A Comparison of Nuclear Explosion Effectiveness against Underground Terrorists.

Bluebay | OCT 26 01 | VANNROX

[vannrox]

A comparison of different types
of Nuclear Explosions...

---

<2 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Micro-Nuke)

Bush's Baby Nuke, by Alistair Millar

On October 2, 1992, President George Bush signed into law a moratorium on nuclear testing. Now his son is preparing to end that moratorium.

The current Bush Administration is studying options for the development and production of a small, low-yield nuclear weapon called an earth-penetrator or bunker-buster, which would burrow into the ground and destroy a deeply buried hideaway of a "rogue" leader like Saddam Hussein.

But such a bomb would take many more people with it.

"The use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties," writes Dr. Robert Nelson, a professor of theoretical science at Princeton University, in a recent study for the Federation of American Scientists. "No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15-kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."

The blast from one of these weapons would "knock down nearly all homes and apartments--and kill nearly all the people in them--out to distances of greater than half a mile from the blast," says Greg Mello, who directs the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear weapons policy research and education group based in Santa Fe. Those who survived the blast would suffer a lethal dose of radiation, he predicts. "To take a specific example," says Mello, "if the target in question were the Iraqi presidential bunker located in south-central Baghdad, there would be very roughly 20,000 people located within one-half mile of this target."

If the Bush Administration proceeds with the bunker-buster nuke, it would signal a frightening departure for U.S nuclear policy. The United States would be reneging on its pledge not to develop new nuclear weapons, and this would violate the spirit if not the letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which are geared to the elimination of nuclear weapons, not the making of new ones.

What's more, it would, for the first time in almost fifteen years, confer legitimacy on the idea that nuclear weapons have a suitable role to play even in conventional warfare. This leaping of the firewall would increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in the next decade or so. And it could turn a conventional war into a full-blown nuclear catastrophe.

But that's not how the bunker-buster would be sold. Chances are, it would be coupled with an announcement that the United States is reducing its strategic nuclear stockpile, which Bush pledged to do in the Presidential campaign. And we would hear how it is a designer weapon that is ideal for targeting "rogue" dictators.

"One senior adviser to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that the Iraqi leader would not be deterred by current U.S. nuclear weapons 'because he knows a U.S. President would not drop a 100-kiloton bomb on Baghdad' and destroy the entire city," Walter Pincus of The Washington Post reported on April 15. The implication is that if the United States builds a bunker-buster, it would feel free to use the weapon.

Scientists at the nuclear labs, anxious to keep themselves busy, boast of how functional these weapons would be.

C. Paul Robinson, the president and director of the Sandia National Laboratory, this spring released a paper on the subject, entitled "Pursuing a New Nuclear Weapons Policy for the 21st Century." In it, he stresses the need for nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future and says low-yield--but not too low-yield--nukes are the way to go. "I believe that we would desire primarily low-yield weapons with highly accurate delivery systems for deterrence in the non-Russian world," Robinson argues. "Here, I'm not talking about sub-kiloton weapons (i.e., 'mini-nukes'), as some have advocated, but devices in the low-kiloton regime, in order to contemplate the destruction of some buried or hidden targets, while being mindful of the need to minimize collateral damage. I believe we can achieve the low-yield levels that are likely to be most appropriate for deterring wider threats, particularly if we are unable to design and test new weapons under a nuclear testing moratorium."

Robinson's faith in "highly accurate" bombs would surprise the families of the victims of the Chinese embassy bombing in Belgrade or of the bombings in Iraq. "Highly accurate" bombs often miss their target.

But the drive for the bunker-buster is gaining momentum. Republican Senators John Warner of Virginia and Wayne Allard of Colorado added a provision to the 2001 defense authorization bill that requires the Departments of Energy and Defense to conduct a new study on the use of nuclear weapons in small-scale conventional conflicts against dictators who are holed up in "hard and deeply buried targets." The study is expected to appear in July.

This may lead to the undoing of a Congressional prohibition on testing new nuclear weapons. In 1993, Representatives Elizabeth Furse, Democrat of Oregon, and John Spratt Jr., Democrat of South Carolina, recognized that something had to be done to prevent the development of useable nuclear weapons. They wisely added a provision to the fiscal year 1994 defense authorization bill prohibiting nuclear laboratories from research and development that could lead to a low-yield nuclear weapon. Bush, Warner, and Allard are likely to favor legislation that would negate the Furse-Spratt provision.

The development of these bunker-buster weapons would jeopardize, not enhance, U.S. security. It would give a further incentive to Russia to cling to its own extremely problematic tactical nuclear arsenal. It would compel other countries to embark upon their own programs and increase the perceived need to join the nuclear club. The small size and portability of these weapons would increase their vulnerability to theft by nonnuclear states and potential nuclear terrorists. And if the United States used these weapons against a nuclear power or an ally of a nuclear power, it would be toying with all-out nuclear war.

Plus, the very way these weapons would be used in battle adds to the potential for unauthorized or accidental use. Unlike strategic nuclear weapons, these smaller tactical nuclear weapons are deployed nearer the front line; they are far more susceptible to communications problems under crisis conditions, and they can be fired by a person in the field without going through the stringent safety precautions that govern the launch of strategic nuclear weapons.

The bunker-buster nuke lulls us into believing the dangerous and false notion that nuclear weapons can be used without posing a pernicious threat to human life and the environment. They cannot.

The path toward greater U.S. security is through cooperative measures of disarmament, not unilateral acts of rearmament. The last thing we need is a new kind of nuclear weapon.

---

4 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Pocket-Nuke)
Used as warheads in the Cruise Missiles ALCM and SLCM.

Two stage radiation implosion weapon. The W-80 is based on the W-61 design, so the exterior appearance of the two warheads is probably very similar (if not identical). This is also true of other B-61 derivatives: the W-84 (in the inactive stockpile), the W-81 (no longer in existence), and the W-85 (converted to the B-61).

The 5 kiloton low yield option presumably represents the boosted primary yield alone, while the high yield adds the full secondary yield . The lowest yield option available for the B-61, 0.3 Kt, is not available with the W-80, presumably because a yield this low is of no strategic interest.

W-80 Characteristics

Available Yields (Kt)	5 / 150
Weight	290 lbs
Length	31.4 in
Diameter	11.8 in
Number In Service	Mod 0 (SLCM) 350 Mod 1 (ALCM) 1000 Mod 1 (ACM) 400

---

10 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Local Nuke)
Little Boy - Hiroshima at 15 Kton.
Fatman used at Nagasaki at 21 Kton.

The 1962 articles in the New England Journal of Medicine described the destruction and medical implications of the detonation of a 20 megaton thermonuclear ground-burst explosion above Boston, Massachusetts. Changes in nuclear weapons targeting strategy make it more likely that a number of smaller-yield weapons - with possibly even greater cumulative destructive impact - would be used in the event of a modern-day nuclear strike.

The following summary of effects is based on a 20-megaton ground-burst nuclear detonation above a city with a population of 2.8 million during the day time when many people from outlying areas would be in the city working or shopping.

Ground Zero to Two Miles:
Within 1/1000th of a second, a fireball would form enveloping downtown and reaching out for two miles in every direction from ground zero, the point where the bomb went off. Temperatures would rise to 20 million degrees Fahrenheit, and everything--buildings, trees, cars, and people--would be vaporized.

Two Miles to Four Miles from Ground Zero:
Out to a distance of 4 miles, the blast would produce pressures of 25 pounds per square inch and winds in excess of 650 miles per hour. These titanic forces would rip buildings apart and level everything, including reinforced concrete and steel structures. Even deep underground bomb shelters would be crushed.

Four Miles to Ten Miles from Ground Zero:
As far as six miles from the center of the explosion, the heat would vaporize automobile sheet metal. Glass would melt. Out to a distance of ten miles in all directions, the heat would still be intense enough to melt sheet metal. At this distance, the blast wave would create pressures of 7 to 10 pounds per square inch and winds of 200 miles per hour. Reinforced concrete buildings would be heavily damaged and all other buildings--masonry and wood frame--would be leveled.

Sixteen Miles from Ground Zero:
At a distance of 16 miles from the center, the heat would ignite all easily flammable materials--houses, paper, cloth, leaves, gasoline, heating fuel--starting hundreds of thousands of fires. Fanned by blast winds still in excess of 100 miles per hour, these fires would merge into a giant firestorm more than 30 miles across and covering 800 square miles. Everything within this entire area would be consumed by flames. Temperatures would rise to 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. The death rate would approach 100%.

Firestorms of this type, though on a smaller scale, developed in Hamburg and Dresden and in parts of Tokyo after conventional bombing attacks during World War II. The information gained from these experiences has particular relevance to the question of fallout shelters. In these earlier firestorms only those who left their bomb shelters had any chance of surviving. Those who remained in underground shelters were killed, roasted as their bunkers were turned into ovens and suffocated as the fires consumed all of the oxygen in the air.

Beyond Sixteen Miles:
At 21 miles from ground zero, the blast would still produce pressures of two pounds per square inch, enough to shatter glass windows and turn each of them into hundreds of lethal missiles flying outward from the center at 100 miles per hour. At 29 miles away from the center the heat would be so intense that all exposed skin, not protected by clothing, would suffer third degree burns. To a distance of 32 miles second degree burns. Even as far as 40 miles from ground zero anyone who turned to gaze at the sudden flash of light would be blinded by burns on the retina at the back of their eyes.

---

30 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Strategic Nuke)

---

74 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Tactical Nuke)

30 Kton Betty Depth Bomb B-7

---

300 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Strategic Nuke)

---

1000 Kton Nuclear Explosion (City Buster)

---

8900 Kton Nuclear Explosion (County Buster)

---

15000 Kton Nuclear Explosion ( !!!! )

The largest explosion ever conducted was 61,000 Kton, and the largest weapon ever stocked in the US arsnel was 52 Kton. Pictures of the explosions are difficult to come by.

[Terrorista Nada]

Sunset in Afghanistan.

[Cobra64]

Winged1, I think we're on the same wave length. I hope the Pentagon is listening too.

Regards,

[Clinton's a rapist]

Glad to see we have these in our arsenal. We are not going to get into an extended shooting match with Saddam Hussein while his anthrax-equipped sleepers are capable of inflicting millions of casualties here whenever he gives the word. If we decide to take him out -- and the only other option is capitulation to his biowar blackmail -- we are going to have to decapitate the beast in one fell swoop. I can't see anyway of doing that except to use nukes. At the same time, a nuclear attack on Iraq will provide the right context for the necessarily extreme measures that would have to be taken domestically to minimize the possible retaliation from his sleepers. Finally, the use of nukes will also send the appropriate signal to the islamics that we do mean business, and we will engage and destroy anyone who tries to destroy us. How's that for a hat trick?

[Terrorista Nada]

If I rememebr correctly the USSR had some 100 to 150 megaton city busters.

[Slewfoot]

What are the criss cross smoke patterns in the 2 ones near the top?

Smoke released just before the blast and used to measure winds created by the blast.

[Cobra64]

Okay guys, I stand corrected, and will take the lumps. Just so you also know, I don't beleive in political correctness and want to kick ass as long is there is no proliferation from middle-East whackos unless/until we can get more field commanders calling the shots, instead of the political weinies in DC. War is war, but I've been told I'm "too old." I'm not even a freekin' lawyer (thank God).

I was born two years after we nuked Japan (my Dad was a Navy Commander in the South Pacific) and have no compunction in invoking destruction to today's enemies to America as we did five decades ago.

Regards

[akron]

Input your address into Blast Mapper and see if you would survive

[95Tarheel]

No problem. I'm not convinced using nuc's is the answer. I don't know what the strategy should be. Just wanted to make sure everyone realizes that using a few nuclear weapons won't kill everyone on the planet...

[TheLion]

If you think the Boston scenario is grisly, I remember reading a book years ago about thermonuclear warfare. The writer theorized the impact of detonating a second large blast immideately after the first one went off and just above it. The first explosion would then be forced outward instead of upward. The rest of the mess,you can imagine.

[Texaggie79]

thanks. How do they release smoke like that?

[Gordian Blade]

Somebody obviously likes big firecrackers.

[vannrox]

Energy of a Nuclear Explosion

Bibliographic Entry	Result (w/surrounding text)	Standardized Result
The World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book. 1999. 597.	"Nuclear explosive devices can have a wide variety of yields. Some older bombs had yields of about 20 megatons, or 1540 Hiroshima bombs. A megaton is the amount of energy released by 1 million short tons (907,000 metric tons) of TNT. Today most nuclear devices have yields of less than 1 megaton."	84,000 TJ (max.) < 4,000 TJ (typical)
Worldwide effects of nuclear war. US Arms Control & Disarmament Agency, 1975: 3.	"'Castle/Bravo' was the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United States. Before it was set off at Bikini on February 28, 1954, it was expected to explode with an energy equivalent of about 8 million tons of TNT. Actually, it produced almost twice that explosive power -- equivalent to 15 million tons of TNT."	63,000 TJ (US max.)
World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: Field Enterprises, 1975: 843.	"The first atomic bomb, or A-bomb, exploded on July 16, 1945, Alamogordo, N.Mex. It produced an explosion equal to that of 19,0000 short tons (17,000 metric tons) of TNT."	80 TJ (Trinity Test)
Encyclopedia Americana. Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1995: 532.	"By today's standards the two bombs dropped on a Japan were small -- equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT in the case of the Hiroshima bomb and 20,000 tons in the case of the Nagasaki bomb."	63 TJ (Hiroshima) 84 TJ (Nagasaki)

Nuclear energy, often mistakenly called atomic energy, is the most powerful kind of energy known. It produces the tremendous heat and light of the sun and the shattering blast of thermonuclear bombs. Nuclear energy results from changes in the nucleus of atoms. Scientists and engineers have found many uses for this energy from the production of electricity to the destructive power of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are far more destructive than any conventional (non-nuclear) weapon. They are often called atomic bombs or hydrogen bombs. The energy released by nuclear weapons is measured in tons, kilotons (thousands of tons), or megatons (millons of tons) of TNT. In international standard units (SI), one ton of TNT is equal to 4.184 x 10⁹ joule (J).

Nuclear weapons have a large variety of energy yields. The first detonated on July 16, 1945 near Alamogordo, New Mexico, had a yield of about 19 kilotons or 80 terajoules (1 TJ = 10¹² J). The two bombs that were dropped on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II were comparable in size: 15 and 20 kilotons or 63 and 84 terajoules, respectively. These bombs were only half the volume of the largest aerial bombs in use at the time, but released far more energy. It was said that there was as much energy in each bomb as in a stack of conventional explosives the size of the Washington Monument. Far more powerful bombs were made within a few years. The most powerful American bomb known as "Castle/Bravo" was detonated on February 28, 1954 and released energy equivalent to an astounding 15 megatons or 84,000 terajoules!

[vannrox]

"Castle/Bravo" was the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United States.

Before it was set off at Bikini on February 28, 1954, it was expected to explode with an energy equivalent of about 8 million tons of TNT. Actually, it produced almost twice that explosive power--equivalent to 15 million tons of TNT.

If the power of the bomb was unexpected, so were the after-effects. About 6 hours after the explosion, a fine, sandy ash began to sprinkle the Japanese fishing vessel Lucky Dragon, some 90 miles downwind of the burst point, and Rongelap Atoll, 100 miles downwind. Though 40 to 50 miles away from the proscribed test area, the vessel's crew and the islanders received heavy doses of radiation from the weapon's "fallout”--the coral rock, soil, and other debris sucked up in the fireball and made intensively radioactive by the nuclear reaction. One radioactive isotope in the fallout, iodine-131, rapidly built up to serious concentration in the thyroid glands of the victims, particularly young Rongelapese children.

More than any other event in the decade of testing large nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, Castle/Bravo's unexpected contamination of 7,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean dramatically illustrated how large-scale nuclear war could produce casualties on a colossal scale, far beyond the local effects of blast and fire alone.

A number of other surprises were encountered during 30 years of nuclear weapons development. For example, what was probably man's most extensive modification of the global environment to date occurred in September 1962, when a nuclear device was detonated 250 miles above Johnson Island. The 1.4-megaton burst produced an artificial belt of charged particles trapped in the earth's magnetic field. Though 98 percent of these particles were removed by natural processes after the first year, traces could be detected 6 or 7 years later. A number of satellites in low earth orbit at the time of the burst suffered severe electronic damage resulting in malfunctions and early failure. It became obvious that man now had the power to make long term changes in his near-space environment.

Another unexpected effect of high-altitude bursts was the blackout of high-frequency radio communications. Disruption of the ionosphere (which reflects radio signals back to the earth) by nuclear bursts over the Pacific has wiped out long-distance radio communications for hours at distances of up to 600 miles from the burst point.

Yet another surprise was the discovery that electromagnetic pulses can play havoc with electrical equipment itself, including some in command systems that control the nuclear arms themselves.

Much of our knowledge was thus gained by chance--a fact which should imbue us with humility as we contemplate the remaining uncertainties (as well as the certainties) about nuclear warfare. What we have learned enables us, nonetheless, to see more clearly. We know, for instance, that some of the earlier speculations about the after-effects of a global nuclear war were as far-fetched as they were horrifying--such as the idea that the worldwide accumulation of radioactive fallout would eliminate all life on the planet, or that it might produce a train of monstrous genetic mutations in all living things, making future life unrecognizable. And this accumulation of knowledge which enables us to rule out the more fanciful possibilities also allows us to reexamine, with some scientific rigor, other phenomena which could seriously affect the global environment and the populations of participant and nonparticipant countries alike.

[vannrox]

China's Nuclear Tests:  Dates, Yields, Types, Methods, and Comments

# TEST AND DATE	YIELD	TYPE	METHOD	COMMENTS
(#45) 29 July 1996	1-5 kT	Underground	--	China's 45th and most recent test
(#44) 8 June 1996	20-80 kT	Underground	--	Reported detonation of two warheads
(#43) 17 August 1995	60-80 kT	Underground	--	Prompted the Japanese Diet (legislativebody) to pass a resolution protesting China's testing; later that month, Japan froze government grants for the remainder of 1995
(#42) 15 May 1995	95 kT	Underground	--	Prompted Japan to suspend the grant portion of its foreign aid program to China
(#41) 7 October 1994	40-50 kT	Underground	--	--
(#40) 10 June1994	40-50 kT	Underground	--	--
(#39) 5 October 1993	40-80 kT	Underground	--	--
(#38) 25 September 1992	1-20 kT (About 8 kT)	Underground	--	--
(#37) 21 May 1992	660 kT-1 MT (650 kT)	Underground	--	China's largest underground test
(#36) 16 August 1990	50-200 kT (189 kT)	Underground	--	--
(#35) 26 May 1990	15-65 kT (11.5 kT)	Underground	--	--
(#34) 29 September 1988	1-20 kT (2.5 kT)	Underground	--	Reported to be a 1-5 kT enhanced radiation weapon ("neutron bomb") test
(#33) 5 June 1987	Unknown yield (250 kT)	Underground	--	--
(#32) 19 December 1984	5-50 kT (1.3 kT)	Underground	--	--
(#31) 3 October 1984	15-70 kT (9.1 kT)	Underground	--	--
(#30) 6 October 1983	20-100 kT (14.9 kT)	Underground	--	--
(#29) 4 May 1983	Unknown yield (About 1 kT)	Underground	--	--
(#28) 5 October 1982	3-15 kT	Underground	--	--
(#27) 16 October 1980	200 kT-1 MT	Atmospheric	--	The last atmospheric nuclear explosion by China or any country
(#26) 13 September 1979	Unknown yield	Underground	--	--
(#25) 14 December 1978	Below 20 kT	Atmospheric	--	Fission
(#24) 14 October 1978	Below 20 kT (3.4 kT)	Underground	Shaft method	China's first shaft explosion
(#23)15 March 1978	6-20 kT	Atmospheric	--	Fission
(#22) 17 September 1977	Below 20 kT	Atmospheric	--	Fission
(#21) 17 November 1976	About 4 MT	Atmospheric	Air (H-6 bomber)	Thermonuclear;  Largest Chinese test
(#20) 17 October 1976	10-20 kT (2.6 kT)	Underground	--	Fission
(#19) 26 September 1976	200 kT	Atmospheric	--	Fission;  Partial failure of fusion;  "special weapon"
(#18) 23 January 1976	Below 20 kT	Atmospheric	--	Fission
(#17) 27 October 1975	Below 10 kT (2.5 kT)	Underground	--	Fission
(#16) 17 June 1974	200 kT-1 MT	Atmospheric	--	Thermonuclear
(#15) 27 June 1973	2-3 MT	Atmospheric	Air (H-6 bomber)	Thermonuclear
(#14) 18 March 1972	100-200 kT	Atmospheric	Air (H-6 bomber)	Possibly trigger device, containing Pu, for thermonuclear warhead
(#13) 7 January 1972	8-20 kT	Atmospheric	Air (Q-5 bomber)	Fission;  Possibly containing Pu
(#12) 18 November 1971	15-20 kT	Atmospheric	Ground (tower-mounted)	Fission;  Possibly containing Pu
(#11) 14 October 1970	3-3.4 MT	Atmospheric	Air (H-6 bomber)	Thermonuclear
(#10) 29 September 1969	About 3 MT	Atmospheric	Air (H-6 bomber)	Thermonuclear
(#9) 23 September 1969	20-25 kT (19.2 kT)	Underground	Tunnel method	Fission ; China's first underground test
(#8) 27 December 1968	3 MT	Atmospheric	Air (H-6 bomber)	Thermonuclear device;  China's first test using plutonium (U235, with some Pu)
(#7) 24 December 1967	15-25 kT	Atmospheric	Air (H-6 bomber)	Fission (U235, U238, and Li-6)
(#6) 17 June 1967	3-3.3 MT	Atmospheric	Air (H-6 bomber)	China's first full-yield multi-stage thermonuclear test (U235)
(#5) 28 December 1966	122 kT/300-500 kT	Atmospheric	Ground (tower-mounted)	Boosted fission (U235);  Test used to confirm the design principles of a two-stage device
(#4) 27 October 1966	12-30 kT	Atmospheric	DF-2 (CSS-1) MRBM	Fission (U235)
(#3) 9 May 1966	200-300 kT/	Atmospheric	Air (H-6 bomber)	Boosted fission (U235);  China's first test of a boosted fission device (using Lithium-6)
(#2) 14 May 1965	20-40 kT	Atmospheric	Air (H-6 bomber)	Fission (U235);  China's first air-drop explosion by aircraft
(#1) 16 October 1964	20-22 kT	Atmospheric	Ground (tower-mounted)	Fission (U235);  China's first nuclear explosion, named "Device 596," representing the year and month in which the Soviets refused to provide China with a prototype device (June 1959)

[vannrox]

"...The Teller-Ulam concept was later rediscovered by the other four nuclear weapon states, all of which have tested and deployed these weapons. No other nation is known to have deployed these designs, although the undeclared nuclear powers of Israel and India almost certainly have done development work on them.

Three stage designs have been tested and deployed to produce very high yield weapons. The first three stage U.S. test, and probably the first three stage weapon test ever, was the Bassoon device detonated in the Redwing Zuni test (27 May 1956 GMT, Bikini Atoll, 3.5 Mt). The largest nuclear explosion ever set off (50 Mt) was the Tsar Bomba (King of Bombs), a Soviet three stage fission-fusion-fission design. It was exploded on 30 October 1961 over Novaya Zemlya at an altitude of 4000 m.

By jacketing the third stage with non-fissionable material, three stage devices can produce high yield clean weapons. Both Zuni and Tsar Bomba were in fact very clean devices - Zuni was 85% fusion and Tsar Bomba was 97% fusion. Both designs permitted replacing the lead or tungsten third stage jacket with U-238 however. A version of Bassoon called Bassoon Prime was tested in the dirty Tewa test mentioned above. A dirty device derived from the Bassoon was weaponized to create the highest yield weapon the U.S. ever fielded, the 25 megaton Mk-41. The Tsar Bomba design was for a fission-fusion-fission bomb with a staggering yield of at least 100 megatons!

A possible variation on the staged radiation implosion design is one in which a second fission stage is imploded instead of a thermonuclear one. This was actually the initial concept developed by Stanislaw Ulam before he realized its possible application to thermnuclear weapons. The advantage of this approach is that radiation implosion speeds are hundreds of times higher, and maximum densities tens of times greater, than those achievable through high explosives. This allows achieving higher yields than is practical with high explosive driven fission weapons, and the use of lower grades of fissile material. If some fusion fuel is included in this second fission stage to boost yield, a sort of hybrid two-stage boosted weapon design results that blurs the distinction between two-stage fission and classic Teller-Ulam thermonuclear weapons. The TX-15 "Zombie" developed by the U.S. was originally planned to be a two stage pure fission device, but later evolved into this sort of hybrid boosted system. The Zombie was tested in the Castle Nectar shot (13 May 1954 GMT; Bikini Atoll; 1.69 Mt), and was fielded as the Mk-15..."

[Darksheare]

We could mount a few 1 kiloton weapons on robots and send them down the caves to go and pet the pretty posies and get all groovy and peacful with the talidweebs... right after they turn to ash in 3 shakes of a lambs tail.
Or we could just turn the place into a glassy sea mixed with fire and smell the freshly baked trinitite*(Of which I have some in my mineral collection.. don't handle it too often, and I prolly lost ten years of my life due to the alpha particles it gives off.. No, don't rightly remember how I got it.. just kinda love the thought that Osama might end up under some of it..) I love the smell of fused Tritium, U239/238 in the morning, smells like.. victory.

[AMERIKA]

The terrorists were low tech (box cutters), why can't we be?

Why don't we gas the tunnels.

[gonzo]

Small, solid-fuel rockets, set off just prior to detonation...FRegards