5 ms·

The US had approximately 500 B-41 nuclear bombs, each with a nominal yield of 25 megatons. It left service in 1976. Today the largest in the US arsenal is the

• dylan604 5y ago
  largest for bomber delivery? I would think that ICBM delivered payloads would be higher. did a quick search, but wiki's article only gave numbers on range distances. I didn't see any megaton ratings in the time willing to spend on it. edit: i realize now that the numbers floating around in cavity between my ears was in kilotons. that's why the megaton numbers seemd low to me.
  • khuey 5y ago
    The really big weapons come from an era when delivery systems were really inaccurate and so you'd drop an absurdly big explosion somewhere near your target. Once you can hit your target reliably you go with a smaller explosion that's still sufficient to destroy it when dropped on top of it and you stick multiple independent warheads on the same missile.
• chii 5y ago
  those huge multi-decile megaton bombs are probably less useful than the same amount of materials made into many more smaller bombs. Megaton bombs are really only useful in bombing civilian targets tbh. Military targets tend to be small, and spread out over a large area, and smaller bombs makes more sense for those targets.
  • wk_end 5y ago
    For MAD purposes, isn't bombing civilian targets is just as or more useful than taking out military targets? Is that not the case, or do militaries envision nuclear war not immediately entering a MAD scenario?
    • elzbardico 5y ago
      No. The first priority in a nuclear war is to negate the enemy the capability of waging war. So, you'll be targeting military bases, ICBM silos, airstrips and command and control facilities. Urban centers are secondary targets, and never because of their civil population per se, but because usually industrial installations are located in or very closely to the biggest urban centers. But then again, if you plan on conducting a land invasion and an occupation there's some reason to refrain bombing your enemy all the way down to the Paleolithic
  • extrapickles 5y ago
    The 2+ km CEP[0] of early ICBMs required a large warhead to ensure that the target would be taken out. With this large of an error, you can easily make fortified structures and bunkers survive a 'close' hit, so civilian targets were the only target left. Once the CEP got small enough, bunkers were no longer effective as you can't really make a bunker strong enough if the nuke can be delivered right on top of it. EPW nukes can burrow 100+ meters into the ground before detonating to deliver more of their energy to the target, which means a vastly smaller nuke. [0]: A circle in which 50% of your shots will land, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable
    • techdragon 5y ago
      Not saying you’re wrong, but fo you have a reference for the >100m penetration figure you’ve mentioned? The best numbers I can find are ~50 meters of “ground”, substantially less (but still impressive) for concrete… but this is a long way short of over 100 meters.
      • extrapickles 5y ago
        The GBU-57A/B is rated for 61m of penetration. I believe there has been testing of munitions that can do 100-150m, and that is roughly the depth you need to have a hope of fully containing the blast to eliminate fallout. I’m not aware of any munition in operational service that has a public penetration of 100m though.
        • bell-cot 5y ago
          The GBU-57A/B is a conventional (non-nuclear) device, weighing 14,000kg. (Vs. the W76 warhead on a Trident missile is ~100kg.) Conventional bombs can reliably detonate after taking damage (say, from smashing through 61m of earth & concrete) which would utterly ruin the delicate geometries and mechanisms of a nuclear weapon. And for smaller targets (say, the "deep" bunker under somebody's Presidential Palace), the kinetic energy of 14,000kg smashing through the roof (without detonating) has a very good chance of accomplishing the mission.