Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The most powerfull Nuclear Missile ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
What is the most powerull nuke today.

Is it an ICBM? Are there not different types of ICBM's ?

whats the most powerfull and what are its capabilitys if it were to get launched.




posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Callisto
Is it an ICBM? Are there not different types of ICBM's ?


An ICBM is just a missle, its the payload and payload type that counts.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Callisto
What is the most powerull nuke today.

Is it an ICBM? Are there not different types of ICBM's ?

whats the most powerfull and what are its capabilitys if it were to get launched.


I forgot what the Russians called it, but it was the Russians who had the biggest nuclear detonations in the cold war- they stopped exploding bigger ones out of fear destroying the earth. At least that's what I can remember.

And yes, an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) is just to name long range missiles, it's the payload that counts (warheads).

Edit: the Russians had to have bigger detonations as they have calculated in their MAD (mutual assured destruction) strategy that their missiles are less accurate.




[edit on 7-4-2005 by Blobber]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
The most powerfull nuclear explosion is nuclear fusion (i.e. fusion of hydrogen atoms to give helium) but theoretically the most powerfull nuclear explosion would be an anti-matter detonation this results in 100% energy conversion. And as far as i know somewhere in Sweden their is a lab that has created anti mattre particles. Imagine a 1tonne antimatter device, split the planet in two I think
.
The 'power' of a weapon depends on its enrichment ( for uranium ) and mass also; the type of device used to generate the chain effect also plays a role I hear.

IAF



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Callisto, here is a potted history of Soviet ICBMs. There are gaps in the designations because under various treaties, they were removed as being obsolete.

Name NATO Reporting Payload

SS6 SAPWOOD 3Mt single w/h
SS8 SASIN 5Mt single w/h
SS18 SATAN 10 x 0.55 Kt or 1 x 20Mt w/h
SS20 SABER 1 x 1Mt early or 2/3 x MIRV x 150Kt w/h
SS24 SCALPEL 10 x 5Mt w/h - later banned by SALT II
SS25 TOPOL 1 x 1 Tonne warhead - payload unknown
SS27 TOPOL-M 1 X single warhead - payload unknown

The SS25 TOPOL could be transported on MAZ 7310 or 7917 TEL trucks (Transporter, Erector & Launcher) or it could be fired from a 'conventional' silo.

The SS27 TOPOL-M is reputed to have anti-anti-ballistic missile defences and electronic counter measures, though this info must or should be taken with a large 'pinch of salt'.

The US Trident 1 (C4) UGM-93A has 8 x MIRVs with a payload of 100 Kt whilst the Trident II (D5) UGM-133A can be equipped with either 8 MIRVs of 475 Kt or 10 MIRVs of 100 Kt.

The ranges of the TOPOL-M and the Trident are in excess of 7,500 miles with an accuracy of +/- 100 metres.

w/h means warhead which is incorrect terminology and should mean payload.

Kt means Kiloton whilst Mt means Megaton, and is the equivalent of TNT.

MIRVs mean Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles which, in effect, are single launched guided nuclear missiles as such, because each 'warhead' can be fired independently at pre-planned targets.

There was a rumour many, many years ago, about a Russian 'Super-bomb' or 'Doomsday' device in excess of 500Mt but to date, I have never been able to verify this.

Having said that Callisto, I do know the Russians tested a device in excess of 250Mt by means of an exo-atmospheric burst during the late 70s which resulted in a radio/radar blackout for several hours.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Sorry Callisto. I forgot to say that today, most modern navies can deliver a nuclear payload to a foreign country by surface or sub-surface sea launched cruise missiles such as Tomahawk. Whilst the warhead might be smaller, it would still get the job done.

Blobber you are correct. It was the exo-atmospheric detonation in my reply, that you described.

The French have also detonated some pretty big warheads in the Pacific, also in the late 70s early 80s and this was believed (then) to have shifted the earth's axis by about 1 degree (not true, of course!)



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Too bad the U.S. decommissioned the Peacekeeper it could hold 10 warheads each about several hundred Kt I think.

Peacekeeper


And wasn't the name of that nuke the Russian detonated the Tsar Bomba?



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
lol lol you guys are too much ..
Most powerful nuclear weapon is like really dumb now days..
The key is not the weapon itself per se...the weapons are powerful enough .especially with Dial a yield features.
The key is the delivery systems...with accurate delivery ..alot of power is a waste of useful weapons grade material. The reason for such powerful warheads in the mega tons years ago..is because the delivery systems were not that accurate. When 5 to ten miles of accuracy was the best one could hope for ...in years past...a large warhead was needed to over come the accuracy errors. Today when accuracy can be measured to the degree of 50 to 30 yards or finer ...accuracy dictates that huge warheads are not needed even against most hardened sites.
THis applies even to conventional warheads..the accuracy is such that the 500 lb bomb is become more than enough except for the deepest most hardened targets..this is obvious by the attempts in Iraq to bomb the Iraqi leadership..hardened targets dont stand a chance anymore. Bomb loads are even becoming smaller..with 250 lb bombs ..becoming practical due to increased accuracy. In times past this would have been laughable. GPS and laser delivery systems have changed alot in this arena ..even with nuclear devices. The accuracy is phenomonal.
By the way ..I dont know if you guys noticed in Afganistan..and Iraq...they were often sending two or more bombs down the same laser beam...bang bang bang...for hardened targets. I was astonished when I first saw this.
Its the delivery system..guys...that changed everything.Orangetom



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
There was a rumour many, many years ago, about a Russian 'Super-bomb' or 'Doomsday' device in excess of 500Mt but to date, I have never been able to verify this.


I'm fairly certain such device never existed. The "Tzar-Bomb" Russians detonated yielded from 60 to 90 MT according to various estimates, most likely around 64 MT. My friend's uncle was in the crew that flew this mission. I believe two villages were destroyed, at a distance of 100 to 150 miles from the drop.

The device was encased in lead, as opposed to uranium, which resulted in reducing the yield by 2 or 3 times compared to the design figures.

There is nothing on the topic of a 500MT device, as I said I suspect it never existed.


[edit on 7-4-2005 by Aelita]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
lol lol you guys are too much ..
Most powerful nuclear weapon is like really dumb now days..


And you go on a lengthy reply about something that was never asked by the thread maker


Blobber



[edit on 7-4-2005 by Blobber]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
From what I remember, the Tsar bomb was actually a 100 megaton bomb with a 50 megaton yield. They did indeed use lead on its encasement (normal hydrogen bombs used uranium from what I recall) to keep the yield in the 50 megaton range. Why? Because they couldn't predict what would happen if they unleased the Tsar bomb with a 100 megaton yield - they were afraid.

I'm not sure about it destroying things 100 to 150 miles away, but I do know that because of the lead encasing, not only did the Tsar bomb create the biggest artificial blast in recorded history, it was also one of the cleanest nuclear bombs ever detonated.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
This might prove useful to some who are interested:
Section 1.0 Types of Nuclear Weapons






seekerof


xu

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I 've found some info on King of the Bombs a.k.a Tzar Bomba



On October 30, 1961, Tu-95 Bear bomber guided by pilot A. E. Durnovtsev(he was made a Hero of the Soviet Union) flew towards Novaya the Zemlya Island in the Arctic Sea. That day will forever remain in nuclear history as a day when the most powerful thermonuclear has been detonated. Tzar Bomba (King Of The Bombs) yielded 50Mgt. Originally US estimated its yield as 58 Mgt, however resently declassified Russian materials show 50Mgt figure. Apparenly US overestimated bomb power.

Tzar is developed in a remarkably short time, just fourteen weeks after the initiation of its design. The fully operational bomb weights 27 metric tons. Which is more than any bomber can carry at that time. Hence, the decision is made to produce Tzar's scaled down version. That was done by replacing the uranium fusion tamper (which increases the yield significantly) with one made of lead. That reduces the weight and eliminates fast fission by the fusion neutrons, hence reducing the power of the original version. A 50 megaton bomb was now ready to be detonated.

Tzar test was a parachute retarded Airburst at 4000 meter altitude. Delivery method, Tu-95 Bear strategic bomber. The explosion of the immense power significantly increased overall fission fallout in the world. It was clear that from the military standpoint, the bomb of that size was ineffective as a "City Killer".

Interesting fact, Tzar's the huge parachute made of nylon, disrupted Soviet nylon industry for a long time.

Ostensibly, Tzar didn't end the Cold War, nor helped to scale it down in any way. It proved that the delivery of nuclear weapons by strategic bombers, and aircraft in general was not an efficient way during wartime. It emphasize the necessity of the reliable, fast, cost effective, immediate response to nuclear attack cost effective to maintain. The result was the creation of new nuclear weapons of war. The ICBM - intercontinental ballistic missile.


briefly tzar was too heavy for any plane so they reconstructed it by using lead instead of uranium, which minimized its payload yet it was the most powerful bomb of all time, and it was created before the ICBM missiles.

However tzar is also referred to as with 100 Mt payload, I don't know why, is it a mistake, (a 50 MT difference is too big to be a mistake) even Robert McNamara refers to a Russian 100 MT bomb detonated in the atmosphere at the time of Kenedy administration, so he is referring to the Tzar as 100 MT. ( by the way the nuclear detonation footage in the documentary "The Fog of War" belongs to this infamous Tzar)



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
This bomb was impractical and it would be almost impossible to deliver it to the U.S. since is could not be placed in a ICBM. I guess it was made for two reason, 1. To show who had the biggest gonads.
2. To see what the effects of such a blast are.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Each warhead can be targeted for a particular target. In addition, air burst for population centers and ground burst for hardened military targets. So you need to add the explosive power together for the war head to understand the true potential.


xu

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
There's nothing like a beautiful sunset.


Tzar here;



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by xu

briefly tzar was too heavy for any plane so they reconstructed it by using lead instead of uranium, which minimized its payload yet it was the most powerful bomb of all time, and it was created before the ICBM missiles.

However tzar is also referred to as with 100 Mt payload, I don't know why, is it a mistake, (a 50 MT difference is too big to be a mistake) even Robert McNamara refers to a Russian 100 MT bomb detonated in the atmosphere at the time of Kenedy administration, so he is referring to the Tzar as 100 MT. ( by the way the nuclear detonation footage in the documentary "The Fog of War" belongs to this infamous Tzar)


The reason the TSar bomb is sometimes called a 100MT weapon is because that was its designed yield. As has been stated previoulsy instead of the 3rd stage being U238 ( DU ) it was lead. This meant that there was no fissile 3rd stage which limited its power to 53 MT. IF it had been a full scale test the DU 3rd stage would have doubled the yield - makng it extremely dirty. The lead 3rd stage actually made it teh cleanest bomb ever exploded as well.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
The US Trident 1 (C4) UGM-93A has 8 x MIRVs with a payload of 100 Kt whilst the Trident II (D5) UGM-133A can be equipped with either 8 MIRVs of 475 Kt or 10 MIRVs of 100 Kt.


But under the START 2 reduction treaty, they can now only carry 5 warheads. Just like Minuteman III can now only carry 1 warhead.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Too bad the U.S. decommissioned the Peacekeeper it could hold 10 warheads each about several hundred Kt I think.


And it had cold-launch capability.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Lol, Orangetom is funny, he went on this long explanation of how the delivery system was the most important thing, and yet he didn't even answer the question. We don't want to know about delivery systems, the maker of the thread wanted to know the largest explosion that a nuclear device can yield.

Anyways, to properly answer the questions, as has been stated by everyone else above(I have to put my Two-cents in), the largest explosion in recorded history was the produced by the Tsar-Bomba, a 64MT nuclear warhead incased in lead. I believe it was originally remodified from a 100MT warhead to 64 because it could not fit in the Tu-95 Bear specially designed to carry the warhead. So they made it less powerful and used it for testing purposes, it was the only one detonated, and the cleanest nuclear bomb in history I believe.

The explosion yielded a blast that covered a 15 mile radius(Got this off the history channel, if you have problems with it, get mad at the History Channel). I'm not sure about it destroying two villages, I believe it was safely dropped out of range from civilization. And the mushroom cap was immense. The aftermath I was unaware of, I'm not sure what the environmental damages were.

Well anyways, most nuclear warheads fitted onto ICBMs are thermo-nuclear warheads that only yield 1-6MT(yet can cause immense amounts of damage). A poseiden missile can carry up to 5 warheads.

So as far as the most powerful nuke, it was the Tsar-Bomba, but for everyone to be aware of, most of the nuclear warheads in both Arsenals of the US and Russia, are small briefcase size warheads, not even 1MT. They were made for fast and easy delivery into enemy territory, not built to take out large cities, but take out like powerplants, or hit their soft spots. And also they would fit on cruise missiles and naval delivery systems. Silo warheads are much bigger and more devastating, those are the ones used to wipe out large areas and such.

Shattered OUT...






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join