Large Nukes, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 30-11-2004 @ 07:28 PM by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by Teh_Gerbil
And the tree was probably sicne cut down and used as firewood.

Thats a pretty amazing story, one tree survived all that?

Perhpas it was as when the meteor exploded it went in a cone shape down, so avoiding that singular tree. Or maybe it exploded because it hit a bird which was aobve the tree, and went around it.

My first theory is more plausible I feel.

1)Both theorys are impossible, the trees, were blown away from the center where the one tree stood.
2)It was definetly not a meteor, there was no crater.
3)They tried proving that there was no crater for a certain reason, however it failed because the natural event was way too rare to occur at the time.
4)Strange how one tree still stood, it was at the center of the explosion, and as stated before, all the trees around it were blown over AWAY from the center tree.

Shattered OUT...

reply posted on 1-12-2004 @ 04:30 PM by cubiehole

Actually, I heard theories that involve the meteor exploding in mid air. I can't remember the exact reasons, but there logical explanations given of how it could have exploded in the air. Maybe not probable, but logical.

The best theory I ever heard was that the whole thing was cause by an experiment that Tesla was performing. It was somewhere in the northern US where the experiment was being conducted. It had something to with static electricity in the atmosphere, I believe. Basically, think harnessing lightening bolts as an energy source. Anyway, what was claimed to happen was that he forgot to factor in gravity to the experiment, so instead of all that energy coming down to whatever it was he had built in the US, gravity 'pulled' it, and it came down at this location in Russia.

That one is pretty out there, but definitely my favorite.

reply posted on 1-12-2004 @ 05:37 PM by Lucretius

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Russia detonated the largest nuclear weapon ever The Tsar Bomba ("King of Bombs") a 100 MT nuke at half yield so it was about a 50 MT blast.

I think the Russians found that more than 10 megatons is a waste because you're not increasing the blast radius by much as you increase the yield once you get over 10 MT.

Nukes have really changed more into a bunch of smaller ones such as we see in MIRVs compared to just one big one. That seems to be the better way to go as that makes up most of the modern ICBMs we see in Russia and the US.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

The largest bomb now in the US arsenal is the 9MT B-53

no the russians found that the blast still increased proportionately (if the full 100mt yeild was detonated it would have created a fireball the size of maryland)

however large bombs like that are inneficient... it's much better to have many smaller bombs that are more precise than one huge blast.

The TSAR bomb was a technology demonstration and propaganda tool... nothing more

reply posted on 3-12-2004 @ 05:19 AM by Harlequin

the `TSAR` weapons are big , powerful but useless on any battlefield - it was a parachute retarded bomb , detonated on the 30th october 1961 , at an altitude of 4000m Over Novaya Zemlya Island test range . This three stage weapon was actually a 100 megaton bomb design, but the uranium fusion tamper of the teritiary (and probably secondary) stage(s) was replaced by one made of lead to eliminate fast fission by the fusion neutrons. The result was also the cleanest weapon ever tested with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions. The yield was reported to be 53 MT.

This weapon was developed in a remarkably short time. On 10 July 1961 Nikita Khruschev met with Sakharov, then the senior weapon designer, and directed him to develop a 100 megaton bomb. This device had to be ready for a test series due to begin in September so that the series would create maximum political impact (a bomb this size is virtually useless militarily). Sakharov returned to Arzamas-16, and selcted a design team consisting of Victor Adamskii, Yuri Babaev, Yuri Trunev, and Yuri Smirnov (who later oversaw the transformation of this design into a fielded weapon). The bomb was tested only 14 weeks after the initiation of its design.

The effect of this bomb at full yield on global fallout would have been tremendous. It would have increased the world's total fission fallout since the invention of the atomic bomb by 25%. The fabrication of the massive parachute disrupted the Soviet nylon hosiery industry. It weighed 27 metric tons. Some were actually stockpiled.

The bomb was air dropped by a Tu-95 strategic bomber piloted by A. E. Durnovtsev (made Hero of the Soviet Union).

There are other `tsar` equipment , the tsar cannon - which weighs 85,000 lbs (40 tons) , is 16 feet long, has an 890mm calibre and made in 1586 (but never fired) and the tsar bell which weighs in at 200 tons (but again never used as it was crackined in a fire in 1737).

[edit on 3-12-2004 by Harlequin]

reply posted on 3-12-2004 @ 06:47 AM by Kozzy

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by Teh_Gerbil
And the tree was probably sicne cut down and used as firewood.

Thats a pretty amazing story, one tree survived all that?

Perhpas it was as when the meteor exploded it went in a cone shape down, so avoiding that singular tree. Or maybe it exploded because it hit a bird which was aobve the tree, and went around it.

My first theory is more plausible I feel.

1)Both theorys are impossible, the trees, were blown away from the center where the one tree stood.
2)It was definetly not a meteor, there was no crater.
3)They tried proving that there was no crater for a certain reason, however it failed because the natural event was way too rare to occur at the time.
4)Strange how one tree still stood, it was at the center of the explosion, and as stated before, all the trees around it were blown over AWAY from the center tree.

Shattered OUT...

There wasn't a crater because the meteor exploded in the air.

reply posted on 3-12-2004 @ 06:36 PM by imasspeons

i did some research at nuclearweaponarchive.org... (they got a site for everything) anyway it goes as following

Note: number indicates number of launch ready warheads each country has, not total stockpile (US has no stockpile, all weapons are ready to launch). warheads are individual nuclear divices, some missles carry over 12 warheads, after entering space each warhead leaves missile and heads for predestined target. there are 1000 kilotons in 1 megaton. to give you some prospective "little man" (the hiroshima bomb) had a yield of 18 kilotons.

USA: 7339
Russia: ??? estimated at 6000 launch ready warheads
UK: 58 (and no its not 2000 and no they are smaller than US nukes, sorry)
France: 449
China ??? estimated at 100-200 warheads, all small yeild tactical
India: ??? estimnated at less than 100
Pakistan: ??? estimated at less than 50
Isreal: ??? estimated at 80-150

Largest US nuke is W-88/Mk-5 with 435 kiloton yeild

Largest Russian nuke is SS-18 Satan, yeild varies depending on year and model, ranges from 750 kilotons to 1 megaton.

Largest British (and only british type in service) is Trident II D-5 missile, each warhead has 10 kiloton yeild.

Largest French weapon is M4B, each warhead has about 250 kiloton yield.

Largest Chinese is believed to be under 20 kilotons, but they surely have larger in stockpile

Both Pakistan and India are believed to have weapons with warheads that could be between 200-300 kilotons.

Isreal's largest is belived to have 250 kiloton yield.

all types mentioned would be used in nuclear war, blast radius would vary with each warhead becausw of targets geography, but a 80 kiloton warhead would vaporate everything for 1 kilometer diameter and melt and vaporize metal for a 15 kilometre diameter i think, to give you some prospective again.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by imasspeons]

reply posted on 3-12-2004 @ 08:50 PM by Starwars51

Originally posted by imasspeons
i did some research at nuclearweaponarchive.org... (they got a site for everything) anyway it goes as following

Note: number indicates number of launch ready warheads each country has, not total stockpile (US has no stockpile, all weapons are ready to launch). warheads are individual nuclear divices, some missles carry over 12 warheads, after entering space each warhead leaves missile and heads for predestined target. there are 1000 kilotons in 1 megaton. to give you some prospective "little man" (the hiroshima bomb) had a yield of 18 kilotons.

USA: 7339
Russia: ??? estimated at 6000 launch ready warheads
UK: 58 (and no its not 2000 and no they are smaller than US nukes, sorry)
France: 449
China ??? estimated at 100-200 warheads, all small yeild tactical
India: ??? estimnated at less than 100
Pakistan: ??? estimated at less than 50
Isreal: ??? estimated at 80-150

Largest US nuke is W-88/Mk-5 with 435 kiloton yeild

all types mentioned would be used in nuclear war, blast radius would vary with each warhead becausw of targets geography, but a 80 kiloton warhead would vaporate everything for 1 kilometer diameter and melt and vaporize metal for a 15 kilometre diameter i think, to give you some prospective again.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by imasspeons]

This information (at least for the US) is incorrect. In fact, I was unable to find a single online reference that lists START II numbers. The US's goal is to reduce it's deployed weapons to approx 1,750 by October 2005, - and they are well on the way. Almost all Minuteman missiles are de-mirved, and Peacekeepers (MX) are being de-activated right now. The US also maintains a signifigant stockpile of weapons that are not mated to any delivery system (spares). Russia is supposed to be working towards the same goal - but they are almost certainly behind due to "lack of money" - and never formally agreeing to START II.

BTW- START I limited all weapons to 10 MIRV's, even though some systems can carry more - they do not. Also, a 350 KT warhead has a blast radius of appox 2-3 miles (against non-hardened targets), and would kill (due to radiant heat) anthing unprotected within approx twice that. However, when you start dealing with hardened targets - such as missile silos - a direct (within a couple hunded feet) hit is needed, possibly by more than one warhead.

reply posted on 3-12-2004 @ 08:51 PM by Starwars51

Originally posted by imasspeons
i did some research at nuclearweaponarchive.org... (they got a site for everything) anyway it goes as following

Note: number indicates number of launch ready warheads each country has, not total stockpile (US has no stockpile, all weapons are ready to launch). warheads are individual nuclear divices, some missles carry over 12 warheads, after entering space each warhead leaves missile and heads for predestined target. there are 1000 kilotons in 1 megaton. to give you some prospective "little man" (the hiroshima bomb) had a yield of 18 kilotons.

USA: 7339
Russia: ??? estimated at 6000 launch ready warheads
UK: 58 (and no its not 2000 and no they are smaller than US nukes, sorry)
France: 449
China ??? estimated at 100-200 warheads, all small yeild tactical
India: ??? estimnated at less than 100
Pakistan: ??? estimated at less than 50
Isreal: ??? estimated at 80-150

Largest US nuke is W-88/Mk-5 with 435 kiloton yeild

all types mentioned would be used in nuclear war, blast radius would vary with each warhead becausw of targets geography, but a 80 kiloton warhead would vaporate everything for 1 kilometer diameter and melt and vaporize metal for a 15 kilometre diameter i think, to give you some prospective again.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by imasspeons]

reply posted on 4-12-2004 @ 06:54 AM by Ishes

Originally posted by Starwars51
BTW- START I limited all weapons to 10 MIRV's, even though some systems can carry more - they do not. Also, a 350 KT warhead has a blast radius of appox 2-3 miles (against non-hardened targets), and would kill (due to radiant heat) anthing unprotected within approx twice that. However, when you start dealing with hardened targets - such as missile silos - a direct (within a couple hunded feet) hit is needed, possibly by more than one warhead.

When you say radiant head? Do you mean the inital blast of heat.. the white light? Everything within about 6 miles just gets killed instantly?

What about the fireball afterwards?

reply posted on 4-12-2004 @ 07:25 AM by Mephorium

As for tactical nukes, I heard that during the cold war (I believe it was) Russia strategiclly placed some within the United States. But has since then removed them. Any of this true?

A clean version of Soviet RDS-220 was airdroped over Novaya Zemlya on October 30, 1961, and produced a yield of 58 mt with a fission yield 3% of the total yield. The full yield version had a yield of 150 mt.

reply posted on 4-12-2004 @ 07:38 AM by taibunsuu

Smaller bombs are more accurate, and accuracy is a bit more important than sheer size for taking out military targets. During height of Cold War, about 1985, the US had Moscow targetted by 120 independent warheads. Some of this was for redundancy, but also to ensure targets in Moscow that had military / strategic importance had no chance of survival.

reply posted on 4-12-2004 @ 09:57 AM by Starwars51

Originally posted by Ishes

Originally posted by Starwars51
BTW- START I limited all weapons to 10 MIRV's, even though some systems can carry more - they do not. Also, a 350 KT warhead has a blast radius of appox 2-3 miles (against non-hardened targets), and would kill (due to radiant heat) anthing unprotected within approx twice that. However, when you start dealing with hardened targets - such as missile silos - a direct (within a couple hunded feet) hit is needed, possibly by more than one warhead.

When you say radiant head? Do you mean the inital blast of heat.. the white light? Everything within about 6 miles just gets killed instantly?

What about the fireball afterwards?

The fireball for a nuclear weapon is fairly small, perhaps 1 KM across. Radiant heat is indeed white light, as well as IR and UV (primarily IR) - which will cause deadly burns well outside the deadly blast/ionizing radiation radius for unprotected skin.

reply posted on 4-12-2004 @ 12:16 PM by rowsdower

The USA has 7339 nuclear warheds in year 2001, that is correct, but you have to remember that the SALT II treaty deals with missles not warheads and each missile has more than one warhead on it (for example a minuteman III has 3 warheads in it.) so you can have 7000 warheads operational on 1000 weapons or missles. and there are some nuclear devices that are not in a weapon becaue they are being tested to see if electronics ect still work, but besides those there is no US stockpile. and there is no 150mt warhead, the largest ever detonated in histroy was 58 megatons by the soviets in 1961.

[edit on 4-12-2004 by rowsdower]

[edit on 4-12-2004 by rowsdower]

reply posted on 4-12-2004 @ 01:08 PM by Starwars51

Originally posted by rowsdower
The USA has 7339 nuclear warheds in year 2001, that is correct, but you have to remember that the SALT II treaty deals with missles not warheads and each missile has more than one warhead on it (for example a minuteman III has 3 warheads in it.) so you can have 7000 warheads operational on 1000 weapons or missles. and there are some nuclear devices that are not in a weapon becaue they are being tested to see if electronics ect still work, but besides those there is no US stockpile. and there is no 150mt warhead, the largest ever detonated in histroy was 58 megatons by the soviets in 1961.

[edit on 4-12-2004 by rowsdower]

[edit on 4-12-2004 by rowsdower]

Hmm, No. First of all - it was not SALT II, but START II (SALT was strategic arms limitation treaties, first argeed on in the 1970's, Strategic arms reduction treaties, START, were first signed under Reagan) - there is a big difference. And the START treaties do deal with actual (deployed) warhead counts, not missiles. In fact, Russian inspectors come to random US installations several times a year to count numbers of warheads. They can go to any missile/Weapn storage area and count the number of warheads to ensure compliance. The US does the same.

More info can be found here: www.ceip.org...

reply posted on 5-12-2004 @ 05:42 AM by Ishes

So what incraeses with yeild?
The size of the fireball, the heat energy emmited, or just the actual power within a certain blast radius?

reply posted on 5-12-2004 @ 08:17 AM by Starwars51

Originally posted by Ishes
So what incraeses with yeild?
The size of the fireball, the heat energy emmited, or just the actual power within a certain blast radius?

All 3 increase, but most of the increased yeild is spent in areas that would alread have been destroyed. You can find a calculator here www.stardestroyer.net...

I have not tested it extensively, but it appears to be fairly accurate based on accepted principles

reply posted on 5-12-2004 @ 08:32 AM by Hyperen

Originally posted by imasspeons
i did some research at nuclearweaponarchive.org... (they got a site for everything) anyway it goes as following

Largest British (and only british type in service) is Trident II D-5 missile, each warhead has 10 kiloton yeild.

Each warhead on Britain's Trident D-5 Missiles has more than a 10 kT yield.

I once read that they could choose whether to detonate each one at a 1, 10 or 100 kiloton yield.

from Naval Technology

The Vanguard has the capacity to carry 16 Trident missiles...The missile carries a number of multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRVs), each armed with a yield of 100kt to 120kt. The Trident II missile can carry up to 12 MIRVs but START I treaty agreements limit this to eight. D5 missiles for the Vanguard Class will carry a maximum of four warheads and, in 1999, it was announced that each vessel would carry a maximum of 48 warheads.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^