4 ms·

That source confusingly indicates both that the scenario was underestimated: >It was assumed that 131 nuclear weapons would fall on Britain with a total yield

That source confusingly indicates both that the scenario was underestimated: >It was assumed that 131 nuclear weapons would fall on Britain with a total yield of 205 megatons (69 ground burst; 62 air burst)[1] with yields of 500 KT to 3 MT[2] That was felt to be a reasonably realistic scenario, but the report stated that a total strike in excess of 1,000 megatons would be likely. But also that the scenario was overestimated: >Square Leg was criticised for a number of reasons: the weapons used were exclusively in the high-yield megaton range, with an average of 1.5 megatons per bomb, but a realistic attack based on known Soviet capabilities would have seen mixed weapons yields, including many missile-based warheads in the low-hundred-kiloton range.

arethuza 4y ago
I interpreted that to mean that very large numbers of smaller weapons would have been used - probably with large amount of redundant targetting which seems to be consistent with Western targetting approaches.
somenameforme 4y ago
The latter statement may have been written/edited by somebody who did not understand what he was reading, because it's all consistent if you know one esoteric bit of knowledge: the destructive power of a nuke is proportional to the cubic root of its yield. This makes sense if you think about it because the volume grows in proportion to the radius cubed, so doubling the yield will do nowhere near double the damage. In other words, more small bombs does way more destruction than one big bomb if we assume the same total yield. To give a specific example, imagine dropping one 1500 kiloton bomb vs five 300 kiloton bombs. In the first scenario the destructive power would be about 11.5 units of damage. In the second example it would be 5 * 6.7 = 33.5 units - assuming no overlap. In other other words, the report assuming a small number of high yield weapons (instead of larger number of lower yield weapons - but an otherwise comparable total yield) was understating the impact of nuclear war, potentially dramatically. In other other other words - the report was being criticized for understating the impact of nuclear war in both cases.
- redbar0n 4y ago
  Thanks for a good and insightful clarification!

arethuza 4y ago

I interpreted that to mean that very large numbers of smaller weapons would have been used - probably with large amount of redundant targetting which seems to be consistent with Western targetting approaches.

somenameforme 4y ago

The latter statement may have been written/edited by somebody who did not understand what he was reading, because it's all consistent if you know one esoteric bit of knowledge: the destructive power of a nuke is proportional to the cubic root of its yield. This makes sense if you think about it because the volume grows in proportion to the radius cubed, so doubling the yield will do nowhere near double the damage. In other words, more small bombs does way more destruction than one big bomb if we assume the same total yield. To give a specific example, imagine dropping one 1500 kiloton bomb vs five 300 kiloton bombs. In the first scenario the destructive power would be about 11.5 units of damage. In the second example it would be 5 * 6.7 = 33.5 units - assuming no overlap. In other other words, the report assuming a small number of high yield weapons (instead of larger number of lower yield weapons - but an otherwise comparable total yield) was understating the impact of nuclear war, potentially dramatically. In other other other words - the report was being criticized for understating the impact of nuclear war in both cases.

redbar0n 4y ago
Thanks for a good and insightful clarification!