Talk:B61 nuclear bomb/Archive 1

Damage
How much damage does on of these bombs cause? --Abdull 19:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot! The maximum yield of the Mod 7 was 340 kt, which is approximately 16 times the yield of Fat Man, which was used on Nagasaki, Japan. That doesn't mean it would cause 16 times the damage, however, due to the energy dissipation inverse square law, which states that at twice the distance from ground zero, the concusion is 1/4 the amount. Thus, since the effective building destruction radius for Nagasak was 1 mile, the effective building destruction radius for a 340 kt yield would be about 4 miles. That's enough to level most of Washington DC. The largest yield weapon in the US inventory was the B53, which had a yield of around 9 MT. It's destruction radius was about 20 miles, which would obliterate Washington DC, everything in the Beltway, and all outlying communities out to Manassas, VA, Germantown, MD, and would scorch Baltimore, MD. Mugaliens 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did the Mod11 warheads originate from?
In the article is stated that 'About 50 Mod 11 bombs have been produced, their warheads converted from Mod 7 bombs.'

But...the article on the w85 warhead states 'After the Pershing missiles were scrapped the W85 warheads were modified back into B61 bombs, in this case the B61-11 penetrating free-fall weapon.'

Which story is the correct version?


 * Side note: you should sign your postings on talk pages with ~ (four tilde ~ characters) - that gives the name/date stamp you see around.
 * The W85 warhead article is in error; the W85s nuclear assemblies were recycled into B61-10 bombs, not B61-11. I am going to correct that.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Location and number of bombs
The exact whereabouts and numbers of weapons is difficult to establish for sure, so I'm doing some rewording to note that these numbers should be taken as an educated guess, not fact. BabyNuke (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Weapons count explanation
An anon editor left this comment in the number of weapons paragraph:
 *  1,925 + 1,265 > 3,155 total built, somebody check this number. 

To explain: 3,155 were built over time. 1,925 of those are still in existence, the rest having been dismantled or scrapped. Of the 1,925, which still exist, 1,265 are still immediately usable (maintained ready for use), with a little under 700 still available but not ready to use (might require some refurbishment, stored in depots rather than at active military bases, etc). Those are "in stockpile" rather than ready to use.

I hope this explains well enough.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Still needs citation from a reliable source. Xihr  07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this correct ?
"The B61 nuclear bomb is the primary thermonuclear weapon in the U.S. "

If more than 2/3 of the current nuclear warhead arsenal are missle warheads, and the B61 is not a missile warhead,   then how can it be the "primary thermonuclear weapon" ?? Should this sentence properly read "... is the primary non-missile thermonuclear weapon of the U.S." Eregli bob (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Primary" does not necesarily refer to numbers. Could very well mean that it is considered the "go-to" choice, God forbid such a choice would be made. -Signed by a regular on a shared IP that is notorious for vandalizing therefore I'm not logging in to my name. (the IP in general is notorious, not saying I am lol!)

Infobox?
This article currently does not have an infobox. The appropriate infobox for this article is Infobox Weapon. -MBK004 05:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Photos
Would a photo of the B61 at the Air Force Museum be helpful to the article? Craigbucher (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on B61 nuclear bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060405061901/http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm to http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

About the weasel words down in the mod 12 section
"Critics say[weasel words] that a more accurate and less destructive nuclear weapon would make leaders less cautious about deploying it, but Schwartz says it would deter adversaries more because the U.S. would be more willing to use it in situations where necessary."

Anybody have a suggestion on how to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.140.194 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on B61 nuclear bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081009110808/http://www.nti.org:80/d_newswire/issues/2008_9_26.html to http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2008_9_26.html#B8705677

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Newest variant ...
The newest variant is the B61 Mod 12! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.190.222 (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4413828/US-launches-qualification-tests-upgraded-nuke-bomb.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.149.119 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Size
Would it be worth mentioning that the B61 is a similar size and weight to a conventional Mark 83 bomb? Considering the commonality of the Mk83, and photos of it under aircraft, it could give readers a good indication of the (comparatively) small size of the weapon. A vector image visual comparison of the two could also be helpful, and would be easy for me to make 207.91.144.194 (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Photo caption
The caption for the photo of the disassembled bomb says in part, "The nuclear component is contained in the small, silver cylinder near the upper middle." I spent a decent amount of time looking for and failing to see a "small silver cylinder", until I found the "more details" link and read "The warhead is contained in the bullet-shaped silver canister".

So it turns out that the warhead isn't a "small" silver cylinder, it's actually by far the largest sub-component aside from the outer bomb casing itself. The "small" descriptor is incorrect and creates confusion. Also in the photo it's more "left" rather than in the "middle".

Something like the description in the photo's "more details" link would be more helpful in the photo caption in the article. Ichneumon~enwiki (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Shoot me a message if it's still unclear. Kylesenior (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

JDAMN ain't ground penetrating
Here is a list of the reasons why B61-12 isn't a ground penetrating nuclear weapon.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/air-force-really-testing-%E2%80%98earth-penetrating%E2%80%99-nuclear-bomb-58002

Hcobb (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Mod 12
The information about the number of mods, and their operation dates, specifically mod 12, is inconsistent in the article. 89.107.6.187 (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been repeatedly asked to provide sources, rather than just assertions. Please provide reliable sourcing for operational dates, which will clear up the problem.  Acroterion   (talk)   10:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is a mod? Using slang when writing about weapons of mass destruction is in the worst possible taste, as well as being a source of confusion. Strambotik (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to look at the sources you would discover mod is not slang and is the standard nomenclature for a modification of an existing device or weapon.Kylesenior (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)