Click image to view full size. Also see GIF
By Hans M. Kristensen and Matthew McKinzie*
The capability of the new B61-12 nuclear bomb seems to continue to expand, from a simple life-extension of an existing bomb, to the first U.S. guided nuclear gravity bomb, to a nuclear earth-penetrator with increased accuracy.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) previously published pictures of the drop test from October 2015 that showed the B61-12 hitting inside the target circle but without showing the bomb penetrating underground.
But a Sandia National Laboratories video made available by the New York Times shows the B61-12 penetrating completely underground. (A longer version of the video is available at the Los Alamos Study Group web site.)
Implication of Earth-Penetration Capability
The evidence that the B61-12 can penetrate below the surface has significant implications for the types of targets that can be held at risk with the bomb. A nuclear weapon that detonates after penetrating the earth more efficiently transmits its explosive energy to the ground, thus is more effective at destroying deeply buried targets for a given nuclear yield. A detonation above ground, in contrast, results in a larger fraction of the explosive energy bouncing off the surface. Two findings of the 2005 National Academies’ study Effects of Earth-Penetrator and other Weaponsare key:
“The yield required of a nuclear weapon to destroy a hard and deeply buried target is reduced by a factor of 15 to 25 by enhanced ground-shock coupling if the weapon is detonated a few meters below the surface.”
“Nuclear earth-penetrator weapons (EPWs) with a depth of penetration of 3 meters capture most of the advantage associated with the coupling of ground shock.”
Given that the length of the B61-12 is about three-and-a-half meters, and that the Sandia video shows the bomb disappearing completely beneath the surface of the Nevada desert, it appears the B61-12 will be able to achieve enhanced ground-shock coupling against underground targets in soil. We know that the B61-12 is designed to have four selectable explosive yields: 0.3 kilotons (kt), 1.5 kt, 10 kt and 50 kt. Therefore, given the National Academies’ finding, the maximum destructive potential of the B61-12 against underground targets is equivalent to the capability of a surface-burst weapon with a yield of 750 kt to 1,250 kt.
One of the bombs the Pentagon plans to retire after the B61-12 is deployed is the B83-1, which has a maximum yield of 1,200 kt.
Even at the lowest selective yield setting of only 0.3 kt, the ground-shock coupling of a B61-12 exploding a few meters underground would be equivalent to a surface-burst weapon with a yield of 4.5 kt to 7.5 kt.
Implications of Increased Accuracy
Existing B61 versions (B61-3, -4, 7, -10) are thought to have some limited earth-penetration capability but with much less accuracy than the B61-12. The only official nuclear earth-penetrator in the U.S. arsenal, the unguided B61-11, compensates for poor accuracy with a massive yield: 400 kt. The ground-shock coupling of 400 kt, using the National Academies’ finding, is equivalent to the effect of a surface-burst of 6 Megatons (MT) to 10 MT. The B61-11 replaced the old B53, the Cold War bunker buster bomb, which had a yield of 9 MT. The B61-11 can penetrate into frozen soil; it is yet unknown if the B61-12 has a similar capability. Currently there is no life-extension planned for the B61-11, which is not part of NNSA’s so-called 3+2 stockpile plan and is expected to be phased out when it expires in the 2030s.
What makes the B61-12 special is that the B61 capability is enhanced by the increased accuracy provided by the new guided tail kit assembly, a unique feature of the new weapon. The combination of increased accuracy with earth-penetration and low-yield options provides for unique targeting capabilities. Moreover, while the B61-11 can only bedelivered by the B-2 strategic bomber, the B61-12 will be integrated on virtually all nuclear-capable U.S. and NATO aircraft: B-2, LRS-B (next-generation long-range bomber), F-35A, F-16, F-15E, and PA-200 Tornado.
How accurate the B61-12 will be is a secret. In an article from 2011 we estimated the accuracy might be on the order of 30-plus meters. Back then no test drop had been conducted and we didn’t have imagery. But now we do.
We cannot see with certainty on the NNSA photo and Sandia video how accurate the November 2015 drop test was. The video and image clearly show the B61-12 impacting the ground well within a large circle. Unfortunately the imagery does not show the full circle and the low angle makes it hard to determine the diameter. But by flipping the image horizontally and combining the copy with the original, the two appear to make a nearly perfect circle. Because we know the length of the B61-12 (11.8 feet; 3.4 meters), it appears the circle has a diameter of approximately 197 feet (60 meters). Since the point of impact is well within circle (roughly one bomb length inside), the B61-12 appears to have hit less than 100 feet (30 meters) from the center of the circle (see analysis of NNSA photo below).
Click image to view full size
Accuracy of a weapon is expressed as CEP (Circular Error Probability), which is defined as the radius of a circle centered at the target aim-point within which 50% of the weapons will fall. Formally estimating the accuracy of the B61-12 requires more information than the ground zero location of the drop test in the November 2015 event. Even so, the image indicates that at least the November 2015 drop test impacted well within the 30-meter diameter circle.
Little is known in public about the accuracy of nuclear gravity bombs. But information previously released by the U.S. Air Force to Kristensen under the Freedom of Information Act states that drop tests in the late-1990s normally achieved an accuracy of 380 feet (116 meters) for both high- and low-altitude releases and occasionally down to around 300 feet (91 meters) for low-altitude bombing runs.
In other words, although formal and more comprehensive data is missing, the November 2015 drop test indicates a B61-12 performance three times more accurate than existing non-guided gravity bombs.
That increased accuracy and earth-penetration capability will allow strike planners to chose lower selectable yields than are needed with the accuracy of current B61 and B83 bombs to destroy the same targets. Selecting lower yields will reduce the radioactive fallout from an attack, a feature that would make a B61-12 attack more attractive to military planners and less controversial to political decision makers.
The ability of the B61-12 to penetrate below the surface before detonating as seen on the video will further increase the capability against underground targets, especially when combined with the improved accuracy. This opens up a range of options for destroying underground targets with lower selectable nuclear yield settings than with the bombs in the current arsenal. We believe this constitutes an enhanced military capability that is in conflict with the Obama administration’s stated policy not to develop new capabilities for nuclear weapons.
The New York Times article is well written because it captures the contradiction between the denial by some officials (in this case NNSA’s Madelyn Creedon) that the B61-12 has new military capabilities while others (in this case former under secretary of defense for policy James Miller) seem to think it is a good thing that it does.
To that end the article is astute because it quotes the White House pledgenot to pursue new military capabilities:
“The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads or pursue new military mission or new capabilities for nuclear weapons.”
…instead of using the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report formulation:
“The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads. Life Extension Programs (LEPs) will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities.”
This is important because the NPR formulation is a little less clear and is being used by some officials and defense contractors to argue that the pledge not to pursue new military missions or new military capabilities only refers to the warhead itself and not nuclear weapons in general. That may seem pedantic so the White House statement helps clarify, in case anyone is confused,that the policy indeed applies to “weapons” and not just “warheads.”
The officials who claim the B61-12 will not have new military capabilities say so because the United States already has the capability to hold at risk surface and underground targets, or to the fact that the warhead within the bomb –the so-called “physics package” –remains the same Cold War design. But the combination of increased accuracy and limited earth-penetrating capability allow the B61-12 to threaten below-ground structures with less radioactive fallout. That is a new military capability.
Back in 2011, before the B61-12 development program had progressed to the point of no return, FAS sent a letterto the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense pointing out the contradiction with the administration’s policy and implications for nuclear strategy. They never responded.
Worrying about the Bomb
The B61-12 earth-penetration capability may be less than the existing B61-11 earth-penetrator and the accuracy less than a conventional GPS-guided smart bomb, but the Sandia video shows a versatile new weapon that is intended for deployment on both strategic and non-strategic aircraft in the United States and Europe.
Such a capability begs the question of which targets in which countries are envisioned for B61-12 missions, and under what circumstances could use of such a weapon be ordered by the President? The National Academies’ study also found that earth penetration by a nuclear weapon could not contain the effects of the nuclear explosion, and that casualties would likely be the same as if the weapon were detonated at the surface of the earth. These findings particularly speak to the implications of dropping the B61-12 on a bunker located underneath a city.
Moreover, the significant improvements being made to non-nuclear earth-penetrators begs the question why it is necessary to enhance the capabilities of the B61 gravity bomb in the first place.
Both the United State and Russia (and the other nuclear-armed states) have extensive and expensive nuclear force modernization programs underway. What we are seeing today lies somewhere between parallel efforts to refurbish Cold War arsenals and the emergence of a new arms competition fueled by enhancements to existing weapons or production of new or significantly modified types. These enhancements are being developed without nuclear test explosions.
Inevitably the most important capabilities for nuclear deterrent forces are stability, control and safety – daily operational procedures embodying restraint, and strong channels of communication between nuclear weapon states with safeguards against accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. This area needs a lot of work right now as US-Russian relations continue to fray, already triggering calls from some analysts to further enhance nuclear weapons.
The Sandia video of the B61-12 slipping into the earth like a hot knife into butter doesn’t make the situation better.
* Matthew McKinzie is the nuclear program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The research for this publication was made possible by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the New Land Foundation, and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.
These bombs can detonate beneath the Earth's surface, increasing their destructiveness against underground targets to the equivalent of a surface-burst weapon with a yield of 1,250 kilotons––the equivalent of 83 Hiroshima bombs.What is B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb? ›
The B61-12 LEP is refurbishing, reusing, or replacing all of the bomb's nuclear and non-nuclear components to extend the service life by at least 20 years. This LEP will address all age-related issues of the bomb, and enhance its reliability, field maintenance, safety, and use control.What part of the US would be hit by a nuclear bomb? ›
Irwin Redlener at Columbia University specialises in disaster preparedness and notes that there are six cities in the US that are more likely to be targeted in a nuclear attack – New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington DC.What is the most powerful nuclear bomb theoretically possible? ›
It's theoretically possible to build a nuclear bomb more than 100 times as powerful as Tsar Bomba, but it wouldn't at all be practical. Thanks to bans on nuclear testing and an enlightened realization that nuclear weapons existentially endanger all life on Earth, it's unlikely that we would ever see such a thing.How much damage can a B61 do? ›
The B61-11 officially replaced the B53, a nine-megatons thermonuclear bomb first deployed in 1962. The large yield could destroy facilities buried 750 feet (250 meters) underground.Has the B61 bomb been used? ›
The B61 has been deployed by a variety of US military aircraft. US aircraft cleared for its use have included the B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, B-52 Stratofortress, F/A-18 Hornet, A-6 Intruder, F-15E Strike Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon.What is the blast radius of the B61 bomb? ›
Indeed, according to Kristensen, existing U.S. nuclear bombs have circular error probabilities (CEP) of between 110-170 meters. The B61-12's CEP is just 30 meters.What is the most powerful bomb in the world in the USA? ›
B83 nuclear bomb.
|Blast yield||1.2 megatonnes of TNT (5.0 PJ)|
The B61-11 started operating in 1997 and was the first to alter significantly in both form and function. Despite being based on the B61-7 and supposedly having a single, maximum yield of roughly 340-400 kilotons, the US military considers this version to be a tactical and strategic bomb.Where in the US is it safest to survive nuclear war? ›
Some estimates name Maine, Oregon, Northern California, and Western Texas as some of the safest locales in the case of nuclear war, due to their lack of large urban centers and nuclear power plants.
The cities that would most likely be attacked are Washington, New York City and Los Angeles. Using a van or SUV, the device could easily be delivered to the heart of a city and detonated. The effects and response planning from a nuclear blast are determined using statics from Washington, the most likely target.Where is the best place to survive nuclear war in the US? ›
Ragusa recommends rural parts of Texas, Florida and California (far from large population centres which might make attractive targets) as places to survive a nuclear exchange. He says: 'The reason why I picked these three states is because they are near water and have warm climates.Is there a Nuke big enough to destroy the world? ›
Could a massive bomb do that all by itself? According to Toon, the answer is no. One large bomb wouldn't be enough to cause a nuclear winter. He says in order for a nuclear winter to occur, you'd need to have dozens of bombs going off in cities around the world around the same time.How many nukes are needed to destroy the world? ›
As of 2019, there are 15,000 nuclear weapons on planet Earth. It would take just three nuclear warheads to destroy one of the 4,500 cities on Earth, meaning 13,500 bombs in total, which would leave 1,500 left.How many Tsar Bomba can destroy the world? ›
Tsar Bomba is the most powerful nuclear bomb ever made. One bomb would be stanched, but a million could easily destroy the Earth.Where would Russia nuke in the US? ›
A Russian nuclear attack would likely focus on high-value targets in North Dakota or Montana.What can withstand a nuke? ›
Blast shelters provide the most protection, but not even they can survive a direct hit from a nuclear bomb. Once you survive the initial blast, you're going to want as much dense material — concrete, bricks, lead, or even books — between you and the radiation as possible.Is there any weapon more powerful than a nuke? ›
But a hydrogen bomb has the potential to be 1,000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb, according to several nuclear experts. The U.S. witnessed the magnitude of a hydrogen bomb when it tested one within the country in 1954, the New York Times reported.What is the US strongest non nuclear bomb? ›
The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB /ˈmoʊæb/, colloquially intended as the snowclone "Mother of all bombs") is a large-yield bomb, developed for the United States military by Albert L. Weimorts, Jr. of the Air Force Research Laboratory. It was first tested in 2003.What is the most powerful bomb ever used in war? ›
The nuclear arms race that originated in the race for atomic weapons during World War II reached a culminating point on October 30, 1961, with the detonation of the Tsar Bomba, the largest and most powerful nuclear weapon ever constructed.
Nuclear weapons have been used twice in combat: two nuclear weapons were used by the United States against Japan during World War II in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.How much does 1 nuke cost? ›
WASHINGTON – The life-extension program for the B61-12 atomic bomb will cost just over $8.25 billion, according to a new estimate from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).How many tsar bombs does Russia have? ›
|No. built||1 operational (2 "prototypes")|
|Mass||27,000 kg (60,000 lb)|
Tsar Bomba, (Russian: “King of Bombs”) , byname of RDS-220, also called Big Ivan, Soviet thermonuclear bomb that was detonated in a test over Novaya Zemlya island in the Arctic Ocean on October 30, 1961. The largest nuclear weapon ever set off, it produced the most powerful human-made explosion ever recorded.Which country has the most powerful weapon in the world? ›
- Russia (5,977 warheads)
- United States (5,428)
- China (350)
- France (290)
- United Kingdom (225)
- Pakistan (165)
- India (160)
- Israel (90)
Russia's Tsar bomba: World's most powerful nuclear weapon of mass destruction.How likely is nuclear war with Russia? ›
No. No matter the chances of nuclear war breaking out between the United States and Russia, there's a “0.0% chance” that Russia would survive the attack, according to Schwartz. This makes the actual possibility of nuclear war look pretty slim, no matter what Putin says.What country would be the safest in a nuclear war? ›
The study involved looking at abrupt sunlight-reducing situations. Scientists have recently revealed that Australia and New Zealand are best placed to survive a nuclear apocalypse and help reboot collapsed human civilisation.What US cities would Russia target? ›
But from there, as counterforce evolves into counter-value, Russian missiles would begin targeting larger cities, including New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco (Washington D.C. would most likely already be hit in the first wave of attacks).Which country would survive a nuclear war? ›
The study published in the journal Risk Analysis describes Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu as the island countries most capable of producing enough food for their populations after an “abrupt sunlight‐reducing catastrophe” such as a nuclear war, super volcano or asteroid strike.
It would take a land- based missile about 30 minutes to fly between Russia and the United States; a submarine-based missile could strike in as little as 10 to 15 minutes after launch.How deep underground do you have to be to survive a nuclear blast? ›
Packed earth insulates against radiation and blast waves, but don't go deeper than 10 feet; if your exits (make two) become blocked in the blast, you may need to dig yourself out.How far away from a nuke is safe? ›
The resulting inferno, and the blast wave that follows, instantly kill people directly in their path. But a new study finds that some people two to seven miles away could survive—if they're lucky enough to find just the right kind of shelter.Where do you hide when a nuclear bomb? ›
Stay inside. Close and lock all windows and doors. Go to the basement or the middle of the building. Radioactive material settles on the outside of buildings; so the best thing to do is stay as far away from the walls and roof of the building as you can.How long would it take for radiation to clear after a nuclear war? ›
Radiation levels are extremely dangerous immediately after a nuclear detonation, but the levels reduce rapidly, in just hours to a few days. This is when it will be safest to leave your shelter and participate in an orderly evacuation.What places should not be in a nuclear war? ›
"The worst place would essentially be strategic targets, such as military and missile bases... bases are basically in the proximity of populated centers, whether it's cities or towns," Mistry said. "The worst place is essentially population centers near naval facilities, military bases, strategic air command bases."How many nuclear bombs would it take to destroy New York? ›
A 7.5 megaton nuclear weapon dropped in the middle of New York City would, indeed, destroy Manhattan. The fireball alone from such a blast would stretch from the Hudson to the East River. It was not the only Western target openly discussed on Russian TV.How much would a nuke destroy the US? ›
A single nuclear weapon can destroy a city and kill most of its people. Several nuclear explosions over modern cities would kill tens of millions of people. Casualties from a major nuclear war between the US and Russia would reach hundreds of millions.Would humanity survive a nuclear war? ›
But the vast majority of the human population would suffer extremely unpleasant deaths from burns, radiation and starvation, and human civilization would likely collapse entirely. Survivors would eke out a living on a devastated, barren planet.How many nukes would it take to wipe out the human population? ›
A declassified document shared by nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein gives the verdict that scientists at the Los Alamos laboratory and test site reached in 1945. They found that "it would require only in the neighborhood of 10 to 100 Supers of this type" to put the human race in peril.
When the giant bomb finally detonated about 13,000 feet (4 kilometers) over its target, the blast was so powerful that it destroyed everything within a nearly 22-mile (35-kilometer) radius, and generated a mushroom cloud that towered nearly 200,000 feet (60 kilometers).What would happen if the Tsar Bomba went off? ›
Tsar Bomba could have theoretically yielded as much as 100 megatons, but it would have resulted in a dangerous level of nuclear fallout (approximately 25% of all fallout produced since the invention of nuclear weapons in 1945).Is there a bomb stronger than the Tsar Bomba? ›
The Tsar Bomba is the most powerful thermonuclear weapon ever detonated, as no other bomb as strong has ever been tested.How powerful is the US biggest nuke? ›
With its retirement, the largest bomb currently in service in the U.S. nuclear arsenal is the B83, with a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons.What is more powerful weapon than nuke? ›
But a hydrogen bomb has the potential to be 1,000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb, according to several nuclear experts. The U.S. witnessed the magnitude of a hydrogen bomb when it tested one within the country in 1954, the New York Times reported.Does America have a doomsday weapon? ›
Although the United States has never constructed a doomsday machine, the concept was mimicked in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which was the basis of both U.S. and Soviet nuclear strategy in the 1960s and '70s.What is the US strongest weapon? ›
B83 nuclear bomb.
|Length||12 feet (3.7 m)|
|Diameter||18 inches (46 cm)|
|Blast yield||1.2 megatonnes of TNT (5.0 PJ)|
Modern nuclear warheads are far more powerful with the U.S. Trident missile yielding a 455 kiloton warhead while Russia's SS ICBM has an 800 kiloton yield.Does the US have a stronger nuke than Tsar Bomba? ›
The Tsar Bomba is the single most physically powerful device ever deployed on Earth, the most powerful nuclear bomb tested and the largest man-made explosion in history. For comparison, the largest weapon ever produced by the US, the now-decommissioned B41, had a predicted maximum yield of 25 Mt (100 PJ).Which bomb is more powerful than hydrogen? ›
The thermonuclear Tsar Bomba was the most powerful bomb ever tested.