Largest UK Nuclear weapon Yield

Well I’m thinking more along the 1960/70s than Trident post 1994 era.

As I understand it, the primary focus of Cold War Government policy was to target cities with a view to making the whole process of irradiating the UK so painful for the Soviets that it would act as a deterrent?

There was NO plan to use nuclear weapons during the Falklands conflict regardless of what a former french president claimed.

The issues are separate. The plan to use nuclear weapons according to the French President was with submarine launched ballistic missiles, not the ships nukes. The depth charges would never have been used of course, since the most likely targets in this scenario would have been ports and airbases!

yep, so essentially the UK works on the basis that it puts the warhead so close to the target that it won’t need 10MT to hit something….

Not really. Trident works on that basis, as the SSBNs can attack the silos and airbases before they can launch, with the air and silos of the attacker pressing home against cities and other targets. Britain alone doesn’t have the numbers to do this. In a Cold War scenario Britain would not be willing to dedicate its nukes to attacking Soviet silos, since it would want to target Moscow, to ensure MAD for all of NATO and ensure the Americans didn’t get cold feet and back out. If Britain targetted the silos, Europe and Britain could be nuked, the Soviet silos and airbases nuked, but then the Soviets and Americans draw up a peace agreement keeping their cities intact!

On where to go after target exit: you will find a quote in the sense “keep going into Yakland, find a warm woman and settle down in a yurt.” The CENTO bases in Iran/Pak were the nominal recovery points.

On targets: we don’t know. Here are 2 contradictory quotes from those responsible:
PM Wilson and Foreign Sec. Callaghan, both later to be traduced as traitors, funded Chevaline, Sept,75 as “‘Govts. did not want (USSR’s capital to be) a sanctuary’ (the nature) of the concept is (to rain) warheads and decoys (to) swamp the target (Its) effect does not come from the contents of (1 FBM but) probably the (32 warhead) complement of 1 SSBN (It was difficult) to disentangle the system to take on a number of targets at once” Prof.L.Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy,Macmillan,1981,P148. Or:
D.Healey (SecDef),The Time of My Life,Penguin,1990,P455: (my sole nuclear error,’74-9) “was not to cancel (Chevaline, causing Polaris RV to) penetrate the ABM system (then in hand) to protect Moscow. (For me it was not) necessary (to) be able to guarantee (its) destruction (but) the certain ability to threaten the destruction of (12)cities would be more than enough to deter an attack (if NATO) had disintegrated. (In) a paper on the so-called ‘Moscow Criterion’ (Staff reported) in favour (without) serious argument except that to cancel (would) damage our prestige in (US/USSR)” Sir Solly Zuckerman, Chief Defence Scientific Adviser, Monkeys, Men and Missiles, Collins, 1988,P398

yep, so essentially the UK works on the basis that it puts the warhead so close to the target that it won’t need 10MT to hit something….

I am currently nose deep in “The Secret State” by Peter Hennessy, but I wondered if there have been any figures released for the attrition expected of the V-Force should they have been required to go?

The original number of targets to hit was 30-40 cities (then scaled down to 16 in the late 60’s once the Soviet air defences started to get the better of the Vulcan’s ECM)…

Am i right in thinking that once Polaris came into service the number rose back up past 30 target cities (8million dead, and 8 million injured being the figures planners used as having sufficient deterrent value for the UK).

And given that its a one way mission, where there ever plans on where the returning aircraft should head to if they survived the whole thing?

Consensus yields were 0.85MT, Red Snow warhead in Blue Steel ASM and Yellow Sun Mk.2 gravity bomb, operated 1962-70. RAF operated dual key Thor IRBM, 1960-63, 1.45MT, and US Mk.15/39 gravity bomb, 12/58-6/61, 1.69MT. SSBN warhead yields have spanned the range 0.3KT-225KT. Accuracy (quality) is preferred to size (quantity).

Interesting to read that WE.177’s were taken down to the Falklands as part of the task force, BUT they never crossed into any of the islands territorial waters or into specific nuclear free zones….I wonder if the Vulcan would have been used to deliver one…..

The nuclear depth charges were not taken down as part of the task force, but some escorts that joined the task force were carrying them as this was common during the cold war.

These weapons were off loaded onto invincible ( despite “rumours” from a few labour MPs and certain sections of the media that sheffield was sunk because the nukes were leaking) from there they were either off loaded at ascencion or remained on invincible depending which claim you believe more credible.

There was NO plan to use nuclear weapons during the Falklands conflict regardless of what a former french president claimed.

Thanks for the info…..would the tactical depth charges have been laid like mines and then used to guard the islands so to speak ?

Nope sactly like a conventional depth charge.

“I have reasonable idea of enemy boat’s location but fear that my homing fish will not acquire so I drop a gurt big bomb nearby and wait for ‘shock waves’ to knock bits off it (or flex it back and forth such that the hull fatigues).”

A nuclear depth charge ‘just’ makes a bigger bang so is lethal from further away. i.e. my fix can be less accurate

I don’t THINK (and could be wrong) that the RN ever had anything like a nuclear Stonefish mine.

Thanks for the info…..would the tactical depth charges have been laid like mines and then used to guard the islands so to speak ?

Interesting to read that WE.177’s were taken down to the Falklands as part of the task force, BUT they never crossed into any of the islands territorial waters or into specific nuclear free zones….I wonder if the Vulcan would have been used to deliver one…..

The bombs are different. The ones in the Falklands were tactical depth charges, the ones the Vulcan carried were strategic bombs. The Vulcan could easily have done a raid on Argentina like Black Buck, but would need far less of a logistics trail as the WE.177 is much lighter than a whole bomb bay full of conventional munitions.

Interesting to read that WE.177’s were taken down to the Falklands as part of the task force, BUT they never crossed into any of the islands territorial waters or into specific nuclear free zones….I wonder if the Vulcan would have been used to deliver one…..

Would that be as part of a group of bombs ie 3x100kt on a trident missile aboard a sub, or is that as a conventional freefall weapon (if we have any in use still).

the last freefall we.177 bombs were taken out of use in 1998

http://nuclear-weapons.info/vw.htm#WE.177

Largest current warhead is 100kt

Would that be as part of a group of bombs ie 3x100kt on a trident missile aboard a sub, or is that as a conventional freefall weapon (if we have any in use still).

Largest current warhead is 100kt

In terms of testing, the largest appear to be 3 megatons – Link-1, Link-2

In terms of current warhead yields off-course I have no idea…

Ask Prof. Jonesy 😀