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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
I don't think the information added by Nabokov here is correct:
17:28, 26 January 2008 Nabokov (Talk | contribs) m (4,550 bytes) (Fixed typo.)
17:28, 26 January 2008 Nabokov (Talk | contribs) m (4,552 bytes) (Added new info re. linear implosion.)
It is inconsistent with the rest of the information in the article.
Also, "Manticore" is not a code name. It was invented by Sybil Francis for use in her 1995 PhD thesis (MIT) Warhead Politics. She is quite explicit that it describes a plutonium (not a uranium) device, so it could not have been a gun-assembly device. There are problems with the linked reference, a 2008 article by Swiss researcher Andre Gsponer about the U.S. earth-penetrator B66 weapon. He mentions in passing the earlier U.S. W48 warhead and cites Francis' Warhead Politics as his source that it is a U-235 gun-assembly device, a serious misreading of that source. He illustrates the concept by reprinting a questionable drawing supposedly from the British nuclear weapons program which he labels as the U.S. W48 warhead. The correct URL for that drawing as posted by Greenpeace (which he gives incorrectly) is
It is clearly not a drawing of the U.S. W48 warhead, and there are serious questions about whether it would work at all, as drawn. (For example, there doesn't seem to be enough U235 to make a critical mass.)
People keep saying that this weapon used non-spherical implosion to function. No one has posted anything credible. Others have posted this is a gun weapon, again with no relevant reference.
In the November - December 1993 edition of the Energy and Technology Review, published by LLNL (doi:10.2172/10127762, 4.5 MB), there is an article on an incident involving dismantlement of this device. They state on page 10 (13 in the PDF) a heavy spring is used to hold the pit in place. There are no pits in a gun system.
Then, on that page, they describe a cracking of the outer shell of the pit. This means the pit isn't solid, and further reading suggests that the pit is layered. Finally, on page 13 (16 in the PDF), they further describe the pit as a hemishell. Failure of the pit was attributed to a failed waist welding procedure.
I have read the NWFAQ repeatedly. It is a lot of theory in places. Linear implosion is one of those places. GWH, I have great respect for your work, I've seen your posts in many places. Unfortunately, I still haven't seen one shred of evidence to support linear implosion from the DOE, or UK Ministry. Can you give something from one of the labs showing that this exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.65.105.175 (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the low-efficiency, high-plutonium-ratio design of this sort of weapon mean that it is very "dirty" compared to other bomb types? I seem to recall reading something like that, that there was a lot more nasty stuff left over and spread around than with the larger bombs..45Colt 02:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)
Efficiency is the right term, but we don't know the details of this device so we don't know if it was efficient. Size doesn't matter in theory, what matters is if the design will "burn" most of the plutonium/uranium or not. Also bigger warheads usually are thermonuclear, so a small primary with a big secondary, that helps in making them more efficient. Aesma (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
