About when did a US/CCCP war become suicidal?

(WaltBJ) wrote:

Comments:
1) It is true that there is no theoretical limit to the size of a TNW.
The practical limit is when the bomb vents to space rather than
expanding across the surface of the earth. Big bombs are impractical
since they blow the hell out of the hypocenter (spot directly under
the bomb) but the radius of destruction increases as the cube root of
the bomb's yield. One could take the same amount of critical material
and make numerous smaller bombs and achieve a much greater area of
destruction by carefully distributing them over the target zone.

Yes, but when the Soviet Union was first developing their ICBM's, they
had all that launch potential but little accuracy. They had to use
large warheads in order to make sure they hit their targets. As they
developed better technology, though, the accuracy improved and they
began MRV-ing and then MIRV-ing those huge missiles.

IMO a nuclear war became suicidal between the US and USSR when the
Soviets began fielding a decent sized ICBM fleet. They would have had
to use a "launch on warning" command or our more accurate missiles
would have destroyed theirs in their silos, but from that point on
both sides had the capability to destroy the other. Once the Soviets
sent enough missiles to sea in subs, though, MAD became a certainty.

John Lansford
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
Comments:
1) It is true that there is no theoretical limit to the size of a TNW.
The practical limit is when the bomb vents to space rather than
expanding across the surface of the earth. Big bombs are impractical
since they blow the hell out of the hypocenter (spot directly under
the bomb) but the radius of destruction increases as the cube root of
the bomb's yield. One could take the same amount of critical material
and make numerous smaller bombs and achieve a much greater area of
destruction by carefully distributing them over the target zone.

The fundamental reason why 'Ivan', the Tsar Bomba, had no relevance to the
strategic balance was that it was undeliverable against the U.S. The weight
of this bomb - 27 tonnes - was nearly equal to the Tu-95's maximum payload,
and two and a half times its normal weapon load. Range of the Tu-95 was
already marginal for attacking the U.S. even with a normal bomb load. Even
worse, since the bomb's dimensions - 2 meters wide and 8 meters long - were
larger than the bomb bay could accommodate part of the fuselage had to be
cut away, and the bomb bay doors removed. The bomb was partially recessed in
the plane, but not enclosed, with over half of it protruding in flight. A
deployed version of a Tsar Bomba carrier would of course had a bulging bomb
bay enclosure added, but this would have further reduced range from the
drag.

2) I should think doctrine on the possible use of nuclear weapons took
a serious hit when a real sober look was taken of the two nuclear
accidents the USSR experienced - Chelyabinsk and Chernobyl. The USSR
never ever achieved the capability to feed all its people from its own
resources and what fallout from numerous nuclear weapons would do to
the arable lands of the Ukraine really doesn't bear thinking about.

The U.S. similarly vulnerable to this effect from the eastward fallout
plumes of strikes on the Montana and Wyoming missile fields.

In Stalin's day of course he would have grown radioactive wheat and fed it
to the population. It would have saved them from starvation and immediate
death, but given them a lifespan much reduced from normal.

3) FWIW I spent those Cold War years in Air Defense Command as an 86D,
102 and 104 pilot on active air defense alert, usually every third
day, from 1954 through 1967, when I went to TAC and the F4. One got a
real serious attitude about the Air Defense mission back then.

And this would not have helped those Tu-95s at all.

Carey Sublette

"Carey Sublette" wrote:

:In Stalin's day of course he would have grown radioactive wheat and fed it
:to the population.

Note that this is what they are doing right now with produce from the
Chernobyl area.

:It would have saved them from starvation and immediate
:death, but given them a lifespan much reduced from normal.

People grossly overestimate the effects of radiation. Not so much
reduced at all. A few years lower on average, at most.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:23:54 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

"Carey Sublette" wrote:

:In Stalin's day of course he would have grown radioactive wheat and fed it
:to the population.

Note that this is what they are doing right now with produce from the
Chernobyl area.

:It would have saved them from starvation and immediate
:death, but given them a lifespan much reduced from normal.

People grossly overestimate the effects of radiation. Not so much
reduced at all. A few years lower on average, at most.

If you think of infant mortality (before 2) in the 30% range as
normal life span,

If you think of a fifteen year decline in life expectancy as a
few years,

If you think of . . . .

Oh what's the point.



Peter Skelton

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Carey Sublette" wrote:

:In Stalin's day of course he would have grown radioactive wheat and fed
it
:to the population.

Note that this is what they are doing right now with produce from the
Chernobyl area.

:It would have saved them from starvation and immediate
:death, but given them a lifespan much reduced from normal.

People grossly overestimate the effects of radiation. Not so much
reduced at all. A few years lower on average, at most.

I believe you underestimate how radioactive the wheat would have been in
fields downwind from a few hundred 400 kt ground bursts. This would be
1000-10,000 times more contaminated than any from Chernobyl. Of course, by
mixing this with wheat grown elsewhere the individual exposure could be
considerably reduced b distributing over a large population (Russia and
Ukraine are doing this with Chernobyl wheat also).

"Carey Sublette" writes:

The fundamental reason why 'Ivan', the Tsar Bomba, had no relevance to the
strategic balance was that it was undeliverable against the U.S. The weight
of this bomb - 27 tonnes - was nearly equal to the Tu-95's maximum payload,
and two and a half times its normal weapon load. Range of the Tu-95 was
already marginal for attacking the U.S. even with a normal bomb load. Even
worse, since the bomb's dimensions - 2 meters wide and 8 meters long - were
larger than the bomb bay could accommodate part of the fuselage had to be
cut away, and the bomb bay doors removed. The bomb was partially recessed in
the plane, but not enclosed, with over half of it protruding in flight. A
deployed version of a Tsar Bomba carrier would of course had a bulging bomb
bay enclosure added, but this would have further reduced range from the
drag.


Wouldn't a deployed Tsar Bomba carrier have been a militarized Proton,
aka UR-500 aka 8K82? The space launch version uses only storable
propellants, can put twenty tons into low orbit with the smallest
fairing easily holding a 2 x 8 meter payload, and my references on
the space launch side claim that it was developed with the ICBM role
and the Tsar Bomba payload in mind from the start (1961).

Which was a stupid idea from the start, and so never implemented,
but rather less stupid than trying to send an overladen Bear across
the arctic.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On 25 Feb 2004 08:31:03 -0800, (John Schilling)
wrote:


Wouldn't a deployed Tsar Bomba carrier have been a militarized Proton,
aka UR-500 aka 8K82? The space launch version uses only storable
propellants, can put twenty tons into low orbit with the smallest
fairing easily holding a 2 x 8 meter payload, and my references on
the space launch side claim that it was developed with the ICBM role
and the Tsar Bomba payload in mind from the start (1961).




The airburst footprint of 100MT delivered that way would indeed be scary.
Hadnt realised that an ICBM was a viable delivery platform for it.




greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
"Carey Sublette" writes:

The fundamental reason why 'Ivan', the Tsar Bomba, had no relevance to
the
strategic balance was that it was undeliverable against the U.S. The
weight
of this bomb - 27 tonnes - was nearly equal to the Tu-95's maximum
payload,
and two and a half times its normal weapon load. Range of the Tu-95 was
already marginal for attacking the U.S. even with a normal bomb load.
Even
worse, since the bomb's dimensions - 2 meters wide and 8 meters long -
were
larger than the bomb bay could accommodate part of the fuselage had to be
cut away, and the bomb bay doors removed. The bomb was partially recessed
in
the plane, but not enclosed, with over half of it protruding in flight. A
deployed version of a Tsar Bomba carrier would of course had a bulging
bomb
bay enclosure added, but this would have further reduced range from the
drag.


Wouldn't a deployed Tsar Bomba carrier have been a militarized Proton,
aka UR-500 aka 8K82? The space launch version uses only storable
propellants, can put twenty tons into low orbit with the smallest
fairing easily holding a 2 x 8 meter payload, and my references on
the space launch side claim that it was developed with the ICBM role
and the Tsar Bomba payload in mind from the start (1961).

Which was a stupid idea from the start, and so never implemented,
but rather less stupid than trying to send an overladen Bear across
the arctic.

The only references I recall seeing for models that were actually made were
bomb versions. They could have been used against NATO (but this has nothing
to do with MAD).

It seems likely that they investigated the Proton idea since it is the only
way to get it to America. Do you know of any attempts to develop an RV for
this? Can you give me any specific citations?

"Carey Sublette" wrote in message
ink.net...

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
Comments:
1) It is true that there is no theoretical limit to the size of a TNW.
The practical limit is when the bomb vents to space rather than
expanding across the surface of the earth. Big bombs are impractical
since they blow the hell out of the hypocenter (spot directly under
the bomb) but the radius of destruction increases as the cube root of
the bomb's yield. One could take the same amount of critical material
and make numerous smaller bombs and achieve a much greater area of
destruction by carefully distributing them over the target zone.

The fundamental reason why 'Ivan', the Tsar Bomba, had no relevance to the
strategic balance was that it was undeliverable against the U.S. The
weight
of this bomb - 27 tonnes - was nearly equal to the Tu-95's maximum
payload,
and two and a half times its normal weapon load. Range of the Tu-95 was
already marginal for attacking the U.S. even with a normal bomb load. Even
worse, since the bomb's dimensions - 2 meters wide and 8 meters long -
were
larger than the bomb bay could accommodate part of the fuselage had to be
cut away, and the bomb bay doors removed. The bomb was partially recessed
in
the plane, but not enclosed, with over half of it protruding in flight. A
deployed version of a Tsar Bomba carrier would of course had a bulging
bomb
bay enclosure added, but this would have further reduced range from the
drag.

2) I should think doctrine on the possible use of nuclear weapons took
a serious hit when a real sober look was taken of the two nuclear
accidents the USSR experienced - Chelyabinsk and Chernobyl. The USSR
never ever achieved the capability to feed all its people from its own
resources and what fallout from numerous nuclear weapons would do to
the arable lands of the Ukraine really doesn't bear thinking about.

The U.S. similarly vulnerable to this effect from the eastward fallout
plumes of strikes on the Montana and Wyoming missile fields.

What the heck! Back in the '50s you could buy tickets and go
sit in abandoned uranium mines in Montana and elsewhere.
It was supposed to help cure 'What ails you.'
You could also put your feet in a special box in the shoe store
and watch your toes wiggle. ...let you know how the new shoes fit.
Wish I had one now to check out a broken little toe in my rt. foot.
No pain and no handicap but not worth the doctors big fee.

In Stalin's day of course he would have grown radioactive wheat and fed it
to the population. It would have saved them from starvation and immediate
death, but given them a lifespan much reduced from normal.

In ten years or so, we may say the same about the Atkins diet.

3) FWIW I spent those Cold War years in Air Defense Command as an 86D,
102 and 104 pilot on active air defense alert, usually every third
day, from 1954 through 1967, when I went to TAC and the F4. One got a
real serious attitude about the Air Defense mission back then.

And this would not have helped those Tu-95s at all.

Carey Sublette

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
news

"Carey Sublette" wrote in message
ink.net...

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
Comments:
1) It is true that there is no theoretical limit to the size of a TNW.
The practical limit is when the bomb vents to space rather than
expanding across the surface of the earth. Big bombs are impractical
since they blow the hell out of the hypocenter (spot directly under
the bomb) but the radius of destruction increases as the cube root of
the bomb's yield. One could take the same amount of critical material
and make numerous smaller bombs and achieve a much greater area of
destruction by carefully distributing them over the target zone.

The fundamental reason why 'Ivan', the Tsar Bomba, had no relevance to
the
strategic balance was that it was undeliverable against the U.S. The
weight
of this bomb - 27 tonnes - was nearly equal to the Tu-95's maximum
payload,
and two and a half times its normal weapon load. Range of the Tu-95 was
already marginal for attacking the U.S. even with a normal bomb load.
Even
worse, since the bomb's dimensions - 2 meters wide and 8 meters long -
were
larger than the bomb bay could accommodate part of the fuselage had to
be
cut away, and the bomb bay doors removed. The bomb was partially
recessed
in
the plane, but not enclosed, with over half of it protruding in flight.
A
deployed version of a Tsar Bomba carrier would of course had a bulging
bomb
bay enclosure added, but this would have further reduced range from the
drag.

2) I should think doctrine on the possible use of nuclear weapons
took
a serious hit when a real sober look was taken of the two nuclear
accidents the USSR experienced - Chelyabinsk and Chernobyl. The USSR
never ever achieved the capability to feed all its people from its own
resources and what fallout from numerous nuclear weapons would do to
the arable lands of the Ukraine really doesn't bear thinking about.

The U.S. similarly vulnerable to this effect from the eastward fallout
plumes of strikes on the Montana and Wyoming missile fields.

What the heck! Back in the '50s you could buy tickets and go
sit in abandoned uranium mines in Montana and elsewhere.
It was supposed to help cure 'What ails you.'
snip

There still there, but now its the radon doing the curing:

http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Radon/Index_RadSpas.htm

http://www.outwestnewspaper.com/radon.html

I guess suckers are still being born every minute.

Joe


Carey Sublette








-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----