Biggest Nuke?
stephen.sumner
If it was detonated over London what kind of damage and for what kind of
distance are we talking about?
Thanks
Stephen
Joseph S. Powell,III
detonated was 58 mt by Russia in the early 60's.
It was originally intended to be 100 mt, but they decided 58 mt would be
sufficient for saber rattling (although I think 100 mt would have been much
more interesting).
The largest warhead on a missile is on the SS-18 Satan missile, again from
Russia - this warhead has a yeild of approximately
25 mt.
"stephen.sumner" <stephen...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:_6Re7.2585$3U6.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Steve Yeager
news:_6Re7.2585$3U6.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Russia tested 58MT bomb in 1961, which was designed for 100MT. Not sure
about the exact effects, but I think you can say goodbye to London if it
explodes over it.
stephen.sumner
I still would like to know what is the biggest Nuke that any armed force has
and what damage it would yield over distance from London.
TIA
Stephen
Steve Yeager <syeag...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:qzTe7.12$ZV5....@news02.optonline.net...
Steve Yeager
about the damage zones in urban areas for yield, altitude, etc. They vary
a lot depending upon who did the calculations. Sorry, I can't give you any
references now, but it won't be difficult to find it via search engines.
From whatever I read, most likely, typical warhead delivered by the
ballistic missile would be in the in the 1 to 3 MT range. But they also
can spread several of them in one shot, which can cause much more
destruction then a single more powerful warhead.
"stephen.sumner" <stephen...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:E9Ze7.3411$0c2.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
b...@antispam.net
win.server.ntlworld.com>, stephen...@ntlworld.com
says...
> Thanks.
>
> I still would like to know what is the biggest Nuke that any armed force has
> and what damage it would yield over distance from London.
>
> TIA
>
> Stephen
The problem is, your question is faulty. As nations cut
back on their total weapons and weapons delivery systems,
no one will use "big" nukes. As three 1/3 megaton warheads
spread on a target will do more than three times the damage
that a one megaton warhead will do, one would use the
smaller warheads.
In the 1950's or 1960's - when there were 20 megaton bombs
- your question would be interesting. Now it is just
academic.
Patrick Bean
Steve Yeager <syeag...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Russia tested 58MT bomb in 1961, which was designed for 100MT. Not sure
> about the exact effects, but I think you can say goodbye to London if it
> explodes over it.
Here is a table of blast effects of different sized weapons when airburst,
this is only a rough guide however meny things can change the effect, such
as the weather and the standard of building construction.
Heavy damage = house flatened, only survivable in basment (if atall)
Mod Damage = house badly damaged, only survivable (on ground flour) in
good inner refuge, (under stairs etc.)
light damage = roof off, upper stories badly damage but ground flour
mostly OK.
Slight damage = windows in, maybe roof off.
Yield Fireball Heavy Dmg Mod Dmg Lt Dmg Slt Dmg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 kt 450 ft .42 ml .58 ml .75 ml 1.2 ml
5 kt 860 ft .72 ml .99 ml 1.3 ml 2.0 ml
10 kt 1140 ft .91 ml 1.2 ml 1.6 ml 2.5 ml
15 kt 1340 ft 1.0 ml 1.4 ml 1.8 ml 2.9 ml
20 kt 1600 ft 1.1 ml 1.6 ml 2.0 ml 3.2 ml
50 kt 2170 ft 1.6 ml 2.1 ml 2.7 ml 4.3 ml
100 kt 2860 ft 2.0 ml 2.7 ml 3.5 ml 5.4 ml
300 kt 4450 ft 2.8 ml 3.9 ml 5.0 ml 7.8 ml
500 kt 1.0 ml 3.3 ml 4.6 ml 5.9 ml 9.3 ml
1 mt 1.4 ml 4.2 ml 5.8 ml 7.4 ml 11.7 ml
5 mt 2.6 ml 7.2 ml 9.9 ml 12.7 ml 19.9 ml
10 mt 3.4 ml 9.1 ml 12.5 ml 16.0 ml 25.1 ml
20 mt 4.5 ml 11.4 ml 15.7 ml 20.2 ml 31.6 ml
50 mt 6.5 ml 15.5 ml 21.3 ml 27.2 ml 43.0 ml
--
____ ___ ____ ____ ___ ____
| _ \|_ _/ ___| / ___| / _ \/ ___| /| Patrick Bean, My site is at
| |_) || |\___ \| | | | | \___ \ / | www.btinternet.com/~pdbean/
| _ < | | ___) | |___ | |_| |___) | /__|__ Using Risc OS4 on a Windows free
|_| \_\___|____/ \____| \___/|____/ | System. See www.riscos.org/
REstey9690
> distance are we talking about?
Remember the 10 by 2 ratio - increasing a
weapons yield by a factor of 10 yields an
increase in the damage radius of 2. This
is often forgotten by people (among them
hysterical anti nuke Dr Helen Caldicott (also a communist) who screamed out
about Russian 1000MT bombs frying
the area of 6 "western states") who
mistakenly declare that by increasing the
weapons yield to a fantastic level destroying all life on earth.
Jason and Julie
"REstey9690" <reste...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010821230432...@mb-ct.aol.com...
Carey Sublette
The effect of fallout scales at a greater than linear relationship for
large nuclear wepaons when ground burst - that is the lethal radiation
zone of a 100 Mt bomb is more than 10 times larger than a 10 mt bomb.
Just five 100 Mt bombs (50% fission) if surface burst in the right
locations (in Ireland, the Isle of Man, etc.) would completely cover
England, Scotland, and Wales with a lethal level of fallout.
Carey Sublette
Carey Sublette
Actually the ratio is 8 to 2, and if one deals with the area affected
(usually more interesting for civilian targets than the radius) it is 8
to 4. And this is only for the blast effect.
For thermal radiation the area affected is linear with yield (1 to 1),
out to the limit of atmospheric transparency.
For lethal fallout the scaling law is greater than linear. The area of
the lethal fallout zone increases faster than the yield. Very large
fission yields produce lethal fallout over vast areas.
Carey Sublette
Shardrukar
<care...@earthling.net> writes:
>Actually the ratio is 8 to 2, and if one deals with the area affected
>(usually more interesting for civilian targets than the radius) it is 8
>to 4. And this is only for the blast effect.
>
Carrey, I seem to recall an early topic discussing something about Gigaton
yield weapons. Anyway, there was some discussion concerning the fact that above
a certain yield (I'm thinking it was a couple hundred megatons) even surface
detonations start upon a scale of diminishing returns as "atmospheric blow-out"
occurs, and you end up with most of your blast going up rather than being
contained within a target region. Could you comment upon this (memory
refresher) or direct to a site that deals with detonations in this energy
range?
Carey Sublette
Yes, this effect starts appearing around 40 megatons and has its
strongest effects on airbursts and the relatively low blast pressure
regions of interest for soft targets (i.e. cities).
What happens is that the atmosphere is no longer deep enough to contain
the explosion and it "blows its top". This drop in pressure overtakes
the blast wave and weakens it. The effect is initially small but grows
with yield, with burst height, and affects the lowest pressure regions
farthest from the burst point first.
To get the largest possible destructive blast radius a very large device
at ground level would be used.
The Soviet "Tsar Bomba" (50 Mt as tested, 100+ Mt design yield) was
already large enough to be affected by this.
Doesn't reduce the fallout effect though for ground bursts.
Atmospheric transparency imposes its own limits on the maximum range of
thermal effects. Once the damage effects extend much beyond the nominal
visibility distance you have to fight exponential absoprtion in addition
to the inverse square law.
Carey Sublette
Shardrukar
<care...@earthling.net> writes:
>Yes, this effect starts appearing around 40 megatons and has its
>strongest effects on airbursts and the relatively low blast pressure
>regions of interest for soft targets (i.e. cities).
>
>What happens is that the atmosphere is no longer deep enough to contain
>the explosion and it "blows its top". This drop in pressure overtakes
>the blast wave and weakens it. The effect is initially small but grows
>with yield, with burst height, and affects the lowest pressure regions
>farthest from the burst point first.
>
>To get the largest possible destructive blast radius a very large device
>at ground level would be used.
>
>The Soviet "Tsar Bomba" (50 Mt as tested, 100+ Mt design yield) was
>already large enough to be affected by this.
>
Thanks, I thought this effect was limited to larger blasts, but it makes a lot
more sense out of the largest "regular" yield figures for some early US weapons
(@ 5-20Mt, IIRC).
Gregory Greenman
>
> The effect of fallout scales at a greater than linear relationship for
> large nuclear wepaons when ground burst - that is the lethal radiation
> zone of a 100 Mt bomb is more than 10 times larger than a 10 mt bomb.
> Just five 100 Mt bombs (50% fission) if surface burst in the right
> locations (in Ireland, the Isle of Man, etc.) would completely cover
> England, Scotland, and Wales with a lethal level of fallout.
>
> Carey Sublette
Carey,
Is that the "doomsday shroud" that the Russian ambassador
Alexi de Sadesky mentions in "Dr. Stangelove"? ;-)
"Gentlemen - you can't fight here - this is the war room!"
- President Merkin Muffley
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
bevnsag
Gregory Greenman wrote:
>
> Carey Sublette wrote:
>
> >
> > The effect of fallout scales at a greater than linear relationship for
> > large nuclear wepaons when ground burst - that is the lethal radiation
> > zone of a 100 Mt bomb is more than 10 times larger than a 10 mt bomb.
> > Just five 100 Mt bombs (50% fission) if surface burst in the right
> > locations (in Ireland, the Isle of Man, etc.) would completely cover
> > England, Scotland, and Wales with a lethal level of fallout.
> >
> > Carey Sublette
>
> Carey,
>
> Is that the "doomsday shroud" that the Russian ambassador
> Alexi de Sadesky mentions in "Dr. Stangelove"? ;-)
>
Even worse, a big dirty bomb with potentially extra hot isotopes in an
added jacket on the devices. In this case "cobalt-thorium G" Thorium has
the small potential to add to the weapon yield(?) but cobalt or other
metals simply make for nasty additions to the fallout. I suppose that
there may be any number of elements that could be stacked up besides a
static "doomsday" device for extra dirt.
Gregory Greenman
"If all you want to do is bury bombs - there's no limit to the size..."
- Dr. Strangelove
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Carey Sublette
Gregory Greenman wrote:
> Carey Sublette wrote:
>
> >
> > The effect of fallout scales at a greater than linear relationship for
> > large nuclear wepaons when ground burst - that is the lethal radiation
> > zone of a 100 Mt bomb is more than 10 times larger than a 10 mt bomb.
> > Just five 100 Mt bombs (50% fission) if surface burst in the right
> > locations (in Ireland, the Isle of Man, etc.) would completely cover
> > England, Scotland, and Wales with a lethal level of fallout.
> >
> > Carey Sublette
>
> Carey,
>
> Is that the "doomsday shroud" that the Russian ambassador
> Alexi de Sadesky mentions in "Dr. Stangelove"? ;-)
No doubt, only the Doomsday Device hidden in the arctic peaks of the Zokov
Islands was no doubt much larger.
Carey
Shardrukar
<care...@earthling.net> writes:
>No doubt, only the Doomsday Device hidden in the arctic peaks of the Zokov
>Islands was no doubt much larger.
>
Regardless of practicality, is a true "Doomsday" device/installation possible?
What I mean, is that we have learned a lot more about nuclear weapons and thier
effects in the last 50 years. While an all-out global exchange of weapons,
particularly at the levels they were at in the late sixties/early seventies,
would have been horrific, for everyone concerned, but not the all-inclusive
nature that I associate with the term "doomsday".
I guess my question boils down to what is the minimal yeild/nature of a weapons
system required to give a reasonable expectation of killing 99% of the human
population? And is it within the capabilities of any military power to produce
this (again, regardless of political or moral issues)?
bevnsag
I'd heard of a rough measure of about 1MT = 1MD(million death), not
necessarily a single device, especially against lower density populated
areas. A larger number of smaller devices can increase lethal coverage
for the same total yield, but more weapons mean more cost, both in
themselves and the delivery systems. So to promptly kill the bulk of the
human race, you might need something like 6000MT of weapon, but as many
as several million individual devices for efficient coverage.
Radiological "doomsday" devices might be a lot less, but more iffy as to
how many killed how quickly, as weather and placement play a very large
part in the game. On the other hand, the radiological effect of the
prompt mode may be able to get enough coverage and/or disruption of
service/resources to get a near complete kill given some time. Such
cheerful stuff.
Carey Sublette
A proof of feasibility can be made quite easily based on reasonable extrapolation of
demonstrated technology .
And I estimate the cost at less than $10 billion.
The concept (first suggested by Leo Szilard - the inventor of the atomic bomb) is to
inject a enough long half-life radioisotope, generated by neutron bombardment in a
thermonuclear device, into the atmosphere that the entire Earth's surface is
contaminated with a lethal level of radiation for a period of several years - a
period of time too long to wait out in a shelter. Cobalt is a popular candidate due
to its long half-life (5.26 yr IIRC) and emission of energetic gammas, tantalum is
effective also.
Brief explanation - the neutrons from a deuterium fusion yield of 50,000 megatons is
required, which implies ~1,000,000 kilograms of D, which currently costs around
$500/kg - total cost of the fusion fuel is well less than a billion dollars. The
salting material would weigh ~10,000 tonnes, cobalt cost $20/kg for a total of $200
million.
Now stationary deuterium bombs (Ivy Mike) with fusion yields of 2 megatons have
actually been detonated, and an essentially all-fusion bomb with a yield of 50
megatons (Tsar Bomba) has also been detonated. If we assume 1,000 50 megaton devices
are fabricated (using technology already demonstrated) then they would probably cost
well less than $10 million each (the average cost of a nuclear weapon for the US, all
expenses included, is $5 million). They could be dispersed at a number of locations -
say 100 buried caches of 10 each.
Achieving worldwide distribution is not a problem. A 500 Mt explosion (10 devices
detonated simultaneously) will inject the radiosiotope into the stratosphere which
will achieve world-wide distribution by the time it settles out months later.
Carey Sublette
Shardrukar
<care...@earthling.net> writes:
>The concept (first suggested by Leo Szilard - the inventor of the atomic
>bomb) is to
>inject a enough long half-life radioisotope, generated by neutron bombardment
>in a
>thermonuclear device, into the atmosphere that the entire Earth's surface is
>contaminated with a lethal level of radiation for a period of several years -
>a
>period of time too long to wait out in a shelter. Cobalt is a popular
>candidate due
>to its long half-life (5.26 yr IIRC) and emission of energetic gammas,
>tantalum is
>effective also.
>
>Brief explanation - the neutrons from a deuterium fusion yield of 50,000
>megatons is
>required,
is this a minimal effective solution (how much over-kill does this include?),
is there any way to optimize this solution?
Joseph S. Powell, III
survives a nuclear war intact, the decendants of the survivors may
very well worship it...........ALLLMIGTY BOMMMMMMMBB.......!!!
(some of you may get this)
bevnsag <bev...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3B931AAA...@home.com>...
bevnsag
"Joseph S. Powell, III" wrote:
>
> The problem with making a Cobalt-Thorium G bomb is that, if it
> survives a nuclear war intact, the decendants of the survivors may
> very well worship it...........ALLLMIGTY BOMMMMMMMBB.......!!!
> (some of you may get this)
>
Ah yes!
Shardrukar
jpowe...@charter.net (Joseph S. Powell, III) writes:
>The problem with making a Cobalt-Thorium G bomb is that, if it
>survives a nuclear war intact, the decendants of the survivors may
>very well worship it...........ALLLMIGTY BOMMMMMMMBB.......!!!
>(some of you may get this)
>
"The only good human,....is a dead human!" Close enough?
arn_werks
Is that device of worship related to a 'Holy Hand Grenade?'
Cordially,
Red
"Joseph S. Powell, III" wrote:
>
Shardrukar
<arn_...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Joseph:
>Is that device of worship related to a 'Holy Hand Grenade?'
>Cordially,
>Red
"e's got bigg airy fangs,...vicious I tell ya!"