Safe Mode: On
Tsar Bomb

The biggest nuclear explosion ever. Equivalent to 57 million tonnes of TNT.

Probably a repost but I find this thing is strangely beautiful.

Loading the player ...
Embed CodeSwitch Player
Plays: 7154 (Embed: 0)

Added: Aug-22-2009 Occurred On: Oct-30-1961
By: fr33thinker
In:
Other
Tags: tsar, bomb, nuclear, explosion. biggest, ever,
Marked as: repost
Views: 8105 | Comments: 28 | Votes: 2 | Favorites: 6 | Shared: 2 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • nice!

    Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

    (1) | Report

  • looks pretty fake. like computer generated perhaps?

    Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

    (1) | Report

    • Found the previous posting of this and it seems it may be a simulation. Still nice to look at.

      There is other video of the tsar bomb on liveleak though not nearly as pretty

      Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Yeah... It's easy to chain hydrogen bombs together, it would be a simple matter to make a bomb twice as powerful as the Tsar Bomba. They're incredible inefficient though. Much of the energy is just lost in space.

    Small tactical nukes are better.

    Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

    • You're so full of it.

      Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

      (-2) | Report

    • Nope.

      See, the reason the Soviets made such powerful bombs was because their delivery systems were not as accurate as what the US had. They had to make up for their inability to precisely hit targets by having ridiculously overpowered warheads. The Tsar Bomba was absurd overkill, and the only real benefit the weapon would gave the Soviets was fear factor and propaganda material. It was thhe whole "Look! We have the biggest bomb!" dick waving maneuver.

      The Soviets pulled stunts like t More..

      Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • All true. The arms race was vastly one-sided, we were trying to stay ahead of a phantom. It's funny really, how their propaganda drove our innovation.

      Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • Sorry, you're just dumb. The Tsar Bomba is just a 3 stage hydrogen bomb. Nothing impressive about it (technologically).

      Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

      (1) | Report

    • You're so full of it because you say things like 'small tactical nukes are much better'.

      Much better at what exactly?

      Buffoon.

      Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

      (-1) | Report

  • It is a beautiful sight but this is not the tsar bomb. The tsar bomb could be seen and broke windows in Finland & Sweden, this camera would have been vaporized if it was that close.

    Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • sexy

    Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • nukes scare the hell out of me

    Posted Aug-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • And, if we ever did build nukes with this kind of yield, they would be bunker-busters. Bombs where the blast energy isn't wasted blowing the ozone layer away.

    Posted Aug-24-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Um... that's a computer simulation. Not the real explosion.

    Tsar was closer to 47 megatons. Soviets admitted it a few years ago.

    It was really done as a propaganda statement. The bomb was barely aircraft deliverable. They had to modify the bomber just to get the thing to fit. Even though it was parachute-retarded if they would have gone with the original 100 megaton design the plane wouldn't have been able to get out of the blast area in time. Surprisingly a rather clean detonation as we More..

    Posted Aug-24-2009 By 

    (0) | Report