Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
m...
Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage
multiple
bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....

That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads you
found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules,

Definitely. I've got the MICOMA History of the Nike Hercules (and also the
Ajax) program, and the Nike Hercules alternative nuke warhead's primary role was
to prevent the use of bunching tactics, i.e. coming in packed together so that
the bombers appeared as one target on the radar, but far enough apart that a
conventional warhead would only get one of them at most, and maybe none. The
target handling capacity of the Nike system could only engage one a/c at a time,
thus allowing most of them through the missile's engagement envelope. The nuke
warhead (IIRR the W-30, the same as used by Talos, and supposedly 5kt)
eliminated that option. Presumably it also served as an option of last resort
against a single leaker ("Fail Safe", anyone?). The really funny part is the
Army had to assure the more clueless citizens worried by living inside the
booster impact circle, that the missiles would never be launched from their
operational sites (generally around cities) for training, and that if the
missiles ever were launched they'd have a heck of a lot more to worry about than
the minuscule chance of having an empty rocket booster fall on their house.

Guy