3 ms·

>Johnson said a lot of things that he shouldn’t have. Even mentioning that there was some research done into “pre-detonating” a bomb would have been classified

>Johnson said a lot of things that he shouldn’t have. Even mentioning that there was some research done into “pre-detonating” a bomb would have been classified (I don’t know anything about this, but it would be entirely unsurprising that this idea was looked into). Odd the author says he doesn't know about this while claiming to be an expert. This is the start of what would become missile defense, although it's phrased in the language of the time, as much of the rest of the article is. Before the infamous "hit a bullet with a bullet" missile tests, and Reagan's so-called star wars initiative, the best technology we had was to launch our own nuclear weapon at an incoming weapon, and detonate it close enough that our bomb released enough energy to start the nuclear chain reaction in the incoming bomb, in a way that causes it to fizzle, but not fully explode. The fizzle would be enough to prevent the incoming bomb from fully exploding, causing it's own detonation to fizzle (if it managed to survive the fireball/blast of the defensive weapon). I believe this was the original reason for seriously studying the neutron bomb, before it became known as the capitalist bomb (since it killed people via acute radiation but largely spared infrastructure), although I don't know if this is still speculative or if it's been confirmed by any declassified material. This is also part of the reason that even after the various nuclear test treaties went into effect, the US (and I assume others) continue to perform and study sub-critical / fizzle explosion tests.

TMWNN 5y ago
>>Johnson said a lot of things that he shouldn’t have. Even mentioning that there was some research done into “pre-detonating” a bomb would have been classified (I don’t know anything about this, but it would be entirely unsurprising that this idea was looked into). >Odd the author says he doesn't know about this while claiming to be an expert. >This is the start of what would become missile defense, although it's phrased in the language of the time, as much of the rest of the article is. No, Johnson is almost certainly referring to the fission primary in a fusion weapon. When he spoke on radio, no one was seriously talking about ICBMs, and even the early Navy SLCMs were a decade away, so any and all defense against nuclear weapons was AA and fighters against incoming bomber fleets, Battle of Britain-style.
- beerandt 5y ago
  >No, Johnson is almost certainly referring to the fission primary in a fusion weapon. 1) If so, then that's an even more glaring gap of the author's knowledge. 2) In a technical sense, and in the context of how it affects a secondary material, it's basically the same thing. One scenario sets off a secondary explosion in some primary-adjacent-material, and the other scenario intentionally sets off a fizzle which "disables" a proximate/nearby core (inducing enough fizzle that it can no longer go supercritical). The development of fusion technology focused too much on fizzles (and avoiding them) to not realize they could be used al I'm that method to purposefully "disable" a bomb. The strategic desire for any type of defense from an incoming nuclear weapon would have ensured the idea was thoroughly explored. >When he spoke on radio, no one was seriously talking about ICBMs, and even the early Navy SLCMs were a decade away, so any and all defense against nuclear weapons was AA and fighters against incoming bomber fleets, Battle of Britain-style. 1) ICBMs and other missiles were only secondary thoughts because they thought manned rockets and space stations were a more feasible goal than figuring out how to navigate and target unmanned missiles. (Alan Shepard riding a modified redstone army rocket was proof of concept of more than just putting an American into suborbital space.) Advances in navigation, geodesy, and computing power, combined with smaller/lighter warheads and MRVs, solved the targeting problem much faster than anticipated. 2) I said missiles bc that's what got built, but the origins of the idea predate them. The most likely implementation (at the time) would have been, as you said, against aerial bombers, and actually based on a Battle of Britain style/ Nazi-derived rocket drone, but manually remote controlled via joystick and analog TV, and air launched from a hybrid interceptor/bomber. It could similarly be used in a bombing role with drones hitting ground targets. The drone remote control technology had already been developed and used near the end of the war for getting full sized planes and the sensors they carried close enough to collect data from the early nuclear donations.
  - TMWNN 5y ago
    >2) I said missiles bc that's what got built, but the origins of the idea predate them. The most likely implementation (at the time) would have been, as you said, against aerial bombers, and actually based on a Battle of Britain style/ Nazi-derived rocket drone, but manually remote controlled via joystick and analog TV, and air launched from a hybrid interceptor/bomber. It could similarly be used in a bombing role with drones hitting ground targets. Interesting. So a V1-style drone used to send up "fizzle" bombs to destroy incoming bomber fleets carrying atomic weapons, Safeguard-style. (I don't see the point of calling them "fizzle" bombs, or distinguishing "pre-detonation"; even a fizzle is more than enough to take out any nearby aircraft, whether they are carrying atomic weapons or not.) I still suspect that Johnson was talking about a fission primary: * The 1949 timing strongly points toward the ongoing hydrogen weapon program that Johnson would be aware of, and not a theoretical air-defense system using yet-undeveloped drone cruise missiles carrying atomic weapons. The fission primary is something that a layman might very well refer to as "pre-detonation". * In 1949 atomic weapons (let alone any theoretical hydrogen weapon), intentional "fizzlers" or not, were still so heavy that special B29 SILVERPLATE aircraft were needed to carry them, and the US was designing a new series of ever-larger high-altitude bombers to penetrate enemy airspace. I am very skeptical that any back-of-the-envelope work at Los Alamos or Oak Ridge on bombs small enough for a V1-like drone AA cruise missile would be something that a Senator would hear about and think notable enough to mention on the air. Remember, WW2 had semi-conclusively refuted the prewar "the bomber will always get through" maxim; I am aware of no serious thinking/planning in 1949 for defending against atomic attack other than, as I said, AA and fighter squadrons, because there was no prospect of any atomic attack other than via bombers. The US maintained squadrons of interceptor aircraft on 24-hour standby around the country well after both sides deployed ICBMs and SLBMs.

TMWNN 5y ago

>>Johnson said a lot of things that he shouldn’t have. Even mentioning that there was some research done into “pre-detonating” a bomb would have been classified (I don’t know anything about this, but it would be entirely unsurprising that this idea was looked into). >Odd the author says he doesn't know about this while claiming to be an expert. >This is the start of what would become missile defense, although it's phrased in the language of the time, as much of the rest of the article is. No, Johnson is almost certainly referring to the fission primary in a fusion weapon. When he spoke on radio, no one was seriously talking about ICBMs, and even the early Navy SLCMs were a decade away, so any and all defense against nuclear weapons was AA and fighters against incoming bomber fleets, Battle of Britain-style.

beerandt 5y ago
>No, Johnson is almost certainly referring to the fission primary in a fusion weapon. 1) If so, then that's an even more glaring gap of the author's knowledge. 2) In a technical sense, and in the context of how it affects a secondary material, it's basically the same thing. One scenario sets off a secondary explosion in some primary-adjacent-material, and the other scenario intentionally sets off a fizzle which "disables" a proximate/nearby core (inducing enough fizzle that it can no longer go supercritical). The development of fusion technology focused too much on fizzles (and avoiding them) to not realize they could be used al I'm that method to purposefully "disable" a bomb. The strategic desire for any type of defense from an incoming nuclear weapon would have ensured the idea was thoroughly explored. >When he spoke on radio, no one was seriously talking about ICBMs, and even the early Navy SLCMs were a decade away, so any and all defense against nuclear weapons was AA and fighters against incoming bomber fleets, Battle of Britain-style. 1) ICBMs and other missiles were only secondary thoughts because they thought manned rockets and space stations were a more feasible goal than figuring out how to navigate and target unmanned missiles. (Alan Shepard riding a modified redstone army rocket was proof of concept of more than just putting an American into suborbital space.) Advances in navigation, geodesy, and computing power, combined with smaller/lighter warheads and MRVs, solved the targeting problem much faster than anticipated. 2) I said missiles bc that's what got built, but the origins of the idea predate them. The most likely implementation (at the time) would have been, as you said, against aerial bombers, and actually based on a Battle of Britain style/ Nazi-derived rocket drone, but manually remote controlled via joystick and analog TV, and air launched from a hybrid interceptor/bomber. It could similarly be used in a bombing role with drones hitting ground targets. The drone remote control technology had already been developed and used near the end of the war for getting full sized planes and the sensors they carried close enough to collect data from the early nuclear donations.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  >2) I said missiles bc that's what got built, but the origins of the idea predate them. The most likely implementation (at the time) would have been, as you said, against aerial bombers, and actually based on a Battle of Britain style/ Nazi-derived rocket drone, but manually remote controlled via joystick and analog TV, and air launched from a hybrid interceptor/bomber. It could similarly be used in a bombing role with drones hitting ground targets. Interesting. So a V1-style drone used to send up "fizzle" bombs to destroy incoming bomber fleets carrying atomic weapons, Safeguard-style. (I don't see the point of calling them "fizzle" bombs, or distinguishing "pre-detonation"; even a fizzle is more than enough to take out any nearby aircraft, whether they are carrying atomic weapons or not.) I still suspect that Johnson was talking about a fission primary: * The 1949 timing strongly points toward the ongoing hydrogen weapon program that Johnson would be aware of, and not a theoretical air-defense system using yet-undeveloped drone cruise missiles carrying atomic weapons. The fission primary is something that a layman might very well refer to as "pre-detonation". * In 1949 atomic weapons (let alone any theoretical hydrogen weapon), intentional "fizzlers" or not, were still so heavy that special B29 SILVERPLATE aircraft were needed to carry them, and the US was designing a new series of ever-larger high-altitude bombers to penetrate enemy airspace. I am very skeptical that any back-of-the-envelope work at Los Alamos or Oak Ridge on bombs small enough for a V1-like drone AA cruise missile would be something that a Senator would hear about and think notable enough to mention on the air. Remember, WW2 had semi-conclusively refuted the prewar "the bomber will always get through" maxim; I am aware of no serious thinking/planning in 1949 for defending against atomic attack other than, as I said, AA and fighter squadrons, because there was no prospect of any atomic attack other than via bombers. The US maintained squadrons of interceptor aircraft on 24-hour standby around the country well after both sides deployed ICBMs and SLBMs.