This was from Congressional Testimony I posted on another thread (can't remember where I found it originally)Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
Just a guess, but I imagine the sort of apocalyptic scenario that demands sending pilots off to drop something of this yield doesn't necessarily prioritize a return flight after delivery.Michel Van said:
_Del_ said:
Orionblamblam said:
Obb said:
Zootycoon said:
[/quote]
If you didn't have bad luck you wouldn't have any luck at all.
Update: I've actually got a few days to make minor revisions to the text. Woo. Won't be the complete story... that's coming out later this month in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, but at least I'll be able to say some things with certainty. such as: the USSR was not alone in working on insanely powerful H-bombs.If you didn't have bad luck you wouldn't have any luck at all.
Teller wanted to build a really, really big bomb. Like, that was the man's goal and things like "delivery" or "sanity" didn't enter the equation (and it's been argued that the supergiant 1000Mt GNOMON and SUNDIAL concepts were to troll his oversight committee as much as anything else).
There’s a book idea. Russia loses track (hackers maybe or faulty command code) of a super stealthy near impossible to track UUV with a 500Mt hydrogen bomb onboard. It is programmed to hit a major world port in a week and the world’s Navies have to track it down before disaster strikes.
They weren't. They were supposed to be "skyburner" bomb, detonating in space over enemy territory. The massive flux of X-rays superheated the atmosphere below, turning it into a plasma and essentially creating a pancake-shaped fireball over significant territory. The damage to the surface was supposed to be done by thermal emission of the flat fireball alone. No radioactive contamination, no fallout. Just pure thermal radiation, incinerating everything on surface.
Problem is, that there isn't apparent hole in US nuclear devices (including cancelled ones) designations. The only explanation I could suggest is that some cancelled designation - Mk-46 seems to roughly fit at least by time period, if not the year - was confused in open sources, or re-used after initial project was cancelled.
My suspicion is, that it was probably a suggested modification of one of existing bombs in a new, enlarged body, attempted mainly as proof of concept. This would explain the lack of Mk-number. Apparently the device either failed or was cancelled early in development, and only new body was constructed.
it *seems* that this particular nuke was intended to be built and tested *only* if the Soviets broke the Partial Test Ban Treaty and set off an H-Bomb in the air. After they ended a prior moratorium against testing nukes by setting off the Tsar bomb, it was reasonable to expect that the Soviets would do something like that again. After the stink the US raised after Tsar, it would have looked bad if the US set off one of their own... *but* if this occurred *after* yet more Soviet shenanigans, it wouldn't look so bad. As time went on and the Soviets persisted in not violating the treaty, Flashback was less and less relevant and useful, and it was best if it was simply memory-holed.
Which confirm my suspicion that this most likely was a purely "show" project, and refit of the existing bomb rather than new development. This way we could explain lack of any official designations.
My understanding is that there is evidence that a ~100 megaton physics package was developed or was in development. This was not a development of an existing bomb, but something all new. However, if it was meant to remain secret unless under specific circumstances, there would have been no official designation for it until and unless it went public.
In development, most likely.
Unlikely. In that case, such project would have Mk-number designation. Also, it doesn't exactly fit with the massive device stuckig out of B-52 bomb bay; the "all new" bomb would likely be developed in more practical body.
Again, that's why I think it was a jury-rigged refit of existing weapon, placed in a new body. The body on the photo is clearly military useless; it could not be delivered on any practical distance against any realistic opposition. But if we assume that it was merely a new package for existing fusion bomb, boosted to 100+ megatons, it all would fit rather nicely. The bulky tail would be needed to fit additional fusion fuel.
You wouldn’t even need that.
thebulletin.org
High-yield bomb on the B-52? Sure. Makes sense.
Further reading on RIPPLE is informative here: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/794729/pdf
Having no further information than that one line, I might *speculate* that the idea might have been a "Aphrodite" C-133, flying unmanned and guided by another aircraft at a distance... or perhaps simply guiding itself as a gigantic cruise missile. *Perhaps* it would be given a large number of SRAM/Quail/Hound Dog-like missiles to scatter megaton-class kablams before it to trash the air defense systems to allow it to trundle on through.
Yes, that's my best guess too. Still, one would have thought that a glorified cruise missile (or is that a 'suicide drone' these days?) which had a fighting chance of getting through defences was more useful. Given the thoughts of the day around strategic SEAD, it's possible the air defences would have been trashed by the preceding Minutemen, or the thundering herd of B-52s.... I think this was before McNamara (fleas be upon him) totally gutted the bomber force.
thebulletin.org
blog.nuclearsecrecy.com
