Latest news with #TsarBomba
India.com
5 hours ago
- Politics
- India.com
1000 times more destructive than atomic bomb! India's 'Brahmastra' can destroy entire Pakistan in a blink, the weapon is...
File/Representational India nuclear weapons: India and Pakistan came dangerously close to a potential nuclear conflict during their recent military confrontation, which was triggered by the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that was followed by Operation Sindoor– a series of precision strikes by Indian armed forces on terror targets inside the enemy country. Pakistan, as usual, played the nuclear bluff, asserting that it would be forced to use the nuclear option if its 'existence' came under threat. However, amid the nuclear sabre-rattling, Pakistan often fails to realize that while it's nuclear arsenal is almost the same size that of India, its nuclear weapons are far less advanced and inferior. According to recent reports, India and Pakistan have almost the same number of nuclear weapons in their respective arsenals (180 and 170, respectively), but India's nuclear weapons are far more superior and advanced than those possessed by its arch enemy. For example, Pakistan is believed to have only the atomic bombs in its arsenal, while India has thermonuclear weapons or Hydrogen bombs, which are reportedly a 1000 times more lethal than any conventional nuclear weapons. What makes the Hydrogen Bomb more destructive than Atom Bombs? The atom bomb, like the ones which devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki towards the end of the second world war in 1945, was the first nuclear weapon ever made by humankind, and works by producing a sudden burst of enormous energy when atoms inside the fissile material separate violently by a process known as nuclear fission. This process releases a burst of energy which causes a blast wave, leveling vast swathes of surrounding area, with the level of destruction depending upon the yield. However, a Hydrogen bomb also known as a thermonuclear bomb is a multi-stage weapon, with plutonium or uranium atoms undergoing nuclear fission in the first stage, producing the initial blast. The hydrogen gas in the bomb makes blast more powerful, that triggers the fusion of atoms in the second stage, in which an exponentially much larger amount of energy is released, which could be over 1000 times more than an atomic bomb. Only six countries have thermonuclear weapons India, along with the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, and France, are the only countries on the planet that are believed to have tested thermonuclear weapons, according to a Washington Post report. In 1998, India tested five nuclear weapons, one of which was reportedly a hydrogen bomb. It is believed that Pakistan does not have thermonuclear weapons in its arsenal, but this could be mere speculation as nuclear weapons are highly-classified, and not much is publicly known about the nuclear capabilities of nuclear-armed nations. Castle Bravo, a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb developed by the US, is the largest thermonuclear weapon ever tested, and caused a blast wave estimated to be over 1000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The Tsar Bomba, which was built by the erstwhile USSR, and currently in Russia's arsenal, is believed to be the most powerful thermonuclear bomb in existence with a 50 megaton yield. Why thermonuclear weapons are limited to few countries According to nuclear scientists, atomic bombs are 'easier' to build, as they work on the 'simple' principle of nuclear fission with enriched uranium being the fissile material used to trigger the nuclear reaction. In contrast, splitting plutonium atoms in the first stage, and later triggering a fusion reaction in the second stage in a hydrogen bomb is much more complicated, and only a few nations have achieved this capability, says Professor Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear weapons expert at the Stevens Institute of Technology. The first hydrogen bomb was developed by the United States, seven years after it built the world's first nuclear weapon by spending an estimated $39 billion (according to 2023 estimates) for nuclear research, development and testing. The US built four atom bombs, one was used for testing, two were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while the fourth remained unused. The atomic bomb nicknamed 'Little Boy' dropped on Hiroshima contained 140 pounds of uranium and had a 15 kiloton yield, while the 13-pound 'Fat Man' atom bomb with plutonium fuel that razed Nagasaki was caused a 21 kiloton blast.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 days ago
- Science
- First Post
How a researcher plans to save the planet by detonating a nuke on the ocean floor
A young Microsoft engineer has proposed a radical idea to combat climate change — detonating an 81-gigatonne nuclear bomb beneath the ocean floor to pulverise basalt and sequester carbon dioxide. Drawing inspiration from both past nuclear experiments and modern climate science, this untested geoengineering concept aims to contain radiation while offsetting decades of carbon emissions read more The paper presents a bold proposal to employ a buried nuclear explosion in a remote basaltic seabed for pulverising basalt, thereby accelerating carbon sequestration. Representational Image/AI-generated via Firstpost An out-of-the-box idea to counter climate change has surfaced from an unlikely source — Andy Haverly, a 25-year-old software engineer with no formal background in climate or nuclear science. Published in January earlier this year on the open-access platform arXiv, Haverly's paper puts forward an extreme method: burying and detonating a nuclear device deep beneath the seafloor to trigger a massive carbon capture process. 'By precisely locating the explosion beneath the seabed, we aim to confine debris, radiation, and energy while ensuring rapid rock weathering at a scale substantial enough to make a meaningful dent in atmospheric carbon levels,' the study states. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The method revolves around using the raw power of a nuclear detonation to pulverise basalt rock — abundant on the ocean floor — thereby accelerating a natural process known as Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW), which binds carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into solid minerals. What is the proposal? At the heart of the proposal lies the unprecedented yield of the nuclear device Haverly envisions. The study calls for a blast of 81 gigatonnes, which is more than 1,600 times the explosive force of the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated, tested by the Soviet Union in 1961. The target for this operation is the Kerguelen Plateau, a remote basalt-rich region in the Southern Ocean. According to the study, the nuclear device would need to be buried 3 to 5 kilometres into the basaltic seabed, which itself lies 6 to 8 kilometers beneath the ocean surface. This depth, combined with water pressure of up to 800 atmospheres, would act as a natural buffer, containing the explosive force and localising its effects. 'By burying the nuclear device kilometers underground under kilometers of water, we can be certain that the explosion will first pulverise the rock then be contained by the water,' the paper claims. The method's core aim is to accelerate basalt's chemical interaction with CO₂, a process that already occurs in nature over geological time scales. Haverly proposes artificially speeding it up on an enormous scale. What will the plan require? Haverly's calculations are based on several key assumptions drawn from existing scientific literature. The model assumes that humanity emits approximately 36 gigatonnes of CO₂ annually and aims to sequester 30 years' worth of these emissions — around 1.08 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD To accomplish this, the paper estimates that 3.86 trillion tonnes of basalt would need to be pulverised. This figure is derived using ERW models, which suggest that one ton of basalt can sequester 0.28 tonnes of CO₂. Pulverising this much basalt would require an estimated 3.05 × 10²⁰ joules of energy — equivalent to an 81-gigatonne nuclear explosion. The detonation's efficiency is assumed to be 90 per cent in pulverising basalt, based on past modelling of nuclear impacts on geological material. Is there previous research on this? The proposal echoes mid-20th-century nuclear research. Between 1957 and 1977, the United States pursued Project Plowshare, a programme that tested the application of nuclear explosions for civil engineering. One of the most famous events, the 1962 'Sedan' test, created a crater more than 300 metres wide and spread radioactive fallout across several states. Project Sedan, a Plowshare Program test, left quite the mark! 😲 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) created The Plowshare Program, in June 1957, to explore the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Project Sedan became the 2nd and largest Plowshare experiment. — Atomic Museum (@AtomicMuseum) January 29, 2024 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Project Plowshare intended to create artificial harbours, canals and mine pits. Despite its ambition, it was eventually discontinued due to public opposition, environmental consequences and limited success. Haverly's plan draws conceptually from these tests but differs in its specific aim — carbon capture through rock pulverisation, rather than excavation. What about safety concerns? Although the proposed detonation would dwarf previous nuclear tests, the study insists that the risk to human life and global ecosystems is manageable — if not minimal. The paper states: 'Few or no loss of life due to the immediate effects of radiation.' It also includes a disclaimer about long-term consequences, admitting the project 'will impact people and cause losses.' Nonetheless, Haverly downplays the scale of fallout, stating, 'this increase in radiation would be, according to Haverly, 'just a drop in the ocean.'' He adds: 'Each year we emit more radiation from coal-fired power plants and have already detonated over 2,000 nuclear devices.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD To mitigate radiological impact, the paper recommends using a standard fission-fusion hydrogen bomb, optimised to reduce persistent radioactive contamination. The surrounding basalt is expected to trap and contain most of the emitted radiation locally. Even so, the detonation would render a section of the seabed 'uninhabitable for decades', according to the study. The total affected area would be restricted to a few dozen square kilometres, minimising ecosystem destruction compared to the widespread environmental disruption projected from unchecked climate change. Is it worth the risk in the long term? The proposal positions this destruction as a tolerable trade-off when compared to the catastrophic effects of a warming planet. The report argues that climate change will pose a far more extensive and persistent threat to global ecosystems by the year 2100. Rising temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, ocean acidification and extreme weather events are already contributing to biodiversity loss and food insecurity. In this context, the local environmental cost of the explosion, the study suggests, is justified by the potential for large-scale carbon sequestration. The idea has emerged as the world increasingly entertains controversial geoengineering solutions. The United Kingdom's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) has backed an experimental programme worth £50 million to explore sunlight-dimming methods, including stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These strategies aim to temporarily cool the planet by reflecting sunlight or enhancing the reflectivity of oceanic clouds. How much will the plan cost? Beyond environmental trade-offs, Haverly's proposal touts its cost-effectiveness. According to the study, the nuclear device would cost approximately $10 billion, while climate change-related damage is projected to exceed $100 trillion by the year 2100, based on estimates by IPCC and economists like Nicholas Stern. 'This is a 10,000x return on investment,' the paper argues. The author suggests that even though the proposal is 'radical,' it offers immense economic value, particularly if executed in time to prevent worst-case climate scenarios. Haverly also sets a tight timeline, proposing that the explosion could be deployed within a decade, pending testing, design and political approval. Can this method succeed? The study lays out several conditional assumptions necessary for the success of this idea: That the detonation will not trigger a global catastrophe. That the device is too large for military use and would not escalate global tensions. That current climate trajectories continue without major decarbonisation breakthroughs. That the explosion can sequester 30 years of CO₂ emissions. Haverly maintains that this proposal must be evaluated seriously, not as an act of desperation, but as a calculated intervention. 'This is not to be taken lightly,' he warns in the study, acknowledging both its potential and its dangers. The conclusion summarises the proposition as a scientifically structured yet radical climate mitigation strategy. 'By specifying the necessary parameters, we demonstrate the potential for effective carbon sequestration while minimising adverse side effects,' the paper states. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
NDTV
2 days ago
- Science
- NDTV
US Researcher Proposes Detonating Massive Nuclear Bomb Under Ocean To Save Earth
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. A US researcher proposed detonating a nuclear bomb under the ocean to combat climate change. The plan aims to confine debris and radiation while accelerating rock weathering to reduce CO2. The study suggests a nuclear explosion could sequester 30 years of carbon emissions in one event. A 25-year-old Microsoft software engineer has suggested detonating the world's biggest nuclear bomb under the ocean to eviscerate the carbon-absorbing rocks that make up the seabed. Published in arXiv, a non-peer-reviewed website, Andy Haverly has claimed that the move could help solve the "escalating threat of climate change" through this innovative and large-scale intervention. "By precisely locating the explosion beneath the seabed, we aim to confine debris, radiation, and energy while ensuring rapid rock weathering at a scale substantial enough to make a meaningful dent in atmospheric carbon levels," the study highlighted. The study claimed that every year, 36 gigatons of carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere every year. Using a nuclear explosion yield of 81 gigatons, scientists can sequester 30 years' worth of carbon dioxide emissions, the study claimed. The explosion would be well over a thousand times bigger than the 50-megaton 'Tsar Bomba' test, conducted in 1961 by the Soviet Union in 1961. According to Mr Haverly, who doesn't have a background in climate science or nuclear engineering, he got the idea from Christopher Nolan's Academy Award-winning movie. 'Seeing the movie Oppenheimer really brought nuclear power to the front of my mind," said Mr Haverly as per Vice, adding: "There are elements of this idea that are already well known, like Enhanced Rock Weathering, and detonating nuclear weapons underground but combining all of these ideas has not been considered seriously before. And that's the reason I posted this paper." Dimming sunlight This is not the first instance when such a radical plan has been proposed to slow down climate change. The UK government is mulling a Rs 567 crore (50 million pound) experiment to dim the sunlight. The Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) is backing the solar geoengineering project, which has piqued the interest of scientists worldwide. One of the experiments involves releasing tiny particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. Another potential solution is marine cloud brightening in which "ships would spray sea-salt particles into the sky to enhance the reflectivity of low-lying clouds". If successful, it could temporarily reduce surface temperatures, delaying the climate crisis and giving more time for the deep cuts in global carbon emissions needed.
India.com
27-05-2025
- Science
- India.com
This weapon is much more dangerous than a nuclear weapon, its name is..., it can...
This weapon is much more dangerous than a nuclear weapon, its name is..., it can... From rocks to rockets, the weapons of war have changed over time, but a few stand out as revolutionary for their killing power. And these are said to be the nuclear weapons. However, now there are deadlier weapons that can cause much more damage. Thermal nuclear weapon, also known as hydrogen bomb, is a type of nuclear weapon which is based on the nuclear fusion process. Atomic bombs use the fission of heavy elements such as uranium or plutonium. Then the fusion reaction starts with the same heat and pressure. In this, light nuclei of hydrogen (like deuterium and tritium) combine to form heavier elements and release tremendous energy. This energy is many times more than that of an atomic bomb. Thermal means very high temperature. It has two stages – first: fission and second: fusion. Thermal nuclear bombs can be thousands of times more destructive than ordinary nuclear bombs. Whereas in thermal nuclear bomb or hydrogen bomb, fission reaction takes place first, which generates extreme heat and pressure. Historical context The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated was 'Tsar Bomba,' tested by the Soviet Union in 1961. It had an explosive yield equivalent to 50 megatons of TNT. The development of the hydrogen bomb was a key aspect of the Cold War nuclear arms race. The United States and the Soviet Union, among others, developed these weapons.
India.com
12-05-2025
- Politics
- India.com
World's Most Powerful Nuclear Weapon Isn't Owned by US, or China, Only One Country Has It, and it is…
The Tsar Bomba was a Soviet hydrogen bomb and remains the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated in history. Tsar Bomba: In May 2025, India and Pakistan teetered on the brink of nuclear war following a devastating terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 28 civilians, mostly Hindu tourists. India attributed the attack to Pakistan-based militants, leading to retaliatory airstrikes under 'Operation Sindoor,' targeting militant camps in Pakistan. Pakistan responded with 'Operation Bunyan al-Marsus,' launching drone and missile attacks on Indian cities, including Poonch, Srinagar, and Jaisalmer among others. The rapid escalation, involving drone warfare and missile exchanges, marked the most severe confrontation between the nuclear-armed neighbors in decades. A U.S.-brokered ceasefire temporarily halted hostilities, but violations were reported soon after, underscoring the fragile nature of peace in the region. The Tsar Bomba: A Stark Reminder of Nuclear Devastation Amidst the heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, the specter of nuclear warfare loomed large. This situation evokes memories of the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. Developed by the Soviet Union in 1961, the Tsar Bomba had a yield of 50 megatons, making it over 3,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Its detonation over Novaya Zemlya produced a fireball eight kilometers wide and a mushroom cloud that soared over 60 kilometers into the atmosphere. The explosion shattered windows hundreds of kilometers away and was visible from 1,000 kilometers. A Weapon of Demonstration, Not Deployment Despite its unparalleled destructive power, the Tsar Bomba was never intended for practical use in warfare. Its immense size and weight rendered it impractical for deployment, requiring a specially modified bomber for its single test. The bomb served as a demonstration of the Soviet Union's nuclear capabilities during the Cold War, symbolizing the terrifying potential of nuclear armament. Lessons for Today The recent India-Pakistan conflict underscores the persistent threat of nuclear escalation in regional disputes. The Tsar Bomba serves as a historical testament to the catastrophic potential of nuclear weapons. As nations continue to grapple with geopolitical tensions, the importance of diplomatic engagement and nuclear disarmament becomes ever more critical to prevent history from repeating itself.
