Nuclear Weapon Question (Not creepy)

Factual Questions
1

Pardon me for posting, but I was wondering…what is the largest yield nuclear warhead currently in service in the world? All I know the Russians once tested a 57 megaton warhead, but it wasn’t put into service. I also know most U.S. warheads are in the upper-kiloton range, but that Russian warheads are larger. Can anyone help?

Thanks in advance,

Ranchoth

2

I think we still have some Atlas’ in service with 20 Mton warheads – though they may have all been decomissioned.

3

Looks like I was wrong:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

The B-83 seems to be the largest in active service. It has dial-a-yield up to 1.2 Mt.

(The above should have read “Titan”, not Atlas.)

4

You have to understand the different classifications of weapons.

  1. Active-service weapons can be delivered at a moment’s notice.
  2. the hedge stockpile of weapons is maintained in deliverable condition, but stored away from delivery systems.
  3. The inactive reserve is not maintained in usable condition, which usually means that the tritium is not replenished as it decays.

The highest yield active-serivce weapon is, as KeithB says, the B-83. But that’s not the highest-yield weapon we have. As of 1997, we had about 50 9 Megaton B-53s. I’m finding conflicting reports of whether those weapons were in the hedge stockpile or the inactive reserve. I can find no information about their status more recent than 1997. http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Weapons/B53.html

5

As far as I know there is no theoretical limit to the size of a bomb. Just what we can make and sotre safely, and effectively deliver.

With new technology, then, these things change. But even during the highly theoretical tiime after WW2 and during the cold war the technology was there to make bombs with all the destructive power one could want.

6

Additionally - this is slightly off-topic, I know your OP referred to warheads specifically - but the MIRV capability of a weapon like the Trident missile allows it to pack a lot more punch than any of the single bombs we have left.

I wasn’t able to immediately dig up any official non-classified stats, but on the fas.org page that was linked earlier, it talks about the missile being able to carry 8-14 warheads, a couple different sizes. You can do the math yourself for an estimate. Let’s just say it could pack … ummm … a lot. A Trident submarine at sea, with 24 tubes loaded, is in and of itself a superpower.

  • Dave,
    ex-sub-guy.
7

Not Quite. There are limits to the size of a pure fission weapon since the core explodes before all the fissionable material fissions. There is no limit to a fission-fusion or fission-fusion-fission weapon, but these were not available until the early 1950’s.

Just after the war, when all the scientists and soldiers left Los Alamos because of peacetime, there was great disarray in the US nuclear weapons program. Much engineering had to be done to turn R&D style weapons (Fat Man and Little Boy) into real rugged weapons with safeties and the ability to be used by the average soldier.

Read “Dark Sun” by Richard Rhodes for all the gory details.

8

Yeah, Dark Sun is a fascinating read.

Considering maximum yield, if delivering the device wasn’t an issue - if it was detonated on the ground where it was assembled - is there a limit to the yield of a fission-fusion-etc weapon? Could you gather a whole bunch of deuterium and tritium and whatnot together and blow up the whole world, doomsday-device-style?

9

Also check out Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, by Richard P. Feynman for some amusing and somewhat scary anecdotes on the actual operation of Los Alamos and the atomic bomb project.(Among other things.)

10

I have said that “Dark Sun” and “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” should be required reading before posting Nuclear Bomb questions on this board. While it would not have worked for this OP, it works for 99% of the others.

By all accounts, there is no limit to the size of a Fission-Fusion weapon. You just add more “stages.” The largest tested was a two stage, I believe, with a three stage on the drawing boards. Check out the FAQ at the above FAS site. It goes into detail on this.

11

According to the last line on the fas description of multistage bombs the 50 megaton device had three stages; so building more powerful bombs by adding stages is more than just a theoretical possibility.

12

You want to see a really big fusion bomb? Step outside and look up: There’s one up there in the sky.

We don’t have enough hydrogen to make a star, but that’s about the only limiting factor.