sure there isn't anything wrong with argueing over why it didn't do this and that but there is no real way to know anyway unless the developers officially confirm details about what particular nuclear bombs they were which I doubt. Yeah well I think its lame when someone tries to be a know it all just because he uses an unreliable source like wikipedia to gather their information. This game isn't supposed to be realistic, I just think you are looking too much into it.

At this point, this is just an argument and needs to be locked :facepalm:

Agreed :brokencomputer:

And how did you happen to know that i use wikipedia for a source, i only rarely use that as an extra confirmation for other sources, since multiple one's confirming each other often mean they constitute truth. And if you had taken the effort to be just a líttle bit more precise in your very first post, or explaning what you have now anywhere earlier in our whole argument, rather than instulting me, this wouldn't have become such a heated debate.

I happen to know because you have said you use it in your posts. Also I didn't insult you, you're the one that came off as an arrogant know it all I just stated my opinion and then you come along and be a smart *ss.

Also this is going nowhere so get back on topic.