200 Megaton Nuclear bomb

Have Mankind develop a 200 Megaton Nuclear bomb ?.

John Smith

Ugo

2004-01-02 02:19:43 UTC

Post by John Smith
Have Mankind develop a 200 Megaton Nuclear bomb ?.

No. The USSR did have a 100 megaton at one point. A 200 Mt bomb is
completely useless unless you wanna blow up asteroids, in which case it
would be too heavy for practical use (again useless). Why would you want
such an amount of firepower? :-)

--
The butler did it.

Alexander Schreiber

2004-01-02 10:41:25 UTC

Post by John Smith
Have Mankind develop a 200 Megaton Nuclear bomb ?.

No. The USSR did have a 100 megaton at one point.

Oh yes, the famous "Tsar Bomba" - designed not as a usable weapon, but
as a political gesture to show off supposed technical superiority.

Which "only" resulted in a yield of around 50 megatons. Which still was
_way_ more destructive power than any sane mind would ever want to be
unleashed on an inhabited planet (well, alt.destroy.the.earth _is_ next
door, so you might want to visit there).

Post by Ugo
A 200 Mt bomb is completely useless unless you wanna blow up asteroids,
in which case it would be too heavy for practical use (again useless).

Multi-megaton yield devices are pretty useless for military applications
since what is the point of nuking the enemy to hell and beyond if
everything you get is radioaktive, burned land?

Tactical warheads designed for actual military use are in the "a few to
a load of" kilotons range, designed for blasting tank columns, area
targets (think troop/supply/repair camps and the like) and hard targets.

Even sub-megaton yields would have devastating effects when used
against urban areas:

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/jf04/jf04eden.html

The only use the big multi-megaton devices in the cold war had was to
keep MAD working: "Don't start a nuclear war against us because you
will not survive it".

Post by Ugo
Why would you want such an amount of firepower? :-)

For the same reason people are attracted to honking big firearms: they
are large, heavy, unwieldy and not much use in an actual firefight,
but they sure impress the hell out of your buddies!

Regards,
Alex.

--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

Ugo

2004-01-02 15:21:18 UTC

Post by John Smith
Have Mankind develop a 200 Megaton Nuclear bomb ?.

No. The USSR did have a 100 megaton at one point.

Oh yes, the famous "Tsar Bomba" - designed not as a usable weapon, but
as a political gesture to show off supposed technical superiority.

I don't know whether it was meant to show superiority. I seem to recall some
documentary where it was said that Stalin was frustrated with the U.S.
regarding their (Soviet) nuclear technology as inferior. Stalin wanted to
demonstrate that they were *equally* capable of developing devastating
weapons.

Post by Alexander Schreiber
Which "only" resulted in a yield of around 50 megatons. Which still

It produced a yield of 50 megatons because it was *deliberately* scaled down
from full yield. The full design likely included stuffing the fusion capsule
casings with U-238 which would probably more than double the yield. Sakharov
et al. were rational enough to realize the tremendous impact of >50 megatons
of *fission* fallout on the world so they chose not to test the design at
full yield.

Post by Alexander Schreiber
was _way_ more destructive power than any sane mind would ever want
to be unleashed on an inhabited planet (well, alt.destroy.the.earth
_is_ next door, so you might want to visit there).

Well, for one it would put up quite a light show not to mention the big boom
afterwards If nothing else, it would be a spectacle... :-)

Post by Ugo
A 200 Mt bomb is completely useless unless you wanna blow up
asteroids, in which case it would be too heavy for practical use
(again useless).

Multi-megaton yield devices are pretty useless for military
applications since what is the point of nuking the enemy to hell and
beyond if everything you get is radioaktive, burned land?

Back in the old days of few and inaccurate ICBMs, it probably was an
advantage to shove as many megatons as possible into a warhead. So, you
still had a reasonable chance of harming your target even if you didn't
*exactly* hit it spot on...

Post by Alexander Schreiber
Tactical warheads designed for actual military use are in the "a few
to a load of" kilotons range, designed for blasting tank columns, area
targets (think troop/supply/repair camps and the like) and hard targets.
Even sub-megaton yields would have devastating effects when used
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/jf04/jf04eden.html
The only use the big multi-megaton devices in the cold war had was to
keep MAD working: "Don't start a nuclear war against us because you
will not survive it".

Post by Ugo
Why would you want such an amount of firepower? :-)

For the same reason people are attracted to honking big firearms: they
are large, heavy, unwieldy and not much use in an actual firefight,
but they sure impress the hell out of your buddies!

But what good is that firepower if you never have the chance to set it off
somewhere - say, some deserted island ;-)

--
The butler did it.

ßÅÐÅ§§

2004-01-06 02:56:25 UTC

Post by John Smith
Have Mankind develop a 200 Megaton Nuclear bomb ?.

No. The USSR did have a 100 megaton at one point.

Oh yes, the famous "Tsar Bomba" - designed not as a usable weapon, but
as a political gesture to show off supposed technical superiority.
Which "only" resulted in a yield of around 50 megatons. Which still was
_way_ more destructive power than any sane mind would ever want to be
unleashed on an inhabited planet (well, alt.destroy.the.earth _is_ next
door, so you might want to visit there).

Militarily the Tsar Bomba was useless, and was so big that there were only
three American targets -- Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City -- that it
could have been used against without most of its power going to waste, plus
there was doubt if even the modified Tu-95 (which could only carried it
recessed, not fully internally) could have made it to the U.S. on a one-way
trip due to the bomb's drag. It was little more than another example of the
Soviet penchant for building the biggest of everything.

ßÅÐÅ§§

2004-01-06 02:56:46 UTC

Post by John Smith
Have Mankind develop a 200 Megaton Nuclear bomb ?.

No. The USSR did have a 100 megaton at one point.

Which essentially was what the "Czar Bomba" was, only its yield was kept
down to 50 MT by leaving off the U-238 jacket that would have doubled its
power -- and would have produced more fission residues than all previous
nuclear tests combined. As it was, the Czar Bomba was one of the "cleanest"
tests ever: 97% of its energy was fusion.

Klatoo

2004-01-05 09:44:53 UTC

No.
The biggest has been the Soviet Czar Bomba (50 MT), detonated over Novaya
Zemlya Island on Oct 30, 1961. This device was useless for military
purposes. Only used for propaganda.

Shardrukar

2004-01-05 15:01:00 UTC

Post by Klatoo
No.
The biggest has been the Soviet Czar Bomba (50 MT), detonated over Novaya
Zemlya Island on Oct 30, 1961. This device was useless for military
purposes. Only used for propaganda.

And why was it "useless for military purposes?"
It may not have been practical or efficient, but this does not make it
"useless."

Ugo

2004-01-05 17:01:05 UTC

Post by Klatoo
No.
The biggest has been the Soviet Czar Bomba (50 MT), detonated over
Novaya Zemlya Island on Oct 30, 1961. This device was useless for
military purposes. Only used for propaganda.

And why was it "useless for military purposes?"
It may not have been practical or efficient, but this does not make it
"useless."

If nothing else, I'd imagine the psychological effect on the enemy would be
tremendous.

--
The butler did it.

Alexander Schreiber

2004-01-05 20:03:32 UTC

Post by Klatoo
No.
The biggest has been the Soviet Czar Bomba (50 MT), detonated over Novaya
Zemlya Island on Oct 30, 1961. This device was useless for military
purposes. Only used for propaganda.

And why was it "useless for military purposes?"
It may not have been practical or efficient, but this does not make it
"useless."

Because it only wipes out one big area. Yes, it does so very thoroughly,
but thats about it. But if the thing is shot down before it reaches the
target, it is gone. According to one source, the US hat at least 400
nukes targeted at Moscow - if half of them are shot down, nobody is
really going to notice, because those 200 nukes remaining will still
blast the place around hell a few times.

And because it makes a big area completely _unusable_. There was a very
good reason the russians detonated that monster over a godforsaken
bloody cold island nobody was exactly thrilled to live on. You are not
going to put any occupation forces anywhere near the place where such
a monster went off for the next few years - that is, unless you want
to save on lamps and prefer soldiers glowing in the dark.

Don't forget that the goal of wars is seldom "convert the country of the
enemy into a blasted, burned desert nobody can live on for 50 years",
but usually gaining possession of whatever desirable things (land,
ressources, treasures, ...) your enemy (still) owns.

Regards,
Alex.

--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

Ugo

2004-01-05 20:15:25 UTC

Post by Klatoo
No.
The biggest has been the Soviet Czar Bomba (50 MT), detonated over
Novaya Zemlya Island on Oct 30, 1961. This device was useless for
military purposes. Only used for propaganda.

And why was it "useless for military purposes?"
It may not have been practical or efficient, but this does not make
it "useless."

Two nukes are always better than one...

Post by Alexander Schreiber
And because it makes a big area completely _unusable_. There was a
very good reason the russians detonated that monster over a
godforsaken bloody cold island nobody was exactly thrilled to live
on. You are not going to put any occupation forces anywhere near the
place where such
a monster went off for the next few years - that is, unless you want
to save on lamps and prefer soldiers glowing in the dark.

I think you're overestimating the local contamination produced by Tsar.
Naturally, if it were exploded on the ground the situation would be much
worse, but as it was, the high airburst carried a good portion of the
fission debris to the stratosphere. Plus, it actually was a very 'clean'
bomb, the cleanest ever detonated (though the full design yield would change
this quite a bit). The bomb likely didn't make the area "completely
unusable" (probably much less contaminated than Biniki atoll after the
Castle Bravo disaster), though it did make it swept clean of everything...

--
The butler did it.

Shardrukar

2004-01-05 21:24:56 UTC

Post by Alexander Schreiber
Because it only wipes out one big area. Yes, it does so very thoroughly,
but thats about it. But if the thing is shot down before it reaches the
target, it is gone. According to one source, the US hat at least 400
nukes targeted at Moscow - if half of them are shot down, nobody is
really going to notice, because those 200 nukes remaining will still
blast the place around hell a few times.

This presumes an either or strategy, no reason they could not have went for a
both strategy, tens of thousands of hundred megaton devices. Reliable reports
suggest that the former Soviet union produced enough fissionable materials for
some one-hundred thousand warheads, no reason a significant portion of this
material couldn't have been diverted to producing lots of big bombs.

Post by Alexander Schreiber
And because it makes a big area completely _unusable_. There was a very
good reason the russians detonated that monster over a godforsaken
bloody cold island nobody was exactly thrilled to live on. You are not
going to put any occupation forces anywhere near the place where such
a monster went off for the next few years - that is, unless you want
to save on lamps and prefer soldiers glowing in the dark.

Which is what I stated concerning "practical" but practical isn't always a
matter or concern of "utility."

Post by Alexander Schreiber
Don't forget that the goal of wars is seldom "convert the country of the
enemy into a blasted, burned desert nobody can live on for 50 years",
but usually gaining possession of whatever desirable things (land,
ressources, treasures, ...) your enemy (still) owns.

But no, the idea of MAD was complete retaliatory destruction, not softening a
target for future conquest.

ßÅÐÅ§§

2004-01-06 02:56:59 UTC

Post by Shardrukar
And why was it "useless for military purposes?"
It may not have been practical or efficient, but this does not make it
"useless."

Most military bases could have been taken out with smaller bombs or
warheads. A dozen 1 MT warheads could destroy the same area.

Shardrukar

2004-01-06 02:43:10 UTC

Post by ÃÃÃÃÂ§Â§

Post by Shardrukar
And why was it "useless for military purposes?"
It may not have been practical or efficient, but this does not make it
"useless."

Most military bases could have been taken out with smaller bombs or
warheads. A dozen 1 MT warheads could destroy the same area.

A handful of 50MT devices can irradate and disperse a sufficient quantity of
strontium, cobalt and/or gold to kill most of the US population, and the
detonations could occur in Soviet territory so no delivery system is require.

at what somewhere around 30 tons, it would have been the late 60's or so before
they could have easily orbited such a device. But 100MT devices are approaching
the range that would be effective weapons detonated in LEO.

So again, while they may not have been particularly practical military weapons,
they are not necessarily "useless" as military weapons.

ßÅÐÅ§§

2004-01-06 20:25:34 UTC

Post by Shardrukar
at what somewhere around 30 tons, it would have been the late 60's or so before
they could have easily orbited such a device. But 100MT devices are approaching
the range that would be effective weapons detonated in LEO.

Besides the thermal effect, the EMP from something that large in LEO would
fry everything electronic in an entire hemisphere.

Ugo

2004-01-06 20:12:54 UTC

Post by ÃÃÃÃÂ§Â§

Post by Shardrukar
at what somewhere around 30 tons, it would have been the late 60's
or so before they could have easily orbited such a device. But 100MT
devices are approaching the range that would be effective weapons
detonated in LEO.

Besides the thermal effect, the EMP from something that large in LEO
would fry everything electronic in an entire hemisphere.

Perhaps the entire globe, not just the hemishphere! The ionized particles
wouldn't have the atmosphere to stop them from propagating very far, they
would probably encircle the entire Earth several times. I'd say all
satellites would be knocked out, the detonation would likely disrupt Earth's
magnetic field and make the natural Van Allen belts look like a weak joke.

I'm curious, though - would there actually be a significant thermal pulse,
because IIRC 80% of the bomb's energy is released in the form of x-rays?
Wouldn't they disperse over a large area below detonation point, reducing
the overall thermal flux? Also, would the peak of the emissions be in the
visible, infrared or ultraviolet range?

--
Well, did the butler do it?

Shardrukar

2004-01-06 21:16:50 UTC

Post by Ugo
Perhaps the entire globe, not just the hemishphere! The ionized particles
wouldn't have the atmosphere to stop them from propagating very far, they
would probably encircle the entire Earth several times. I'd say all
satellites would be knocked out, the detonation would likely disrupt Earth's
magnetic field and make the natural Van Allen belts look like a weak joke.

This deals primarily with low yield detonations but is a fun little
presentation!
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/haleos.pdf

Post by Ugo
I'm curious, though - would there actually be a significant thermal pulse,
because IIRC 80% of the bomb's energy is released in the form of x-rays?
Wouldn't they disperse over a large area below detonation point, reducing
the overall thermal flux? Also, would the peak of the emissions be in the
visible, infrared or ultraviolet range?

Personally, if you want serious widespread ground linked thermal effects, 100MT
isn't large enough, you will experience some local effects (depending upon
burst altitude) But if you're looking for state-wide firestorms, you're going
to have to pump up the energy levels a bit.
here's another fun site that goes into a little bit of additional information

http://www.awe.co.uk/main_site/scientific_and_technical/featured_areas/dpd
/computational_physics/nuclear_effects_group/nuclear_effects_group_1.htm

t***@sbcglobal.net

2004-01-06 23:22:45 UTC

This deals primarily with low yield detonations but is a fun little
presentation!
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/haleos.pdf

Personally, if you want serious widespread ground linked thermal effects, 100MT
isn't large enough, you will experience some local effects (depending upon
burst altitude) But if you're looking for state-wide firestorms, you're going
to have to pump up the energy levels a bit.
here's another fun site that goes into a little bit of additional information
http://www.awe.co.uk/main_site/scientific_and_technical/featured_areas/dpd
/computational_physics/nuclear_effects_group/nuclear_effects_group_1.htm

That last link didn't translate too well, try;

http://www.awe.co.uk/main_site/scientific_and_technical/featured_areas/dpd/computational_physics/nuclear_effects_group/nuclear_effects_group_1.htm

;-)

ßÅÐÅ§§

2004-01-07 00:45:37 UTC