Nuclear weapon yield#Yield limits

In order of increasing yield (most yield figures are approximate):

Image:Comparative nuclear fireball sizes.svg, is {{convert|3.3|to|3.7|km|abbr=on}},{{Cite web |last=Walker |first=John |author-link=John Walker (programmer) |title=Nuclear Bomb Effects Computer |publisher=Fourmilab |date=June 2005 |access-date=2009-11-22 |url=http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Bombcalc?yield=15&yunit=1000&range=5&runit=0.62137119&rotate=310&imsize=800}}

{{Cite web |last=Walker |first=John |author-link=John Walker (programmer) |title=Nuclear Bomb Effects Computer Revised Edition 1962, Based on Data from The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Revised Edition |quote=The maximum fireball radius presented on the computer is an average between that for air and surface bursts. Thus, the fireball radius for a surface burst is 13 percent larger than that indicated and for an air burst, 13 percent smaller. |publisher=Fourmilab |date=June 2005 |access-date=2009-11-22 |url=http://www.fourmilab.ch/bombcalc/instructions.html}} and not the 1.42 km displayed in the image. Similarly the maximum average fireball radius of a 21-kilotonne low altitude airburst, which is the modern estimate for the Fat Man, is {{convert|.21|to|.24|km|abbr=on}},{{cite web |last=Walker |first=John |author-link=John Walker (programmer) |title=Nuclear Bomb Effects Computer |publisher=Fourmilab |date=June 2005 |access-date=2009-11-22 |url=http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Bombcalc?yield=20&yunit=1&range=5&runit=0.62137119&rotate=310&imsize=800}}

and not the 0.1 km of the image.]]

In comparison, the blast yield of the GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb is 0.011 kt, and that of the Oklahoma City bombing, using a truck-based fertilizer bomb, was 0.002 kt. The estimated strength of the explosion at the Port of Beirut is 0.3-0.5 kt.{{cite web |first=Ryan |last=Pickrell |title=Beirut's Devastating Explosion Equivalent to Several Hundred Tons of TNT, Experts Say |url=https://www.sciencealert.com/beirut-s-devastating-port-explosion-100-times-bigger-than-the-mother-of-all-bombs |access-date=2020-08-06 |website=ScienceAlert |date=6 August 2020 |language=en-gb}} Most artificial non-nuclear explosions are considerably smaller than even what are considered to be very small nuclear weapons.

The yield-to-mass ratio is the amount of weapon yield compared to the mass of the weapon. The highest achieved values are somewhat lower, and the value tends to be lower for smaller, lighter weapons, of the sort that are emphasized in today's arsenals, designed for efficient MIRV use or delivery by cruise missile systems.

• The 25 Mt yield option reported for the B41 would give it a yield-to-mass ratio of 5.1 megatonnes of TNT per tonne. While this would require a far greater efficiency than any other current U.S. weapon (at least 40% efficiency in a fusion fuel of lithium deuteride), this was apparently attainable, probably by the use of higher than normal lithium-6 enrichment in the lithium deuteride fusion fuel. This results in the B41 still retaining the record for the highest yield-to-mass weapon ever designed.{{cite book |last=Cozzani |first=Franco |url=http://www.ieri.be/fr/publications/ierinews/2011/juillet/fission-fusion-and-staging |title=Fission, Fusion and Staging: A bird's view at the core concepts of nuclear weapon design and the curious ideas about it |date=July 26, 2011 |publisher=IERI |access-date=February 3, 2017}}.
• The W56 demonstrated a yield-to-mass ratio of 4.96 kt per kilogram of device mass, and very close to the predicted 5.1 kt/kg achievable in the highest yield-to-mass weapon ever built, the 25-megatonne B41. Unlike the B41, which was never proof-tested at full yield, the W56 demonstrated its efficiency in the XW-56X2 Bluestone shot of Operation Dominic in 1962,{{cite web |url=http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Dominic.html |title=Operation Dominic |website=The Nuclear Weapon Archive}} thus, from information available in the public domain, the W56 may hold the distinction of demonstrating the highest efficiency in a nuclear weapon to date.
• In 1963 DOE declassified statements that the U.S. had the technological capability of deploying a 35 Mt warhead on the Titan II, or a 50–60 Mt gravity bomb on B-52s. Neither weapon was pursued, but either would require yield-to-mass ratios superior to a 25 Mt Mk-41.
• For current smaller US weapons, yield is 600 to 2200 kilotonnes of TNT per tonne. By comparison, for the very small tactical devices such as the Davy Crockett it was 0.4 to 40 kilotonnes of TNT per tonne. For historical comparison, for Little Boy the yield was only 4 kilotonnes of TNT per tonne, and for the largest Tsar Bomba, the yield was 2 megatonnes of TNT per tonne (deliberately reduced from about twice as much yield for the same weapon, so there is little doubt that this bomb as designed was capable of 4 megatonnes per tonne yield).
• The largest pure-fission bomb ever constructed, Ivy King, had a 500 kilotonne yield,{{cite web |title=Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons |url=http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html#MK-18 |website=The Nuclear Weapon Archive |access-date=August 29, 2014 |date=October 14, 2006}} which is probably in the range of the upper limit on such designs.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} Fusion boosting could likely raise the efficiency of such a weapon significantly, but eventually all fission-based weapons have an upper yield limit due to the difficulties of dealing with large critical masses. (The UK's Orange Herald was a very large boosted fission bomb, with a yield of 800 kilotonnes.) However, there is no known upper yield limit for a fusion bomb.

Large single warheads are seldom a part of today's arsenals, since smaller MIRV warheads, spread out over a pancake-shaped destructive area, are far more destructive for a given total yield, or unit of payload mass. This effect results from the fact that destructive power of a single warhead on land scales approximately only as the cube root of its yield, due to blast "wasted" over a roughly hemispherical blast volume, while the strategic target is distributed over a circular land area with limited height and depth. This effect more than makes up for the lessened yield/mass efficiency encountered if ballistic missile warheads are individually scaled down from the maximal size that could be carried by a single-warhead missile.

The efficiency of an atomic bomb is the ratio of the actual yield to the theoretical maximum yield of the atomic bomb. Not all atomic bombs possess the same yield efficiency as each individual bombs design plays a large role in how efficient it can be. In order to maximize yield efficiency one must make sure to assemble the critical mass correctly, as well as implementing instruments such as tampers or initiators in the design. A tamper is typically made of uranium and it holds the core together using its inertia. It is used to prevent the core from separating too soon to generate maximum fission, so as not to cause a "fizzle". The initiator is a source of neutrons either inside of the core, or on the outside of the bomb, and in this case it shoots neutrons at the core at the moment of detonation. It is essentially kick starting the reaction so the maximum fission reactions can occur to maximize yield. {{Cite web |title=Nuclear Weapons Primer |url=https://www.wisconsinproject.org/nuclear-weapons/ |access-date=2023-04-28 |website=Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control |language=en-US}}

The following list is of milestone nuclear explosions. In addition to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first nuclear test of a given weapon type for a country is included, as well as tests that were otherwise notable (such as the largest test ever). All yields (explosive power) are given in their estimated energy equivalents in kilotons of TNT (see TNT equivalent). Putative tests (like Vela incident) have not been included.

;Note

• "Staged" refers to whether it was a "true" thermonuclear weapon of the so-called Teller–Ulam configuration or simply a form of a boosted fission weapon. For a more complete list of nuclear test series, see List of nuclear tests. Some exact yield estimates, such as that of the Tsar Bomba and the tests by India and Pakistan in 1998, are somewhat contested among specialists.

{{see also|Fermi problem}}

Yields of nuclear explosions can be very hard to calculate, even using numbers as rough as in the kilotonne or megatonne range (much less down to the resolution of individual terajoules). Even under very controlled conditions, precise yields can be very hard to determine, and for less controlled conditions the margins of error can be quite large. For fission devices, the most precise yield value is found from "radiochemical/Fallout analysis"; that is, measuring the quantity of fission products generated, in much the same way as the chemical yield in chemical reaction products can be measured after a chemical reaction. The radiochemical analysis method was pioneered by Herbert L. Anderson.

For nuclear explosive devices where the fallout is not attainable or would be misleading, neutron activation analysis is often employed as the second most accurate method, with it having been used to determine the yield of both Little Boy{{cite book |chapter-url=http://www.rerf.or.jp/shared/ds02/pdf/chapter01/cha01-p42-61.pdf |chapter=Bomb Parameters |last1=Kerr |first1=George D. |last2=Young |first2=Robert W. |last3=Cullings |first3=Harry M. |last4=Christy |first4=Robert F. |pages=42–43 |title=Reassessment of the Atomic Bomb Radiation Dosimetry for Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Dosimetry System 2002 |year=2005 |publisher=The Radiation Effects Research Foundation |editor-first1=Robert W. |editor-last1=Young |editor-first2=George D. |editor-last2=Kerr |access-date=2014-11-08 |archive-date=2015-08-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150810210007/http://www.rerf.or.jp/shared/ds02/pdf/chapter01/cha01-p42-61.pdf |url-status=dead }}{{cite web |url=http://www.osti.gov/manhattan-project-history/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf |title=The Yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Explosions |last=Malik |first=John |date=September 1985 |publisher=Los Alamos National Laboratory |access-date=March 9, 2014}} and thermonuclear Ivy Mike's{{cite book |title=Operation Ivy Final Report Joint Task Force 132 |year=1952 |url=http://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a995443.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140311064141/http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a995443.pdf |url-status=live |archive-date=March 11, 2014 |author=US Army}} respective yields.

Yields can also be inferred in a number of other remote sensing ways, including scaling law calculations based on blast size, infrasound, fireball brightness (Bhangmeter), seismographic data (CTBTO),[https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1988/8838/883809.PDF Estimating the yields of nuclear explosions. chapter 7. Seismic verification of nuclear testing treaties.] and the strength of the shock wave.

Enrico Fermi famously made a (very) rough calculation of the yield of the Trinity test by dropping small pieces of paper in the air and measuring how far they were moved by the blast wave of the explosion; that is, he found the blast pressure at his distance from the detonation in pounds per square inch, using the deviation of the papers' fall away from the vertical as a crude blast gauge/barograph, and then with pressure X in psi, at distance Y, in miles figures, he extrapolated backwards to estimate the yield of the Trinity device, which he found was about 10 kilotonnes of blast energy.[http://www.abqjournal.com/trinity/trinity1.htm Article featuring Jack Aeby talking about his photograph].{{cite book |last=Rhodes |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Rhodes |title=The Making of the Atomic Bomb |location=New York |publisher=Simon & Schuster |year=1986 |isbn=0-671-44133-7|oclc=13793436|pp=674–677}}

Fermi later recalled:

{{blockquote|

I was stationed at the Base Camp at Trinity in a position about ten miles [16 km] from the site of the explosion... About 40 seconds after the explosion the air blast reached me. I tried to estimate its strength by dropping from about six feet small pieces of paper before, during, and after the passage of the blast wave. Since, at the time, there was no wind[,] I could observe very distinctly and actually measure the displacement of the pieces of paper that were in the process of falling while the blast was passing. The shift was about 2 1/2 meters, which, at the time, I estimated to correspond to the blast that would be produced by ten thousand tonnes of TNT.E. Fermi. [https://web.archive.org/web/20130302233056/http://www2.vo.lu/homepages/geko/atom/report.htm My Observations During the Explosion at Trinity on July 16, 1945].{{cite web |url=http://www.dannen.com/decision/fermi.html |title=Trinity Test, July 16, 1945, Eyewitness Accounts – Enrico Fermi |access-date=November 4, 2014 }}{{cite web |title=Eyewitnesses to Trinity |url=http://www.lanl.gov/science/weapons_journal/wj_pubs/11nwj2-05.pdf |website=Nuclear Weapons Journal, Issue 2, 2005 |publisher=Los Alamos National Laboratory |access-date=18 February 2014 |page=45 |year=2005 |archive-date=29 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181229223636/https://www.lanl.gov/science/weapons_journal/wj_pubs/11nwj2-05.pdf |url-status=dead }}}}

The surface area (A) and volume (V) of a sphere are $A\; =\; 4\backslash pi\; r^2$ and $V\; =\; \backslash frac\{4\}\{3\}\; \backslash pi\; r^3$ respectively.

The blast wave, however, was likely assumed to grow out as the surface area of the approximately hemispheric near surface burst blast wave of the Trinity gadget.

The paper is moved 2.5 meters by the wave, so the effect of the Trinity device is to displace a hemispherical shell of air of volume 2.5 m × 2π(16 km)². Multiply by 1 atm to get an energy of {{val|4.1|e=14|u=J}} ~ 100 kT TNT.{{quantify|date=May 2015}}

Image:Trinity Test Fireball 25ms.jpg, was used by G. I. Taylor to estimate its yield.]]

A good approximation of the yield of the Trinity test device was obtained in 1950 by the British physicist G. I. Taylor from simple dimensional analysis and an estimation of the heat capacity for very hot air. Taylor had initially done this highly classified work in mid-1941 and published an article with an analysis of the Trinity data fireball when the Trinity photograph data was declassified in 1950 (after the USSR had exploded its own version of this bomb).

Taylor noted that the radius R of the blast should initially depend only on the energy E of the explosion, the time t after the detonation, and the density ρ of the air. The only equation having compatible dimensions that can be constructed from these quantities is

: $R\; =\; S\backslash left(\backslash frac\{E\; t^2\}\{\backslash rho\}\backslash right)^\{\backslash frac\{1\}\{5\}\}.$

Here S is a dimensionless constant having a value approximately equal to 1, since it is low-order function of the heat capacity ratio or adiabatic index

: $\backslash gamma\; =\; \backslash frac\{C\_P\}\{C\_V\},$

which is approximately 1 for all conditions.

Using the picture of the Trinity test shown here (which had been publicly released by the U.S. government and published in Life magazine), using successive frames of the explosion, Taylor found that R⁵/t² is a constant in a given nuclear blast (especially between 0.38 ms, after the shock wave has formed, and 1.93 ms, before significant energy is lost by thermal radiation). Furthermore, he estimated a value for S numerically at 1.

Thus, with t = 0.025 s and the blast radius being 140 metres, and taking ρ to be 1 kg/m³ (the measured value at Trinity on the day of the test, as opposed to sea-level values of approximately 1.3 kg/m³) and solving for E, Taylor obtained that the yield was about 22 kilotonnes of TNT (90 TJ). This does not take into account the fact that the energy should only be about half this value for a hemispherical blast, but this very simple argument did agree to within 10% with the official value of the bomb's yield in 1950, which was {{convert|20|ktonTNT}} (see G. I. Taylor, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 200, pp. 235–247 (1950)).

A good approximation to Taylor's constant S for $\backslash gamma$ below about 2 is{{cite web |url=http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/analytical-mathematics-for-physical.html |title=Analytical mathematics for physical understanding, versus abstract numerical computation |website=The effects of nuclear weapons. Credible nuclear deterrence, debunking "disarm or be annihilated". Realistic effects and credible nuclear weapon capabilities for deterring or stopping aggressive invasions and attacks which could escalate into major conventional or nuclear wars |date=2006-03-29}}

: $S\; =\; \backslash left(\backslash frac\{75(\backslash gamma\; -\; 1)\}\{8\backslash pi\}\backslash right)^\{\backslash frac\{1\}\{5\}\}.$

The value of the heat capacity ratio here is between the 1.67 of fully dissociated air molecules and the lower value for very hot diatomic air (1.2), and under conditions of an atomic fireball is (coincidentally) close to the STP (standard) gamma for room-temperature air, which is 1.4. This gives the value of Taylor's S constant to be 1.036 for the adiabatic hypershock region where the constant R⁵/t² condition holds.

As it relates to fundamental dimensional analysis, if one expresses all the variables in terms of mass M, length L, and time T:Thayer Watkins. [https://web.archive.org/web/20140701221514/http://applet-magic.com/fireball.htm The Expansion of the Fireball of an Explosion]. San José State University.

: $E\; =\; [M\; \backslash cdot\; L^2\; \backslash cdot\; T^\{-2\}]$

(think of the expression for kinetic energy, $E\; =\; mv^2/2$),

: $\backslash rho\; =\; [M\; \backslash cdot\; L^\{-3\}],$

: $t\; =\; [T],$

: $r\; =\; [L],$

and then derive an expression for, say, E, in terms of the other variables, by finding values of $\backslash alpha$, $\backslash beta$, and $\backslash gamma$ in the general relation

: $E\; =\; \backslash rho^\backslash alpha\; \backslash cdot\; t^\backslash beta\; \backslash cdot\; r^\backslash gamma$

such that the left and right sides are dimensionally balanced in terms of M, L, and T (i.e., each dimension has the same exponent on both sides).

{{original research|date=March 2021}}

Where these data are not available, as in a number of cases, precise yields have been in dispute, especially when they are tied to questions of politics. The weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example, were highly individual and very idiosyncratic designs, and gauging their yield retrospectively has been quite difficult. The Hiroshima bomb, "Little Boy", is estimated to have been between {{convert|12|and|18|ktTNT}} (a 20% margin of error), while the Nagasaki bomb, "Fat Man", is estimated to be between {{convert|18|and|23|ktTNT}} (a 10% margin of error).

Such apparently small changes in values can be important when trying to use the data from these bombings as reflective of how other bombs would behave in combat, and also result in differing assessments of how many "Hiroshima bombs" other weapons are equivalent to (for example, the Ivy Mike hydrogen bomb was equivalent to either 867 or 578 Hiroshima weapons — a rhetorically quite substantial difference — depending on whether one uses the high or low figure for the calculation).

Other disputed yields have included the massive Tsar Bomba, whose yield was claimed between being "only" {{convert|50|MtTNT}} or at a maximum of {{convert|57|MtTNT}} by differing political figures, either as a way for hyping the power of the bomb or as an attempt to undercut it.

• Effects of nuclear explosions — goes into detail about different effects at different yields
• List of nuclear weapons

{{Commons category}}

• [http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm "What was the yield of the Hiroshima bomb?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170913004426/https://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm |date=2017-09-13 }} (excerpt from official report)
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20051201184506/http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/enw77a.html "General Principles of Nuclear Explosions"], Chapter 1 in Samuel Glasstone and Phillip Dolan, eds., The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 3rd edn. (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense/U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, 1977); provides information about the relationship of nuclear yields to other effects (radiation, damage, etc.).
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20060405211214/http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper451.html "THE MAY 1998 POKHRAN TESTS: Scientific Aspects"], discusses different methods used to determine the yields of the Indian 1998 tests.
• [https://fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/ Discusses some of the controversy over the Indian test yields]
• [http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaRealYields.html "What are the real yields of India's nuclear tests?"] from Carey Sublette's NuclearWeaponArchive.org
• [http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html High-Yield Nuclear Detonation Effects Simulator] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090216184207/http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html |date=2009-02-16 }}

{{Nuclear technology}}

Yield

Category:Energy measurement