On the types of nuclear weapons

52
On the types of nuclear weapons

The explosion of the first Soviet nuclear bomb RDS-1, 1949. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

Since the mid-forties, nuclear and thermonuclear weapon - systems of special power, using the reactions of decay or fusion of the atomic nucleus. Over the past decades, scientists and engineers have proposed a number of varieties of such weapons with various principles of operation, design features and capabilities. Some of these proposals have successfully passed through the stage of research and practical testing, confirmed their potential and entered service.

Decay energy


The first to propose, theoretically substantiate, manufacture and test nuclear or atomic weapons. It was this class that included the American products Gadget, Little Boy and Fat Man, the Soviet RDS-1, etc. For some time, it formed the basis of nuclear arsenals - until the appearance of thermonuclear systems, which have a number of important differences.



Such weapons use the principle of an avalanche-like chain reaction of the decay of an atomic nucleus with the release of a large amount of energy. Blocks of uranium-235 or plutonium-239 with a high degree of enrichment are used as a single-stage charge in such products. Studies of other isotopes were carried out, but they did not receive practical continuation. Charges can have different configurations and be used in devices of different circuits.

A chain reaction is started by transferring the fissile material to a critical state - by connecting several blocks or by compressing a single charge. After that, the decay of nuclei into lighter elements begins with the release of various particles, incl. neutrons that "break" the next nuclei, which leads to the continuation of the reaction.


Ivy Mike test - the first US thermonuclear explosion, 1952. Photo by the US Department of Defense

"Conventional" atomic weapons are notable for their limited effectiveness: only tens of percent of uranium/plutonium enter into the reaction. In addition, there is a possibility of the so-called. pops (fizzle) - reactions of an insufficient amount of a substance with insufficient power. However, even under optimal conditions, a nuclear charge with one stage has a limited potential and allows you to get a power of no more than hundreds of kilotons of TNT.

The efficiency of a nuclear charge can be increased by the so-called. amplification or boosting. The amplifying charge is distinguished by the presence of a small amount of a deuterium-lithium mixture. Under the influence of the main charge in such a mixture, a thermonuclear fusion reaction begins. In this case, an additional number of neutrons is released, which act on the fissile material. Boosting allows you to maximize the energy output with minimal complication of the design of the device.

Synthesis reaction


In 1952 and 1953 The USA and the USSR conducted the first tests of their thermonuclear charges. Such weapons used a new scheme that made it possible to increase their power to tens of megatons. For obvious reasons, thermonuclear warheads quickly passed the testing stage and entered service. In the future, thermonuclear weapons came to the forefront and almost completely replaced the products of the previous generation.


AN602 bomb model. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

Thermonuclear ammunition is noticeably different from nuclear weapons. It is two-stage and works according to the two-phase principle. The first stage is a "normal" atomic charge, and the second includes deuterium and lithium-6 deuteride, used as a so-called. thermonuclear fuel. Also in the design of the product there are additional devices and components for various purposes.

Under the influence of a nuclear reaction of the first stage, thermonuclear fusion will begin in the second. Helium is formed with the release of neutrons and a large amount of energy. Depending on the number of so-called. thermonuclear fuel and other parameters, the power of two reactions can reach 20-25 Mt.

The use of more complex designs allows you to further increase the power of the explosion. Thus, in 1961, the Soviet AN602 free-falling thermonuclear bomb with an estimated yield of 50 Mt and an actual power of 58 Mt was tested. At the same time, the original project made it possible to obtain an energy yield exceeding 100 Mt.

In the AN602 product, a three-stage device scheme was implemented. The first two stages were two-phase thermonuclear devices with a power of 750 kt each. They were supposed to start the reaction in the third stage, including thermonuclear fuel and a uranium charge. Simultaneous decomposition and synthesis reactions made it possible to use the available materials to the fullest and obtain maximum power. At the same time, for security reasons, the experimental bomb did not receive uranium elements.


Warheads W78 for American missiles. Photo by the US Department of Defense

However, AN602 remained an experimental product. We went into the series and entered service with warheads of lower power. At the cost of a reasonable power limitation, it was possible to obtain the necessary efficiency with acceptable dimensions and weight.

Increased neutron yield


A variety of thermonuclear weapons is neutron. This concept provides for the creation of a special charge that produces a powerful stream of fast neutrons. These particles are characterized by high penetrating power, which ensures effective destruction of manpower and other targets, incl. behind various barriers. In addition, the neutron charge creates induced radioactivity in the surrounding objects.

The neutron charge is a variant of the two-phase device with a special second-stage charge that gives an increased neutron yield. In addition, the charge requires a shell that does not trap such particles. A properly designed device releases up to 75-80 percent. energy in the form of neutrons. In this case, fast particles fully compensate for losses in other damaging factors.

However, neutron weapons face some limitations. Thus, during an air blast, the neutron flux is scattered and absorbed by the atmosphere. This reduces the range of destruction of manpower to 1-1,5 km, regardless of the presence of protection. As a result, the neutron charge does not have significant advantages over weapons of other classes.


The head of the ICBM with modern blocks W87. Photo by the US Department of Energy

At the same time, neutron warheads have found application in anti-missile and anti-space defense projects. At high altitudes, in a rarefied atmosphere or outside it, neutrons do not encounter interference and can fly long distances - hitting manpower and equipment, or causing nuclear explosions.

Theoretical Threat


Back in the early fifties, American physicists proposed the idea of ​​a cobalt bomb. This concept provided for the creation of a special modification of a thermonuclear charge capable of creating stable radiation contamination of the area. Just a few of these high-power products, regardless of their location, could destroy all life on the planet in a short time. As a result, the cobalt bomb was also called the Doomsday Device.

Such a "Machine" in its design repeats a two-stage thermonuclear charge, but cobalt-59 is added in the second stage. Upon explosion, this isotope receives a neutron and turns into radioactive cobalt-60 with a half-life of 5,2 years; a number of other hazardous elements are also formed.

The particular danger of the cobalt bomb would have made it an effective deterrent. An attempt to attack her master could result in a full-scale radiation disaster. However, these ideas did not receive support, and the Doomsday Device remained an exclusively theoretical development. In addition, such weapons have firmly entered popular culture.


Launch of the R-36M rocket. On board the rocket can be from 10 warheads of 10 Mt to one of 20 Mt. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

In the nineties, also in the USA, the so-called. hafnium bomb. It was argued that the hafnium-178m2 isomer under external influence can begin to decay with the release of gamma radiation. According to calculations, such a reaction made it possible to obtain energies 100 thousand times greater than the equivalent amount of explosive, although 100 times less than nuclear decay.

In 1998, a group of scientists reported that they had managed to provoke the decay of hafnium-178m2, but the energy yield was minimal. It was assumed that further studies would help to find the optimal regimes and start the decay. However, no one has been able to replicate even the initial experience, let alone any progress. Apparently, there was some kind of mistake or deliberate hoax.

nuclear progress


Since its inception, nuclear weapons have come a long way. Various schemes with certain features and advantages were proposed and implemented. Based on them, real ammunition for tactical and strategic purposes, as well as their means of delivery, were developed. A variety of tactics and strategies for use and application were created and implemented.

It should be noted that not all ideas and solutions have reached practical implementation. Some proposals were rejected after theoretical analysis or as a result of further elaboration. As a result, only the most successful and efficient designs reached production and operation. And over the past few decades, they have ensured the security of the creator states.
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +19
    9 July 2022 03: 43
    The graininess in the B&W photo of the "mushroom" is the result of radioactive radiation. …

    Lavrenty Pavlovich was also an effective leader ..
    1. +13
      9 July 2022 07: 08
      According to the recollection of one of the operators who worked at the test site No. 2, the film was burned on the film at the time of the explosion at the very epicenter. A burn the size of a prick with a thin needle. The result of exposure to light and gamma radiation
  2. +1
    9 July 2022 04: 39
    I don’t know if everyone will understand, but this is not a joke!
    1. +2
      9 July 2022 07: 01
      To watch them more often ... at night. And this is one bg out of 10 in one bottle.
  3. +20
    9 July 2022 05: 11
    In the past, there were much more interesting and detailed articles on VO on this topic. It seems that this author has a crisis of ideas, and he does not know what to write about.
    1. +14
      9 July 2022 12: 47
      Quote: Tucan
      In the past, there were much more interesting and detailed articles on VO on this topic.

      hi
      Sergey Linnik wrote a lot about this
      I recommend his excellent series of articles
      Author profile https://topwar.ru/user/Bongo/

      Some of the author's articles:
      US Nuclear Club
      Nuclear potential of France
      Israeli nuclear potential
      Polygons australia
      The current state of China's strategic nuclear arsenal
      "Powerlessness" of the US nuclear industry
      "Rotten" US nuclear warheads
      U.S. lagging behind in tactical nuclear weapons
      1. +4
        9 July 2022 13: 26
        Quote: Mister X
        Sergey Linnik wrote a lot about this
        I recommend his excellent series of articles
        Author profile https://topwar.ru/user/Bongo/

        Thank you! I will definitely read it! I remember that Andrey Vasiliev (Operator) had a good article about nuclear weapons. Although as a person, he certainly did not cause sympathy. His comments were mostly Nazi content.
      2. +19
        9 July 2022 15: 41
        Quote: Mister X
        Sergey Linnik wrote a lot about this
        I recommend his excellent series of articles
        Author profile https://topwar.ru/user/Bongo/

        My friend, thanks for the ad! But, you know that a good article is obtained only when the topic is interesting to the author. There is a big difference between us and those who are forced to write every day in order to feed themselves. For me and you, this is a kind of hobby, and regular VO authors are forced to write for the sake of constant earnings and often take on topics in which they understand absolutely nothing. In addition, regular authors are in time trouble. They cannot afford to spend time and dig deep when collecting and analyzing information, and this inevitably negatively affects quality and reliability.
    2. +1
      11 July 2022 00: 36
      Quote: Tucan
      In the past, there were much more interesting and detailed articles on VO on this topic. It seems that this author has a crisis of ideas, and he does not know what to write about.


      I think that Ryabov's next opus is another translation from some kind of Internet article for kids, such as Pop Mechanics.
  4. +1
    9 July 2022 06: 30
    What, is it really going to come to this?
    1. +2
      9 July 2022 07: 11
      Politicians are increasingly talking about nuclear weapons ... I hope they are smart enough not to use them. You see, there are more "soft methods" in the world
      1. 0
        9 July 2022 09: 22
        Well, well, your words would be in God's ears ....
      2. 0
        24 August 2022 18: 51
        Public attention is strongly influenced by the explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaka. Nuclear weapons seem endlessly furious and all-destructive.
        The fact that the Japanese lived in cardboard boxes and burned stupidly in a fire - few people realize. In any normal city, there would be 10 times less deaths.
        Nuclear weapons are by no means omnipotent, and even an exchange of blows with everything possible will not lead to the destruction of countries. Russia needs a thousand warheads to seriously damage England alone. There is no need to talk about the United States - even a quarter of their military potential cannot be destroyed now.
        But the weakening of the European states will instantly provoke a strategic attack by China, India and other peripheral countries.
        This is me to the fact that it was necessary to hit the Polish airfields in April.
        1. 0
          28 September 2022 15: 01
          The fact that the Japanese lived in cardboard boxes and burned stupidly in a fire - few people realize. In any normal city, there would be 10 times less deaths.

          The power of AB "baby" and "fat man" is 20 and 21Kt, respectively. The power of the most common RF warheads, according to some sources, is from 500 to 800 kt. The power of the "Tsar bomb" 57 megatons, this, for a moment in 2850TIMES higher than the power of explosions in Japan.
          In summary, burns will not do.
          1. 0
            28 September 2022 15: 37
            Competence pleases.
            The power of the Tsar Bomba is 100 megatons, not 57. The test explosion was 57 - because half of the uranium was removed.
            The Tsar Bomba is not in service. too heavy and useless.
            The strength of the explosion decreases in proportion to the cube of the distance, i.e. modern bombs have only three to four times the effective range. It all comes down to their numbers. The United States has hundreds of thousands of targets, and we have a few thousand bombs. Yes, there will be a serious defeat, but existence will not cease.
            1. 0
              29 September 2022 09: 23
              Dearest, I do not pretend to be a competent opinion, but I leafed through the question a little so as not to seem like a completely layman.
              Power is only effective if it is applied correctly. What is remarkable about atomic weapons is that their main factor of destruction is not high-explosive fragmentation and not even poisonous.

              I’ll digress a little, an article about our autopiloted submarines ran through here recently, and the Americans allegedly were very afraid that this boat would explode off their coast ... At this moment, I laughed out loud and with pleasure. After all, even I, with my ridiculous experience as a small game strategist, understand that the main factor in the destruction of an atomic bomb is the matter that surrounds it. And using it as a high-explosive firecracker is stupid and ridiculous. These submersibles will set off explosive devices far from the coast of America, let them not worry about the radioactive contamination of their coastal zone, there will be none, and even if there was, it would be the least of the problems. And a bomb built on the principle of BETABs and anti-bunker shells, having penetrated into the crust to a sufficient depth, will cause no less trouble.

              The main damaging factors of the atomic bomb - its surrounding matter and EM impulse. Underwater, underground and stratospheric explosions are the most effective, as they cause tsunamis, faults, earthquakes and a resonant electromagnetic pulse.

              PS I hope I have not unknowingly given out any military secret, if so, the officers will inform the moderator upon discovery to delete the comment.
              1. 0
                29 September 2022 11: 03
                >doesn't claim to be an expert
                We need an extensive educational program here.
                > its main factor of defeat is not high-explosive fragmentation and not even poisonous.
                Masterpiece. Didn't they teach the factors of destruction of a nuclear explosion at school? Nuclear weapons do not have such at all.
                >At this point, I'm loud and enjoying
                Assume that you do not understand anything at all in the question.
                > into the bark to a sufficient depth will cause no less trouble.
                No, it won't be noticeable.
                >Underwater, underground and stratospheric explosions are the most effective
                And all past, none of this is true. They can be used for individual tasks, but this is generally not the main purpose.
                It is also funny to talk about the surrounding matter in the same vein as a stratospheric explosion, where it is almost absent.
                >how to cause tsunamis, faults, earthquakes
                Of course not. You just don't understand the scale. No atomic bomb in terms of energy is even close to a decent natural phenomenon. It's like trying to demolish a house with a small firecracker.
                Just for illustration. Imagine that we have a cubic kilometer of ice. And he has a temperature - a little below zero degrees, i.e. it is on the verge of melting.
                So, the explosion of Kuz'kin's mother inside this ice will not be able to completely melt it (not evaporate, but simply turn it into ice water). Energy is not enough.
                And you are going to push it many cubic kilometers over long distances. This is absurd.
                1. -1
                  29 September 2022 14: 27
                  Hmm. Judging by what you wrote, we will not be able to discuss, as well as a sane dialogue.
  5. +2
    9 July 2022 07: 14
    Synthesis reaction

    In 1952 and 1953 The US and the USSR conducted the first tests of their thermonuclear charges

    A few months ago, several lads here were arguing with might and main from ukrodivans with such an air that they were Sakharovs about my post that Ukrainians do not have weapons synthesis technologies necessary for the puff to work and that Ukrainians are most likely capable of only a dirty bomb - they say I I don’t understand anything in the question that synthesis is different, it’s about reactors ...
  6. +11
    9 July 2022 07: 20
    If only the author of the scheme from the Soviet NVP textbook for schoolchildren brought it, it would be more informative. Genre crisis? Article minus.
    1. +7
      9 July 2022 08: 19
      YouTube has a series of great movies on the subject, like Trinity and others"...
      1. +5
        9 July 2022 08: 41
        Yes, there is a lot of information on the Internet now, even here we are slowly starting to declassify footage.
    2. +18
      9 July 2022 08: 40
      Article minus
      But there are no more minuses, it seems to me that they were removed in vain. Although some may have begun to downvote articles, regardless of the content, just from a biased attitude towards the author. But we can evaluate the site participants, so I don’t see any problems. And why, for convenience, do not put the author in the heading of the article. For example, I see Ryabov or Skomorokhov, I calmly pass by. But if, for example, Linnik (Bongo) or Kuznetsov (Aleks TV) is a completely different matter, I’ll read it with interest. Also in the history section, I see the Samsons and everything is clear, this is not interesting to me. But for example Ryzhov (VlR) and Shpakovsky (Kalibr) are worth a look. There are various worthy authors, I just cited a few, but it seems to me that many users would be comfortable.
      1. +11
        9 July 2022 09: 44
        I approve.
        It is necessary to indicate the author at the beginning of the article.
        Indeed , some are not interesting to read .
        I understand that everyone has their own interest, some like it, some don't.
      2. +10
        9 July 2022 15: 33
        Quote from: New-pechkin
        For example, I see Ryabov or Skomorokhov, I calmly pass by. But if, for example, Linnik (Bongo) or Kuznetsov (Aleks TV) is a completely different matter

        Thanks for the kind words about me! But regarding Skomorokhov, I cannot agree with you. He had interesting publications. But Roman is weak in some technical aspects.
        1. +8
          9 July 2022 23: 16
          But Roman is weak in some technical aspects.
          He is weak in every technical aspect he takes on. And his political articles are good.
    3. 0
      10 July 2022 21: 42
      Quote: Aviator_
      If only the author of the scheme from the Soviet NVP textbook for schoolchildren brought it, it would be more informative. Genre crisis? Article minus.

      Frankly, yes, I expected more from this material. This is for kindergarten. By the way, there are inaccuracies about the R36M2, according to some reports, it can carry 15 warheads with a capacity of 350kTn, 10 units of 750kTn each, and a single block up to 20 mTn. And the article indicates 10 blocks of 10mTn each ...
      1. +2
        11 July 2022 00: 52
        Quote: Zhan
        Quote: Aviator_
        If only the author of the scheme from the Soviet NVP textbook for schoolchildren brought it, it would be more informative. Genre crisis? Article minus.

        Frankly, yes, I expected more from this material. This is for kindergarten. By the way, there are inaccuracies about the R36M2, according to some reports, it can carry 15 warheads with a capacity of 350kTn, 10 units of 750kTn each, and a single block up to 20 mTn. And the article indicates 10 blocks of 10mTn each ...


        There was never any "some data" on 15A18M.
        Maximum - 10 blocks.
        There were no traces of 15.
        To accommodate 15, you need a new "bus".
        And absolutely all the "mechanics" - the launch systems, the separation of stages and warheads, the breeding of the AP - were transferred from the first rocket without changes.
        Heavy monoblock BB - was excluded from the project, immediately at the stage of the first throwing tests.
        They didn't even start designing it.
        By the way, exactly the same fate befell the BB system MIRV, i.e. controlled by BB.
        They were also not designed.
  7. +10
    9 July 2022 08: 51
    A very interesting series of articles by Boris Martsinkevich - "The World Around the Needle". Not about nuclear weapons themselves, but about the history of uranium enrichment in different countries. Who is interested, I recommend.
    1. +4
      9 July 2022 10: 12
      Thanks for the tip. I will definitely check it out, because I respect this author very much. hi
  8. +4
    9 July 2022 09: 57
    Cyril, the topic should have been elaborated. You did not mention the California bomb, and indeed, you have enough errors even in such an article. In 1952, the United States tested a thermonuclear device, namely, a thermonuclear bomb suitable for transportation and use in the USSR was tested in 1953!
  9. +3
    9 July 2022 11: 00
    New physical principles rule.
    For it turned out that nuclear weapons are necessary, but not as a weapon that can be used, but as an attribute of sovereignty.
    Here, for example, Sev. Korea, and South, or Japan.
    The first clearly has sovereignty despite all the difficulties, while the second, despite powerful economies, does not. But ... it will be, sooner or later, like in Iran, Germany.
    Ukraine, thank God, will not, now that's it. And then the Anglo-Saxons got it wrong with this topic, now they are surprised.
    But the sale of uranium to unfriendly states should be stopped - only in the form of fuel elements for nuclear power plants built by us, with the return of spent ones.
  10. +12
    9 July 2022 11: 23
    the level of articles on VO not only fell, it became prohibitively low.
  11. +16
    9 July 2022 12: 07
    Launch of the R-36M rocket. On board the rocket can be from 10 warheads of 10 Mt to one of 20 Mt.

    What???
    MS type: 1×20 Mt, 1×8 Mt or MIRV IN 8×1 Mt or 10×1 Mt

    No 10 warheads at 10 Mt. This would collectively be 100 Mt. Twice as powerful as the Tsar Bomba. And no ICBM has such power. Maximum 20 Mt. in the form of a monoblock warhead.
  12. +11
    9 July 2022 15: 31
    Very weak and dull article. The qualifications of the author can be judged by this:
    On board the rocket can be from 10 warheads of 10 Mt to one of 20 Mt.

    Frankly, it's a shame to read this on VO. negative
  13. +2
    9 July 2022 17: 37
    In 1998, a group of scientists reported that they had managed to provoke the decay of hafnium-178m2, but the energy output was minimal. It was assumed that further studies would help to find the optimal regimes and start the decay.


    Most likely, hafnium technologies will find precisely peaceful applications, since it is difficult to release all the energy from hafnium at the same time, but it can be done gradually.
    So, instead of a bomb, you can make a "hafnium battery", which can power entire industrial zones or northern cities or ships of very large displacement, icebreakers and spaceships.
    Conventional icebreaking reactors and floating nuclear power plants will then fundamentally become obsolete. The still unbuilt space tug with a conventional reactor as an engine will also become obsolete.
  14. +3
    9 July 2022 19: 18
    It seems that the author knows even less than me on the topic. Below are some quotes that raise questions:
    under optimal conditions, a nuclear charge with one stage has a limited potential and allows you to get a power of no more than hundreds of kilotons of TNT.
    Hundreds of kilotons is unrealistic, rather about a hundred kT (actually they reached 80, but it was the middle of the 20th century, maybe now they would have brought it to a hundred, but one).
    The efficiency of a nuclear charge can be increased by the so-called. amplification or boosting. The amplifying charge is distinguished by the presence of a small amount of a deuterium-lithium mixture.
    In the beginning, polonium was used for this. But then every six months I had to reassemble the charge - they got sick. There was also a deuterium-tritium mixture.
    In the AN602 product, a three-stage device scheme was implemented.
    "Kuzka's mother" is a Sakharov puff, and they talk about steps when it comes to the Ulam-Teller scheme. I'm not sure if the term "steps" is appropriate here.
    At the same time, for security reasons, the experimental bomb did not receive uranium elements.
    There was a lot of uranium there (the main energy was released as a result of fission, not fusion), only the top layer was replaced with lead.
    At the cost of a reasonable power limitation, it was possible to obtain the necessary efficiency with acceptable dimensions and weight.
    Power was reduced with increasing accuracy (radius of damage is proportional to the cube of power).
    The neutron charge is a variant of the two-phase device with a special second-stage charge that gives an increased neutron yield.
    I always thought that a neutron bomb is a puff without an outer shell, and here are steps ...
    As a result, the neutron charge does not have significant advantages over weapons of other classes.
    The task of a neutron bomb is to create induced radiation in the armor of tanks, so that the crew would die if they remained inside the tank, and it had to last for several days. The task was caused by the low effectiveness of conventional nuclear weapons against tanks.
    At high altitudes, in a rarefied atmosphere or outside it, neutrons do not encounter interference and can fly long distances - hitting manpower and equipment, or causing nuclear explosions.
    What kind of living force in a rarefied atmosphere, from where? The neutron flux intensified the fission reaction in the warhead, the temperature rose and disabled the control circuits.
    Well, about the warheads of the Voyevoda it was written above.
    1. ANB
      +3
      9 July 2022 22: 24
      . damage radius is proportional to the cube of power

      Clarification. The damage radius is proportional to the cube root of the power.
    2. +3
      9 July 2022 22: 40
      Quote: bk0010
      Hundreds of kilotons is unrealistic, rather about a hundred kT (actually they reached 80, but it was the middle of the 20th century, maybe now they would have brought it to a hundred, but one).

      American uranium atomic bomb Mk.18 yield 500 kT, pure fission reaction.
      Kuzkina mother" - Sakharov puff, and they talk about steps when talking about the Ulam-Teller scheme. I'm not sure that the term "steps" is appropriate here.

      Nonsense. "Sloyka" is RDS -6s and has nothing to do with "Kuz'kina's mother" constructively.
  15. +1
    10 July 2022 09: 52
    If you add up the potential energy of all ballistic missile warheads and tactical charges of all the armies of the world, you get something about 40% of the energy of just one hurricane that annually attacks the United States from the Atlantic. What kind of destruction of all living things can we talk about.
    1. 0
      13 July 2022 16: 38
      Quote: Andrey Shpakov
      If you add up the potential energy of all ballistic missile warheads and tactical charges of all the armies of the world, you get something about 40% of the energy of just one hurricane that annually attacks the United States from the Atlantic. What kind of destruction of all living things can we talk about.

      This refers to radioactive contamination, which does not occur after a hurricane.
  16. +1
    10 July 2022 10: 27
    Our arrogant opinion about our own capabilities is very much exaggerated. If you take a sheet of paper of a standard A2 format, a sharpened pencil and put a dot somewhere on the sheet and imagine that the sheet is the surface of the planet Earth, then the microscopic dot is its human population, arranged in the form of a grid with a cell of 2x2 meters, in the nodes of which there is a person. Pretty pathetic picture for the owner of the planet. A person, with all his technologies, will not have enough resources to destroy even a thousandth part of himself, not to mention life on the planet. Insects can be considered more of a master of life, at least in terms of biomass. But nature can do it easily. And for this, she does not need to wipe the surface with a damp cloth, just a little blow is enough. Thank God she doesn't know about our existence.
    1. 0
      15 September 2022 22: 14
      Everything is simpler and more terrible. Modern civilization is incredibly fragile. You don't need thousands of warheads. For the United States, one is enough. From an interview with James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency:
      ...It is well known that the American energy system is a kind of Achilles' heel for the country. For more than a decade, scientists and intelligence professionals have been trying to convey to the federal government that something needs to be done to secure the grid from a possible collapse that will leave much of the nation in the dark for months and even years. But so far, all appeals remain appeals to the deaf, so few concrete actions, if any, have been taken to ensure the safety of the power grid.

      Question: What will happen to the United States if the power system is destroyed?

      Answer: That would be very bad. The destructive power of EMP can bring the network down for years, maybe even longer. The reason is that many of the parts needed to repair transmission circuits and transformers are made to order, and some are made in only two places, South Korea and Germany. The EMP Commission, established after 11.09/12, estimated that within XNUMX months of an electromagnetic flare, two-thirds of the US population would die from starvation, disease, and lack of social protection. Other experts believe that losses can be 90 percent.

      Q: Really? Is that awful?

      O, sure. William Forstchen's novel One Second After gives a chilling picture of what life on Earth would look like after an electromagnetic pulse from an atomic bomb. The population is not fully adapted to life in the dark. Death comes in waves: first, the elderly and those who depend on medical services die. The next will be those who die from common diseases such as typhoid fever or dysentery, as well as those who do not have the skills to survive or live in the countryside. Even subsistence farming is likely to be a problem, though, given the ratio of the rate at which social collapse will occur to the time it takes to prepare fields and grow substantial amounts of food. In the end, the few survivors of the small town who have overcome this hardship and learned to produce food are faced with constant security challenges, the need to fight gangs of marauders and, interestingly, bullets have become the basic currency in their economy. All of this looks far from inspiring.

      Q: How easy is it to organize an EMP attack and where can it come from?

      A: The EMP Commission has concluded that just one nuclear explosion in the center of the country is enough to knock out the entire American electrical grid. Moreover, a powerful explosion is not needed, it may be less than a bomb explosion over Hiroshima, for example. To make such an explosion over Kansas or Omaha is a fairly simple task, easier than you might think. North Koreans can do it. Delivery of such a bomb is possible by satellite.
      But you need to worry not only about the threat from other states. Terrorist groups with fissile materials at their disposal can deliver a small nuclear device to a simple meteorological balloon and detonate it at an altitude of about 20 miles. In One Second After, the power grid was disabled by a rocket launched from a ship in the Gulf of Mexico. So it's really not that hard to do it. To organize such an attack, thousands of nuclear missiles are not required, only one is needed. And, most importantly, the effect will be instantaneous and disastrous. At the same time, we will not even be able to find out, maybe for several years, whether it was an attack from North Korea or a flash in the sun.

      Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chipregister1/2014/12/17/grid-security-is-one-of-our-greatest-national-vulnerabilities-an-interview-with-james-woolsey- former-director-of-the-central-intelligence-agency /
  17. 0
    10 July 2022 22: 11
    Recently, talk has begun that Yao is not so scary and that they lied about the nuclear winter ... .. but given the political situation, maybe someone will gasp. And I think it will be us
    1. -1
      10 July 2022 22: 21
      And I am very afraid of it. sad
    2. -1
      11 July 2022 01: 09
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Recently, talk has begun that Yao is not so scary and that they lied about the nuclear winter ... .. but given the political situation, maybe someone will gasp. And I think it will be us


      So this is what everyone is trying to achieve.
      The entire global business in the form of the Rockefeller/Rothschild clans has been reinvested from the fuel and energy complex enterprises into the Green Energy enterprises.
      In order for Green Energy enterprises to become economically profitable, it is necessary:
      1. Make the cost of fossil fuels very high!
      2. Create a fossil fuel shortage for global demand!

      Both of these actions are perfectly executed in bringing a country like Russia into the system of total pariahs in the world.
      Like North Korea.
      And even stronger.
      In order for both China and India to be forced to turn their backs on Russia, strong global pressure is needed. Not this bunch of Anglo-Saxons, but the whole world.
      And such pressure is possible only if Russia uses nuclear weapons.
      There is already "everything".
      No country can withstand global pressure.

      By cutting off Russia completely from the supply of everything possible from the country, the fulfillment of both of the above points will be ensured.
      Fossil fuel prices will skyrocket, and the world will maintain a permanent small deficit.
      Accordingly, all the costs of "Green Energy" will quickly recoup, and will begin to bring fabulous profits to those who staked out their place first - i.e. thus the Rothschild/Rockefeller clans.

      And the fact that the development of the Ukrainian army is already up to 1 million people, and the complete absence of opinions in Ukraine itself about the world, and their firm conviction that in a couple of months they will turn the tide and go to knock out our troops and then go to Crimea, KK, to Moscow - says that they really believe in it.
      And what if such a situation (suddenly) begins to occur, then the use of nuclear weapons by our side will already be practically guaranteed.
      Someone did a very good job.

      We are like on a hunt, fenced with flags.
      Where the object of the hunt is already doing only what he is "allowed" to do.
      His moves are all pre-calculated and spelled out.
      Only here we are inside.
      And they hunt us.
      1. -2
        11 July 2022 01: 34
        Quote: SovAr238A
        And the fact that the development of the army of Ukraine is already up to 1 million people ...

        ...mostly meat...

        Quote: SovAr238A
        ...says that they really believe in it...

        ... well, they are free ...

        Quote: SovAr238A
        And what if this situation (suddenly) begins to happen ...

        ... keyword - if...

        Quote: SovAr238A
        ... then the use of nuclear weapons by our side will already be practically guaranteed

        Well stop already stop

        There are a lot of means "without nuclear weapons." All sorts of volume-detonating ones, and other similar muck.

        APU will go on the offensive? Great-s!!! Without aviation, without air defense ... yes, they will be eaten like kittens. And certainly without any nuclear weapons.

        Quote: SovAr238A
        By cutting off Russia completely from the supply of everything possible from the country, the fulfillment of both of the above points will be ensured.
        Fossil fuel prices will skyrocket, and the world will maintain a permanent small deficit.
        Accordingly, all the costs of "Green Energy" will quickly recoup, and will begin to bring fabulous profits to those who staked out their place first - i.e. thus the Rothschild / Rockefeller clans

        Tinfoil hat, highly recommended...

        Quote: SovAr238A
        Only here we are inside.
        And they hunt us

        It's paranoia request Yes laughing
        1. +4
          11 July 2022 16: 49
          This is not paranoia.
          Sanctions will never be lifted from us.
          The economy, contrary to TV, is successfully collapsing into dust.
          For simple vacancies on XX.ru, there are already 100-300 responses in 3 days, this is only in Samara.
          And a couple of years ago, I got 5-10 responses in 10 days.
          The entire auto industry and the whole mix, stood up completely.
          Retail, other than groceries and DIY/Repair, has gone down the drain.

          And so in your training manuals, everything is fine ...
          1. -3
            11 July 2022 17: 08
            Quote: SovAr238A
            And so in your manuals

            So. Keep the manuals, hop? Yes

            Quote: SovAr238A
            For simple vacancies on XX.ru, there are already 100-300 responses in 3 days, this is only in Samara. And a couple of years ago, I received 5-10 responses in 10 days

            Are you working as a headhunter? wink

            Quote: SovAr238A
            The economy, contrary to TV, is successfully collapsing into dust

            You are an alarmist, my dear ... however, after the green Rockefellers and other nuclear crap - I'm somehow not surprised. Cheers, best of luck hi
  18. 0
    13 September 2022 14: 30
    Quote: NG inform
    The fact that the Japanese lived in cardboard boxes and burned stupidly in a fire - few people realize. In any normal city, there would be 10 times less deaths.


    What nonsense! Do you know that many times more people died from the consequences of the nuclear explosion in Hiroshima than directly from the explosion itself?
    Consequences are still. Genetic mutations, oncology and other "charms".
    Or are radioactive contamination of the area and radiation sickness fiction?
    By the way, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima is a prototype of the neutron one ... it gave an increased level of penetrating radiation (therefore, it killed more people than in Nagasaki, although it was three times weaker in terms of explosion power).
    In a modern city, there would be many times more victims, precisely because of the development of infrastructure. Secondary consequences: the collapse of power supply systems, water supply, heating, food supply ... hunger, cold, epidemics will quickly increase the number of victims.
    As well as the destruction of such facilities as nuclear power plants, chemical plants, fertilizer depots, hydroelectric dams ... poisoned water, poisoned crops, even in the air - radioactive dust ... a real disaster, in short.
    1. 0
      29 September 2022 09: 30
      An excellent answer, I would upvote, but for some reason I can’t upvote you (some kind of highly selective and tricky rating system)
  19. 0
    28 September 2022 21: 17
    I don't read this. people have mastered the physics of the process a little and read, for example, about the "neutron bomb" of the times of the USSR, trying to be original. In vain. Everything has been written down for a long time. Since the time of ZOMP in the Soviet school. The most "mysterious factor" of WMD is, of course, "radioactive contamination of the area". Wind. If in 1986 not to Belarus, but to Kyiv, today there would simply not be much