"US dismantles last big Cold War nuclear bomb" Topic

10,000 pounds!!!!! I didn't know these were still around till 97. Robert

US dismantles last big Cold War nuclear bomb
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) Oct 25, 2011
link
The B-53 bomb was so big that a B-52 bomber could only carry two of them. Each was fitted with parachutes to control their descent, according to videos made public by the National Nuclear Safety Administration.

Technicians in Texas closed a chapter on the Cold War on Tuesday, dismantling the oldest, biggest and most powerful nuclear bomb in the US arsenal, officials said.

The last B-53 bomb -- built in 1962, the year of the Cuban missile crisis -- was dismantled at the Pantex facility in Amarillo, the only place in the United States that still builds, maintains and dismantles nuclear weapons.

Grey in color, weighing 10,000 pounds (4,500 kilograms) and as big as a small car, it had the power to wipe out an entire metropolitan area with its nine-megaton yield when dropped from a B-52 bomber.

By comparison, the atomic bomb that destroyed the Japanese city of Hiroshima in the final days of World War II packed a yield of 12 kilotons, or 0.012 megatons. The bomb killed more than 100,000 people.

"It's significant in the sense that it's the last of these multi-megaton weapons that the nuclear powers used to build during the height of the Cold War," said Hans Kirstensen of the Federation of American Scientists.

"This is the end of the era of these monster weapons," he told AFP.

Dismantling the B-53 bomb -- retired from service in 1997 -- involved separating 300 pounds of high explosive from the uranium "pit" at the heart of the weapon, Pantex spokesman Greg Cunningham told AFP.

"The world is a safer place with this dismantlement," Thomas D'Agostino, director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in a Pantex statement.

"The B-53 was a weapon developed in another time for a different world" and its "elimination" marks a major step in President Barack Obama's efforts to scale back the role of nuclear weapons in US security policy, he said.

Last May, the United States revealed for the first time the actual size of its nuclear stockpile -- a total of 5,113 warheads as of September 30, 2009, the Pentagon announced.

That figure -- a 75 percent reduction from 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell -- included active warheads ready for deployment at short notice, as well as "inactive" warheads maintained at a depot in a "non-operational status."

Under a new strategic arms limitation treaty (START) treaty, agreed in April last year, the United States and Russia -- which hold nearly all nuclear weapons -- pledged to reduce their arsenals to 1,550 warheads each.

The B-53 bomb was so big that a B-52 bomber could only carry two of them. Each was fitted with parachutes to control their descent, according to videos made public by the National Nuclear Safety Administration.

"This particular weapon should have been phased out and dismantled a long time ago," said Kirstensten, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington.

"But it was allowed to linger in the stockpile because it had an important mission -- knocking out underground targets" by cratering the surface with its awesome force, he said.

The most powerful US warheads today yield around 1.2 megatons, fitted onto guided missiles.

The total number of B-53 bombs ever manufactured is still classified information, Cunningham said, but the nuclearweaponarchive.org website put the figure at 350, with 50 stockpiled in 1997.

It was replaced by the B-61 bomb, a mid-1960s design with a variable yield of up to 340 kilotons, the website said.

link

"'This is the end of the era of these monster weapons,' he told AFP".

I hope he remembered to tell the Russians.

Last I recall, they were upgrading their arsenal, while we're dismantling ours, and Putin is lobbying to bring back the Soviet Union under a new name.

Last I recall, they were upgrading their arsenal, while we're dismantling ours, and Putin is lobbying to bring back the Soviet Union under a new name.

We still have a lot more than they do, and our missiles seem to actually work… If Russia wants to try and get into a new arms race with us, I say "go for it". Their economy is a complete shambles.

Besides, really… this thing was a free-fall bomb that can probably only be carried in the BUFF. What do you suppose the usefulness of this weapon was vs. Russia or China in the modern era? I don't think we've really lost any capability here.
-Kle.

I don't think we've really lost any capability here.

No kidding.

We no longer have any horse cavalry either, Mako11. Does that also give the Russians a military edge over the West?

As that great man Ronald Reagan said to thye Pentagon, "You can't have any new ones until you use the ones you already have."

Don't worry jpattern2, there's always the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment in case you're concerned about the NATO/Russia horsed cavalry gap…

Actually the Russian economy has been doing much better since they got their oil production up to speed and their gas reserves going. They have been able to afford new toys, to pay for training, and modernize older systems.

Mine in the Minuteman IIIG were not that big, but I had the key to 10 missiles. Hope that makes you guys feel safe.

"We still have a lot more than they do….".

Really?

Every list I've ever seen, showing numbers from around the 1980's (possibly earlier) and later shows the ex-Soviet Union (primarily Russia), to hold a substantial quantitative advantage in the number of nuke warheads.

What will sideshow Bob steal now ?

"Last May, the United States revealed for the first time the actual size of its nuclear stockpile -- a total of 5,113 warheads as of September 30, 2009, the Pentagon announced.

That figure -- a 75 PERCENT REDUCTION from 1989……"

Yikes

Duck

Well I kinda do Grand Duke Natokina. Out of the Triad I feel that the Subs and Missiles would be more effective. But 2 10,000 lb bombs that size just seems too bulky. Not to mention the age of the B-52s. Robert

Well the B-61 was a definite improvement. Sleeker and 695-716 lbs Robert

"The B61, which exists in several mods, is actually a family of weapons based on a single basic weapon and physics package design. The physics package of the B61 has been adapted to yield several other warheads – the W-80, W-81 (now retired and dismantled), W-84 (now retired and in the inactive stockpile), and the W-85 (which was retired, and then readapted to yield another B61 variant)."
link

Great !! Now what are we going to use if the aliens land !!!!!

Actually the Russian economy has been doing much better since they got their oil production up to speed and their gas reserves going. They have been able to afford new toys, to pay for training, and modernize older systems.

The US economy is the world's largest, though if you count the EU as a country, theirs is about 15% larger.

Russia's economy (2010) is either the tenth or eleventh largest, after Canada, a nation with the population of California. Russia's economy is less than a tenth the size of the US economy. As I said, come get some.

Every list I've ever seen, showing numbers from around the 1980's (possibly earlier) and later shows the ex-Soviet Union (primarily Russia), to hold a substantial quantitative advantage in the number of nuke warheads.

I believe that is generally the lasting influence of Soviet Military Power a book of propagandistic lies. Our superiority in actual down-range effect is where the ludicrous concept of "throw weight" comes from.
-Kle.

To be sarcastic about it, who needs a 10MT boom somewhere in the city when you can put 500kt on the exact front porch you want it?

What was that minuteman missile wing's motto? "Delivered hot to your door in 30 minutes or less or the next one is free"?

"Now what are we going to use if the aliens land" !!!!!

Ms. Lohan, Ms. Spears, and the soon to be again Ms. Kardashian. They'll be infected within a fortnight, and will never know what hit them, making the latest War of the Worlds movie look like a child's fairy tale story…..

Just an ugly beast. About the size of the pickup in the background LOL.Robert

Good point Mako …

Are 5,113 nuclear warheads not enough?

Hmm…Shame.

This still seems to represent a diminution in capability regarding large craters – massive radioactive craters have always been underestimated in the counter mobility obstacle arena…

You mean medium sized craters. The capability to create large craters disappeared when the B41 (25 MT) was taken out of service.

cheers

"The Mk/B-41 was the highest yield nuclear weapon ever deployed by the U.S. It was also the only three-stage thermonuclear weapon ever developed by the U.S., and it achieved the highest yield-to-weight ratio of any U.S. weapon design."
link

And the B-41 still weighed 10,670 lbs. Robert

And the B53 weighed "only" 8850 lbs. Journalists. Go figure.

cheers

Darn, we can only irradiate the world 100 times over, not 101. Darn people in Washington just flat out giving up the show.
Slim Pickens can't ride a Minuteman.

Ms. Lohan, Ms. Spears, and the soon to be again Ms. Kardashian. They'll be infected within a fortnight, and will never know what hit them, making the latest War of the Worlds movie look like a child's fairy tale story…..

I'm sorry Mako, but that plan has been found to be in violation of the Hague Conventions. Those 'singers' have been classed as weapons of mass distraction, and their use against uniformed combatants will not be tolerated by ANY civilized nations.

Where did they come up with the "100 times over"statistic? Robert

GDN where you not ther one who told of singing "its the end of the world as we know it…." while going through a launch sequence?

Now I can never hear that song without thinking of that.

Owen

Badger, that was probably me… I certainly broke the entire crew in Control when I started that song!

At 10'000lbs? Is that all? The RAF dropped heavier bombs than that during WW2 from Lancaster Bombers!!!…However the Buffs probably wouldn't have got through so the Soviets didn't have to worry too much about them!

I figure that if the BUFFs made it to Hanoi and back, they would have made it to the Soviet Union well enough.

God bless 'em.

I think the Soviet air defenses were a little more elaborate and larger the the North Vietnamese Patrick :). Robert

I think you'll find that Hanoi was one of the most heavily defended points on Earth at the time. And much of it was the "point up and shoot" variety which is hard to spoof.

Plus, the Buffs had to line up and bomb specific points in North Vietnam and also avoid collateral damage.

Not denying Moscow and other Soviet points of interest would be heavily defended but remember, an H-Bomb just needs to get close.

I was thinking of the distance that the Buffs would have to go in order to get to Moscow LOL. Being under fighter,AA and Missile attacks perhaps the whole distance. Before and after they cross the border. Robert

Especially having to go through the 6th Air Army of the PVO . Robert

Depends on how much 'prep' work is spent blasting a path for the bombers by other weapons, but you *really* need to de-conflict your airspace with ballistics involved!

Ah yes, the fiercely effective PVO -- the same lads who took several tries to shoot down a Korean civilian 747, and only got it after it had flown right across the Kamchatka peninsula, and who later failed to stop Mathias Rust landing his Cessna in Red Square.

All the best,

John.

I suggest reading a bit on the subject before making comments. Despite of the fact that as a result of KAL 007 shotdown Soviet Union was labelled as Evil Empire, PVO was just not sure that this huge jumbo should be shot before it was confirmed to be a spy plane, not a civilian jet.There's plenty of sources on the subject really.
link
As for Rust – he could be shot many times as he was followed by interceptors most of the time. However it was clearly seen as civilian plane, and in the back of the mind Politbyuro gerontocrates were afraid of repeating of Boeing accident. Actually, Marshal Sokolov was fired for just that – indecisiveness and for allowing potential threat to fly around Moscow.
Other thing that you might investigate is ABMT treaty of 1972. If SU system was that crappy why would USA sign such a document in the height of cold war, I wonder….

Never said Soviet Air Defence was crappy. That would hardly be the case.
Just that the BUFFs would have penetrated it.
Plus, unlike ICBMs, the bombers could be recalled in the event of a mistaken attack or some other situation.

Barin1 wrote:

I suggest reading a bit on the subject before making comments.

Thank you for your patronising suggestion. Feel free to suggest any further reading that indicates that any of the points I made are in any way incorrect.

Despite of the fact that as a result of KAL 007 shotdown Soviet Union was labelled as Evil Empire,

Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech was on 08 Mar 1983. The KAL007 shootdown was on 01 Sep 2011. It seems unlikely that the earlier event was a result of the later one.

PVO was just not sure that this huge jumbo should be shot before it was confirmed to be a spy plane, not a civilian jet.

So are you claiming that PVO failed to intercept it until it had flown right across Kamchatka?

As for Rust – he could be shot many times as he was followed by interceptors most of the time.

But the total number of times he was in fact shot down was exactly zero.

However it was clearly seen as civilian plane,

…while it was being tracked, which was nothing like the whole time.

and in the back of the mind Politbyuro gerontocrates were afraid of repeating of Boeing accident.

I am not privy to the private thought of the gerontoctats, but this seems unlikely -- after all, it wasn't as if KAL007 was the first Korean airliner PVO had shot down.

Actually, Marshal Sokolov was fired for just that – indecisiveness and for allowing potential threat to fly around Moscow.

So the Soviet hierarchy do not seem to have been enormously impressed with PVO's performance on that occasion.

Other thing that you might investigate is ABMT treaty of 1972. If SU system was that crappy why would USA sign such a document in the height of cold war, I wonder…

I certainly don't think the ABM treaty was signed because anyone imagined that a Soviet ABM defence could materially reduce the effectiveness of the US ICBM and SLBM forces. Recall that after the treaty's signature, neither site built and maintained the two ABM sites to which the traty entitled them, so like much "arms limitation", the agreed limit was above the level both sides thought was enough.

I have seen fSoviet SAMs credited with awesome capabilities in some official models I have seen, but history proves that air defence, by fighter or missile, is seldom remotely as "leak-proof" as is believed by its proponents beforehand. It may no longer be quite true to say that "the bomber will always get through", but it's still nearer the truth than saying that it never will. I believe that even the Egyptian and Syrian AD efforts of 1973, which shocked a lot of the Western world into a new awareness of both the capabilties and the sheer scale of issue of Soviet AD systems, never actually prevented the Israeli AF from completing a mission. And air defence efforts in both the Viet Nam and the Falklands wars did not inflict loss rates on the attackers much greater than might have been expected in WW2.

Effective air defence is hard. Indeed it's so hard that the RAF gave up the idea of attempting an "annihilation defence" against bomber attack in the 1950s, as the combination of the jet engine, the H-bomb and the carcinotron made this effectively impossible.

All the best,

John.

" Thank you for your patronising suggestion. Feel free to suggest any further reading that
indicates that any of the points I made are in any way incorrect. "

ok, where shall we start?

"Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech was on 08 Mar 1983. The KAL007 shootdown was on 01 Sep 2011.
It seems unlikely that the earlier event was a result of the later one"

I always thought that the accident took place in 1983…
2d thing, even that the words "Evil empire" were indeed said earlier in 1983, Reagan speech said the same but with different words:
link
"savage crime",
"It was an act of barbarism, born of a society which wantonly disregards individual rights and the value of human life and seeks constantly to expand and dominate other nations.", etc.

"So are you claiming that PVO failed to intercept it until it had flown right across Kamchatka?"

I'll answer you with the quote of the very speech we're talking about…

"The Soviets tracked this plane for 2\1/2\ hours while it flew a straight-line course at 30 to 35,000 feet."

And it might be worth to check the radio exchange that was an evidence.

"But the total number of times he was in fact shot down was exactly zero"

several years ago he might be shot, but not this very year. Well I'm pretty sure media in the Free World would love Rust to be shot by evil Russians, falsely claiming that they have started new course under new charismatic leader…

several times interceptors were not granted permission to shot Cessna down link

but several times indeed he wasn't accounted as an intruder by "human factor"

"So the Soviet hierarchy do not seem to have been enormously impressed with PVO's performance on that occasion"
Mostly not PVO, but the fact that the decision wasn't taken. In the end if you don't give the order to shoot, nothing happens.
not talking of politics behind it all – Sokolov was not popular with brand new general secretary, so the accident was used for a huge purge.
Was it for good or for pure political reasons – there might be different opinions…

And…USSR seriously considered making a third zone in end of 80s, secretly building sites in Krasnoyarsk region….

And so it gets heated LOL. Robert