There is something to be said for simplicity in the application of nuclear warheads. though that does make one wonder....
All at once? I imagine no amount of fancy timing would necessarily get both going off successfully before one or the other's shockwave disassembled the later blowing partner.
Or I'm just grossly misunderstanding the timescales at play. that's happened more than once too.
I have seen footage of a B-52 laying down two B83 training shapes near-simultaneously on the same target, so I've got no doubt the scenario happens.
I don't know how the fuzing worked in those situations. Perhaps one weapon senses the gamma ray burst or other emission from its companion and a form of salvage fuze detonates it.
As an aside, I've wondered what I would do if I were a Soviet guard at an ICBM site or the like and a bomb was laid down nearby. It's going to sit there ticking for a little while to ensure the bomber escapes the blast radius, so you'd have a bit of time to think things over. I think I'd probably shoot the bomb in hopes of disrupting the detonation process, but I suppose just sitting on it and having a swig of vodka would be an attractive second choice.
>In relation to nuclear warfare, nuclear fratricide denotes the inadvertent destruction of nuclear warheads or their delivery systems by detonations from other warheads in the same attack. The blast, EMP and debris cloud may knock them off course, cause damage or destroy them.
>Theory
>Estimating fratricidal effects is complex. One source states that "It appears that two weapons targeted on a silo must arrive at least ten seconds apart to avoid fratricidal fireball effects, and less than one minute or more than one hour apart to avoid fratricidal nuclear dust cloud effects." Hence "deconflicting" attack patterns and using staggered "walking barrages" became part of U.S. and Soviet nuclear tactics.
>This theory was put forward as a defense mechanism for the LGM-118 Peacekeeper missile deployment, reasoning that multiple detonations would be required to knock out an entire battery of missiles if sufficiently protected. This strategy was ultimately rejected though, as enemy launches can be staggered through time to ensure warheads reach their target with enough delay between them to prevent the phenomenon.
>This method of using staggered launch was described by a missile combat crew, whose members revealed that on receiving a launch command "Some [missiles] fly immediately, some with a delay to prevent nuclear fratricide when the bombs approach their targets in 20 to 30 minutes.".
>However, comparisons with supervolcanoes are more misleading than helpful due to the different aerosols released, the likely air burst fuzing height of nuclear weapons and the globally scattered location of these potential nuclear detonations all being in contrast to the singular and subterranean nature of a supervolcanic eruption. Moreover, assuming the entire world stockpile of weapons were grouped together, it would be difficult, due to the nuclear fratricide effect, to ensure the individual weapons would go off all at once. Nonetheless, many people believe that a full-scale nuclear war would result, through the nuclear winter effect, in the extinction of the human species, though not all analysts agree on the assumptions that underpin these nuclear winter models.
"Fire all of your guns at once and explode into space."
All at once? I imagine no amount of fancy timing would necessarily get both going off successfully before one or the other's shockwave disassembled the later blowing partner.
Or I'm just grossly misunderstanding the timescales at play. that's happened more than once too.