How powerful are America's different nuclear weapons?

The United States maintains the second-largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world, behind only Russia.
Among this apocalyptic arsenal are a wide variety of warhead delivery methods and possible yields, meant to give the American Defense apparatus a broad range of nuclear response options in the event of war.
Let's run through these different weapons, warheads, delivery methods, and yields.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollings. .
TikTok: www.tiktok.com...
Citations:
time.com/69655...
sgp.fas.org/cr...
www.nytimes.co...
www.acq.osd.mi...
crsreports.con...
armscontrolcen...
armscontrolcen...
thebulletin.or...
www.afgsc.af.m....
media.defense....
www.af.mil/Abo...
www.gao.gov/as...
csis-website-p...

[@SandboxxApp]

Correction! Big thanks to @AnalyticaCamil1 on Twitter/X for bringing this to my attention. 50 megatons would not be more than 100 times the destructive power of the 475 kiloton Minuteman III - here's how AnalyticaCamil1 broke it down for me: "@AlexHollings52 good video per usual, but your numbers are kind’ve off here. Nukes are explosives (I mean, obviously right 😅), which means they don’t actually increase in power at a linear rate. You have to measure them relative to one another using the inverse-cube law (nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html#:~:text=The%20amount%20of%20matter%20increases,square%20law%20like%20thermal%20radiation.). If I’m remembering my formulas correctly, it’s something like (x^2/3)/(y^2/3). So practically, that means a 5 megaton bomb is only 2.9 times as powerful as a 1 megaton bomb; and a 50 megaton bomb is only 13.6 times as powerful as a 1 megaton bomb. " Apologies for the confusion!

[@TukaihaHithlec]

I think that’s not the yield, but rather the blast radius. It’s why yields were scaled back in exchange for higher quantities. More coverage and less chance of interception for the same material.

[@stupidburp]

All of my comments are being immediately deleted. If you have muted me, please remove that restriction.

[@jasc4364]

@@stupidburp I don't know about this channel but YT censorship is incomprehensible. I used to comment a lot, but today I do it very sparsely, it’s simply not worth the effort.

[@akizeta]

@@stupidburp Only _some_ of my comments have been deleted. I don't know why, I don't _think_ I wrote anything offensive or classified. Maybe we triggered an automated deletion bot?

[@stupidburp]

@@akizeta It might have been just discussing the subject matter of the video that triggered the censor bot.

[@JZsBFF]

Yields getting lower is actually a frightening perspective. A hundred 10 kiloton devices are more useful than one 1 megaton device.

[@TukaihaHithlec]

Also proves that bragging about a 50Mt warhead is silly posturing.

[@herptek]

​@@TukaihaHithlecTsar bomba is basically useless as a weapon of war.

[@casper6014]

@@TukaihaHithlecBigger means better, right?… right?

[@paulstraszewski736]

If you want to play games, then you are right.

[@JZsBFF]

@@casper6014 I guess so but I'm not sure about the part where there's a nuclear warhead involved.

[@Terryrouge427]

I love how you used Moscow for scale 😂

[@user-kl3lg7tf3n-anx1ous]

lol @ Moscow map blast radius

[@seraphlord]

that got me too XD was going to comment what you did til i saw yours

[@Grant.22]

For real, no wonder Vlad Tootin is so paranoid

[@michelleresistance5767]

So Russia is claiming Tsar Bomba levels of yield on an ICBM, presumably with a new and totally untested warhead design. How much do we believe them?

[@MrGrandure]

As much as women believe me when I tell them that I'm half man half horse

[@section8usmc53]

"Disclosed maximum yield." Which is probably multiple independent warheads with the "dial-a-yield" setup, and all warheads being set to max.

[@triggerpointtechnology]

Not sure of Russian truthfulness. They might lie.

[@isaac_shelton]

wouldn't be surprising if it was exaggerated, but hopefully we never find out

[@eyefly001]

Are not all modern nuclear warheads untested? Including Americas.

[@Evan_Bell]

Corrections: The B61-12 isn't replacing the mod 11. The D5 can carry 8 W88s or 14* W76s. The Minuteman IIIs are deployed with 300kt W87s or 335kt W78s. No 475kt warheads. The RS-28 doesn't have the throw weight to carry a 50Mt yield. It'll carry 16x 1Mt warheads of the same type carried by the R-36 it is to replace.

[@verdebusterAP]

its not about power, its about delivery and flexibility and the US has better options than Russia

[@ibnorml5506]

It's also quite likely that ALL of the US weapons in a deployment posture work, whereas it is highly likely that much more than half of Russia's weapons do not.

[@Mr.mysterious76]

Actually Russia has better more diverse delivery options

[@verdebusterAP]

@@Mr.mysterious76 The US has stealth options Russia does not

[@verdebusterAP]

The US has stealth options, Russia does not

[@Mr.mysterious76]

@@mrb.9822 If you'd actually take time to look into it you'd realise your views are bogus

[@VeracityMedia]

“It’s not the end of the world but you can see it from here.”

[@TypicalBritishperson4972]

Interesting demonstration of the splash zones

[@JZsBFF]

In case you didn't know. The tool is on internet freely available.

[@patrickwalsh2884]

B-61 Mod 11, Mod 12 and Mod 13. Dial-a-yield and modern safety features to include latest PAL.

[@michaeld1170]

Ive been looking for the Russian and Chinese version of this video. If you google “most powerful Russian Nuclear warhead” it will all say Tsar bomba, but that was never an operational weapon.

[@akizeta]

Yep, largest in Russia was a 20-megaton warhead for a handful of _Satans,_ though some sources claim only 8 megatons.

[@user-oh6ty9ms6z]

Satan2 is 50 megatons

[@akizeta]

@@user-oh6ty9ms6z It isn't. _Sarmat_ is almost exactly the same weight as the R-36 _Satan,_ so it won't be throwing anything heavier than _Satan_ can. And the Russians haven't tested any new nukes in a couple or three decades, so it's unlikely that they've come up with anything more powerful in the same weight class as the R-36M's 8-20 Mt. Don't believe everything Putin says. Or anything he says, really.

[@WasabiSniffer]

i can't remember if it was the Tsar Bomba or another but i recall an anecdote about the development, as the higher-ups wanted it bigger and more destructive, the lead scientist paused and said, "... we need to stop." i think it might've been the Tsar Bomba as Andrei Sakharov, the lead scientist on the project, became known as a very outspoken advocate for peace and disarmament. the soviet government basically imprisoned him and kept him from claiming his Nobel Peace Prize.

[@jvetter8586]

They stoppex because the scientists thought it might have possibly lit the atmosphere ablaze. ​@asabiSniffer

[@drmarkintexas-400]

🎖️⭐🏆🙏 Thank you for sharing this

[@morrisflores5635]

Very good research

[@briangriffiths114]

That made for cheery breakfast time viewing here in the UK!

[@mikew1978]

RS-28 Sarmat has 50 mega tons of potatoes in it?

[@Evan_Bell]

No.

[@ibnorml5506]

Some of the rumored new developments sound quite interesting. One DARPA program I have heard about (but never been able to confirm) is an effort to eliminate the need for a fission device to initiate a hydrogen fusion reaction. If ever successful, it would mean that one could build a thermonuclear bomb (a hydrogen bomb) as small as a travel case. Won't that be grand...

[@Maxfr8]

Laser actuator ?

[@ibnorml5506]

@@Maxfr8 Possible. I suspect that the method, if possible, will be related to however they solve the fusion reactor power production (in 50 years).

[@akizeta]

@@ibnorml5506 Considering that you presently need a reactor the size of, well, a nuclear powerplant to house the reactor, which is zapping mere grams of fusion fuel at a time, you're not going to see that miniaturised to the size of a suitcase any time soon.

[@ibnorml5506]

@@akizeta You're probably right, but there are a number of ways being researched to generate nuclear fusion and some of them are much smaller than the tokomak approach. Time will tell :)

[@Maxfr8]

@@ibnorml5506 Yeah, it’s beyond my understanding.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

The British version of the Trident 2 carries up to 12 war heads the US version can carry up to 14.

[@Evan_Bell]

They're the same missiles. Both can carry up to 14 Mk-4 RBs, or 8 Mk-5s. The UK only operates the Mk-4. Neither are ever loaded at full capacity.

[@vkqtran4721]

@@Evan_BellIndeed, Lockheed Martin supplies the missile to both the US and the UK.

[@tjts1]

Moscow is fukt 😅

[@joro148]

Wait! The Super Hornet is going to carry nukes?

[@Evan_Bell]

That was planned, but it won't anymore. Only F16, F15 and F35.

[@edl653]

Why would Russia need such a powerful warhead at 5 MT? Or is that an exaggeration on their part. You only covered the surface of this topic.

[@ibnorml5506]

The Soviets tested (and confirmed by US monitoring) a 50 megaton device back on 30 October 1961, so during the cold war there was definitely the possibility that the Soviets had such a powerful warhead on standby. Whether Russia still has one is unconfirmed, and should be considered suspect, as is all Russian claims.

[@xkavarsmith9322]

Why would anyone, is the question you should be asking.

[@a.s.b.3729]

It’s the different mentalities of nuclear weapons. Especially at the beginning of the Cold War the US strategy was precise and accurate destruction while the USSR’s strategy was big heavy and overly destructive. You don’t need to worry about accuracy when your bombs are that big. Its also a political stance it’s a very powerful political message when your bombs are so big even if not practical. Whereas the US strategy is more practical. Two strategies/mentalities of MAD. The bombs exist to prevent their use. MAD is mad.

[@Evan_Bell]

They don't. Their highest yield ICBM warhead seems to be 1.5Mt. These are hard target counterforce weapons, intended to attack ICBM silos and deeply buried command and control centres. They previously deployed 25Mt warheads.

[@Evan_Bell]

​@@ibnorml5506They have no Tu-95Vs capable of delivering the AN-602, and even if they did, they wouldn't be survivable in modern airspaces.

[@Teach59]

Has the USAF ever developed glide kits for the gravity bombs (e.g. B61)? It seems like an obvious idea, but there may also be an obvious reason why not?

[@LackofFaithify]

Yes. Boeing makes them.

[@Evan_Bell]

​@@LackofFaithify False.

[@fredferd965]

The question is pointless. If a bomb can destroy a city, it can destroy a city. Doesn't matter how much "overkill" there is. You can drown in ten feet of water just as easily as you could in a hundred feet of water.

[@Watchandcutgearchannel]

I actually get excited every Alex releases a new video with that notification!!!.. fantastic content.. well done as always

[@lightspeedvictory]

I thought that the B-83 was being retired, if it hasn’t been already

[@Evan_Bell]

Some members of Congress are trying, but they keep going back and forth. It's a question of how effectively the B-61 mod 11 can engage the deeply buried and hardened targets as Yamantau and Kosvinsky.

[@zlm001]

Thanks.

[@kevinluschak5241]

Whoever strikes first say good night gracie!

[@mitchellbahm6589]

Russia at the time did not have laser guided capabilities. And USA did . Soo they made the bomb a whole lot more powerful. Having the guarantee about hitting their target without laser guided capabilities.

[@JoaoFranciscoFigueiredo]

The major question is , when Russia fires their atomic missiles what are the chances that they made it to the target without interception? Maybe a topic for the next show. Fortuna for the channel

[@Evan_Bell]

About 95%, based on the number of SLBMs and ICBMs, and number of and predicted probability of kill of US interceptors.

[@JoaoFranciscoFigueiredo]

@@Evan_Bell, thank you Sir, nice prediction on paper, still, we are talking about nukes, 5% is a lot of destruction, to much for my taste

[@Evan_Bell]

@@JoaoFranciscoFigueiredo You misunderstand. 95% would of missiles would make it to their targets without interception.

[@JoaoFranciscoFigueiredo]

@@Evan_Bell oh Shit, Not Acceptable, that's standards of the 70's. Thanks anyway

[@Evan_Bell]

@@JoaoFranciscoFigueiredo If either side thinks they can survive and thus win a nuclear war, you don't have deterrence, and that's destabilising. That's why the ABM treaty was created.

[@Ali_o.O]

Tsar Bomb: hold my beer

[@davidhess6593]

And don't forget Strawberry, Vanilla, and Chocolate!

[@cmcc5825]

Perfect length for your video. Thank you.

[@jmanj3917]

1:58 Question, Devil Dog: Is there a notable difference in the fallout levels of the down-dialed detonations...the ones that Don't fuse (and, therefore, must eject as fallout) the bulk of their nuclear fuel? Lol...I'm just curious, Brother - I remember reading that the ones used in WW2 only fused a very small percentage of their fuel, so the rest was blasted everywhere as radioactive fallout. And so... Yeah. Just wondering

[@Evan_Bell]

The specific activity of the fissile nuclides is orders of magnitude below that of fission products. Unfissioned material isn't the concern. With higher yield, the fission yield is higher, and so the fission product yield and total fallout activity.

[@nicholasmaude6906]

"B61 tag 13"? It's not tag, Alex, it's "Mod" (Short for Modification), so you should be saying "B61 mod 13".

[@SandboxxApp]

“Tac” is common military vernacular for “dash.”

[@nicholasmaude6906]

@@SandboxxApp Okay, but in this case it's shorthand for "Mod".

[@darksu6947]

​@@nicholasmaude6906Are you sure about that, dork? 🤓

[@marktisdale7935]

Algorithmic engagement comment.

[@lorenzoguice]

I think the real question is how powerful is your immune system if one of these things are fired

[@Meatball1407]

Alex, why do the US nuclear ICMB's only have 3 warheads?

[@BasetedBlue]

Capability to hold 3 but in reality the LGM-30G ICBM only holds 1 due to NEW START treaty

[@HailAzathoth]

​@@BasetedBlueus really needs to abandon all these treaties because we all know Russia has.

[@filonin2]

@@HailAzathoth They have not though and both sides know because of third party inspectors. This doesn't work on trust and has been working for over 50 years.

[@Evan_Bell]

They don't, they have 1. It's to comply with treaty limits while basing the majority of their weapons in more survivable SSBNs.

[@billwill7383]

A video about a hopeful future.👍

[@jonathanaustinstern1]

superfuze Trident please do a video on it

[@arthurthomas7184]

Russian RS 28 samart makes the American nuclear look like a potato😢

[@simonnash3560]

God bless America

[@chazmology]

Man is Insane....when do y'all wake up?

[@fastandyfive]

...has someone been reading Annie Jacobsen? 🤯☠️👽

[@machdaddy6451]

Doesn't .3 KT fall in the range of a conventional weapons yield?

[@lawerancedodd690]

Russia has shown that almost everything they build is crap so I’m willing to say that I doubt their nuclear capability. Chinas nuclear arsenal is also pathetic.

[@paulkaiser8834]

Did you mention b2 or b21?

[@dontcare563]

It's not about how powerful the warheads are but how they are used. What's the point in using a 50-megaton weapon? These weapons are strategic and tactical and are targeting specific locations! ALL of them are very powerful but why use oversized one's and waste the nuclear material when it's not needed! This is the mistake that Russia has made by getting into the who's are bigger wars!

[@redwhiteblue7166]

Party!

[@damongraham1398]

Do the Russian and Chinese have anti ballistic missiles?

[@gmradio2436]

The answer is "Yes, but..." They exist, we don't have much published information. What we do have is ... old intel. In the 80s for example a Soviet/Russian anti-ICBM plan was to fire their own nuke at the missile. This is a long topic that involves concept like the nuclear sponge. How much info are you looking for?

[@damongraham1398]

@@gmradio2436 let me ask in a different way. How missiles does the U.S. have that can hit other missiles? Does Russia have half as many?

[@gmradio2436]

@@damongraham1398 Russian air defense is complicated. Based on Russian claims, every system since the S200 is anti stealth and anti ICBM. There are doubts and notes on those claims. Russia has produced a lot of SX00 systems. They have more traditional ground based Anti missiles defenses as well, but those are classified. US unclassified has 3 ground based systems, one of which that see and reach as far as Asia and Europe. From there each system has shorter range and mission profile. The US also has Aegis systems for land and sea. Aegis is proven to engage exo atmospheric targets. So by claim, Russia has "more" anti ballistic missiles than the US. This is just the claims, not counting maintain, readiness, effectiveness, capability, or production quality.

[@Evan_Bell]

​@@damongraham1398The US has 44. Russia has 68. Everyone else has 0.

[@damongraham1398]

@@Evan_Bell not nuclear missiles. Anti missiles. Which country has the most different types of anti missile missiles?

[@JSFGuy]

It's that time again. Let's check it out.

[@eurybaric]

How likely do you think the Satan 2 is actually 50 MT?

[@Evan_Bell]

Not at all. Anyone who claims it is doesn't know what they're talking about. It'll carry 16x 1Mt warheads of the same type carried by SS-18 Satan.

[@richardmclatchy3]

Has anyone ever considered that Iran might be stalling till they have NUC to attack Israel? Please respond.

[@robsin2810]

So many ways to kill each other

[@russlardinois5751]

Us has to get there head out of there ass . Times tikin

[@seanlibbey4499]

I thought the tasar bob a was 50 megatons and that even the Soviets decided that was to big except for propaganda purposes. Did Russia change that stance and decided to develop bombs with similar yield? Sorry,just confused and trying to figure if I have my history facts right. Thanks

[@Evan_Bell]

You're correct. The RS-28 won't have a 50Mt yield.

[@seanlibbey4499]

@@Evan_Bell thanks for the clarification

[@BeamAsicatsuM]

I see china flag Infront of nuke bomb from US.😮

[@robertstewart1223]

The only thing I want to add as a nuclear power geek is that America is quite capable of producing bomb in 50 mega ton yields as well. The issue simply becomes; does it really matter enough to build them? One all out exchange, criss-crossing the planet, means the end of pretty much everything. The Russian's know this too but have always been about "bigger is better." And you'd have to be a fool to press Russia into prepping them to fly. Or at least that was what I thought until I started watching NATO turn into the USSR right before our very eyes and tell Russia they have no say in what happens on their border! That NATO can land grab Ukraine and Russia can't say boo about it. Sure hope we switch back to a Trump administration who, like every administration before Biden's realized Ukraine was a red line not to cross. Even President Obama knew this was a no-no! OK got off topic....sorry. Great video.

[@LegendaryInfortainment]

And I now wish I could remember if being a NWPRP Asroc handler meant that we had some of those neat 10kt nuclear submarine whackers aboard. I can recall the training movies but little else and none of the Asroc magazine or interior. Good video, thanks.

[@akizeta]

I think it would depend when you were in the service. They were around in the Sixties and Seventies, IIRC, but the DoD would never confirm or deny publicly if any particular ship had nuclear weapons on board.

[@LegendaryInfortainment]

@@akizeta And I'd also be no help there. I can truly confirm not a damn thing about nukes.

[@rttakezo2000]

Tonnage smunnage; it's all about accuracy

[@Evan_Bell]

It's a function of both.

[@gustavorodriguespereira9360]

Nuklir AS lebih dahsyat berapa kali lipat bom hirosima

[@Blougheed]

are these weapons set to explode if intercepted? because it seems gravity bombing is pretty old and slow tech? i dont know obviously.. just curious

[@SandboxxApp]

Nuclear weapons are designed not to go off unless a very specific set of criteria are met! Though gravity bombs aren’t in the air for long enough to be intercepted in most cases.

[@olly115]

1500 miles seems a long way to glide!

[@B33333]

Remember US never showed their secret weapons no one knows what they had! Only China, Russia and other country showed… Lol 😝

[@Markus117d]

☢️

[@chuckmcgillis8160]

We need a 1 million megaton missile

[@00kt86]

Small or large they be scary.

[@tymoteuszkazubski2755]

"Rainy day" LoL

[@thar6849]

Devil's

[@davedeville6540]

Love the content. Don’t love the voice

[@filonin2]

Leave.

[@Tarkanmarkankanava]

🫡

[@WEPayne]

OK Hollings much better, ye starting to regain a bit of credibility wit me :)

[@oskar6661]

I'm sure he's terribly concerned.

[@Tarkanmarkankanava]

Us keep remarks to israel all the time🙏🫡

[@marshallsmith101]

Made in USA. Tested in Japan😊

[@AdamosDad]

⛽⛽✈🚀 💥 🌪🌪🌪💥

[@kelrune]

your so poking the bear by showing Moscow as the background for the radius of each device

[@soumyajitsingha9614]

​@@chickenlittle2206LoL 😂

[@DutchTouge]

Western 'targets' are shown daily on russian state TV. How isn't that poking the bear but this small independent youtube channel is?

[@anthonykaiser974]

In Russia, Bear pokes YOU. 😜

[@stevenjohnson891]

You're a coward

[@nomercynodragonforyou9688]

Cope

[@tenzinalexander]

Is this the same guy who hosts Nerdrotic? If not i swear they are twins! 😮

[@falkenlaser]

I always thought he looks like Elijah Schafer

[@m1lkyss-box]

Мобильность, ПВО, флот и качество - это самые сильные стороны США. У России преимущество в силе, но реально ли оно?

[@menkros1]

Russian never exaggerates and they're always very accurate

[@denonpmb]

The SU57 would indicate differently

[@spidertazzfb47]

Sand box you didn't touch on Nutron 1 or 2 available in the 90 z's area of efficiency from 1/4 mile to large cities or all of a country. Only thermal nuclear weapons are mentioned a small choice of nuclear weaponry 4 out of 77 choices and nothingness of the choice of dilevery collection.

[@filonin2]

Those weapons are not in use.

[@spidertazzfb47]

@@filonin2 yet they haven't used the colbolt yet eather. Nobody has used nuclear weapons yet but they are in existence just like cobalt is suposed to crack the earth in little peaces. God is reversing the poles and flipping of the crusts and the artic is proof of the result changing the weather conditions all over the world that's why oil is found thousands of feet from the outer edge of the earth under God's control not man . A nuclear exchange may speed up the process we have titled the axis of earth a couple of degrees already. All bets are off as too that theory coming up to nuclear exchange Nobody knows what it will really do. Nutron nuclear weapons have the least shock waive in Nutron 1 Nutron 2 is a standard thermal nuclear weapons without the heat 🔥 both leave no radiation after approximately a hour after destination.

[@Evan_Bell]

Absolute gibberish.

[@johnrobert385mm]

Intercepting hundreds of low yield missiles is a true nightmre for the enemy .

[@billwill7383]

A video about a hopeful future.👍