13 ms·
The untold story of the world’s biggest nuclear bomb
- throwawaysea 5y agoHere is the footage of the Tsar Bomba detonation that was declassified a year ago: https://youtu.be/YtCTzbh4mNQ https://youtu.be/YtCTzbh4mNQ
- frabjoused 5y ago> Only a few months later, in July 1954, Teller made it clear he thought 15 megatons was child’s play. At a secret meeting of the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission, Teller broached, as he put it, “the possibility of much bigger bangs. At this point where anything bigger creates a threat that goes beyond nations, what kind of person even proposes this. "This is child's play, there's much more effective ways to destroy the planet"
- credit_guy 5y agoIt’s not that easy to destroy the planet. The 1815 eruption of the Mount Tambora volcano released about 2000 times more energy than the 15 megatons TNT released by Castle Bravo [1]. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was equivalent to about 3000 Tamboras. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#Examples
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoSix million Castle Bravos? Or, (just under) two million Tsar Bombas? Wow. Just... wow. I had no idea Chicxulub was that big.
- elihu 5y agoWhat's really surprising to me is that right below Chicxulub in intensity on that list are the recent Indian Ocean earthquake in 2004 and the one in Japan in 2011. They're both only about 1/10th the total energy, but still it's a lot more than I would have guessed. (I live in the vicinity of the Cascadia subduction zone, which will probably experience something similar some time in the next couple hundred years.)
- spaetzleesser 5y agoWith a big hydrogen bomb you would also have a lot of radiation which may make recovery very difficult.
- elihu 5y agoI think hydrogen bombs tend to be cleaner. Or at least, they have a higher ratio of heat/kinetic energy versus radioactive fallout. The long-term environmental contamination of a few large hydrogen bombs probably wouldn't be as bad as a lot of smaller fission bombs. (I'm not an expert though. And either way you'd probably want to hide in a hole in the ground for awhile at least if you aren't and can't get far upwind.)
- spaetzleesser 5y agoWasn't there talk about a 1 Gigaton bomb? When asked how to transport it, they said it's not necessary because it would basically destroy the planet anyway. I remember reading something like this
- gambiting 5y agoIt's literally in the article. US was working on a gigaton bomb, but even it was only used as a means to ignite a 10 gigaton bomb. The exact damage caused by such a thing is extremely hard to estimate though.
- jvolkman 5y agoThe size comparisons in the left margin are a great touch. Tsar Bomba just keeps going.
- dang 5y agoThere's a related blog post: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2021/10/29/the-possibility-of-bigger-bangs/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2021/10/29/the-possibility-of... (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29039900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29039900, but there's no real thread there)
- bronlund 5y agoIt may be untold to you, but here in Norway, it lighted up the sky pretty good :D
- pinewurst 5y agoThere's a referenced article in there on the US RIPPLE concept for large, efficient weapons that's well worth tracking down.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agohttps://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-abstract/23/2/133/101892/Ripple-An-Investigation-of-the-World-s-Most?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-abstract/23/2/133/101892... You need an MIT account, though. Would anyone with one care to summarize?
- perihelions 5y agoArchive.org has it, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=J+Grams+-+Journal+of+Cold+War+Studies%2C+2021 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=J+Grams+-+Journal+of+Co...
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoFollowing the second search item found eventually got me to https://muse.jhu.edu/article/794729 https://muse.jhu.edu/article/794729 This seems to be the actual article.
- gjkood 5y ago“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds” - J. Robert Oppenheimer's thoughts on witnessing the first atomic bomb test. A quote from the Bhagavad-Gita. That bomb was finally measured to be 'only' 20 kilotons. [1] God I hope one of these is never dropped in anger. 1. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/trinity.htm https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event...
- cuspycode 5y agoThat's what he thought, and afterwards said he thought, and it's a great quote. What he actually said at the time according to his brother Frank Oppenheimer was "It worked!"[0] [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer
- kragen 5y agoTwo were: one on Hiroshima, one on Nagasaki.
- Someone 5y agoI think it’s ambiguous grammatically, but I read “one of these” as one of the much bigger ones discussed in the article. “One of those” for me would have been a reference to the previous sent me, i.e. to a Hiroshima/Nagasaki sized one.
- throwawaysea 5y agoCan you really say those were dropped in anger? From what I’ve read they were dropped to avoid the cost to American lives a ground invasion would bring. Several warnings were given to Japanese leadership to avoid a bad outcome, which were not heeded. The first bomb itself did not result in a surrender either. To me the motivation was less about anger and more about practicality.
- robin_reala 5y agoWould have been easy to drop one on, say, Tokyo bay if you wanted intimidation. But the US also wanted reliable data on the effects to buildings and people.
- philipkglass 5y agoThere was plenty of technical headroom left for making more fearsome weapons in the early 1960s. Fortunately, the pace of innovation plummeted after atmospheric testing ended, and none of the later nuclear weapons states have surpassed the high water mark set by Cold War era superpower rivalry. Chuck Hansen's book The Swords of Armageddon is a fascinating account of the vast hidden empire of the post war Atomic Energy Commission, and how it developed atomic weapons so far beyond the early atomic bombs used on Japan. And then again optimized thermonuclear weapons so far past the early hydrogen bombs.
- Synaesthesia 5y agoBut really, how much more do you want? The US upped the ante several times, developing all kinds of more advanced super weapons, as well as modes of delivery, the first long range bombers, the Hydrogen bomb, ICBM's, MIRV, the Neutron bomb ... I mean, as you say it was FAR beyond the early atomic weapons. And they're continuing with development, in secret of course ...
- MomoXenosaga 5y agoAmericans keep developing their missile shield so China and Russia need to keep developing ways to outsmart it. It will never end.
- vkou 5y agoA missile shield that actually works will actually precipitate a nuclear conflict, because it means an end to MAD. If you know that your adversary will become invulnerable to your counter-strike in three months, the optimal game-theory solution is to strike him today. Optimistically, military planners are aware of this, and are just doing pork barrel spending. Pessimistically, military planners don't care about this, and are actively working on 'winning' a nuclear war.
- Enginerrrd 5y agoThis doesn't really follow IMO and is a result of deep oversimplifications. Even if you make those simplifications though: If your choices are pre-emptive strike where MAD applies now (near-total destruction) vs. live to 3 months from now, where you have a post-MAD world where one adversary dominates, the post-MAD dominant adversary no longer has the incentive to pre-emptively strike since they aren't worried about a pre-emptive strike from their adversaries since they'd have an effective missile defense system.
- nielsbot 5y agoI know this is OT, BUT This site's cookie warning says: Please indicate your consent to our tracking tools and the sharing of this information by selecting “I Consent” or by continuing to browse this website. The "continuing to browse this website" seems shady. Can someone explain how this is even supposed to work? Is there a timer that expires? If I scroll at all am I opted in? Also, is this even legal in jurisdictions that require a cookie opt-out? I thought I read some language about required a positive user interaction to accept tracking.
- inetknght 5y ago> The "continuing to browse this website" seems shady 1. open browser 2. navigate to website 3. website installs cookies 4. you must have already consented!
- bobthepanda 5y agoA fair amount of websites block EU IPs to avoid complying with GDPR.
- monsieurbanana 5y agoI don't remember I've ever had that, although I've moved out or Europe a year ago.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoIt's a small number. But it does happen. You don't want the interest of 445 million people, most of whom will consent to tracking? OK with me.
- ranger_danger 5y agoWhy would they have to comply anyway if they have no presence in the EU?
- camhenlin 5y agoEU citizen might register in which case they could be forced to comply or suffer fines
- 542354234235 5y agoHydrogen bombs are endlessly fascinating and horrifying. The physics and engineering that goes into them is amazing, especially when it boils down to triggering alternating dominos of progressively larger fission and fusion reactions.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dandotway 5y agoHowever, a study from 1963 suggested that, if detonated 28 miles (45 kilometers) above the surface of the Earth, a 10,000-megaton weapon could set fires over an area 500 miles (800 kilometers) in diameter. Which is to say, an area about the size of France. If thousands of such gigaton bombs were developed then MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) would be more taxpayer efficient because we could simply stop funding expensive rocket and submarine weapons delivery systems, as they would only add an unnecessarily complicated step to the process. Just detonate your gigaton arsenal on your own nation's soil. When an animal is in great pain and cannot be saved, we usually consider the most compassionate course of action to euthanize. So in the event of MAD, just instantly vaporize your own population to spare them a few months of clinging to life with radiation sickness, starvation, cannibalism, and the lawless raping and murdering of the earth's final warlords. The multiple gigaton bombs detonated on your own soil will ensure the agonizing death of all your enemies that don't similarly self-euthanize.
- philipkglass 5y agoI presume that this is facetious, but it's not too far off the mark. See this other great Nuclear Secrecy blog post, "In Search of a Bigger Boom": http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bigger-boom/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-big... The scientist Edward Teller, according to one account, kept a blackboard in his office at Los Alamos during World War II with a list of hypothetical nuclear weapons on it. The last item on his list was the largest one he could imagine. The method of “delivery” — weapon-designer jargon for how you get your bomb from here to there, the target — was listed as “Backyard.” As the scientist who related this anecdote explained, “since that particular design would probably kill everyone on Earth, there was no use carting it anywhere.”
- dandotway 5y agoI guess "truth is stranger than fiction." ;-) Blog comment from the link you posted: The 10GT weapon really would have been BACKYARD. At 6MT/tonne (the upper bound for thermonuclear weapons) it would have weighed 1667 tonnes.
- skyechurch 5y ago>A 100-megaton bomb releases 10 times more energy than a 10-megaton bomb, but it does not do 10 times more damage. This is because the blast effects of explosions scale as a cubic root, not linearly. So a 10-megaton bomb detonated at an optimal altitude might do medium damage to a distance of 9.4 miles (15 kilometers) from ground zero, but a 100-megaton bomb “only” does the same amount of damage to 20.3 miles (33 kilometers). In other words, a 100-megaton explosion is only a little more than twice as damaging as a 10-megaton bomb. Area scales as square of radius, so (assuming the radius calculations are right, the ratios are approx cube root of 10 which is napkin-level correct) more than 4x as much area is effected (incinerated). Doesn't change much about the political/historical issues, but you would fail high school math for this.
- yunohn 5y ago> Area scales as square of radius (…) Yes, but they’re referring to volume - which does scale as a “cube”. Bombs detonate in 3D, not 2D - moreso when aerial/aquatic. > but you would fail high school math for this This seems quite vitriolic and uncalled for.
- skyechurch 5y agoBut they are referring to a radius of a surface area on the Earth being destroyed, which goes as radius^2 (or ~volume^2/3 if you detonate in optimally). >This seems quite vitriolic and uncalled for. I apologize if this sounded too harsh, but "The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" should not make basic errors like this. It was a very interesting historical article, but when you miss stuff like this, which is simple to catch, I wonder about the journalistic fact checking, which is considerably harder.
- CapitalistCartr 5y agoIt's not a mistake at all. They understand nuclear yields fine. The exact effects are complicated by wave reflectiins off Earth, changes in the atmosphere at different altitudes, etc. but basic cube law is a decent approximation. The bomb fills a volume of space, the cube of the increase of the radius of damage. The radius of damage is a linear measurement.
- pdkl95 5y ago[the 8km wide fireball created by the Tsar Bomba] https://web.archive.org/web/20081117095628im_/http://www.atomicforum.org/russia/tsar01.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20081117095628im_/http://www.ato... Depictions of the Tsar Bomba usually focus on the huge mushroom cloud, which is awesome (in the original "causing awe or terror" meaning of the word). However, I think the geometric simplicity of the fireball is even more effective at inspiring awe. For a brief moment, the sky was filled with the light of a human-made star.
- trhway 5y agoThe Tsar Bomba idea is revived in the Poseidon nuclear very large torpedo which is estimated to have up to 100Mt yield and intended to hit large oceanside cities. Interesting that back then Saharov proposed such weapon and was shamed and shut down by the USSR Navy along the lines that "Navy fights enemy forces and is against such a clear attack on civilians". 50+ years later here we're - the Poseidons are put in service. It goes slow and deep - about 30 knots cruise at 1000m depth, beyond detection - and it would take it days to reach the enemy shores from several thousands miles distance, yet the idea here is that it will still come and assure the destruction, pretty much Kubrik style ( or that StarTrek episode where they were trying to stop the large autonomous space torpedo which was on its way to the target). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...
- s5300 5y agoSlightly off topic... I read about Poseidon a few weeks after it first became public, so it's been a bit now. Do we happen to have any indication as to whether or not the US military/DoD is internally at all seriously scared/concerned about it? I've been anecdotally told by a very old DoD engineer who was somewhat familiar with things - that when the soviets first came out with their heavily armored multi-hull submarines, there was actually great concern about the fact we didn't at the time have technology to ensure two torpedos could near simultaneously hit within the required radius to pierce all the way through. A lot of engineering hours went into making the targeting systems of the torpedos capable of doing so. Or maybe he was full of shit, who knows. It just seems like Poseidon is quite the threat, but we haven't heard too much concern about it yet.
- kelsolaar 5y agoRelated read, Poseidon, an autonomous underwater vehicle with 2–100 Mt yield: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...
- gambiting 5y agoWhich again, is absolutely terrifying, but I've read in several places now that it probably doesn't exist outside of some blueprints for a thing that could maybe be built. Like, the whole idea of "poisoning" it with a cobalt load so that it would produce deadly contamination for hundreds of years is just straight up vilanious, it truly is the ultimate destruction weapon in design)
- 8bitsrule 5y agoOne of the designers was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize fourteen years later. He was not allowed to collect it in person. So he didn't. Yes, later on in his life he actually saw what he'd been. It seemed to have transformed his life. [https://history.aip.org/exhibits/sakharov/intellectual-evolution.html https://history.aip.org/exhibits/sakharov/intellectual-evolu...] I don't accept that as an excuse for what he was willing to be part of. Later on, he said, 'In 1948, ... no one asked whether or not I wanted to take part in such work. I had no real choice in the matter..." Yes, he did.
- njarboe 5y agoIt is hard to know what horrors nuclear weapons have prevented and what horrors they may cause in the future. So far I would say they have been a net positive, but tail risks are a bitch. But certainly it would be much better to just have a few dozen nuclear weapons per country to stop WWII like events than the thousands that the US and Russia still have that might cause a serious nuclear winter event killing most of the people on Earth. From your link Sakharov had similar musings: “Have Soviet and American atomic scientists helped to keep the peace? After more than forty years, we have had no third world war, and the balance of nuclear terror... may have helped to prevent one. But I am not at all sure of this; back then, in those long-gone years, the question didn’t even arise. What most troubles me now is the instability of the balance, the extreme peril of the current situation, the appalling waste of the arms race... Each of us has a responsibility to think about this in global terms, with tolerance, trust, and candor, free from ideological dogmatism, parochial interests, or national egotism.”
- jcun4128 5y agoThat was a good read. That's a thought about killing an entire planet by burning it's atmosphere. Cliche thing but "burning hole in atmosphere". Reminds me like ants on a rock.
- watersb 5y agoHappy October 30th, the 60th anniversary of humans causing a blast ~ 4 times as powerful as the Tunguska Event! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
- Amorymeltzer 5y agoThis is by Alex Wellerstein, who is unparalleled when it comes to writing about nuclear weapon history. His occasional blog http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/ is an excellent read.
- nielsbot 5y agoSo crazy and dangerous. For some reason makes me think of the Demon Core accident(s), from the early days of bomb development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
- jcims 5y agoI read this every time I see a link to it. Slotin's exposure incident really resonates with me for some reason, it plays in my head like a movie and I'm Slotin. I can just imagine ears ringing and a metallic taste in my mouth as my brain slowly comes to grips with the fact that I'm a dead man walking. (For some reason i have a stuffy nose too) The other thing I come away from this thinking is that our bodies are way better at dealing with damage from radiation than we give them credit for.
- olau 5y agoI'm left wondering if women would make for statistically better bomb putter-togetherers. If the account on Wikipedia is to be believed, it sounds like a true Darwin award with only a screwdriver separating him from certain death.
- somedude895 5y agoYou mean because women would be more careful and less inclined to show off as daredevils? That could well be. Then again you got girls using Radium as makeup [0], so who knows what way they'd find to screw up. (I'm aware they didn't know the Radium was dangerous and am mostly joking.) [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls