According to Wikipedia, this warhead (9.1 megatons) was apparently never tested, although an experimental TX-46 predecessor design was detonated 28 June 1958 as Hardtack Oak, which detonated at a yield of 8.9 Megatons.
From The National Nuclear Security Administration
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today
The dismantlement of the 1960s-era weapon system is consistent with President Obama’s goal of reducing the number of nuclear weapons. In his 2009 speech in Prague, the President said “We will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.” The dismantlement of the last remaining B53 ensures that the system will never again be part of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.
The elimination of the B53 by Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is consistent with the goal President Obama announced in his April 2009 Prague speech to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. The President said, “We will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.” The dismantlement of the last remaining B53 ensures that the system will never again be part of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.
As a key part of its national security mission, NNSA is actively responsible for safely dismantling weapons that are no longer needed, and disposing of the excess material and components.
Fact Sheet
B53 highlights:
- The B53 bomb is a 1960s-era system and was introduced into the stockpile in 1962.
- NNSA’s Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories designed the B53 bomb.
- The B53 served a key role in the U.S. nuclear deterrent until its retirement in 1997.
- The B53 supported the B-52G strategic bomber program.
- The B53 was built at Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Burlington, Iowa.
- The Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, dismantled the B53 bomb.
- Y-12 will dismantle the remaining nuclear portion of the B53 bomb.
- The B53 is one of the longest-lived and highest-yield nuclear weapons ever fielded by the United States.
- The B53 is about the size of a minivan and weighs about 10,000 pounds.
- Dismantlement process utilized the rigid Seamless Safety for the 21st Century (SS-21) process in dismantling the B53.
- NNSA’s SS-21 process fully integrates the weapon system with the facility, tooling, operating procedures, and personnel involved in the dismantlement program to form a safe, efficient, and effective operating environment.
- The B53 dismantlement program was safely completed 12 months ahead of schedule.
- The DoD played a role in staging the weapon prior to dismantlement.
- The B53 dismantlement program involved more than 130 engineers, scientists, and technicians from Pantex, Y-12, Los Alamos National Laboratory (physics designers and weapon response), Sandia National Laboratories (weapon system), and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (weapon response subject matter expert).
The dismantlement process includes: retiring a weapon from active or inactive service; returning and staging it at NNSA’s Pantex Plant; taking it apart by physically separating the high explosives from the special nuclear material; and processing the material and components, which includes evaluation, reuse, demilitarization, sanitization, recycling, and ultimate disposal.
In other news, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, Kenji Watts, was said to be less concerned than before by the reduction in whimpering observed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What was the “yield” of this weapon? Too bad. I think it’s a good idea to have something like this “availible” …there might be some other reason than MILITARY that it could have an application. Who knows? (See: War of the Worlds, the 1950’s movie.)
Whoops, missed the first part. Almost 10 Megatons.
What a firecracker!
Whoa – that’s a big bomb…
This is a puff piece for Obama.
The B53 was taken out of inventory in the 90s and funds for dismantling were budgeted and appropriated under Bush Jr.
The primary use of the B53 was for attacking underground bunkers. We have far better nukes for that now.
Like saying goodbye to an old friend…
But what’s with “dismantlement?” Is this related somehow to the crumblement of our infrastructure? Does the NNSA speak English?
Well, if Kenji isn’t concerned . . . . . 😉
Castle Bravo was bigger. It was a runaway, several were.
The yield of the B53 is a reported 9 megatons, or the equivalent of 9 million tons of TNT. These large-yield warheads were once considered the only way to destroy a hardened target, but improvements in smart weapons and other bunker-busting technology makes them militarily obsolete and unnecessary.
Further, the B-52G entered service with the USAF in 1959. Some B-52H models are still flying, and they entered service in 1961. (These bombers are older than the crews who fly or service them. I worked on them in the 1980’s.) I don’t know if the new B-1 or B-2 bombers can carry the B53.
Well it looks big in that picture; but the 10,000 pounds weight is not all that big.
The WW-II Lancaster bombers of the RAF carried ten ton (22,000 pound) bombs that they dropped from high altitude. They were used on the German concrete submarine pens and other discrete targets. Read the book; “The Dambusters” about 617 squadron. But no, that ten ton bomb was not the dam bustng bomb.
I would like a couple empty casings for my front yard please. Pretty please?
Does this mean that we can ask GREENPEACE to disband now. After all, they were only set up to promote nuclear disarmament. I’d say they’ve won so can they sod off.
“Greenpeace evolved from the peace movement and anti-nuclear protests in Vancouver, British Columbia in the early 1970s. On September 15, 1971, the newly-founded Don’t Make a Wave Committee sent a chartered ship, Phyllis Cormack, renamed Greenpeace for the protest, from Vancouver to oppose United States testing of nuclear devices in Amchitka, Alaska. The Don’t Make a Wave Committee subsequently adopted the name Greenpeace.” (Wikipaedia)[
Shouldn’t that be spokesChin, Kenji Watts, of the UCS? 🙂
The USA’s B53 bomb was a wimpy firecracker compared to the 50 megaton USSR’s Tsar Bomba (AN602 hydrogen bomb). It was 50 megaton when tested, compared to the B53’s ~10 megaton.
John
9 MT is small compared to some of the beasts the USSR built. The US aimed for accuracy with the nukes, the USSR… blunt force. They tested a 50MT bomb which had a total destruction radius of 22 miles. The SS-18 ICBM could carry up to a 20MT warhead, or 10 independent 50+kt warheads. US missiles were much smaller and much more accurate. The Soviet theory was horseshoes, hand grenades, and 20MT warheads. Good thing even the Soviets recognized, eventually, that no one wins when if you EVER fire off one of those mothers in anger. Thank god delivery technology is way more difficult to master than the actual bomb. Makes me much less worried about N.Korea and China, much less Pakistan. India… I want them on our side.
Political Science classes must be boring post-cold war. MAD, Superpower Summits and Cloak and Daggar skullduggery have been replaced by what? Copyright issues, outsourcing and killing scraggly sheep buggerers hiding out in caves?
Anthony,
Your dog shouldn’t be messing with dismantling nuclear devices. : )
John
A mere firecracker compared to The Tsar Bomb!
Pull My Finger says:
October 25, 2011 at 11:51 am
Adam Gallon says:
October 25, 2011 at 11:55 am
————
Pull-My-Finger & Adam Gallon,
HA HA . . . . we had virtually simultaneous thoughts and posts!!!
Love it.
John
Check the article reference http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/multimeg.html, there were 5 larger bombs in the US arsenal.
Lets hope Dr. Strangelove isnt around…..
I’m sure a newer B52 could carry one of these since the B52 in general is the only plane which can carry the Daisy Cutter/BLU82. Also a huge bomb. Not used a whole heck of a lot any more but there is not better way to clear a large area instantly and still have it humanly habitual.
Great, now only our enemies will have nukes. I feel safer already.
I read an article that stated that this was the end of the “Big Megaton Bombs”. It may be the end of the American Big Megaton Bombs, but you can be sure that it is not the true end. There are plenty in other countries. I think we (Canada) needs to end our “No Nukes” policy and start to build some large ones to protect ourselves. Our resources may become coveted as the rest of the world is financially melting down. We may need to defend ourselves in the near future
When you outlaw nuclear weapons, only outlaws will have nukes.
OMG it really is worse than the eco-drones have thought, now they don’t have the super bomb to fix the catastrophic global warming, so what will they do now? :°
Is Iran likely to have more than the USA in the near future?
China’s nuclear weapons program will protect the USA from Iran, right? Because China owns a lot of the USA so they would actually be protecting themselves by protecting the USA . . . . . irony is great. : )
Is the USA nuclear stockpile the largest?
I believe the Israelis have some interest in this matter.
John