[HN Gopher] The untold story of the world's biggest nuclear bomb
___________________________________________________________________
The untold story of the world's biggest nuclear bomb
Author : Amorymeltzer
Score : 97 points
Date : 2021-10-29 12:13 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thebulletin.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (thebulletin.org)
| gjkood wrote:
| "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" - J. Robert
| Oppenheimer's thoughts on witnessing the first atomic bomb test.
| A quote from the Bhagavad-Gita.
|
| That bomb was finally measured to be 'only' 20 kilotons. [1]
|
| God I hope one of these is never dropped in anger.
|
| 1. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-
| history/Event...
| cuspycode wrote:
| That's what he thought, and afterwards said he thought, and
| it's a great quote. What he actually said at the time according
| to his brother Frank Oppenheimer was "It worked!"[0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer
| kragen wrote:
| Two were: one on Hiroshima, one on Nagasaki.
| Someone wrote:
| I think it's ambiguous grammatically, but I read "one of th
| _e_ se" as one of the much bigger ones discussed in the
| article. "One of th _o_ se" for me would have been a
| reference to the previous sent me, i.e. to a
| Hiroshima/Nagasaki sized one.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Can you really say those were dropped in anger? From what
| I've read they were dropped to avoid the cost to American
| lives a ground invasion would bring. Several warnings were
| given to Japanese leadership to avoid a bad outcome, which
| were not heeded. The first bomb itself did not result in a
| surrender either. To me the motivation was less about anger
| and more about practicality.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| "In anger" in these contexts usually means "trying to kill
| people", as opposed to "in testing or training". It does
| not mean that the people who did so were angry at the time.
| vpribish wrote:
| it's like an idiom, man.
| robin_reala wrote:
| Would have been easy to drop one on, say, Tokyo bay if you
| wanted intimidation. But the US also wanted reliable data
| on the effects to buildings and people.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Were the atomic bombs really all that different from the
| systematic fire bombing of Japanese cities?
|
| I think what got Japan to surrender was a certain common
| sense in the emperor and some of the elite that a final
| last stand wouldn't do them much good. Especially not
| with the Soviets joining in.
| retrac wrote:
| It's a fixed expression meaning "with intent to harm".
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fire_in_anger
| jvolkman wrote:
| The size comparisons in the left margin are a great touch. Tsar
| Bomba just keeps going.
| skyechurch wrote:
| >A 100-megaton bomb releases 10 times more energy than a
| 10-megaton bomb, but it does not do 10 times more damage. This is
| because the blast effects of explosions scale as a cubic root,
| not linearly. So a 10-megaton bomb detonated at an optimal
| altitude might do medium damage to a distance of 9.4 miles (15
| kilometers) from ground zero, but a 100-megaton bomb "only" does
| the same amount of damage to 20.3 miles (33 kilometers). In other
| words, a 100-megaton explosion is only a little more than twice
| as damaging as a 10-megaton bomb.
|
| Area scales as square of radius, so (assuming the radius
| calculations are right, the ratios are approx cube root of 10
| which is napkin-level correct) more than 4x as much area is
| effected (incinerated).
|
| Doesn't change much about the political/historical issues, but
| you would fail high school math for this.
| yunohn wrote:
| > Area scales as square of radius (...)
|
| Yes, but they're referring to volume - which does scale as a
| "cube". Bombs detonate in 3D, not 2D - moreso when
| aerial/aquatic.
|
| > but you would fail high school math for this
|
| This seems quite vitriolic and uncalled for.
| skyechurch wrote:
| But they are referring to a radius of a surface area on the
| Earth being destroyed, which goes as radius^2 (or ~volume^2/3
| if you detonate in optimally).
|
| >This seems quite vitriolic and uncalled for.
|
| I apologize if this sounded too harsh, but "The Bulletin of
| Atomic Scientists" should not make basic errors like this. It
| was a very interesting historical article, but when you miss
| stuff like this, which is simple to catch, I wonder about the
| journalistic fact checking, which is considerably harder.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| It's not a mistake at all. They understand nuclear yields
| fine. The exact effects are complicated by wave reflectiins
| off Earth, changes in the atmosphere at different
| altitudes, etc. but basic cube law is a decent
| approximation. The bomb fills a volume of space, the cube
| of the increase of the radius of damage. The radius of
| damage is a linear measurement.
| skyechurch wrote:
| It is a mistake. The bomb does not damage a radius, it
| damages an area which is quantified by a radius squared.
| Again, this is high school geometry, not controversial,
| and maybe there are factors not explained which make this
| correct in a sense (maybe "damage" is a term of art which
| varies by the square root of area destroyed? Seems
| unintuitive, but I'm not an expert in atom bombs or much
| of anything.)
|
| It's a silly error which in no way undercuts anything in
| the article afaict, but it annoys because it is very
| simple and obviously true by unit analysis. I make silly
| errors too, as we all do, present company excepted. But
| it does undercut my confidence in the more far difficult
| journalistic work being done, which I cannot interrogate
| with my limited mathematical skills and pretty much have
| to take on faith. To me it speaks to the question of
| whether I "learned something" or "read some words".
|
| This is a very boring digression and I take full
| responsibility for making a ticky-tacky point, which I
| have now I believe fully explained and contextualized.
| CJefferson wrote:
| I bomb exploded near the surface of the earth will, in
| effect, explode as a hemisphere, which is why there is a
| cube root. If you could somehow make the force spread
| only over the surface of the earth it would be radius
| squared, but that isn't what happens -- most of it goes
| into the air.
|
| You could think about what would happen in space (a
| spherical explosion), then consider what would happen as
| it got closer to the earth.
| skyechurch wrote:
| >In evaluating the destructive power of a weapons system,
| it is customary to use the concept of equivalent megatons
| (EMT). Equivalent megatonnage is defined as the actual
| megatonnage raised to the two-thirds power:
|
| >EMT = Y[^]2/3 where Y is in megatons.
|
| >This relation arises from the fact that the destructive
| power of a bomb does not vary linearly with the yield.
| The volume the weapon's energy spreads into varies as the
| cube of the distance, but the destroyed area varies at
| the square of the distance.
|
| Src:
| https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/effects/energy.html
|
| It's just geometry, or dimensionality, you cannot
| directly compare 1D and 2D quantities. Type mismatches
| are often bad in programming, but always fatal in
| physics.
| pdkl95 wrote:
| [the 8km wide fireball created by the Tsar Bomba]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20081117095628im_/http://www.ato...
|
| Depictions of the Tsar Bomba usually focus on the huge mushroom
| cloud, which is _awesome_ (in the original "causing awe or
| terror" meaning of the word). However, I think the geometric
| simplicity of the fireball is even more effective at _inspiring
| awe_.
|
| For a brief moment, the sky was filled with the light of a
| _human-made star_.
| philipkglass wrote:
| There was plenty of technical headroom left for making more
| fearsome weapons in the early 1960s. Fortunately, the pace of
| innovation plummeted after atmospheric testing ended, and none of
| the later nuclear weapons states have surpassed the high water
| mark set by Cold War era superpower rivalry. Chuck Hansen's book
| _The Swords of Armageddon_ is a fascinating account of the vast
| hidden empire of the post war Atomic Energy Commission, and how
| it developed atomic weapons _so far_ beyond the early atomic
| bombs used on Japan. And then again optimized thermonuclear
| weapons so far past the early hydrogen bombs.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| It's worth noting, in case anyone thinks that we somehow slowed
| down testing with the atmospheric test ban...that we went on to
| conduct 1,352 nuclear weapon detonations. That's roughly 3/4 of
| all nuclear testing. It really is mind-boggling that we set off
| so many.
| [deleted]
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| But really, how much more do you want? The US upped the ante
| several times, developing all kinds of more advanced super
| weapons, as well as modes of delivery, the first long range
| bombers, the Hydrogen bomb, ICBM's, MIRV, the Neutron bomb ...
| I mean, as you say it was FAR beyond the early atomic weapons.
| And they're continuing with development, in secret of course
| ...
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Americans keep developing their missile shield so China and
| Russia need to keep developing ways to outsmart it. It will
| never end.
| vkou wrote:
| A missile shield that actually works will actually
| precipitate a nuclear conflict, because it means an end to
| MAD. If you know that your adversary will become
| invulnerable to your counter-strike in three months, the
| optimal game-theory solution is to strike him _today_.
|
| Optimistically, military planners are aware of this, and
| are just doing pork barrel spending.
|
| Pessimistically, military planners don't care about this,
| and are actively working on 'winning' a nuclear war.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| This doesn't really follow IMO and is a result of deep
| oversimplifications.
|
| Even if you make those simplifications though: If your
| choices are pre-emptive strike where MAD applies now
| (near-total destruction) vs. live to 3 months from now,
| where you have a post-MAD world where one adversary
| dominates, the post-MAD dominant adversary no longer has
| the incentive to pre-emptively strike since they aren't
| worried about a pre-emptive strike from their adversaries
| since they'd have an effective missile defense system.
| joconde wrote:
| > If you know that your adversary will become
| invulnerable to your counter-strike in three months, the
| optimal game-theory solution is to strike him today.
|
| Striking today means MAD happens and your country gets
| wasted. That only makes sense if the shield-building
| adversary is some sort of psychopath who wants to see you
| dead.
|
| The 3 big nuclear powers don't seem to be that stupid.
| Maybe the calculus would be different with Israel vs Iran
| or India vs Pakistan, where the conflict has religious
| aspects.
| gjkood wrote:
| Just searched for Hansen's book on Amazon. The only one
| available was 'U.S. Nuclear Weapons the Secret History'. Steep
| price, $159 for a used copy.
| philipkglass wrote:
| _The Swords of Armageddon_ was only ever available digitally
| (first on CD-ROM, then as download). Hansen 's widow used to
| sell it after his death but she is no longer responding to
| sales requests. Or at least mine was ignored early this year.
| You can find it on Library Genesis.
|
| _U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History_ is sadly missing
| from LibGen, but it appears to be available as a digital
| checkout from the Internet Archive. It 's a good companion
| book to _Swords_ because it went through a professional
| editing-publishing cycle. _Swords_ is a lot longer and rawer,
| with a higher ratio of text to illustrations.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| They quit making bigger booms because there was no need for
| them. Two factors are at work:
|
| 1) Square-cube law. You do more damage with a collection of
| smaller warheads than with one big one with the same total
| yield.
|
| 2) The Earth isn't flat. Once a boom gets big enough the area
| of damage doesn't go up much as the shockwave ends up
| separating from the ground and the atmosphere above the bomb
| just ends up blasted off. Note that this does *not* limit the
| usefulness of big bombs detonated high up for thermal and EMP
| effects. Very big booms in low orbit could be very nasty with
| total surprise.
| perl4ever wrote:
| >They quit making bigger booms because there was no need for
| them
|
| Obviously there's no need for them on Earth or anywhere
| nearby.
|
| But it might become useful to scale nuclear explosions to an
| arbitrary extent if/when something large on a collision
| course with Earth is discovered.
| Arainach wrote:
| Less than you'd think. At the scale of object which poses a
| serious collision risk to Earth, nuclear weapons could (at
| best) break up the object, but would have no realistic
| chance of significantly reducing the mass/momentum of the
| object. Unless you can break it up into dust (which at that
| scale you can't), most of it is still going to land on
| Earth and do just as much damage.
| hwbehrens wrote:
| Actually, one recent work on n-body gravitational methods
| found that "nuclear explosives remain an indispensable
| element of the planetary defense portfolio." [0]
|
| In particular, although these dispersion methods (as you
| pointed out) don't typically reduce the impact energy to
| zero, they offer a roughly 2 order-of-magnitude decrease
| in impact energy while requiring only month-scale
| warning.
|
| In contrast, diversion techniques which _can_ reduce the
| impact energy to 0 (e.g. by shifting the impactor to
| 'miss' our planet) can require decade-scale to accomplish
| their goal.
|
| [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0
| 09457652...
| GoodbyeMrChips wrote:
| > And then again optimized thermonuclear weapons
|
| Here in Blighty, during the early cold war we built fall-out
| shelters and equipped a civilian force with "Green Goddess"
| fire engines to enable them to extinguish fires from nuclear
| flash.
|
| Yet this all stopped after development and adoption of the
| Hydrogen Bomb..... because unlike nuclear weapons (kT yield),
| trying to defend against thermonuclear weapons (MT yield) is
| pointless. This was a very real and honest defence policy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Goddess
|
| [In the UK, some younger people may recognise the Green Goddess
| Fire engine because they were seen during fireman strikes].
| [deleted]
| bronlund wrote:
| It may be untold to you, but here in Norway, it lighted up the
| sky pretty good :D
| trhway wrote:
| The Tsar Bomba idea is revived in the Poseidon nuclear very large
| torpedo which is estimated to have up to 100Mt yield and intended
| to hit large oceanside cities. Interesting that back then Saharov
| proposed such weapon and was shamed and shut down by the USSR
| Navy along the lines that "Navy fights enemy forces and is
| against such a clear attack on civilians". 50+ years later here
| we're - the Poseidons are put in service. It goes slow and deep -
| about 30 knots cruise at 1000m depth, beyond detection - and it
| would take it days to reach the enemy shores from several
| thousands miles distance, yet the idea here is that it will still
| come and assure the destruction, pretty much Kubrik style ( or
| that StarTrek episode where they were trying to stop the large
| autonomous space torpedo which was on its way to the target).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...
| nielsbot wrote:
| I know this is OT, BUT
|
| This site's cookie warning says: Please indicate your consent to
| our tracking tools and the sharing of this information by
| selecting "I Consent" or by _continuing to browse this website._
|
| The "continuing to browse this website" seems shady. Can someone
| explain how this is even supposed to work? Is there a timer that
| expires? If I scroll at all am I opted in?
|
| Also, is this even legal in jurisdictions that require a cookie
| opt-out? I thought I read some language about required a positive
| user interaction to accept tracking.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _The "continuing to browse this website" seems shady_
|
| 1. open browser
|
| 2. navigate to website
|
| 3. website installs cookies
|
| 4. you must have already consented!
| bobthepanda wrote:
| A fair amount of websites block EU IPs to avoid complying with
| GDPR.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Why would they have to comply anyway if they have no presence
| in the EU?
| camhenlin wrote:
| EU citizen might register in which case they could be
| forced to comply or suffer fines
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Fines enforced by who? They are not EU citizens or
| corporations.
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| I don't remember I've ever had that, although I've moved out
| or Europe a year ago.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| It's a small number. But it does happen.
|
| You don't want the interest of 445 million people, most of
| whom will consent to tracking? OK with me.
| dandotway wrote:
| However, a study from 1963 suggested that, if detonated 28 miles
| (45 kilometers) above the surface of the Earth, a 10,000-megaton
| weapon could set fires over an area 500 miles (800 kilometers)
| in diameter. Which is to say, an area about the size of France.
|
| If thousands of such _gigaton_ bombs were developed then MAD
| (Mutually Assured Destruction) would be more taxpayer efficient
| because we could simply stop funding expensive rocket and
| submarine weapons delivery systems, as they would only add an
| unnecessarily complicated step to the process. Just detonate your
| gigaton arsenal on your own nation 's soil. When an animal is in
| great pain and cannot be saved, we usually consider the most
| compassionate course of action to euthanize. So in the event of
| MAD, just instantly vaporize your own population to spare them a
| few months of clinging to life with radiation sickness,
| starvation, cannibalism, and the lawless raping and murdering of
| the earth's final warlords. The multiple gigaton bombs detonated
| on your own soil will ensure the agonizing death of all your
| enemies that don't similarly self-euthanize.
| philipkglass wrote:
| I presume that this is facetious, but it's not too far off the
| mark. See this other great Nuclear Secrecy blog post, "In
| Search of a Bigger Boom":
|
| http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-big...
|
| _The scientist Edward Teller, according to one account, kept a
| blackboard in his office at Los Alamos during World War II with
| a list of hypothetical nuclear weapons on it. The last item on
| his list was the largest one he could imagine. The method of
| "delivery" -- weapon-designer jargon for how you get your bomb
| from here to there, the target -- was listed as "Backyard." As
| the scientist who related this anecdote explained, "since that
| particular design would probably kill everyone on Earth, there
| was no use carting it anywhere."_
| dandotway wrote:
| I guess "truth is stranger than fiction." ;-) Blog comment
| from the link you posted:
|
| _The 10GT weapon really would have been BACKYARD. At 6MT
| /tonne (the upper bound for thermonuclear weapons) it would
| have weighed 1667 tonnes._
| camhenlin wrote:
| Similar idea to the doomsday device described in Dr.
| Strangelove!
| 542354234235 wrote:
| Hydrogen bombs are endlessly fascinating and horrifying. The
| physics and engineering that goes into them is amazing,
| especially when it boils down to triggering alternating dominos
| of progressively larger fission and fusion reactions.
| pinewurst wrote:
| There's a referenced article in there on the US RIPPLE concept
| for large, efficient weapons that's well worth tracking down.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| https://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-abstract/23/2/133/101892...
|
| You need an MIT account, though. Would anyone with one care to
| summarize?
| perihelions wrote:
| Archive.org has it,
|
| https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=J+Grams+-+Journal+of+Co.
| ..
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Following the _second_ search item found eventually got me
| to https://muse.jhu.edu/article/794729
|
| This seems to be the actual article.
| Amorymeltzer wrote:
| This is by Alex Wellerstein, who is unparalleled when it comes to
| writing about nuclear weapon history. His occasional blog
| http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/ is an excellent read.
| nielsbot wrote:
| So crazy and dangerous.
|
| For some reason makes me think of the Demon Core accident(s),
| from the early days of bomb development:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
| jcims wrote:
| I read this every time I see a link to it. Slotin's exposure
| incident really resonates with me for some reason, it plays
| in my head like a movie and I'm Slotin. I can just imagine
| ears ringing and a metallic taste in my mouth as my brain
| slowly comes to grips with the fact that I'm a dead man
| walking. (For some reason i have a stuffy nose too)
|
| The other thing I come away from this thinking is that our
| bodies are way better at dealing with damage from radiation
| than we give them credit for.
| olau wrote:
| I'm left wondering if women would make for statistically
| better bomb putter-togetherers. If the account on Wikipedia
| is to be believed, it sounds like a true Darwin award with
| only a screwdriver separating him from certain death.
| dang wrote:
| There's a related blog post:
| http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2021/10/29/the-possibility-of...
|
| (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29039900, but there's
| no real thread there)
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Here is the footage of the Tsar Bomba detonation that was
| declassified a year ago: https://youtu.be/YtCTzbh4mNQ
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-29 23:00 UTC)