This would be no different really than conventional hydrogen bombs. The key difference would be that the BFB would be much bigger- big enough to do something nobody wants- like boil the oceans, shatter the crust, or throw the Earth into the sun. After completion, BFB would become a memorial to world peace- it'd be way too big to be a deliverable weapon. After trucking BFB to Washington DC, it would be installed at the foot of the Washington monument- food for the President's thoughts as he looks across the national mall. This would provide a very concrete symbol of the constant danger the world faces. Furthermore, inscribed on the bomb's surface in every major language would be the phrase: "This was expensive to build." Thus, the bomb would show the public how stupid it is to waste money on nukes.
At the same time, it would be rather cool to us technophiles. You could sell BFB T-shirts and little toy BFBs that go *BLAM* when you pull a string. And with that, the mass market transforms yet another sober symbol of society's hopes and dreams into the latest fad.-- Madcat, Apr 11 2003 B.F.G. http://www.ils.unc....murf/rjgatling.htmlThis didn't work either. [Klaatu, Oct 04 2004] You propose it as a kind of advertisement for the BFB T-shirts, [Madcat]? Or you are about the BFB itself? How it could be useful if it destroyed everyThinG?
OK. However every scary idea is another step towards peace.-- Inyuki, Apr 11 2003 The BFB t-shirt is a cynical joke. As is the whole idea in a sense, although I do think it would be a good idea for the president to have a nuke in his office. He should have to look at one all day long, lest he forget.-- Madcat, Apr 11 2003 Have you see //The Mouse that Roared// [movie]?-- supercat, Apr 11 2003 This reminds me of the Big Fucking Gun in Quake. But you're wrong; somebody would use it. The concept of "a weapon so horrible, nobody would dare use it" is bullshit. The atom bomb was concieved with much the same intent, and it has been used many times over.-- Eugene, Apr 11 2003 By many times over do you mean twice? Perhaps my ignorance is shining through, but i thought only hiroshima and nagasaka have had the misfortune of being nuked (excluding tests, which hardly count!)-- MikeOliver, Apr 11 2003 ...many times over... Japan-- thumbwax, Apr 12 2003 Where the bomb was placed might cause unrest. Why does the U.S. get/have to have the bomb? Why not some other country? Besides,... the other countries wouldn't just buy the "oh, we're only making this bomb as a memorial to world peace" excuse. They might see it as a threat, causing conflict, leading to war, which is the exact opposite of the original objective.-- audgepodge, Apr 30 2003 And, the idea is somewhat baked to boot. Gatling had the same idea that "...believing that if war became more lethal it would force politicians and soldiers to explore peaceful alternatives." <link>
That idea didn't work either.-- Klaatu, Jan 02 2004 Won't affect the amount of war on the planet, but will increase the risk that some psyco would manage to set it off and destroy the earth. (-)-- scad mientist, Jan 02 2004 Gatling was not alone. The atomic bomb won a nobel prize based on the idea that it was such a terrible weapon that war would end. In another example, World War I was "the war to end all wars"-- Voice, Apr 25 2008 To be fair, the firebombing of Tokyo was much more terrible in terms of effect than either atomic bomb.-- Voice, Apr 25 2008 random, halfbakery