Mass production of Tsar Bombs?

Zeldar155

Banned
WI the Soviets after testing the first Tsar bomba in 1961, started mass-production of these? How would this affect the nuclear arms race and the Cold War? Would the US start mass producing their own versions too?
 
Why? Those things aren't cheap, and additionally, doesn't make sense under MAD, which is I think what they're using by that time.
 
WI the Soviets after testing the first Tsar bomba in 1961, started mass-production of these? How would this affect the nuclear arms race and the Cold War? Would the US start mass producing their own versions too?

Both the United States and the Soviet Union could tongue-in-cheek easily develop bombs much larger than the Tsar bomba. But the point of a bomb is not simply destruction, but rather destroying a target. The United States at the time had much more precise warheads and could afford making their bombs smaller than the Soviets. The Soviets needed larger bombs for their precision was sub par to the Americans.

Source: History Channel Documentary on the Tsar bomba
 
The Tsar bomb was a gimmick, and they and the US and USSR both mass produced bombs that were 50% as powerful OTL for dealing with hard targets, there was no need

Also the Tsar bomb required a bomber, already slow and vulnerable, be even slower and more vulnerable than usual, essentially useless against a 1st rate enemy
 
There was very little point in these bombs. You could theoretically make bomb as large as you wish, but beyond certain megatonage there is simply no point. The destructive force is wasted into turning radius of few kilometers into slag. The largest bombs deployed are those in SS18 mod 1 and 6 with around 20 MT warheads and they were aimed at stuff like Cheyenne mountain and similar hardened installations. 57 MT or 100 MT which was rated maximum of Tsar doesn't add much too the destruction.
 

Zeldar155

Banned
So mass production is out of the question then, and the US having their own versions too, I still think the Soviets could have maintained a few for strategic targets like New York or D.C
 
So mass production is out of the question then, and the US having their own versions too, I still think the Soviets could have maintained a few for strategic targets like New York or D.C
They did but 50mt is only about 35% more effective than 20mt, doubling weight for 35% more effectiveness is inefficient

So 20mt worked fine for any job that needs 50mt and they had 20mt devices ready
 

Zeldar155

Banned
They did but 50mt is only about 35% more effective than 20mt, doubling weight for 35% more effectiveness is inefficient

So 20mt worked fine for any job that needs 50mt and they had 20mt devices ready

Using wikipedia here, and it says they only made one Tsar Bomb.
 
If you want a justification for the Tsar Bomba, the US seriously considered building "ultra-hardened" facilities that would be difficult to knock out even with 20 MT nukes. The most seriously considered option was an ultra-hard presidential shelter called the DUCC, that would have been built 3,500 feet under the Potomac, and was designed to resist multiple direct hits by earth-penetrating 100 MT weapons, or surface bursts by 300 MT weapons. I did a TMMAM on this - it's impossible to say for certain, but my back-of-the-envelope guess is that it might well have worked. The big problem was that it was a ferociously expensive way to save a very small number of people, and it was decided that NEACP was more cost-effective.

If it gets built - or a Soviet equivalent - we might see these titanic weapons being built to take them out.
 
But this Deep Underground Command Center also seems to be an ideal thing for the case of asteroid doomsday. Except if not hit directly, it should survive almost anything?

I guess the thing they counted that the larger the warhead, less precise it is. How big is CEP for SS-18?
 

Zeldar155

Banned
If you want a justification for the Tsar Bomba, the US seriously considered building "ultra-hardened" facilities that would be difficult to knock out even with 20 MT nukes. The most seriously considered option was an ultra-hard presidential shelter called the DUCC, that would have been built 3,500 feet under the Potomac, and was designed to resist multiple direct hits by earth-penetrating 100 MT weapons, or surface bursts by 300 MT weapons. I did a TMMAM on this - it's impossible to say for certain, but my back-of-the-envelope guess is that it might well have worked. The big problem was that it was a ferociously expensive way to save a very small number of people, and it was decided that NEACP was more cost-effective.

If it gets built - or a Soviet equivalent - we might see these titanic weapons being built to take them out.

Very interesting! That would certainly provide justification for continued 50 or more mt bombs, even if they were expensive.
 
Very interesting! That would certainly provide justification for continued 50 or more mt bombs, even if they were expensive.

It is not the devices themselves that are more expensive. That would be only a small part of increase in cost. You must take into account that, unless they want to have bombs deliverable only by lumbering airplanes to high value heavily protected targets, then they end up building larger missiles requiring larger silos, larger manufacturing facilities and those costs add up quickly. And then enemy just screws entire plan over by dispatching VIPs on a NEACP or something similar.
 
But this Deep Underground Command Center also seems to be an ideal thing for the case of asteroid doomsday. Except if not hit directly, it should survive almost anything?

Problem is, it's only got 30 days of food and oxygen. And it's going to be cramped.

I guess the thing they counted that the larger the warhead, less precise it is. How big is CEP for SS-18?

FAS says 1000 to 500 m. But, unlike most hardened facilities, the DUCC's supposed to survive even a direct hit. To kill it, you'd have to dig it out by landing a second bomb in the middle of the first bomb's crater.
 
Top