
The ‘Tsar Bomba’ Was a 50-Megaton Nuke - vinnyglennon
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-tsar-bomba-was-a-50-megaton-monster-nuke-6855dcaeb618
======
myrryr
ok... here is the deal.... the Tsar Bomba was ^#%$ing huge.

No seriously... MUCH MUCH bigger then you think.

it was 10 times the combined power of all the conventional explosives used in
World War II

it was 10% of the combined yield of all nuclear tests to date.

and mostly.... It was the equivalent of over 1kg of antimatter going up. 1
^#%$ing kg.... of ^#%$ing antimatter.

It broke windows in Norway and Finland and its shock wave was VISIBLE in the
air 700 km away.

It is impossible to get people to understand how much of a monster it was.
AND.... and this was it dialed down to 1/2 its maximum yield.

No one has been crazy enough to test another nuke of its size. Even in the
height of the cold war no one was crazy enough to test something like that
again.

~~~
tomjen3
If you want to see the effects of various nukes there is a simulator here:
[http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/](http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) (I
have no idea if it will get you on some sort of list if you access it).

The takeaway is that, as long as it is just a single nuke, the damages are
rather underwelming, except for the Tsar bomba.

~~~
arethuza
"the damages are rather underwelming"

Not sure I would agree with that - a single 800kt detonation over Manhattan
looks pretty bad to me and a realistic attack would probably have had many
tens of warheads used.

Here is a rather jolly 1980's BBC documentary that spends a lot of time
looking at the effects of a single 1Mt warhead on London:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vejorfkdgwU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vejorfkdgwU)

Of course, it does finish by noting that a real attack would have multiple
ground and air bursts.

[NB UK("pretty bad") == NonUK("utterly appalling")]

~~~
tomjen3
Well when I mean pretty underwhelming I mean that I kinda expected a nuke to
take out the entirety of New York + a big chunk of the east coast. I mean
these are the weapons of doom, right? The weapons that will end the world?

And yet if you are just 30 miles from the target the first time you are going
to notice is when you turn on the TV.

~~~
djur
Keep in mind that at the height of the Cold War, both the US and USSR had
thousands of nuclear warheads. A single nuke might not be a civilization-
destroying weapon, but a carpet bombing of nukes sure is.

------
garethrees
The Tsar Bomba was an experimental weapon, but the United States had the B41,
a three-stage thermonuclear weapon with a yield of 25 megatons. Four of these
would have been as powerful as the Tsar Bomba; the U.S. manufactured 500 of
them.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41_nuclear_bomb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41_nuclear_bomb)

In the 1960s the U.S. Strategic Air Command ran a continuous airborne nuclear-
armed patrol (Operation Chrome Dome), so there was probably a 25 megaton
weapon in the air for much of that time.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chrome_Dome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chrome_Dome)

It's also worth remembering that the limiting factor on the yield of the Tsar
Bomba was the carrying capability of the Tu-95. The Teller–Ulam design for
thermonuclear weapons is scalable: you can keep adding stages as long as you
have the uranium, plutonium and lithium to make them with. Edward Teller
supposedly designed (or at least contemplated) a 10 gigaton bomb:
[http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-
big...](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bigger-boom/)

~~~
paganel
> Edward Teller supposedly designed (or at least contemplated) a 10 gigaton
> bomb

That guy was batshit crazy, pardon my French. I know that the Dr. Strangelove
character was pretty much based on him, I know about and I partially
understand the reasons behind the nuclear arms race, but when you read about
plans like this you just start contemplating about the end of humans as a
species.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
How is he crazy? When nukes are on the table either you implement a MAD-like
policy or you die in nuclear fire. There's no real middle ground with weapons
this powerful. Its rational to support MAD. Thus far, its working. A lot of
human warfare is on its face is crazy sounding, but has a rational backing.

>when you read about plans like this you just start contemplating about the
end of humans as a species.

We called up the USSR and asked them to stop producing weapons on that scale.
They laughed in our face. What exactly do you propose? Heck, the USSR's client
states were motivated to nuke us without warning. Castro had a pretty big
hard-on for launching nukes:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22nuke.html?_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22nuke.html?_r=0)

He wasn't convinced by the loss of life or anything. His Moscow handlers had
to explain to him that the radioactive cloud would be bad for Cubans. Heck,
the politburo was demanding WWIII from Khrushchev during the Cuban missile
crisis.

Today, Russia maintains an openly published first strike policy on what it
calles "tactical nukes." Essentially they say they can launch nukes whenever
they feel like it and not consider it a MAD violation. So if Putin's
conventional troops are losing, he just nukes the opposition. With madmen like
Putin running nukes, MAD makes sense. Its the only thing that does.

~~~
acqq
> How is he crazy?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller)

"during Oppenheimer's trial he was the only member of the scientific community
to state that Oppenheimer should not be granted security clearance"

"One of the most controversial projects he proposed was a plan to use a multi-
megaton hydrogen bomb to dig a deep-water harbor more than a mile long and
half a mile wide to use for shipment of resources from coal and oil fields
through Point Hope, Alaska."

"Teller suffered a heart attack in 1979, and many observers[71] described him
as blaming it on Jane Fonda"

"In the 1980s, Teller began a strong campaign for what was later called the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), derided by critics as "Star Wars," the
concept of using ground and satellite-based lasers, particle beams and
missiles to destroy incoming Soviet ICBMs."

A few megadeaths here-or-there.

The only thing missing from Dr Strangelove is having the uncontrollable hand.
Yes, you can call him "just focused" if you prefer that. Let him "peacefully"
dig in your backyard.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>One of the most controversial projects he proposed was a plan to use a multi-
megaton hydrogen bomb to dig a deep-water harbor

Russians used nukes for mining. Its not magic. You can manage fall-out, risk,
etc. Its not "crazy."

>"Teller suffered a heart attack in 1979, and many observers[71] described him
as blaming it on Jane Fonda"

A 70+ year old man being a difficult curmudgeon? Say, it ain't so!

> Teller began a strong campaign for what was later called the Strategic
> Defense Initiative (SDI)

SDI made sense. We still have SDI. Now we call its "Strategic Missile Defense"
and its our biggest counter against rogue nation nuke launches and other
attacks. It also has Putin scared as he can't match it and is demanding we
don't continue to build new sites in Eastern Europe out of desperation.

>The only thing missing from Dr Strangelove is having the uncontrollable hand.

I really wish more people understood the world from the lessons of history
instead of caricutures from Hollywood movies.

~~~
gcb0
The US actually used more nukes for mining then the russians. WAY more.

the russians had the more accidents, though. but the US also had it share of
radioactive underground rivers as a result. there is a list on wikipedia

~~~
maxerickson
This article (which presumably includes mining related activities for both
countries):

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion)

puts the score at US: 28, USSR: 237.

Combining the 25 intensification and 22 storage explosions here presumably
gets you past the US total of peaceful nuclear explosions:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy)

Are there more articles that you would suggest?

------
joezydeco
Be sure to visit the NUKEMAP simulator and see how the Tsar Bomba matches up
to some of the other nuclear warheads available. Drop one on _your_ hometown!

[http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/](http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/)

~~~
jokoon
I wonder why, depending on the bomb, the radius some radius don't come in the
same order. Some time the air blast is larger than the fireball, sometimes
not.

~~~
maxerickson
One thing that factors into that is the surface vs airburst setting (the
presets differ).

edit: for the simulation, the other major thing that factors into it must be
the "fission fraction", the presets store 4 things: name, yield, a field
marking surface/airburst and the fission fraction.

------
jkot
It was different time.

Soviet union was enclosed by US airbases and nonstop flying bombers, which
could hit any city in a few hours. America also developed crazy stuff like
Project Pluto...

Anyway there are two reasons for this bomb not mentioned in article:

\- Terraforming. Soviets honestly believed they could redirect rivers from
north to arid south. They even made artificial valley in mountains as
experiment. Larger nukes are cleaner than smaller nukes.

\- Doomsday device in form of dirt bomb. Plan was to concentrate all nuclear
waste from Soviet countries on single place, and explode massive bomb under
it. Explosion would spread nuclear material into atmosphere and most of earth
wold become radioactive. This device was not approved by soviet leaders, too
dangerous.

~~~
dijit
I think that Russia is still surrounded by US forces, or at least US
sympathetic forces.

I wonder if this causes their country-people to feel boxed in or cornered. :\

~~~
speeder
Yes, it does.

And might be the reason why they are so quick to also help other countries
with a similar issue (for example: I am from Brazil, and our navy is crap,
when we announced finding one of the largest oil reserves of the world, US
immediately announced reactivating their south-atlantic fleet, they don't even
tried to hide their intentions... so Russia now patrols our water for us, to
keep US ships away from the oil rigs).

~~~
ceejayoz
The US makes about 8 million barrels a day. The Tupi field discovered off
Brazil makes about 100,000 a day and best-case contains a few years of
American oil production _total_.

You think the US Fourth Fleet reactivation was intended to steal that
production? And risk war with most of South America?

~~~
PerfectDlite
It's perfect case of today's anti-US propaganda - "they want to take our
<oil/land/cattle>!"

Sadly, too many people absent-mindedly believing in that.

~~~
ceejayoz
It's particularly silly when coupled with the "that's why Russia patrols our
waters now!" bit. Out of the altruistic goodness of Putin's heart, I suppose?

------
adventured
Tsar's destructive force was incredible, but I think it bothers me a lot more
that the US built 500 B41 bombs with a 25Mt yield during that era. What's the
functional destructive difference between 50Mt and 25Mt? Zilch, any practical
target hit by it is gone.

~~~
Synaesthesia
It's incredibly bothersome. We still have the ability to annihilate the whole
human race, instantly,

~~~
afsina
I think it is not possible to eradicate all human race with current nuclear
bombs. Some would survive.

~~~
spacemanmatt
I agree it would be hard to be sure you had gotten every last one, but it
would be easy to ensure that the survivors live in a new stone age with
nuclear fallout making most of the earth uninhabitable for people, if not most
life. I've been somewhat amazed at how resilient the biome around Chernobyl
has shown itself to be, but I'm sobered by the measurable losses attributable
to it that accident as well.

------
codeshaman
When I think about human intelligence, my mind always arrives at these
scientists.

How can, then, some of the smartest people on Earth be involved in something
as stupid as this.

Many scientists realise the grave consequences of their stupidity, _after_ the
fact. Both Sakharov and Oppenheimer realised this, but it was too late. The
genie was out.

The mirage of power, respect, titles, prizes and access to unlimited resources
for their experiments is too strong to resist, I guess. :Carrot

Then there's the patriotism thing - do right for you country, protect it from
the enemies. Fear. :Stick

This is how the devil works, after all :).

Beware of the stupid as he knows not what the implications of his activities
are. Be scared of the smart working for the stupid, as he very well knows the
implications, but is too weak to resist the temptation. He has sold his soul.

~~~
mikeash
It's your classic Prisoners' Dilemma. (No surprise, since game theory was
largely developed to analyze nuclear war.)

You're stuck with another guy. You're both better off if you both cooperate.
But individually you're better off if you betray the other guy. In that
situation it's really, really hard to arrange cooperation.

The US and USSR would have been better off if they could have put a halt to
the madness. But if one stopped, that gives huge incentives for the other to
betray.

The thing is, betraying the other is the _rational_ thing to do. It's the
worst outcome, but it comes from purely rational actions.

~~~
digi_owl
And hilariously, whenever it is tested the whole thing falls flat. Because
humans cooperate by instinct. Kennedy was told again and again to escalate
until the Kremlin backed down. Eventually he had enough and basically showed
"rationality" the door. Thus the Cuban Crisis ended without the cold war going
hot.

------
stygiansonic
If you enjoyed this article, the documentary "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic
Bomb Movie" was great - decent footage and a great soundtrack.

~~~
matthewmcg
The filmmaker behind TAB is Peter Kuran. He was a visual effects specialist
for some pretty cool movies (e.g. Empire Strikes Back). Restoring old atomic
test footage is a special interest of his and he's also done several more in-
depth documentaries about atomic weapons:

 _Nuclear Rescue 911: Broken Arrows & Incidents_

 _Atomic Filmmakers: Behind the Scenes_

 _Atomic Journeys: Welcome to Ground Zero_

 _Nukes in Space_

 _Atomic Filmmakers_ is my favorite--it's sort of a "making of" for the
historical footage used in the other movies and it talks about the secret
Lookout Mountain film studio the Air Force set up outside LA to develop
special technology to document and instrument above-ground nuclear tests.

------
RexRollman
"Interestingly enough, Tsar Bomba was one of the “cleanest” nuclear weapons
ever detonated, because the bomb’s design eliminated 97 percent of the
possible fallout."

How do one design a bomb to eliminate, or minimize, fallout? I wasn't even
aware it was an option.

~~~
korethr
By my understanding, fallout is less a function of the explosion being nuclear
and more of how the bomb is detonated. The Tsar Bomba was an air-burst. By
keeping the fireball in the air, less vaporized material from the ground is
kicked up into the debris cloud from the blast. Both air bursts and ground
bursts generate fallout, but a ground burst will generate nastier, localized
fallout, and more of it.

This is my speculation, but I suspect another reason for the relative lack of
fallout from the Tsar Bomba was related to its yeild. To get a particularly
large yeild from the materials available, the bomb is going to have to be as
efficient as you can get it. All things equal, a more efficient system
generates less waste.

Or the design the article could simply be referring the bomb's parachute
system, which helped keep the blast in the air.

------
jostylr
I found the recent series by the Digital Antiquarian to be very interesting on
this, weaving together Infocom's Trinity series and the atomic bomb history,
including the Tsar Bomba.

[http://www.filfre.net/2015/01/t-plus-3-edward-teller-and-
his...](http://www.filfre.net/2015/01/t-plus-3-edward-teller-and-his-
superbomb/)

------
golemotron
I saw a doc about nuclear weapons that mentioned this one and said that the
real reason that no one made them bigger was the fact that they were wasteful.

The atmosphere is effectively 10 miles high. Once your blast radius approaches
that the difference in pressure pushes most of the energy upward above the
atmosphere. You don't get the horizontal spread you'd expect as you increase
tonnage.

~~~
hga
There's also a re-radiation effect, where the ground etc. that was heated up
by the bomb radiates part of that energy into space.

