Highest yields of nuclear weapon today

[stonesfan]

Does anyone have any information on the highest yields of strategic nuclear weapon that are available today? I presume with far more accurate deliverance systems, that megaton range devices are now a thing of the past? Or am I wrong? Or is it still a closely guarded secret?

I've seen information on 475kt weapons, but nothing higher.

Thanks for any help.

 

[kato]

China uses unitary warheads for IRBMs and ICBMs (DF-5) in the 2-5 mt range, as well as some relatively old (enduring stockpile) gravity bombs up to 3.3 mt. Newer designs (such as DF-31, JL-2) supposedly use MIRVed warheads in a range of 600 kt to 1 mt.
Russia retired the large-scale warheads on the R-36M (8.3, 18-20 and 25 mt variants) at the end of the Cold War. There are a number of remaining MIRVed warheads (around 100) for RS-12M2 at around 1.2 mt.
Offhand, the USA has a number of 9 mt gravity bombs (B53 Y1) in the enduring stockpile, to be retired around 2011 or so.

About everything else, MIRVed or otherwise, nowadays pretty much doesn't go past 500 kt.

 

[Wall83]

Yep the Chinese DF-5 missile carries a 3-5 MT warhead. Thats makes it the most powerfull nuclear missile (not inc mirved) today.
http://www.sinodefence.com/nuclear/weapon/nuclear-warhead.asp

 

[stonesfan]

Apart from levelling a large city, are there any practical uses for a megaton range weapon these days?

 

[kato]

There have never been any other applications really. Same goes for about 90% of the other stockpile - tactical warheads just aren't en-vogue that much any more, even though of course a lot of air-launched munitions can be dialed down to serve at a pure tactical level.

 

[stonesfan]

Thankyou for your help. I guess that most warheads now and in the future will be lowish to medium yield with the sole intention of being a deterrent.

By tactical I presume you mean battlefield nuclear weapons which would be used in an offensive manner?

There have never been any other applications really. Same goes for about 90% of the other stockpile - tactical warheads just aren't en-vogue that much any more, even though of course a lot of air-launched munitions can be dialed down to serve at a pure tactical level.

 

[kato]

Yes. In a tactical nuke, you'd want a certain accuracy and limitation of destruction radius - not just because of the huge amount of civilian collateral damage, but also for your own troops. A ICBM with 6-10 MIRVs, no matter which yield, can never be tactical.

The amount of warheads/delivery systems to be used in at least a semi-tactical (substrategic) way is rather limited, if we don't consider simple gravity bombs or nuclear depth charges.
The US has 528 ALCM remaining that could be used for that purpose, France has its 60 ASMP (to be reduced), Russia pretty much only has Kh-55 and a number of derived or related systems (altogether couple hundred) remaining in such systems. China, Pakistan and India rely on gravity bombs for such purposes, the UK does not have any at all.

Of course has a lot to do with "potential application". Substrategic nukes are only useful for countries with a unilateral nuclear escalation strategy, against conventional enemies.

 

[Feanor]

Russia has 884 nuclear cruise missiles of the Kh-55 and variants.

 

[kato]

Ah, thanks. Couldn't find any number quickly. Does that include RK-55?

 

[stonesfan]

I guess this is where the low yield but (in Sam Cohen's own words) 'most detested weapon ever created' Neutron bomb may have come in handy.

But I guess a major reason why it was not considered effected in a tactical role, was because its use would have provoked a full scale strategic reply.....

Yes. In a tactical nuke, you'd want a certain accuracy and limitation of destruction radius - not just because of the huge amount of civilian collateral damage, but also for your own troops. A ICBM with 6-10 MIRVs, no matter which yield, can never be tactical.

.

 

[Feanor]

Ah, thanks. Couldn't find any number quickly. Does that include RK-55?

I don't know. In fact after looking at my source closer I have to make a correction. Russia has a strategic bomber force that can carry 884 K-55 nuclear cruise missiles. The number is from Pavel Podvig's blog (a very, very authoritative source, from my past experience at least). However he counts the number of Russian strategic weapons and when he totals, his total includes 884 nuclear cruise missiles. I suspect that the total may actually be higher then that, and he counts that many simply because that's the amount that can be delivered by the total Russian strategic aviation in a single run.

http://russianforces.org/

EDIT: What I mean is that it's not likely to be less as he counts the total and it includes 884 of them.

 

[Josef]

Does anyone have any information on the highest yields of strategic nuclear weapon that are available today? I presume with far more accurate deliverance systems, that megaton range devices are now a thing of the past? Or am I wrong? Or is it still a closely guarded secret?

I've seen information on 475kt weapons, but nothing higher.

Thanks for any help.

It's estimated to be 100MT that's what scientists say a nuke can yield in a controlled man-made missile.


There is a limit to the yield or explosion of the warhead since it is not natural.


The stars can provide a better insight how powerful atomic energy is.


I guess many scientists already are aware of that just want to help.

 

[HKSDU]

highest yield is pratically infinite, in physics world. atoms keep splitting so their isnt really the "highest yield"

 

[SkolZkiy]

Russia has 884 nuclear cruise missiles of the Kh-55 and variants.

Don't forget about Kh-102 =) it's already in service =)

 

[Palnatoke]

To my knowledge HKSDU is right: There is no upper boundary (other than the impractical) of a yield.

You can simply add stage after stage in the termonuclear device, and since the triggering factor is the X-ray pressure (from the detonator, another small nuke) which traveles at the speed of light, there is no way that the bomb can pull it self apart before every stage has been triggered.

To my knowledge the largest bomb ever detonated was the "Tzar Bomba", which was a 3 stage termonuclear yielding 50 MT.

 

[Grim901]

Yes. In a tactical nuke, you'd want a certain accuracy and limitation of destruction radius - not just because of the huge amount of civilian collateral damage, but also for your own troops. A ICBM with 6-10 MIRVs, no matter which yield, can never be tactical.

The amount of warheads/delivery systems to be used in at least a semi-tactical (substrategic) way is rather limited, if we don't consider simple gravity bombs or nuclear depth charges.
The US has 528 ALCM remaining that could be used for that purpose, France has its 60 ASMP (to be reduced), Russia pretty much only has Kh-55 and a number of derived or related systems (altogether couple hundred) remaining in such systems. China, Pakistan and India rely on gravity bombs for such purposes, the UK does not have any at all.

Of course has a lot to do with "potential application". Substrategic nukes are only useful for countries with a unilateral nuclear escalation strategy, against conventional enemies.

You are correct, but the potential for a Trident missile to be used in the sub-strategic role has been discussed where only 1 or 2 warheads are fitted and set to low yield (minimum is 0.2kt on the current warhead I think). Not likely to happen though, obviously.

To my knowledge HKSDU is right: There is no upper boundary (other than the impractical) of a yield.

You can simply add stage after stage in the termonuclear device, and since the triggering factor is the X-ray pressure (from the detonator, another small nuke) which traveles at the speed of light, there is no way that the bomb can pull it self apart before every stage has been triggered.

To my knowledge the largest bomb ever detonated was the "Tzar Bomba", which was a 3 stage termonuclear yielding 50 MT.

You're right there. Although the same bomb was designed so it could be used at 100MT, but they never tried it.

 

[kato]

You are correct, but the potential for a Trident missile to be used in the sub-strategic role has been discussed where only 1 or 2 warheads are fitted and set to low yield (minimum is 0.2kt on the current warhead I think). Not likely to happen though, obviously.

True - but the actual application spectrum is next to zero, much like any talk of Chinese anti-carrier SRBMs, Russian GLCM stationed vs ABM bases, or the actual implementation of ground-penetrating anti-bunker nukes.
Reason of course the not unlikely perception of a launch as a MAD- or nuclear-war-triggering event, especially with longer-ranged systems such as SLBMs.

 

[GC13]

Even strategic weapons get massive benefits from accuracy. It was no mistake that yields got lower as accuracy increased. You know, the whole equation where doubling the distance from the target multiplies the required force by eight.

 

[kato]

For ground targets, only by four actually. Roughly. And the yields per se didn't really get lower - per throwweight. The individual throwweight of warheads was reduced, e.g. by MIRVing or integration into smaller carrier systems such as CMs.

 

[GC13]

No, it's still by eight (or darn enough near it). The blast is expanding in three dimensions rather than two, and you air burst for optimum damage anyway.

And yeah, our penchant towards more smaller warheads helps too. And even on our single-warhead cruise missiles, why quibble when a single B-52 can take down a few cities?