About when did a US/CCCP war become suicidal?

In article . net,
"Carey Sublette" wrote:

"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.


Clearly, it was unsuitable as an aircraft-delivered weapon. While I
tend to think the motivations were propaganda and perhaps some
technologists gone wild, I would not, however, dismiss it is unusable.
Impractical and fraught with risks? Of course.

Ship or submarine delivery systems, probably sacrificing the delivery
platform, certainly wouldn't have the same restrictions on cubage and
weight. Would we have been as alert then to a third-country tramp
steamer?

Conceivably, there might be some prepositioned ground options, perhaps
in Germany, as an ultimate deterrent against a NATO counterstrike.

Even nastier would be placement on seabeds.

(Tom Adams) wrote in message . com...
"james_anatidae" wrote in message ...
I was wondering at about what point that the United States going to war with
the Soviet Union become an almost certain act of mutual destruction. I'm
assuming it sometime in 1960's or 70's, since what I've seen of the Soviet
nuclear capability before that point doesn't seem to be all that
threatening. It looks like they would have been really bad for us
Americans, but not unsurvivable.

I think October 23, 1961 is a watershed date. That is the day that
the Soviet Union exploded the Tsar Bomba, the largest bomb ever
exploded.

Note that the yield of this bomb did not represent the technical limit
on the yield of a hydrogen bomb. It is my understanding that there is
no known limit. Instead, the Tsar Bomba represents a kind of
political limit in a historical context. After the Tsar Bomba, the
politicians on both side put on the brakes.

It was possible to create a threat to kill everyone in the US or the
USSR almost instantly (on a clear day, anyway) between 1962 and 1965,
by deploying space-based high-yield orbiting hydrogen bombs.

But no such threat was ever developed. I am not sure what
considerations prevented the development of such a threat.

Much later, the "Nuclear Winter" concept was developed and there was
concern about survivability related to that.

In article ,
(Tom Adams) writes:
(Tom Adams) wrote in message . com...
"james_anatidae" wrote in message ...
I was wondering at about what point that the United States going to war with
the Soviet Union become an almost certain act of mutual destruction. I'm
assuming it sometime in 1960's or 70's, since what I've seen of the Soviet
nuclear capability before that point doesn't seem to be all that
threatening. It looks like they would have been really bad for us
Americans, but not unsurvivable.

I think October 23, 1961 is a watershed date. That is the day that
the Soviet Union exploded the Tsar Bomba, the largest bomb ever
exploded.

Note that the yield of this bomb did not represent the technical limit
on the yield of a hydrogen bomb. It is my understanding that there is
no known limit. Instead, the Tsar Bomba represents a kind of
political limit in a historical context. After the Tsar Bomba, the
politicians on both side put on the brakes.

It was possible to create a threat to kill everyone in the US or the
USSR almost instantly (on a clear day, anyway) between 1962 and 1965,
by deploying space-based high-yield orbiting hydrogen bombs.

But no such threat was ever developed. I am not sure what
considerations prevented the development of such a threat.

Size and Weight. Nobody was capable of putting a 30-40 ton warhead of
that size at those heights. Well, that, and atmospheric attenuation -
all the prompt stuff, and the heat, gets absobed pretty quickly by the
Atmosphere, and there'd be no fallout. There would, if you chose the
right height, be pretty severe EMP effects, but you don't need a
whopping huge bomb for that.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

SNIP
Size and Weight. Nobody was capable of putting a 30-40 ton warhead of
that size at those heights. Well, that, and atmospheric attenuation -
all the prompt stuff, and the heat, gets absobed pretty quickly by the
Atmosphere, and there'd be no fallout. There would, if you chose the
right height, be pretty severe EMP effects, but you don't need a
whopping huge bomb for that.
SNIP:
No fall out? The 100 MT was achieved by wrapping a multi-ton U238
jacket about Ivan. The fast neutrons from Ivan fission the U238 and
now you have multi tons of fallout added to Ivan. This of course is
the fission-fusion-fission
bomb in mega-size. I make the fireball from 100MT about 67,000 feet in
diameter.
using known sizes and the W^1/3 relation. Walt BJ

In article ,
(WaltBJ) writes:
SNIP
Size and Weight. Nobody was capable of putting a 30-40 ton warhead of
that size at those heights. Well, that, and atmospheric attenuation -
all the prompt stuff, and the heat, gets absobed pretty quickly by the
Atmosphere, and there'd be no fallout. There would, if you chose the
right height, be pretty severe EMP effects, but you don't need a
whopping huge bomb for that.
SNIP:
No fall out? The 100 MT was achieved by wrapping a multi-ton U238
jacket about Ivan. The fast neutrons from Ivan fission the U238 and
now you have multi tons of fallout added to Ivan. This of course is
the fission-fusion-fission
bomb in mega-size. I make the fireball from 100MT about 67,000 feet in
diameter.
using known sizes and the W^1/3 relation. Walt BJ

I should have said "relatively little fallout" Even with 20 tons of
vaporized casing, it's still a fairly small amount compared to the
contribution of even a moderate sized ground burst.

I was addressing Mr. Adam's contention that it was conceivable to, on
a clear day, depopulate the U.S with a set of 100 MT burts at 100+
miles in height. That's right out - the air's too thick, for those of
us on the surface.
Not that I'd want to be sitting next to one, mind you. IIRC, Ivan
scorched the RC-135 that was monitoring the test from some presumed
safe (ANd unintercepted) distance. I wonder what happened to the
Tu-95 that dropped it?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Tom Adams) writes:
(Tom Adams) wrote in message . com...
"james_anatidae" wrote in message ...
I was wondering at about what point that the United States going to war with
the Soviet Union become an almost certain act of mutual destruction. I'm
assuming it sometime in 1960's or 70's, since what I've seen of the Soviet
nuclear capability before that point doesn't seem to be all that
threatening. It looks like they would have been really bad for us
Americans, but not unsurvivable.

I think October 23, 1961 is a watershed date. That is the day that
the Soviet Union exploded the Tsar Bomba, the largest bomb ever
exploded.

Note that the yield of this bomb did not represent the technical limit
on the yield of a hydrogen bomb. It is my understanding that there is
no known limit. Instead, the Tsar Bomba represents a kind of
political limit in a historical context. After the Tsar Bomba, the
politicians on both side put on the brakes.

It was possible to create a threat to kill everyone in the US or the
USSR almost instantly (on a clear day, anyway) between 1962 and 1965,
by deploying space-based high-yield orbiting hydrogen bombs.

But no such threat was ever developed. I am not sure what
considerations prevented the development of such a threat.

Size and Weight. Nobody was capable of putting a 30-40 ton warhead of
that size at those heights. Well, that, and atmospheric attenuation -
all the prompt stuff, and the heat, gets absobed pretty quickly by the
Atmosphere,

Less than half the radiant energy of the sun is absorbed.

and there'd be no fallout. There would, if you chose the
right height, be pretty severe EMP effects, but you don't need a
whopping huge bomb for that.

"Tom Adams" wrote
(Peter Stickney) wrote

Size and Weight. Nobody was capable of putting a 30-40 ton warhead of
that size at those heights. Well, that, and atmospheric attenuation -
all the prompt stuff, and the heat, gets absobed pretty quickly by the
Atmosphere,

Less than half the radiant energy of the sun is absorbed.

From Glassstone (10.29), "stopping altitude" is the altitude below which
there is no significant ionizing effect for radiation sourced from above.
From table 10.29, the most penetrating prompt ionizing radiation (gamma and
neutrons) stop at 15 miles altitude.

For the thermal pulse, most of the thermal effects from a thermonuclear
weapon are sourced from X-ray heated air. For an exo-atmospheric detonation,
the thermal source region will be at approximately 270Kfeet altitude
(7.91-92). Again from Glassstone "In fact for bursts at altitudes exceeding
some 330,000 feet (63 minles) the thermal radiation from a nuclear explosion
even in the megaton range is essentially ineffective so far as skin burns,
ignitition etc..."

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Tom Adams) writes:
(Tom Adams) wrote in message . com...
"james_anatidae" wrote in message ...
I was wondering at about what point that the United States going to war with
the Soviet Union become an almost certain act of mutual destruction. I'm
assuming it sometime in 1960's or 70's, since what I've seen of the Soviet
nuclear capability before that point doesn't seem to be all that
threatening. It looks like they would have been really bad for us
Americans, but not unsurvivable.

I think October 23, 1961 is a watershed date. That is the day that
the Soviet Union exploded the Tsar Bomba, the largest bomb ever
exploded.

Note that the yield of this bomb did not represent the technical limit
on the yield of a hydrogen bomb. It is my understanding that there is
no known limit. Instead, the Tsar Bomba represents a kind of
political limit in a historical context. After the Tsar Bomba, the
politicians on both side put on the brakes.

It was possible to create a threat to kill everyone in the US or the
USSR almost instantly (on a clear day, anyway) between 1962 and 1965,
by deploying space-based high-yield orbiting hydrogen bombs.

But no such threat was ever developed. I am not sure what
considerations prevented the development of such a threat.

Size and Weight. Nobody was capable of putting a 30-40 ton warhead of
that size at those heights. Well, that, and atmospheric attenuation -
all the prompt stuff, and the heat, gets absobed pretty quickly by the
Atmosphere, and there'd be no fallout. There would, if you chose the
right height, be pretty severe EMP effects, but you don't need a
whopping huge bomb for that.

In a rough translation from LEO weight to ICBM throw weight I can see
the SL-12 Proton and variants delivering something in the 30 T range
as an ICBM. IIRC that was what its justification was for Khurshchev.
Comparison, SS-9 6 T ICBM warhead,, 4 T to LEO as SL-11 (and
variants), SL-12 (Proton) 42T to LEO.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/r-36.htm SS-9
http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/proton.htm SL-12