Project Sundial: America’s secret plan to destroy to world in the 1950s

In the aftermath of World War II, the landscape of the world had shifted dramatically, as it was dominated by the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union.

This ideological confrontation formed the core of the tension at the heart of the Cold War.

Both superpowers wanted to establish global dominance, which meant that the development and accumulation of nuclear weapons became an important aspect of any potential saber rattling.

Beginning in 1945, the United States maintained its monopoly on nuclear technology that had been demonstrated by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

However, the Soviet Union's successful detonation of its first atomic bomb in 1949 shattered this exclusivity and ignited an arms race of unprecedented scale. 

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, this competition accelerated as both nations pursued advancements in nuclear weaponry.

The United States developed the hydrogen bomb in 1952: a device which was far more destructive than the earlier atomic weapons.

Only a year later, the Soviet Union tested its own hydrogen bomb. Each advancement only intensified the stakes, as both nations sought to outpace one another through new delivery systems such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

Then, the United States established the Strategic Air Command as a cornerstone of its deterrence strategy, while the Soviet Union constructed an extensive arsenal to ensure mutual destruction remained a constant threat. 

Meanwhile, both nations engaged in an array of tests that underscored the dangers of their escalating capabilities.

The United States conducted atmospheric tests at Bikini Atoll and in the Nevada desert, while the Soviet Union carried out massive explosions at sites such as Semipalatinsk.

One of the most notable examples of this arms race was the Soviet Union's detonation of the Tsar Bomba in 1961, which was the largest nuclear explosion in history.

It yielded a spectacular 50 megatons of energy. This highlighted the devastating potential of the weapons being developed by both sides. 

Edward Teller was born in Hungary in 1908 and would become a brilliant physicist and one of the most influential figures in the development of nuclear technology.

After earning a doctorate in physics in Germany, he immigrated to the United States in 1935, as a way of escaping the rise of fascism in Europe.

There, Teller worked with leading scientists, including Enrico Fermi and Robert Oppenheimer, on pioneering research in quantum mechanics and nuclear energy.

During World War II, he joined the Manhattan Project, where his technical expertise led him to focus on the hydrogen bomb.

By the late 1940s, Teller was a fervent advocate for the development of thermonuclear weapons.

He argued that the escalating tensions of the Cold War demanded a more powerful deterrent to counter the Soviet Union's growing nuclear capabilities.

At a critical meeting of the General Advisory Committee to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1949, Teller presented his case for pursuing the hydrogen bomb.

The committee included notable figures such as Oppenheimer. They expressed skepticism about the feasibility and necessity of such a weapon.

Regardless, Teller’s persistent lobbying won the support of influential policymakers, including Lewis Strauss and Senator Brien McMahon, who championed the hydrogen bomb as essential for national security. 

It was following the Soviet Union's successful test of an atomic bomb in 1949 that President Harry Truman approved the development of thermonuclear weapons.

As a result, Teller became a central figure in the effort. He worked closely with mathematician Stanislaw Ulam at Los Alamos National Laboratory to solve the scientific challenges of achieving a controlled fusion reaction.

Their collaborative breakthrough, which was known as the Teller-Ulam design, provided the framework for the first hydrogen bomb test in 1952.

In the 1950s, Teller's advocacy extended to more ambitious projects, including the conceptualization of Project Sundial.

This would be a weapon that was exponentially more powerful than the largest bombs ever tested. 

Initially, the Sundial bomb was planned to be capable of producing an unprecedented 10-gigaton yield.

The theoretical design of the Sundial bomb required a multi-stage process, which was known as staged thermonuclear fusion.

This process involved using a fission bomb, or primary stage, to compress and ignite a secondary stage containing fusion fuel such as deuterium and tritium.

The fission stage would generate the extreme pressure and heat needed to initiate fusion reactions.

For a device of Sundial's magnitude, it was proposed that multiple secondary stages could be employed, in other words, creating a cascading chain of fusion reactions. 

Additionally, the bomb’s size and weight were major engineering challenges.

Preliminary calculations suggested that a device capable of producing a 10-gigaton yield would have been massive, which meant that it would require specialized delivery systems.

The weight of the weapon would likely have exceeded the payload capacity of conventional bombers, which necessitated the development of custom aircraft or alternative delivery methods, such as rockets.

Scientists also had to consider the materials needed to construct the bomb, including a significant quantity of fissile material like uranium-235 or plutonium-239 for the primary stage and cryogenically cooled fusion fuel for the secondary stages. 

If detonated, a Sundial bomb would have unleashed an explosion of unprecedented scale.

The fireball, generated by the 10-gigaton yield, would have measured hundreds of miles in diameter, engulfing everything within its immediate radius.

Temperatures at the center of the explosion would have reached millions of degrees Celsius, vaporizing matter almost instantaneously.

The thermal radiation alone would have caused severe burns to people and animals hundreds of miles away.

In fact, the intensity of the heat would have been sufficient to ignite fires across vast areas, creating a firestorm capable of consuming entire cities. 

Furthermore, the shockwave from the explosion would have traveled at supersonic speeds, leveling buildings and structures over a wide area.

Scientists estimated that the blast pressure at ground zero would have exceeded thousands of pounds per square inch, crushing reinforced concrete and steel like paper.

To be precise, the force would have been tens of times greater than that of the largest conventional bombs used during World War II.

After the immediate destruction, the shockwave would have caused secondary effects, such as collapsing dams, rupturing pipelines, and triggering earthquakes in geologically sensitive regions. 

Additionally, the environmental consequences of such a detonation would have been catastrophic.

The explosion would have ejected massive amounts of radioactive debris and soot into the atmosphere, creating a phenomenon known as a ‘nuclear fallout’.

This fallout would have spread radioactive isotopes like cesium-137 and strontium-90 over thousands of miles, contaminating soil, water, and vegetation.

Long-term exposure to this radiation would have increased the incidence of cancers and genetic mutations in affected populations.

Moreover, the particulate matter lofted into the stratosphere could have blocked sunlight, leading to a dramatic drop in global temperatures.

Scientists referred to this as a nuclear winter, which was a scenario where agricultural production would have collapsed, resulting in mass starvation and societal breakdown. 

The energy released would have heated the atmosphere to extreme temperatures, disrupting weather patterns and potentially damaging the ozone layer.

The loss of ozone, in fact, would have exposed life on Earth to harmful ultraviolet radiation, further compounding the environmental devastation.

Researchers theorized that such a disruption could have persisted for years, creating long-term ecological instability across the planet.

The sheer scale of destruction, combined with the long-term environmental and human consequences, would have made recovery from such an event nearly impossible. 

During the development of the Sundial bomb, many scientists questioned the morality of constructing a weapon capable of such extraordinary destruction.

Motivated by the unprecedented consequences of nuclear warfare observed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these critics warned that the deployment of a 10-gigaton weapon would obliterate entire regions, causing catastrophic loss of life.

The potential for long-term environmental devastation and global suffering further intensified these concerns.

As a result, prominent figures in the scientific community, including some who had worked on earlier nuclear projects, argued that pursuing such a device was inherently immoral and undermined the principles of human dignity. 

Conversely, advocates for the project emphasized its strategic necessity in the context of the Cold War.

They argued that the development of increasingly powerful weapons was essential to maintaining parity with the Soviet Union.

Proponents of the Sundial bomb claimed that failing to advance nuclear capabilities could result in a dangerous imbalance of power.

This led to pressure from policymakers and military strategists who believed that possessing such a weapon would deter Soviet aggression.

In their view, the sheer destructive potential of the Sundial bomb would ensure mutually assured destruction, reducing the likelihood of direct conflict between the superpowers. 

By the late 1950s, Project Sundial faced insurmountable challenges that ultimately led to its termination.

Technologically, the size and weight of the bomb made its deployment impractical.

Developing specialized infrastructure for this purpose would have required enormous financial resources, which was a burden many policymakers deemed unjustifiable.

Meanwhile, advancements in smaller, more efficient nuclear weapons rendered Sundial’s massive yield less strategically advantageous, as these newer designs were more adaptable to evolving military doctrines. 

Politically, growing opposition within both the scientific community and governmental circles further hindered the project’s progress.

Scientists, including many who had participated in the Manhattan Project, expressed strong objections to the development of weapons with such unprecedented destructive potential.

These critics highlighted the risks of environmental devastation and long-term global consequences, which were seen as disproportionate to any potential military benefit.

Their concerns gained traction during the 1950s as public awareness of nuclear fallout and its health effects increased. Internationally, mounting pressure for arms control agreements, such as the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, showed a broader desire to curtail the escalation of nuclear weapons development. 

As the nuclear arms race matured, both the United States and the Soviet Union focused on expanding their arsenals of deliverable, mid-range weapons, such as ICBMs and SLBMs.

These systems provided a more flexible and credible deterrent compared to a single, oversized device.

This led military planners to prioritize projects that aligned more closely with existing doctrines of mutually assured destruction.

Despite its cancellation, Project Sundial left a significant impact on nuclear policy and technological development.