# The Czar bomb



## syscom3 (Dec 11, 2005)

Biggest H-Bomb ever detonated. The result of Comminust giganticism gone haywire.

The end of the clip shows the blast radius superimposed over London.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 11, 2005)

It was a huge bomb! The scale of the damage would have been huge! 30 mile blast radius and 180 mile fireball radius! Just as well it was never dropped on any town.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

Wow good clip there. At a certain point it was just to see who could get bigger than the other. A bomb that size would have done no significant change over other smaller bombs in a war. It was pointless to have a bomb that big.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 11, 2005)

I read a tech report on it, and the Russians would have used it (if they had any bombers left to carry it) against large urban area's, like the Rhur, Tokyo and NYC


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

I do not doubt that they would have use it. I just think it would have pointless. The smaller nukes would have done same amount of damage necessary to cause destruction, devestation, and fear.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 11, 2005)

Holy CRAP! That thing is humungous. Let's hope we never get to see that one ever used.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 12, 2005)

The Russians are currently developing a nuclear missile tipped with a nuclear warhead that is six times bigger than any nuclear warhead before it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2005)

Jesus what for?!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 13, 2005)

Because they're Russian I guess. 
Just because they can? Who knows.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2005)

I think that is just retarded. There is no need for it and they have better things to spend money like feeding there people.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Russians are currently developing a nuclear missile tipped with a nuclear warhead that is six times bigger than any nuclear warhead before it.



What are your sources?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2005)

holy crap, where was that test done?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 14, 2005)

In the Russian Artic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba


----------



## marconi (Dec 20, 2005)

plan_D
Can you tell where did you read that? Russians now are fond of their mobile launch complex Topol-M and other stuff where separated warheads are used and think of them as an answer to America's new "Star Wars".

As for the Big Bomb I think it was made only for research purposes (IMHO).I mean, there's no such place on Earth that must be bombed with THAT thing, is there? And Russian early nuclear bombs where powerful only to compensate their inaccuracy.As one guy said on this topic: "If it would fall a mile away from the preassigned destination it wouldn't really matter.Everything is simple - One bomb, one megaton, one city."


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 20, 2005)

Marconi, it was built as part of the Russian idea of "showtime". It was to prove to the world that they could build one as well as use it if they needed to.


----------



## marconi (Dec 20, 2005)

Maybe.I said it was my IMHO.Still it had no military purpose.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

I agree it has no purpose, except as syscom pointed out as a Shock and Awe them type thing.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2005)

I read it in the news about five months ago but I can't find the story again. 

So, sorry, but I can't provide the source. However, it's obvious that Russia is developing new weapons systems and larger size warhead isn't out of the question with modern missile and rocketry technology. 

The ABM treaty and START II no longer exist because the U.S and Russian removals of them, so now is another period of nuclear rearmament. However, now, the countries have no need to test physically because computers can simulate a nuclear explosion, albeit it does take three months to do so. This development as rendered the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty obselete - and pointless!

The Moscow Treaty, or SORT, is also missing key elements of what is truely needed for nuclear disarmement. While the number of warheads deployed will be reduced, they won't be destroyed - only stored. And the tactical weapons of the two great nations were not mentioned. 

Is the Cold War _really_ over? 

Anywho, I'll continue looking for the news story.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2005)

Good question. I persoanlly think the new "Cold War" will be much different however and involve nations such as Iran, N. Korea, and China atleast until we do something about it, which might not be too far off.


----------



## R988 (Jan 4, 2006)

Oh well if it's Russian it probably wont work when they need it to, then again its probably also liable to go off at random as well


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2006)

Or be sold to some rogue state or terrorist.


----------



## nosredna (Feb 28, 2007)

Well I think that they prooved that and more.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 28, 2007)

I read about that one. The Soviets were shooting for a bomb that was a 100 megatons. My understanding was they got it too. But then, somebody had a reality check and they decided to dial it down to 63 megatons. I think the bomb construction was using the "layer cake" method of making thermo-nukes. As a consequence, by inerting the top layer, they could dial it down.

I don't think it was big enough to wipe out everything in 100 mile radius. It did knock over a building at 30km, broke windows beyond that. Running on memory on this one.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 28, 2007)

timshatz said:


> I read about that one. The Soviets were shooting for a bomb that was a 100 megatons. My understanding was they got it too. But then, somebody had a reality check and they decided to dial it down to 63 megatons. I think the bomb construction was using the "layer cake" method of making thermo-nukes. As a consequence, by inerting the top layer, they could dial it down.
> 
> I don't think it was big enough to wipe out everything in 100 mile radius. It did knock over a building at 30km, broke windows beyond that. Running on memory on this one.



Essentially you're correct about the construction. The layered design enabled "stages" to boost the performance.

As for the blast radius, the thermal pulse from the bomb was enough to ignite fires and cause burns on unprotected skin at 100 miles (depending on altitude of detonation).


----------



## Cyrano (Feb 28, 2007)




----------



## syscom3 (Feb 28, 2007)

Cyrano said:


> Some studies in the 90's estimated that a number betveen 1/4 and 1/3 of Russian nukes would have either never gotten out of their silos or have missed their targets if the Cold War ever had heaten into a shooting war.
> 
> So it seems Russian nuclear program was a complete failure, if the quality of their ICBMs was so poor, they should have made a shitload more instead of wasting resources on megabombs.



In nuclear warfare, even a miss can destroy your target


----------



## Cyrano (Feb 28, 2007)




----------



## syscom3 (Mar 1, 2007)

Cyrano said:


> Well if the target is Pentagon and the warhead ends to New Mexico desert I'd say it's a mission failed.



Ummm...... lets be a little more realistic instead of using these types of ridiculous examples.

Maybe you need a primer in CEP? Do you even know what that is?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

Besides there are a lot of things that it could take out between the Pentagon and the New Mexico Desert.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 1, 2007)

One more point. They weren't going to shoot just one at the Pentagon, they were going to shoot/drop/lob/whatever 50 of the suckers. Same with the rest of Washington, New York, Philadelphia (ouch, that hurts), Houston, Chicago, ect. The point that most nuclear war strategy falls down is in the number of warheads whizzing around out there (both ways). If (and it is a big if but once the missles start flying it becomes an eventuality not an if) there is a probability of failure as high as 20% (and I have heard similar numbers) then the way to make sure that there is no chance of failure is to launch enough to make the probability of failure irrelevent. 

That is why Civil Defense in the Nuclear Era was essentially an exercise in futility. With stockpiles of bombs/warheads in the tens of thousands, the primary targets would've been obliterated even if half the warheads missed. The bombs just would've kept coming and not getting killed would've been a function of luck more than planning.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 1, 2007)

timshatz said:


> One more point. They weren't going to shoot just one at the Pentagon, they were going to shoot/drop/lob/whatever 50 of the suckers. Same with the rest of Washington, New York, Philadelphia (ouch, that hurts), Houston, Chicago, ect. The point that most nuclear war strategy falls down is in the number of warheads whizzing around out there (both ways). If (and it is a big if but once the missles start flying it becomes an eventuality not an if) there is a probability of failure as high as 20% (and I have heard similar numbers) then the way to make sure that there is no chance of failure is to launch enough to make the probability of failure irrelevent.
> 
> That is why Civil Defense in the Nuclear Era was essentially an exercise in futility. With stockpiles of bombs/warheads in the tens of thousands, the primary targets would've been obliterated even if half the warheads missed. The bombs just would've kept coming and not getting killed would've been a function of luck more than planning.



Good points.

One of the reasons the Soviets used such large warheads on their missles was to offset the lack of accuracy of the missles. Even if they missed by a mile, it didnt matter.


----------

