I think that it was an aerial dropped bomb rather than a warhead, and it was grossly wasteful, most of the explosion vented into the atmosphere rather than out across the landscape. Still enough to be picked up by Swedish seismographs though. Like has been said, it was a propaganda weapon, and besides, the snag with air dropped nuclear weapons is that they're a battlefield weapon rather than a strategic weapon, you need to get the bomb to the target without interception first, in which case you need control over the airspace. ICBMs don't have that problem, they just have the whole ABM/SAM issue to deal with, and most MIRV warheads have maneuvering thrusters to help avoid those, I know the Russkie ones do anyway.

I see now ... it was just for that time and age. Sometimes I read too fast, like I said I just found it and had never heard of it.

Fear is a real substance ... I fear many people will lose their minds and become unstable in a conflict of this magitude.

From a military standpoint the RDS-220 would be totally inappropriate for pretty much any application other than a Dr. Strangelove type doomsday device.

As far as I know, there is only one RDS airframe in a museum in Russia. I sure would like to visit that museum :)

The problem today would be the same as in 1961 -- delivery. A specially modified TU-95 was used and it probably had a hard time schlepping that monster. I don't think there is any way a lob laydown delivery technique could be used. It is just too damn big!

As for the Russians using something like this. Why? The russians have much better, more accurate nuclear systems they could use... assuming that the Russians would ever use a nuclear weapons. The Russians are many things but stupid aint one of them.

I checked my nuclear history sources at work and while I was able to find information on the 1961 shortage of Uranium (Romanian issue) I was unable to find any source that specifically linked the design decision of the RDS-220 to the shortage. Since I could not find a citation, I am redacting that portion of my post.

Raptor1. Thanks for keeping me honest here. :up:

This is debatable due to the Russian chess minds they pocess, not to mention offloading a submarine nuclear core onto an ice flow in the artic, more than one submarine loss with no explanation, a rotting fleet of subs with new ones on the way ... hey maybe they aren't so dumb. They want us to pay for the waste disposal.

It has crossed my mind that Russia thinks about a first strike more than the USA does ... we friends of the feather (people that like to talk submarines and such) won't be able to talk like this after any strike of course.

Before a chess master makes a move he calulates what it would cost him, but at the same time he is thinking of his opponets move for each move he would make.

I wish I could listen in on Putin talking to his higher country men of understanding while they conference at a safe retreat.

The conversation of how to survive a first strike against the USA has certainly come up in their conversations before.

Speaking of chess moves ... did you ever think ahead of time that Russia would pull a stunt like this?
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...F%7D&dist=hppr

Russian doctrine sees ballistic missiles as artillery.
Each rifle division has a ballistic missile battery attached. These are the division commander's biggest guns.
The 19th motor-rifle has 4 launch vehicles for SS-21s.
In a cold war scenario, this would've meant nuclear strike capability at divisional level!
The russians take firepower seriously....
Today, they use conventional HE warheads, not nukes, of course.
Those missiles have a relatively small CEP, they give a division commander instant (relative) precision strike capability even if he doesn't have air support.
I think the russians expected not to have air support in central Europe, and this is a canned air strike.
A bit hypocritic there. I think people on the ground do not really care wether the 500 kg of explosive impacting near them came from an aircraft or from a missile.
That seems a bit medieval to me.
It is courteous to drop explosives from aircraft on people while it is not courteous to launch the same amount of explosives with rockets on people.
Just like the pope banned the crossbow for use against christians...
:rotfl:


Btw, Putins options also include the "Tsar Cannon"
http://www.allrussiatours.com/promot...r-pushka-4.JPG

But sadly not anymore the "Tsar Tank"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Tsar_tank.jpg