Highest yields of nuclear weapon today

[Palnatoke]

As I see it;

The energy distribution should go as R^3, where R is the distance to the point of detonation.

If this point is in the air, we could ask how the distribtion looks as seen from the point on the ground above which the nuke is detonated (the projection of the sphere unto a surface) then the distribution should go like (h^2+r^2)^(3/2), where h is the height of the detonation above the surface and and r is the distance from the perpendicular projection of the point of detonation unto the surface.

So seen on a map, the destruction is more concentrated around the center than a cubic decrease. Though a distance (r>>h) from the center you have a cubic decrease.

 

[Beatmaster]

Before i ask my question please read this little history tekst so you understand my question better because its difficult to explain.

Hiroshima got hit by (Little boy) and did have 15000 TNT or 15KT and resulted in 78.000 by the end of 1945
Nagasaki got hit by (Fat boy) and did have 21000 TNT or 21KT and
resulted in 70.000 by the end of 1945
Both attacks resulted in even more dead people due sickenss and cancer effects triggered by both drops and raises the numbers for Nagasaki up to 240.000 people, and for Hiroshima 140.000 people.
These bombs did destroy 2 large city's, Hirosima did have around 340.000 people living in its city.
Nagasaki did have roughly 250.000 people living in this city.
Just years later could a detailed description become written there of what really had happened. The temperature in the middle of the explosion was some millions degrees Celsius. The blast did break windows on 15 kilometres distance. Bldg. on 4 kilometres distance were carbonised, on 3 kilometres distance 90 per cent of the bldg. had fire damage, and in a range of 2 kilometres around the deflagration was nothing then ash and ruble left. Thirteen square kilometres had been destroyed entirely, including 42 of Hiroshima 45 hospitals.
Keep in mind that even after 1950 people still died due the effects of both bombs.

This was more than 50 years ago, now we are at years 2009 and we can make Bombs like Tsar Bomba with a roughly 100MT (50MT was tested i believe?) explosion power.
Tsar Bomba seems to be the biggest Bomb ever build but, today the atomic powers use Abombs between lets say 5MT up to 40MT or so??? (iam guessing here)
Thats Megaton not Kiloton like we used at Japan the bombs from this time are so mutch more powerfull than 50 years ago.
As the history tells us Little Boy did have a 15KM raduis and a 4KM direct dead raduis.

What would be the raduis of a 30MT ICBM on a direct hit at lets say for example Paris in France or lets say Amsterdam in the Netherlands? or a Mega city like London? i know that it depens on certain conditions but i mean theoretical?
Because if Little Boy is able to kill people directly up to 4km away from groundzero than i can only asume that a modern bomb might even kill up to 40KM away or perhaps even 400KM away from point of impact.
Fat and little boy claimed lets say totally (roughly) 600.000 deads than what the hell must be the raw dead number of a direct hit these days?
Keep in mind that the "smart people" find from now and then ways to build a bomb with less MT but with more effective power to ensure even more destruction.

I understand that a country has the right to defend itself and has the right to buildup a similair arsenal to ensure equal destruction like the setting between US and USSR during the cold war, but what is the point of heaving these things anyway? Because lets say for example that one of the world leaders is forced to drop/launch a Nuke then the scale of destruction on both sides will make the power of Little/Fat boy look a blast of a small firecracker.

So what will be the theoretical destruction range of a modern 30MT ICBM?

Anyway lets hope that every nation uses his brains so this never happens,
Because whatever you think but lets face it using these kind of massdestuction weapons is INSANE:lul

 

[kato]

today the atomic powers use Abombs between lets say 5MT up to 40MT or so??? (iam guessing here)

No one actively uses weapons in that range. Multiple impacts with bombs generally in the 150 to 600 kt range are far more "economical".

The active stockpile in the USA only contains some 300 bombs with a higher yield (of a dialing yield up to 1.2 MT); there are also a handful 9 MT gravity bombs in the enduring stockpile somewhere. Situation in Russia is similar, just with 20 MT warheads instead of the 9 MT bomb stock.

Because if Little Boy is able to kill people directly up to 4km away from groundzero than i can only asume that a modern bomb might even kill up to 40KM away or perhaps even 400KM away from point of impact.

40 km away - sure (we'd be talking a 15+ MT bomb then though). For range of potentially fatal overpressure in the blast wave. 400 km away - only by fallout. And even with the first figure of 40 km, terrain will be a decisive factor on anything.
20 MT bombs are typically credited with a 50 km maximum kill zone in flat terrain.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Before i ask my question please read this little history tekst so you understand my question better because its difficult to explain.

What would be the raduis of a 30MT ICBM on a direct hit at lets say for example Paris in France or lets say Amsterdam in the Netherlands? or a Mega city like London? i know that it depens on certain conditions but i mean theoretical?
Because if Little Boy is able to kill people directly up to 4km away from groundzero than i can only asume that a modern bomb might even kill up to 40KM away or perhaps even 400KM away from point of impact.
Fat and little boy claimed lets say totally (roughly) 600.000 deads than what the hell must be the raw dead number of a direct hit these days?
Keep in mind that the "smart people" find from now and then ways to build a bomb with less MT but with more effective power to ensure even more destruction.

I understand that a country has the right to defend itself and has the right to buildup a similair arsenal to ensure equal destruction like the setting between US and USSR during the cold war, but what is the point of heaving these things anyway? Because lets say for example that one of the world leaders is forced to drop/launch a Nuke then the scale of destruction on both sides will make the power of Little/Fat boy look a blast of a small firecracker.

So what will be the theoretical destruction range of a modern 30MT ICBM?

Anyway lets hope that every nation uses his brains so this never happens,
Because whatever you think but lets face it using these kind of massdestuction weapons is INSANE:lul

I read a great paper buy the Federation of American Scientists explaining the effects on nuclear war. The following from their publication (sorry for the quality, it was written in the 80's).

There are several ways nuclear weapons kill humans: thermal radiation which burns people, heavy particle radiation which degrades their cells (radiation sickness) and their DNA (Cancer), Fallout, gamma radiation ect. But by far the biggest is blast. Blast pressure is the main destructive force of nuclear explosives, its the force that knocks buildings down and destroys infrastructure. Thus the best way to gauge the effectiveness of a single, strategic nuclear attack is to see which type applies the greatest blast effects over the largest area. Blast pressure (or overpressure) is measured in PSI or Pounds per Square Inch of pressure exerted on a surface. According to FAS an overpressure of only 5 PSI will exert a pressure of 160 tons on an average 2 story house. However because blast waves travel through three dimensions the pressure decreases exponentially with range from the blast, although detonating the weapon above the target will maximize the total area effected. A 1MT nuclear detonation at 8,000ft will subject an area of 28 square miles of 10psi or more of overpressure, with a radius of 3 miles (4.8km). At 10psi of overpressure FAS states:

"Most factories and commercial buildings are collapsed. Small wood-frame and brick residences destroyed and distributed as debris"

Casualties are extremely dependent on the burst height, yield, geography time of day and building type. Thus estimating casualties is extremely subjective. From blast alone, at an overpressure of 5psi, all typical residential buildings would be destroyed, which would cause about a 50% fatality rate to the 5psi affected area. Closer to ground zero the level of mortality would raise to virtually 100%. When heat effects are included the fatality rate would increase significantly, again depending on the time of day and the cities buildings.

There are a few reasons why advanced nuclear powers have moved away from mega thermonuclear fission-fusion-fission weapons ala the B35 9MT or 'Tzar Bomba' 50mt weapons. Current state of the art of strategic nuclear employment is to saturate a city target with multiple sub megaton warheads. This has several advantages over a single super H bomb (or even run of the mill, ICBM deliverable <5MT H Bomb) .

1. With increased accuracy you can hit single point targets in addition to the airbursting several other warheads to maximize area damage (i.e. if you want to make sure a hardened command structure is destroyed in addition to leveling the city).
2. Multiple warheads and countermeasures are significantly harder to counter with ABM systems than a single incoming warhead; if you take out the single incoming warhead problem solved. If you take out one of the 6~12 incoming from a MIRVed BM you haven't helped yourself much.
3. The big one. By airbbursting several 400kt warheads over a city you actually increase the total area blast effect, even if your total explosive force is less than a single H bomb. This is because as you move away from the detonation point the blast pressure decreases exponentially, and with blasts over the city more of the built up area will be effected to 3psi or 5psi+ overpressure. 10 40kt nuclear detonations (for a grand total of 400kt) would do comparable damage to a 1mt airburst with less than half of the explosive force.

So in summing up the lethal radius of an 1MT H bomb depends on a whole bunch of things, including blast height, geography, target details ect. But a city like Detroit with a population of ~4 million (considerably less at the time FAS did the study so let's say 3 million) with a 1Mt airburst at 8,000ft would kill about 500,000 and another half a million would be severe casualties.

I hoped this helped some, I've attached all the relevant material.

The FAS PDF:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/790604.pdf

 

[Beatmaster]

No one actively uses weapons in that range. Multiple impacts with bombs generally in the 150 to 600 kt range are far more "economical".

The active stockpile in the USA only contains some 300 bombs with a higher yield (of a dialing yield up to 1.2 MT); there are also a handful 9 MT gravity bombs in the enduring stockpile somewhere. Situation in Russia is similar, just with 20 MT warheads instead of the 9 MT bomb stock.


40 km away - sure (we'd be talking a 15+ MT bomb then though). For range of potentially fatal overpressure in the blast wave. 400 km away - only by fallout. And even with the first figure of 40 km, terrain will be a decisive factor on anything.
20 MT bombs are typically credited with a 50 km maximum kill zone in flat terrain.

True true about the 40/400KM desturction range i was guessing because to be honest if you would tell me they can kill at 500KM i would have believed you because on this matter i do not have a clue, but fact remains that these numbers are insane.

So if you take the fallout into account than people can die at 400KM range?
And one other question what is the difference between a tactical nuke and a normal ICBM?
Is there a big difference in power? or how must i see this?


@ Ozzy Blizzard
Great reply thanks man
I will read it ^^

Ps i have heard that on Vokel AB there are 20+ american nukes?
for tactical bombing? they should get dropped by dutch f-16's?
Any of you know anything about that? and what kind of nukes are those?
Because i remember a post that security was bad around these nukes that suppost not to be existing? and that the dutch goverment returned them to the USA? or is this just another myth?

 

[Beatmaster]

@Ozzy Blizzard

I did read the whole pdf file and the only thing i can say is: Iam speechless
I did knew that atomic weapons are insane but for example a airburst on detroit? omg the range is huge and the number of dead people is huge.
And they did for their study a 1mt bomb as an example i can only guess what would happen if a country builds a really big bomb....
Just insane really insane.:shudder

great post thanks for the info :shudder

 

[kato]

Ps i have heard that on Vokel AB there are 20+ american nukes?
for tactical bombing? they should get dropped by dutch f-16's?

NATO nuclear sharing is supposedly active with Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. Each estimated at about 20 nukes.
All nukes used for dropping by NATO aircraft of these nations are B61 Mod 3/4/10 type tactical nuclear free-fall bombs, with yield dialing between 300 tons and 170 kilotons yield.

Each of these above countries has rumours that the US has already withdrawn the NATO nuclear sharing warheads. It's not like the governments could even go and count them - the storage sites are "blackboxes", with an outer security ring provided by the host nation, and anything inside only accessible to US Military.

 

[Beatmaster]

NATO nuclear sharing is supposedly active with Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. Each estimated at about 20 nukes.
All nukes used for dropping by NATO aircraft of these nations are B61 Mod 3/4/10 type tactical nuclear free-fall bombs, with yield dialing between 300 tons and 170 kilotons yield.

Each of these above countries has rumours that the US has already withdrawn the NATO nuclear sharing warheads. It's not like the governments could even go and count them - the storage sites are "blackboxes", with an outer security ring provided by the host nation, and anything inside only accessible to US Military.

i see,
I have did some digging myself and found this:

It is believed that since 1965 USAF nuclear weapons are stored at Volkel Air Base. Formerly storage took place in a special ammunition storage area on the north side of the base and in a heavily defended quick reaction alert area but since 1991 the WS3 weapon storage and security system is operational in the floors of the aircraft shelters. The USAF 703rd Munition Support Squadron is in charge of maintaining and securing the weapons.[2][citation needed] At present (2008) 22 B61 nuclear bombs are believed to be in storage at Volkel to be used by the Dutch 311 and 312 F-16 squadrons at the base.[3] Despite clear evidence, the Dutch ministry of defense never officially acknowledges or denies the presence of nuclear weapons at Volkel.[4] source: Volkel Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it seems that the dutch do have acces to these weapons incase of a full scale allout war?

 

[kato]

Only with US approval. The Munitions Group also has to arm the nukes with the proper codes, the host nation has no power over this.

 

[Beatmaster]

So you are saying that if and only if the US goverment approve then the Dutch army/airforce is allowed to use nucleaire bombs against a treath?

The reason iam asking is because we all know that if the dutch are willing to build a nucleaire bomb then they could because for example Urenco is one of the leading Manufacturer of enriched uranium for the nuclear power utilities worldwide so basicly we have the tools to build it.

They will not build any nuke because of the many agreements they have made in the past, and i do believe that the international community would not like the fact that the Dutch have nucleaire weapons.
So in 1980 the dutch goverment said no we will not have nukes.
So the netherlands are not a atomic power right?

But the bottomline is that we indirect have the option to nuke a treath back to the stone age, because i do not believe that the US would allow a allout war against Nato/EU or for example the Netherlands.
I mean theoretical if the dutch run out of options then they could resort to the use of nucleaire weapons with approval of the US Goverment right?
Maybe iam seeing this wrong but i think you know that this is a HUGE issue here in the netherlands because in 1980 the goverment said no to the build of nucleaire assets, the whole dutch country did riot about that point to get the crazy goverment as far to say ok we will not build these bombs.

But at the same time they allowed the US and if i remember correctly the france army to station/park nucleaire related assets inside the dutch borders.
The goverment never did admit this.

 

[kato]

So you are saying that if and only if the US goverment approve then the Dutch army/airforce is allowed to use nucleaire bombs against a treath?

Yes.

So the netherlands are not a atomic power right?

Yes. Just like Germany, Belgium, Italy and formerly Greece and Turkey.

i think you know that this is a HUGE issue here in the netherlands because in 1980 the goverment said no to the build of nucleaire assets, the whole dutch country did riot about that point to get the crazy goverment as far to say ok we will not build these bombs.

In Germany it was a really big thing back in the late 50s, with some of the largest demonstrations held in Germany postwar since then (the 80s anti-nuclear-power movement was the only thing bigger). By the mid-60s, everyone seemingly "forgot" about it, and by the late 80s, there were some 2000 nuclear warheads assigned to be used by the Bundeswehr.

 

[10ringr]

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

Leveling a city (depending on whos city) may indeed be practical under certain circumstances

 

[Grim901]

Leveling a city (depending on whos city) may indeed be practical under certain circumstances

That was his point. He was asking if there were any other uses for a megaton range weapon now? I certainly can't think of any....unless a giant asteroid is heading for Earth and only Bruce Willis and his oil well drilling team can save us.

 

[kato]

Well, there's always Project Plowshare and its respective Soviet counterpart... one of the proposed uses in the US was to drop a multi-megaton nuke in the Panama Canal to widen it, another was to bomb away some mountain range in the Mojave with 22 nukes to build Interstate 40 through it, and one of the first proposed and almost carried out was to crater a new harbour into some coastal area in Alaska using five hydrogen bombs in the megaton range.
The Soviet counterpart was mostly industrial: Geological Exploration creating underground explosion waves that would give information on the buildup of the ground and also creation of underground caverns (for gas or toxic waste storage). It used about 100 small Hiroshima-level bombs bombs in the process (financed by the respective ministries).

 

[Grand Danois]

All together, the Program 7 conducted 115 nuclear explosions. Among them:

* 39 explosions for the purpose of the geological exploration (trying to find new natural gas deposits by studying seismic waves produced by small nuclear explosions
* 25 explosions for intensification of oil and gas debits
* 22 explosions for creating underground storage for natural gas
* 5 explosions for extinguishing large natural gas fountains
* 4 explosions for creating channels and dams (including the Chagan test in Kazakhstan, and the Taiga test on the potential route of the Pechora-Kama Canal)
* 2 explosions for crushing ore in open-pit mines
* 2 explosions for creating underground storage for toxic wastes
* 1 explosion to facilitate coal mining in an underground mine
* 19 explosions were performed for research purposes (studying possible migration of the radioactivity from the place of the explosions).


Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy (sometimes referred to as Program #7[1]), was a Soviet program to investigate peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs). It was analogous to the US program Operation Plowshare.

 

[Grim901]

Well, there's always Project Plowshare and its respective Soviet counterpart... one of the proposed uses in the US was to drop a multi-megaton nuke in the Panama Canal to widen it, another was to bomb away some mountain range in the Mojave with 22 nukes to build Interstate 40 through it, and one of the first proposed and almost carried out was to crater a new harbour into some coastal area in Alaska using five hydrogen bombs in the megaton range.
The Soviet counterpart was mostly industrial: Geological Exploration creating underground explosion waves that would give information on the buildup of the ground and also creation of underground caverns (for gas or toxic waste storage). It used about 100 small Hiroshima-level bombs bombs in the process (financed by the respective ministries).

But nothing like that is being considered anymore is it. Not since they realised that detonations in the atmosphere cause some pretty big problems, not bad if you're planning on ending the world, but widening a canal is something else.

 

[kato]

Well next one then would be the projects using nukes exploded within a semisphere (of various designs, including sails) to propel spacecraft. Used pretty small bombs though, sub-kiloton range - except for the original Orion designs, which would have used megaton-range bombs (somehow, about anything involving Freeman Dyson tended to become ... huge).
The concept pops up about once a decade as a potential drive for interstellar missions. In more recent literature NASA has struck the term "nuclear" and calls the concept "electronic pulsed plasma propulsion". Current iteration iirc got rid of the bombs and instead uses an enclosed fusion explosion "generator" with magnetic bottles funneling the fusion energy straight out the back of the ship.

 

[turin]

unless a giant asteroid is heading for Earth and only Bruce Willis and his oil well drilling team can save us.

A multi-megaton-explosion might not be practical even then. The stuff shown in this movie was nonsense from a scientific point of view (naturally, talking about a popcorn movie). Any explosion actually blowing up a huge object like the one depicted in the movie would only enhance its destructive power because the separate parts created by the explosion would still strike Earth, only in multiple points. It might be beneficial for planetary integrity, but mankind would still face extinction.

Credible ideas rather suggest an explosion in the way of an incoming asteroid, so that its course would be altered sufficiently in order to avoid any collision. Now how powerful that explosion would have to be is dependent on many factors. It could actually be quite weak, given some decent distance away from Earth (which is needed in any case).

But talking about movies...what comes to my mind almost instantly when its about big nukes, is the rather recent Brit movie "Sunshine"...where they use that nuke the size of Manhattan for stabilizing our sun. But then again scientists who watched the movie suggested that the actual device needed for such a purpose would have had to be the size of our moon. I think they gave a yield for this device but I cant remember.

Last but not least, in a story more related to reality, some Australian politician suggested in the 50s or 60s to use multi-megaton-nukes to blow gaps into the Great Barrier Reef in order to stimulate shipping activity in Queensland. Well, I guess it was the time for that...

 

[PhysicsMan]

A multi-megaton-explosion might not be practical even then. The stuff shown in this movie was nonsense from a scientific point of view (naturally, talking about a popcorn movie). Any explosion actually blowing up a huge object like the one depicted in the movie would only enhance its destructive power because the separate parts created by the explosion would still strike Earth, only in multiple points. It might be beneficial for planetary integrity, but mankind would still face extinction.

Credible ideas rather suggest an explosion in the way of an incoming asteroid, so that its course would be altered sufficiently in order to avoid any collision. Now how powerful that explosion would have to be is dependent on many factors. It could actually be quite weak, given some decent distance away from Earth (which is needed in any case).

it might be beneficial to blow it to pieces because they might melt then in the atmosphere easier than one big chunk. if sufficient explosion was applied (what that might be for a good size meteoroid i have no idea) then the resulting peices could be small enough to be burned off, at least partially, avoiding such disasters as massive tsunami.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Theres a great deal of movement on space engine designs and its quiet possible that in the future a fission or fusion powered engine is a reality. Chucking bombs out the back is not the favoured version of this. We have for a while been able to control fission reactions and have some control of fusion reactions just not in the way of net energy gain.

Some of the new engines such as VASIMR mean that all you need is a nuclear reactor and you can make a very effective spacecraft. Megawatt power is now avalible for spacecraft. Interplanetary/moon trips could take days instead of months. While only 60-70% efficent, its way more effiecent that nuclear explosions. Not to mention politically more acceptable.

Blowing up a asteroid into smaller chunks is akin to what happen with ICBM and having multiple MEV's, resulting in a much larger affected area with greater devistation and more complex end results. Unless the chunks are less than <1m in size things are going to be nasty. Imagine a series of peices hitting the earth over 6-48 hrs, so that there is "no safe place to hide". Mass drivers/sails/engines would be by far the best way to move such objects and we have the technology today to build them. But that would make a very boring movie. In space using a long term small thrust is just as effective as a short burst of huge thrust. But small thrust over long time is usually cheaper and far more controllable.