Specific impulse is usually defined as $I_{sp} = \frac{F_T}{\dot m ~ g_0} $
That's true only if you use standard metric units. With force expressed in pounds-force and mass flow rate expressed in pounds, one simply divides the force (in pounds-force) by the mass flow rate (in pounds/second) and voila! you have specific impulse in lbf·s/lb. For example, the first stage of the Saturn V produced 7,715,150 pounds-force of thrust at launch while consuming fuel at a rate of 29,157.58 pounds/second. Divide 7,715,150 by 29,157.58 and you get 264.6, the specific impulse at launch. Properly, this value of 264.6 is in units of lbf·s/lb. If you do the math, it is also numerically equal to the specific impulse in seconds.
Alternatively, one could convert that force to newtons and the mass to kilograms, yielding 34.3817 meganewtons of thrust and 13.22565 metric tons per second of fuel consumption. Now the division yields 2594.9 m/s. Divide by g0=9.80665 m/s2 and you get 264.6 seconds.
A second alternative is to convert that force in pounds-force to kilogram-force. This conversion yields a force of 3,499,530 kilograms-force. Now we're back to using the trick of simply dividing the force (in kg-f) by the mass flow rate (in kg/s): 3499530/13225.65 = 264.6.
Germany was the leading European developer of rocketry up until 1945. They used kilogram-force to express thrust rather than newtons. The Americans and Russians took over after that point. The Americans stuck to using customary units, pounds-force and pounds-mass. The Russians followed the German tradition of expressing thrust in kilograms-force. In both cases, simply dividing force by mass yields specific impulse in seconds.
In fact, despite being a banned unit, most European aerospace engineers tended to express thrust in kilograms-force rather than newtons up until the 1980s, and some still do. It is a very convenient unit for spacecraft and aircraft that operate near the Earth.
Best Answer
The answer is, it couldn't and was never even utilised in that way.
This nuclear powered bomber concept, first thought of in the 1950's, had two major problems to contend with, neither of which were solved. The first was how to harness the nuclear power, either directly as a propulsion unit or indirectly using a heat exchanger and the second was how to protect the crew, either by directly shielding the reactor, which made the aircraft unstable to fly, due to concentration of weight, or by distributed shielding, which was not as efficient but spread the weight around the aircraft in a more balanced fashion.
The B36 shielding test aircraft, accompanied by an aircraft with a cleanup crew in case the B36 crashed.
On September 5, 1951, Convair was formally granted a contract to construct, or rather convert, one of their B-36 aircraft to enable it to carry out the testing of the reactor and the shielding associated with it.
To illustrate how stupidly ridiculous this idea was, every test flight of the B 36 had to have a troop carrying aircraft flying behind it, in case the B 36 crashed. The soldiers could then attempt to clean up the nuclear waste.
Two methods of nuclear propulsion were proposed. The first was the indirect cycle, which was designed to heat up incoming cold air by the use of hot air from the reactor, and the second was the direct cycle engine, which simply used atmospheric air as a working fluid and ignored the environmental effects of exhausting nuclear waste straight out of the engine tailpipe.
One early design of indirect nuclear propulsion power plant.
A illustration of a direct nuclear propulsion power plant .
Image Sources and excerpts from Nuclear Powered Aircraft
In reality, because this was part of the cold war, I would tend to disbelieve claims such as any power outputs quoted.
The Soviet program of nuclear aircraft development resulted in the experimental Tupolev Tu-119, or the Tu-95LAL (Flying Nuclear Laboratory) which derived from the Tupolev Tu-95 bomber. It had 4 conventional turboprop engines and an onboard nuclear reactor.
It actually turns out that the Soviets were prepared to risk pilots who volunteered to endure the inevitable radiation hazards. The Soviets used little or no shielding to save weight during 40 test flights, and used direct cycle nuclear reactors. Most of the aircrew died through radiation induced illness.
The obvious potential of the ICBM made the expensive program superfluous, allied with the fact that these slow bombers were easy targets for surface to air missiles and around the mid-1960s, both countries cancelled their projects.
You can watch an hour long video of the story at Nuclear Powered Bombers