WI no Thermonukes?

WI, for whatever reason, the H bomb wasn't a practical proposition and the 'best' available was a boosted fission weapon? IIUC the largest weapon of this type was tested by the British in 1957 at 720kt, which although enough to glass a city doesn't stack up to Tsar Bomba or Bravo.

How does the arms race progress, do we have more reliance on bombers in order to tote the big bombs needed for megaton range nukes? Do we get MIRV missiles? When nukes are less powerful by a factor of 10-20 do they get used during the Cold War?
 
WI, for whatever reason, the H bomb wasn't a practical proposition and the 'best' available was a boosted fission weapon? IIUC the largest weapon of this type was tested by the British in 1957 at 720kt, which although enough to glass a city doesn't stack up to Tsar Bomba or Bravo.

How does the arms race progress, do we have more reliance on bombers in order to tote the big bombs needed for megaton range nukes? Do we get MIRV missiles? When nukes are less powerful by a factor of 10-20 do they get used during the Cold War?

It wouldnt make much difference; the boosted fissionbombs can destroy all but a handful of cities, and those get a multiple strike.
The big difference is that it becomes more practicable to harden military facilities - which ironically probably makes the nuclear deterrent work better, as its still easy to destroy the other country, and there is a better chance of your own retaliatory forces surviving.
Big yield H-bombs are quite inefficient in damage/yield, they only come into their own when you want to do something like bust Cheyanne Mountain...
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
Might it not make their use more 'acceptable'?

They are closer in size to tac nukes - especially when there are not very many of them might not people be prepared to use them.
 
Most bombs were relatively small anyways, with sub-megaton yields, especially as targeting got more and more precise and accurate. All this does is make the US invest in bigger missiles early (so we have better progress early in the space race--more lifting capacity) and have both sides build more missiles due to the impracticality of MIRVs. Although it's not very likely that you could avert the development of hydrogen bombs--delay it, yes, prevent it, no. Doing so would really require ASB intervention.
 
Perhaps the premise is ASB, or perhaps the practicalities don't work out on an industrial manufacturing level. IIUC the first US H bombs were very impractical using liquid secondaries; perhaps they stay that way, not robust enough for the rough and tumble of everyday service life. Or perhaps instead they don't become practical until much later, perhaps the late 60s when jet aircraft and missile technology has matured and the intertia has kicked in. Whatever.

Anyway, warhead size, weight and power would dictate nuclear force structure. I doubt the Minuteman and Polaris would be a practical proposition with boosted fission weapons, maybe the Navy would keep nuclear bombers and cruise missile submarine and the Airforce big liquid fuelled ICBMS and bombers.
 
Perhaps the premise is ASB, or perhaps the practicalities don't work out on an industrial manufacturing level. IIUC the first US H bombs were very impractical using liquid secondaries; perhaps they stay that way, not robust enough for the rough and tumble of everyday service life. Or perhaps instead they don't become practical until much later, perhaps the late 60s when jet aircraft and missile technology has matured and the intertia has kicked in. Whatever.

The first US thermonukes did have cryogenic secondaries, yes, but even then they were pushed to limited service use, and were in any event quite quickly superseded by the lithium deuteride ("dry") design. That happened within 2 years, so it must have been relatively obvious. The tricky part is the Teller-Ulam design itself, and that seems to have been (repeatedly) independently invented, so is not much of a barrier.

Anyway, warhead size, weight and power would dictate nuclear force structure. I doubt the Minuteman and Polaris would be a practical proposition with boosted fission weapons, maybe the Navy would keep nuclear bombers and cruise missile submarine and the Airforce big liquid fuelled ICBMS and bombers.

No, they'd be practical--you'd just have one big heavy warhead instead of 3 or 4.
 
Top