How the Soviet Union experienced the "weapon of the apocalypse"

16
A nuclear mushroom rises above the surface for 70 km. Seismographs in different countries of the world record powerful vibrations, while the shock wave from the explosion three times passes around the circumference of the planet. The world called the glow appeared "nuclear (or artificial) Sun."





Then, in October 1961, scientists, because the fireball had been hanging in the air longer than the estimated time, seriously feared that an irreversible nuclear chain reaction had begun. But in the end, the shock wave along with the glow began to disappear, and the tests were considered successful. It was that same “Kuzkina mother” - a powerful bomb in stories civilization.

The explosion carried out on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, to this day is the record in its power ever carried out by man.
In TNT equivalent, it corresponded to 58 megatons. The bomb itself was delivered by a Tu-95 bomber.

The explosion of the "puff" gave a tremendous effect. The Western world has decided that the leadership of the Soviet Union is ready, after testing, to move on to the direct application of "weapons apocalypse. " The Caribbean crisis was approaching when the world literally stood on the brink of a nuclear war that could end the history of mankind.

The film of the TV channel “History” tells about the tests of the hydrogen bomb, about what preceded it and what followed.

16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    18 September 2019 14: 33
    There was a "Kuz'kina mother" ... I hope that humanity will never see such a thing.
  2. +8
    18 September 2019 14: 38
    Incidentally, the most powerful, at that time, US thermonuclear bomb was not a "bomb" in its essence. A huge static structure, the size of a five-story one-entrance building. The explosion power of this "fool" (if my memory serves me) was about 20 Mt.
    The Soviet "bomb" was delivered under the belly of the aircraft, the estimated power of the explosion was 51,5 Mt, in fact it turned out to be about 58. Moreover, it was originally planned to explode a charge of 101 Mt, but due to unfounded fears, the power of the charge was almost halved
    1. +1
      22 September 2019 13: 13
      Quote: Wiruz
      Incidentally, the most powerful, at that time, US thermonuclear bomb was not a "bomb" in its essence. A huge static structure, the size of a five-story one-entrance building. The explosion power of this "fool" (if my memory serves me) was about 20 Mt.
      The Soviet "bomb" was delivered under the belly of the aircraft, the estimated power of the explosion was 51,5 Mt, in fact it turned out to be about 58. Moreover, it was originally planned to explode a charge of 101 Mt, but due to unfounded fears, the power of the charge was almost halved

      Due to fears of severe radioactive contamination, as far as I know, the uranium shell has been replaced by lead
      1. 0
        22 September 2019 14: 59
        As far as I remember, they were afraid that an explosion of 101 Mt would provoke either a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, or, even worse, an uncontrolled reaction of hydrogen fusion in the atmosphere (the latter read as a "global apocalypse")
  3. +4
    18 September 2019 14: 44
    In general, the AN-602, aka "Tsar Bomba" is more likely just a demonstrator of the achievements of Soviet science, the defense complex, a political signal, but not at all a real weapon. It will be much more effective and simpler to deliver a nuclear strike with three or four "weak" charges of 3-5 Mt at a relatively close distance from each other - the efficiency (so to speak) will be higher
  4. +1
    18 September 2019 14: 50
    Weapon of Western Obsculypsis
  5. 0
    18 September 2019 14: 59
    Quote: Wiruz
    In general, the AN-602, aka "Tsar Bomba" is more likely just a demonstrator of the achievements of Soviet science, the defense complex, a political signal, but not at all a real weapon. It will be much more effective and simpler to deliver a nuclear strike with three or four "weak" charges of 3-5 Mt at a relatively close distance from each other - the efficiency (so to speak) will be higher

    Unreal? But here it is, it’s blown up, still unrealistic? I'm at a standstill - how else can I explain to you? Blow up two or three? Some kind of stupidity.
    1. +4
      18 September 2019 15: 50
      But here he is not ...
      But on arming, there’s exactly the head in 100, 500, 750 Kt, and as a hypothesis, 2 Mt is at the Governor’s.
      A very powerful warhead for the UR-500 was currently in the project, and the rocket eventually became the Proton.
      So where do you see weapons in the 50-100 Mt?
      As for Mother herself, I met with one of the test participants (not a physicist, but a military-technical specialist).
      Something said, it is a pity that little .... People remember the oath.
      By the way, it was treated for a long time for the effects of LB.
      His son was born in 40 years
    2. +1
      18 September 2019 17: 31
      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      Blow up two or three? Some kind of stupidity.
      I don’t even want to write, it’s not human to discuss this.
    3. +1
      19 September 2019 13: 45
      You, uncle, understand the difference between "not real" and "unreal", no ?! Or did someone tell you that the AN-602 existed only on paper and was never blown up ?! Read again what I wrote above, then think it over, then read it again, think it over again - and so on until you understand
  6. 0
    18 September 2019 17: 54
    Quite an unpleasant type of this Michael channel ....
  7. 0
    18 September 2019 22: 07
    Quote: U-58
    But here he is not ...
    But on arming, there’s exactly the head in 100, 500, 750 Kt, and as a hypothesis, 2 Mt is at the Governor’s.
    A very powerful warhead for the UR-500 was currently in the project, and the rocket eventually became the Proton.
    So where do you see weapons in the 50-100 Mt?
    As for Mother herself, I met with one of the test participants (not a physicist, but a military-technical specialist).
    Something said, it is a pity that little .... People remember the oath.
    By the way, it was treated for a long time for the effects of LB.
    His son was born in 40 years

    But it was. And it is a reality. Application experience is. So if necessary ... will be done. I'm wrong?
  8. 0
    18 September 2019 22: 09
    Quote: tihonmarine
    Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
    Blow up two or three? Some kind of stupidity.
    I don’t even want to write, it’s not human to discuss this.

    Don't feel like writing? Do not write. Just...
  9. +1
    19 September 2019 11: 53
    A kind word is good, however ... In short, that explosion prevented a very painful war in which I would have died among the first. It is useful for humanity, especially "progressive" ones, to show "Kuz'kina Mother" all the bombs sometimes.
  10. 0
    22 September 2019 15: 15
    Quote: Wiruz
    As far as I remember, they were afraid that an explosion of 101 Mt would provoke either a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, or, even worse, an uncontrolled reaction of hydrogen fusion in the atmosphere (the latter read as a "global apocalypse")

    It was blown up at an altitude of 4200 m, for the earth’s crust, with an explosion at such an altitude, at least 50 at least 100 mt is zilch, its thickness is 30-40 km on average, on new earth even more.
    Regarding hydrogen, this is also not a very version, because it is not in the atmosphere, it flies out of the atmosphere, which is why in a very distant period the earth will dry out completely, in the upper layers of the atmosphere water vapor is destroyed by UV, hydrogen flies away, and oxygen oxidizes something the earth. And what is needed is not protium, but deuterium or tritium. It’s dangerous to blow such a mb into the sea
  11. +2
    24 September 2019 13: 27
    Quote: Wiruz
    Incidentally, the most powerful, at that time, US thermonuclear bomb was not a "bomb" in its essence. A huge static structure, the size of a five-story one-entrance building. The explosion power of this "fool" (if my memory serves me) was about 20 Mt.
    The Soviet "bomb" was delivered under the belly of the aircraft, the estimated power of the explosion was 51,5 Mt, in fact it turned out to be about 58. Moreover, it was originally planned to explode a charge of 101 Mt, but due to unfounded fears, the power of the charge was almost halved

    You have a small time shift, One overlapped with the other. What you are writing about, a device the size of a house was an American thermonuclear device MIKE (more precisely, the test was called IVI MIKE). Power about 12 megatons. The explosion was carried out on November 1, 1952. But the first aero-transportable hydrogen bomb is the Soviet RDS-6S, detonated on August 12, 1953 with an energy output of 400 kt.
    The most powerful US hydrogen bomb is the 17 Mt Mk-15. It was tested in 1953-1954. Was serial. And only the explosion of our "Tsar Bomb" broke the power record

    Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
    Unreal? But here it is, it’s blown up, still unrealistic? I'm at a standstill - how else can I explain to you? Blow up two or three? Some kind of stupidity.

    Well, let's just say that you can’t call this bomb a weapon in the full sense of the word. Delivering it to the goal is simply unrealistic ...