Again from that old book published in 1976 or 1980, I want to ask about some older missiles, like the Super Pluton and the Titan II. The Pluton was some kind of surface-to-surface nuclear missile, but it only had a 25 kiloton yield. What's up with the low yield? Other things like the Poseidon and Polaris, had 500 and 200 kiloton yields. The Super Pluton is a double-range version. The Titan II is an intercontinental ballistic missile. I wonder if it's still in use as a deterrent.
The low yield was for using against a massed army at relatively short ranges (well short range for a nuke anyways)
For a nuke 25 KT is low but this is far above ANY conventional missile or bombs. A modern eqivelent of the 10-ton 'Grand Slam's woldn't be that powerful. How powerful was 'The Tsar'? (Russian prototype nuke that created one of the worlds biggest explosions to date- shockwave still detectable on 3rd trip around the world.)
25kt is a higher yield than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima but yes by modern standards that is considered a tactical weapon rather than a strategic nuke.
Grand Slam was 22,000 lbs all up, with 9,000 lbs (call it 4 tons) of explosive. 25KT is equivalent to 25,000 tons of TNT "Tsar" bomb was, IIRC, 57 Megatons, 57 Million tons of TNT
Right I forgot the weight of the actual bomb doesn't equal the explosive force..... 57MT!!!! Good thing they decided not to build more.
I dunno about building them...the bomber crew barely escaped alive or so I heard. Although building a lot of those probably wouldn't be practical economicaly. The Tsar was a beast of a bomb right? Bigger than Fat Man or Little Boy I think.
I'd say duh!!! The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs couldn't equal the Pluton, and the Pluton's yield is regarded low for a nuke! The Hiroshima bomb was less than 25 kilotons, and the Tsar is more than 57 MEGATONS!
On the other hand the Tsar was a hydrogen bomb, which packs a lot more punch for its size than a standard atomic bomb.
Hydrogen bombs are more powerful? What little I've read said they were less powerful but produced more radiation which meant you could clear the area of hostile troops but leave buildings intact for later use. I think I trust you more though....
I believe it was the neutron bomb that left buildings intact, the destructive force of hydrogen bombs is greater than the standard uranium or plutonium atomic bombs
Thats Neutron Bombs -- the ultimate capitalist weapon H-bombs set off a "conventional" atomic bomb which produces enough energy to fuse light Hydrogen (typically in the form of Lithium Deuteride) releasing far more energy. Finally there is a shell of U-238 which, despite being "depleted" absobs enough energy for fission to take place. This third stage produces about half the overall yield and most of the radioactivity from the blast. IIRC the Tsar Bomba was designed for a 100 Mt yield but they removed much of the 3rd stage and replaced it with lead. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were still more or less prototypes -- 2nd Plutonium bomb, 1st Uranium bomb so they were of relatively poor efficiency compared with later models. Also, yield isnt important above a certain figure so it is a poor basis for comparison. How did we get from missiles (the delivery system) to warheads? Tom
I think that's my fault, I brought up the Tsar bomb..... Yeah it was the neutron bombs.....I must have too much information in my mind or something, can't seem to remember much correctly.
