35 Megaton Titan II Warhead

[KJ_Lesnick]

In 1963, Robert S. McNamara claimed that the technology existed to produce a nuclear bomb of 35 megatons that could be carried on a Titan II, or a 50-60 megaton warhead which could be carried on a B-52 without any additional testing at that point.  I'm not sure if it's true, but it may or may not be based on technical breakthroughs in the Mk41/B41 nuclear-bomb

I'm not sure if this was posturing or actually true, but here's a link about it http://www.ieri.be/fr/publications/ierinews/2011/juillet/fission-fusion-and-staging

I'm surprised we never developed it, though to be honest it may very well have been a good thing truthfully

[rickshaw]

It was likely considered too big to be much real use.   Even by that time the SIOP was moving to lots of small bombs on lots of individual targets, often in and around the same location.   This had the advantage of both making targeting more flexible but also complicating any defensive efforts.  The effect of ten or twenty 100 kiloton warheads on a city, such as Moscow would have been even more devastating than any single large warhead.   

This reached it's penultimate development in MIRV'ed missiles which were intended to swamp any defensive attempt by the fUSSR.   MIRV were also better for counter-force planning, which was becoming a big consideration also at this time, with a movement away from simple city-busting.   While MIRV was a few years off, it would have been a serious consideration after about 1962.   

[Rheged]

The Soviet TZAR BOMBA  is another device worthy of a mention in this thread.  See below for several  seconds of
painstaking research:-

"The Tsar Bomba was flown to its test site by a specially modified Tu-95V release plane, flown by Major Andrei Durnovtsev. Taking off from an airfield in the Kola Peninsula, the release plane was accompanied by a Tu-16 observer plane that took air samples and filmed the test. Both aircraft were painted with a special reflective white paint to limit heat damage.

The bomb, weighing 27 metric tons, was so large (8 metres (26 ft) long by 2 metres (6.6 ft) in diameter) that the Tu-95V had to have its bomb bay doors and fuselage fuel tanks removed. The bomb was attached to an 800 kilogram parachute, which gave the release and observer planes time to fly about 45 kilometres (28 mi) away from ground zero. When detonation occurred, the Tu-95V fell one kilometer from its previous altitude due to the shock wave of the bomb.

The original, November 1961 AEC estimate of the yield was 55–60 Mt, but since 1992 all Russian sources have stated its yield as 50 Mt. Khrushchev warned in a filmed speech to the Supreme Soviet of the existence of a 100 Mt bomb. (Technically the design was capable of this yield.)"

More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

[scooter]

Video footage of Tsar Bomba here

[rickshaw]

What the Tsar Bomb represents is two things:

1. The Russian fascination with gigantism;
2. The impracticability of very large yield bombs.   You simply couldn't put such a weapon in operational use.

As for the 100 MT boast, I think we can forget that.  I've read that the actual yield was closer to 40 than 50. 

a-model, BTW do a 1/72 scale model of the Tsar Bomb:

[Captain Canada]

That would be a cool model, for whif or posterity. I think it's been discussed before, but it comes with the wagon right ?

[rickshaw]

So I understand, Capt'n.   It's actually (as it was in real life) a converted tank transporter trailer kit which is available separately as a tank transporter!   

[RLBH]

In 1963, Robert S. McNamara claimed that the technology existed to produce a nuclear bomb of 35 megatons that could be carried on a Titan II, or a 50-60 megaton warhead which could be carried on a B-52 without any additional testing at that point.  I'm not sure if it's true, but it may or may not be based on technical breakthroughs in the Mk41/B41 nuclear-bomb

I'm not sure if this was posturing or actually true, but here's a link about it http://www.ieri.be/fr/publications/ierinews/2011/juillet/fission-fusion-and-staging

I'm surprised we never developed it, though to be honest it may very well have been a good thing truthfully

Probably a derivative of the B41 physics package; that developed 25 megatons on just over 10,000 lbs. Around this time, it was reckoned that 100 megatons could be done with a B-52-carried weapon if testing was allowed - and SAC reckoned that it could be useful. 

[pyro-manic]

A 100MT bomb would be a huge waste. At that sort of yield, a huge percentage of the energy released goes straight out into space. Several smaller bombs would be much more practical and effective. An interesting and more practical application of a huge multi-megaton warhead might be for something like comet-busting...?

[scooter]

An interesting and more practical application of a huge multi-megaton warhead might be for something like comet-busting...?

Thereby turning one huge rock into a ginormous shotgun blast.  Now, detonate it at an angle that will deflect it from the Earth, that might work

[rickshaw]

An interesting and more practical application of a huge multi-megaton warhead might be for something like comet-busting...?

Thereby turning one huge rock into a ginormous shotgun blast. 

Perhaps multiple smaller impacts which while causing more immediate damage don't end up with species extinction might be better than accepting one big impact which does?

Also, smaller fragments are more likely to breakup further or burn up on atmosphere entry.   Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions might die to save billions more.   In the hard, cold mathematics of species survival, the individual is often sacrificed.

Anyway, I'm safe.  Australia never features in any of the disaster movies.  Ever noticed that? 

Now, detonate it at an angle that will deflect it from the Earth, that might work

Much harder than it might seem.  A glancing blow is more difficult to manufacture and harder to calculate.  It may also not be sufficient to achieve the intended objective.

Our biggest problem is were know so little about the structure of comets or asteroids.  We know they are potentially big and possible extinction events but how they are put together and what we could do to destroy one?  We only have theories.   Project Rosetta will open a crack in the door to greater knowledge in a fortnight's time.

[zenrat]

What size blast would it take to shift the earth's orbit?

ISTR Sydney being attacked in Independence Day.  They showed the bridge anyway.  What they didn't show were the  Melbournians celebrating the attack. 

We do the Post Disaster movies - Mad Max, The Rover, Priscilla...

[PR19_Kit]

Anyway, I'm safe.  Australia never features in any of the disaster movies.  Ever noticed that? 

'On the beach'? 

[rickshaw]

Anyway, I'm safe.  Australia never features in any of the disaster movies.  Ever noticed that? 

'On the beach'? 

One of the few.  Look at all the others.  "The Day After Tomorrow,"  all the weather maps on the computer screens show Australia completely unaffected by weather events!  "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact," the asteroid/comet hits the Western/Northern hemispheres.   Epidemic movies?  No mention of Australia.

It's one of the times I don't mind us being forgotten/ignored by Hollywood.     

[Go4fun]

A 100MT bomb would be a huge waste. At that sort of yield, a huge percentage of the energy released goes straight out into space. Several smaller bombs would be much more practical and effective. An interesting and more practical application of a huge multi-megaton warhead might be for something like comet-busting...?

Where were these 35MT weapons when I was serious about my 4th of July Nightworks?