Just a thought - I'm pretty sure using bunker-busters against soft targets would *minimize* damage from a given yield. They're kind of like the armor-piercing bullets of the bomb world, specifically designed to tightly limit their damage zone to burrow straight forward through many layers of reinforced bunker. Devastating against armor, but they wouldn't actually do much damage if the bunker itself didn't trap and concentrate the final blast(s) in the interior.
I believe fire-bombs are generally the most damaging to civilian targets - in fact they're so devastating that fire-bombing civilian targets is banned by the Geneva conventions. Not only is the initial damage spread across a much larger area, but the fire keeps spreading far faster than emergency services can deal with it.
Well you have to remember these bunker busters are also antimatter based and they were targeting actual bunkers - civilian infrastructure or not they are the sort of thing this weapon is directed destroying.
Just a thought - I'm pretty sure using bunker-busters against soft targets would *minimize* damage from a given yield. They're kind of like the armor-piercing bullets of the bomb world, specifically designed to tightly limit their damage zone to burrow straight forward through many layers of reinforced bunker. Devastating against armor, but they wouldn't actually do much damage if the bunker itself didn't trap and concentrate the final blast(s) in the interior.
I believe fire-bombs are generally the most damaging to civilian targets - in fact they're so devastating that fire-bombing civilian targets is banned by the Geneva conventions. Not only is the initial damage spread across a much larger area, but the fire keeps spreading far faster than emergency services can deal with it.
Well you have to remember these bunker busters are also antimatter based and they were targeting actual bunkers - civilian infrastructure or not they are the sort of thing this weapon is directed destroying.
Yeah, that was my thought.