Talk:B61 nuclear bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Matador[edit]

Is this the same thing as the Matador missile? Iñgólemo←• 17:44, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

No, it's not. The MGM-1 Matador, as it was designated after 1962, was originally developed under the bomber designation B-61 (later TM-61), but it was an entirely different item. The Matador was a pilotless cruise missile with a 50-kiloton W-5 nuclear warhead. The B61 bomb (originally Mk 61) is a free-fall nuclear gravity bomb.

-- ArgentLA 19 Nov 2004

Damage[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 ?[edit]

"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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on B61 nuclear bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

About the weasel words down in the mod 12 section[edit]

"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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Newest variant ...[edit]

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[edit]

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)