4 ms·

> I want a warhead that goes off correctly over the target, or not at all. That appears to be a fairly straightforward engineering challenge That is not an en

> I want a warhead that goes off correctly over the target, or not at all. That appears to be a fairly straightforward engineering challenge That is not an engineering challenge but rather the natural state of nuclear warheads. If your device works perfectly, you get a nuclear explosion, if it does not, you don't, at best you get a fizzle that does a tiny fraction of the intended output. Of course, you do scatter some radioactive material around. It would be a very interesting engineering challenge to design a nuclear warhead that can do a partial detonation even if damaged by some AA, but I don't think anyone has done that.

HarryHirsch 4y ago
It would be a very interesting engineering challenge to design a nuclear warhead that can do a partial detonation even if damaged by some AA, but I don't think anyone has done that. Apparently, the British managed, albeit inadvertently. In the 1950's they did not have access to American research on the behaviour of plutonium under extreme conditions any longer, so they to increase yield they built fission bombs with a larger amount of fissile material. There was the risk that during a crash landing and fire the conventional explosives cooking off would cause a fission reaction at a substantial fraction of design yield, consequently the cavity was filled with ball bearings to be removed only immediately before actual use.
- coobird 4y ago
  The United States also had something similar -- the Mark 18[1], designed as a very large fission bomb in case the first thermonuclear bomb failed, had four critical masses of uranium-235 in its core. Even one of the implosion lens detonating could have led to a kiloton-range explosion. To prevent such an accident, a chain of aluminum and boron (the latter being an especially good neutron absorber) was inserted in the core until it was ready to be used. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_18_nuclear_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_18_nuclear_bomb

HarryHirsch 4y ago

It would be a very interesting engineering challenge to design a nuclear warhead that can do a partial detonation even if damaged by some AA, but I don't think anyone has done that. Apparently, the British managed, albeit inadvertently. In the 1950's they did not have access to American research on the behaviour of plutonium under extreme conditions any longer, so they to increase yield they built fission bombs with a larger amount of fissile material. There was the risk that during a crash landing and fire the conventional explosives cooking off would cause a fission reaction at a substantial fraction of design yield, consequently the cavity was filled with ball bearings to be removed only immediately before actual use.

coobird 4y ago
The United States also had something similar -- the Mark 18[1], designed as a very large fission bomb in case the first thermonuclear bomb failed, had four critical masses of uranium-235 in its core. Even one of the implosion lens detonating could have led to a kiloton-range explosion. To prevent such an accident, a chain of aluminum and boron (the latter being an especially good neutron absorber) was inserted in the core until it was ready to be used. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_18_nuclear_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_18_nuclear_bomb