Would'nt blowing up a SCUD set off its missile

[undercoverbrother 10]

G'day everyone,

So I was messing around with SCUD's in the editor (this is not a editting question) and I was having great fun, but has anyone noticed that when you actually destroy the SCUD itself, the missile onboard just dissapears and only the burning wreck of the vehicle is left. My question is, would blowing up a missile launching vehicle like the SCUD, blow up the missile on board?

Cheers,

[AnimalMother92 10]

I would guess so, but I'm no expert.

Here's a nice article about SCUD hunting

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/757436/posts

Seems they were OK with blowing them up.

[undercoverbrother 10]

by the looks of that picture I'm not the only one who has asked this question :D. Hey thanks for the article, I'll make sure I have a read through.

[maturin 12]

All large, complex explosive devices have elaborate fusing and safety features. I'm sure pumping the thing with cannon rounds would be a bad idea, but when I was destroying them in Zargabad I just trashed the vehicle part.

[undercoverbrother 10]

All large, complex explosive devices have elaborate fusing and safety features. I'm sure pumping the thing with cannon rounds would be a bad idea...

Agreed:D

[myshaak 0]

by the looks of that picture I'm not the only one who has asked this question :D.

Or.. you could check who uploaded the picture ;)

But I guess James Gastovski could have asked the question back in the 80' anyway :p

[undercoverbrother 10]

But I guess James Gastovski could have asked the question back in the 80' anyway

lol :D

[max power 21]

It would probably set off the propellant in the missile but not necessarily the warhead, depending on what the payload was.

[noubernou 77]

Scuds are liquid fueled, not a nice thing to shoot rounds at if you want it to stick around for long... :p Anything but a nuke on the tip would also blow up and cause damage... Unless it's a chemical warhead and in a binary configuration (two precursor chemicals stored in separate parts and mixed in flight, safer to handle, etc) but I doubt a country like Takistan would have binary chemical warheads (which I do not think the Soviets/Russians built any binary scuds... so it'd have to be a Takistani domestic warhead).

Over analyzing but ... Yea Scuds go BOOM when you blow them up. :)

[undercoverbrother 10]

Over analyzing but ... Yea Scuds go BOOM when you blow them up.

over analysing? not at all and I reckon your right about the missiles blowing up if you shoot them - infact I'm sure after reading that article in the link by AnimalMother92. By the way I suggest anyone who hasn't already, read that article... they sniped SCUD's with 50cal's and disabled them:eek:

[Evil_Echo 11]

Max Power and NouberNou basically have it correct. You would ignite/explode the propellant, causing some damage to the local area. What would happen to the warhead...

• HE - burn/detonate.
  
• Nerve agent - mostly burn. Any traces of leftover RFNA oxidizer would destroy nerve agent or precursors.
  
• Biological - same as chemical.
  
• Nuclear. Fail-safe mechanisms should prevent a nuclear detonation, the HE on-board could explode and scatter components, leading to some local contamination.
  

I would keep some distance from the scud, mostly to avoid hazards from the propellant and whatever traces of warhead components remain. Any long-term hazard would be localized and fairly minor.

[noubernou 77]

Max Power and NouberNou basically have it correct. You would ignite/explode the propellant, causing some damage to the local area. What would happen to the warhead...

• HE - burn/detonate.
  
• Nerve agent - mostly burn. Any traces of leftover RFNA oxidizer would destroy nerve agent or precursors.
  
• Biological - same as chemical.
  
• Nuclear. Fail-safe mechanisms should prevent a nuclear detonation, the HE on-board could explode and scatter components, leading to some local contamination.
  

I would keep some distance from the scud, mostly to avoid hazards from the propellant and whatever traces of warhead components remain. Any long-term hazard would be localized and fairly minor.

If the warhead had VX or one of the other persistent agents it might not burn off totally (the one thing The Rock got right about VX) since it needs very high temps to totally neutralize its toxicity. Course VX is not a gas (like most CW) and is more a viscous oil like substance so it'd just be thrown all over and probably not aerosolized properly at all.

Burning off VX at low temp was/is one of the suspected causes for "Gulf War Syndrome" since the agent doesn't lose all of its potency easily, causing nuerological damage.

Now that I think about it, I'd be worried about at least a fizzle on a 3rd world nuclear warhead... minimal yield, probably in the 1-3 ton range. I doubt most of them design their warheads with all the safety features that the US and Soviets built into theirs, but I am pretty sure you could get a tiny bit of fission products before it blows itself apart. Wouldn't wanna be down wind of that smoke cloud though! :eek:

[biggerdave 56]

It's a case of damage control for explosive warheads. Why risk it hitting a school when it can explode at an enemy launch site. Most biological and chemical warheads will usually be neutralized by the fuel explosion.

Contrary to popular belief, almost all nuclear devices require advanced trigger mechanisms, and present absolutely no danger unless "the big red button is pressed". The actual amount of fission material in such a device is very small, and usually chemically safe (below critical mass, weapons grade fission materials only danger is their radioactive properties, which only become an issue if ingested).

The only real danger is are some chemical warheads. Most people who have the chemical weapons will take sufficient measures (ie, isolated launch zones, special triggering mechanisms for the warhead) to avoid risks in the event of a mislaunch.

"Dirty Bombs" would unlikely be used by those with access to anything on the level of a SCUD launcher. But would probably have the largest risk associated with destroying the weapon pre-launch.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

A modern design is based on the impossibility of reaching critical mass by accident. Instead it involves complex methods to reduce the critical mass, and those methods can't be achieved by accident. Even an old style gun design with enough material to reach critical mass, is highly subjective to fizzle.

So it feels ok to conclude that the warhead, almost whatever it may be, is not to be too worried about, provided the explosion can neutralize most of it, although a fizzle may cause a significant amount of contamination locally.

But, will a rocket explode? If I read it correctly, a SCUD is kerosene based (basically Jet A1 fuel), with a fairly high ignition temperature. So if you punch a hole in it with a .50, won't it just leak out?

Btw, I'm no expert on the matter. In fact, I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. This is all some educated guesswork and wiki going :)

[noubernou 77]

A modern design is based on the impossibility of reaching critical mass by accident. Instead it involves complex methods to reduce the critical mass, and those methods can't be achieved by accident. Even an old style gun design with enough material to reach critical mass, is highly subjective to fizzle.

So it feels ok to conclude that the warhead, almost whatever it may be, is not to be too worried about, provided the explosion can neutralize most of it, although a fizzle may cause a significant amount of contamination locally.

But, will a rocket explode? If I read it correctly, a SCUD is kerosene based (basically Jet A1 fuel), with a fairly high ignition temperature. So if you punch a hole in it with a .50, won't it just leak out?

Btw, I'm no expert on the matter. In fact, I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. This is all some educated guesswork and wiki going :)

Tracer and anything cannon or larger would probably light off the kerosene.

[Evil_Echo 11]

SCUDs use kerosene/UDMH for fuel and IRFNA for the oxidizer. The combination is hypergolic, meaning they ignite on mixing. In all likelyhood a hole or two is going to result in a fire and shortly after a propellant explosion as the heat ruptures the tanks and the contents mix. The oxidizing properties of IRFNA increase with temperature, increasing both the violence of a fire and reactivity with biochem warhead materials in the area.

As for 3rd-world nukes.... You just don't whittle a plutonium pit with a pocket knife, slap some leftover semtex around it, and then slide the assembly into a nose cose along with a cell-phone you borrowed from Achmed the Dead Terrorist. If you've managed to weaponise a physics package to the point it's small enough, light enough, and sturdy enough to fly on a missile it's likely to have plenty of fail-safe measures in it.

The gist of this is still what I claimed earlier, if you fire on an armed scud it's likely to burn, blow up and that's it. There may be some localized contamination from traces of the warhead components, but not much compared to if the weapon had functioned properly.

[noubernou 77]

As for 3rd-world nukes.... You just don't whittle a plutonium pit with a pocket knife, slap some leftover semtex around it, and then slide the assembly into a nose cose along with a cell-phone you borrowed from Achmed the Dead Terrorist. If you've managed to weaponise a physics package to the point it's small enough, light enough, and sturdy enough to fly on a missile it's likely to have plenty of fail-safe measures in it.

Yea, but safety tests showed that even if you do not get a full detonation you can get a measurable yield (on the order of tons in some cases) before it squishes the fuel out of shape and into something that will never reach further criticality.

I figure a country like Takistan would have been on a crash course to build nuclear weapons (and yet somehow miniaturized them at the same time, which is a paradox... :p) and invested little money or research into safing mechanisms.

Either way though there *could* be the potential for fission products to be released from a improper detonation of the lenses, especially in a more crude design where there would be fewer parts to the lens (again though, cause its been made small enough to ride on a friggin scud [which is actually not that big of a rocket] it'd probably have higher lens count or be very very very low yield for the fissile material used... paradox again), especially on a crude RV that doesnt have the protection from detonation like modern western warheads have (look at that Titan II accident in the 1980's where the warhead on that sucker was tossed like a mile and a half from the silo pretty much intact).

[Tonmeister 14]

A feasible question any Raptor would want to ask.

[Evil_Echo 11]

A feasible question any Raptor would want to ask.

Yes, a misfired HE or nuke warhead would destroy the missile.

...

I figure a country like Takistan would have been on a crash course to build nuclear weapons (and yet somehow miniaturized them at the same time, which is a paradox... :p) and invested little money or research into safing mechanisms.

Either way though there *could* be the potential for fission products to be released from a improper detonation of the lenses, especially in a more crude design where there would be fewer parts to the lens (again though, cause its been made small enough to ride on a friggin scud [which is actually not that big of a rocket] it'd probably have higher lens count or be very very very low yield for the fissile material used... paradox again), ...

All I can say is that this is nonsense. The reasons why are not something to discuss in open forum.

[noubernou 77]

All I can say is that this is nonsense. The reasons why are not something to discuss in open forum.

While the details to modern systems are not something that should be discussed, its public knowledge that safety test during atmospheric and underground testing had tests that resulted in significant yields for a safety system (while some had no yield beyond that of the conventional explosives).

Its easy to apply 1950's US technology to something that a country like Takistan would field and infer the same results/standards.

Taken from Wikipedia, but the stats are published on a number of reputable sites:

Out of 25 one-point safety tests conducted in 1957 and 1958, seven had zero or slight nuclear yield (success), three had high yields of 300 t to 500 t (severe failure), and the rest had unacceptable yields between those extremes.

That is 18 tests that were considered to have had failed one-point safety tests! A one-point safety test for those that do not know are when a they fire the detonator on only one of the lenses and see if there is any fission yield. If there is zero to very little yield then the test passed (the core misshaped and didn't reach criticality).

Granted an oblong shaped core is more apt to produce fission than a traditional spherical core and it is doubtful (though not totally out of the question) that Takistan would have the capability to domestically produce an oblong core, nor the material to adequately test them, but risk can still be had from spherical cores.

Its not that hard to imagine a domestic nuclear warhead from Takistan using a spherical core, with the core itself in a near critical state. Takistani technology would more than likely not have the best technology for timing the lense explosions (the most critical part) and would rely on a much less safe, denser hollow pit that would be easier to reach a sustained critical mass.

Also the fact that they would use less lenses than a modern spherical design means that the surface area from a single lens detonation would likely move more of the pit material into a critical configuration before being moved out of a critical state.

Course none of this is anything you can confirm or deny... So its a rather pointless argument to have with someone in your position... :p I just think you are giving the Takistani's a bit too much credit on their warhead design abilities.

[biggerdave 56]

I always had this funny idea that 3rd world nukes would be built around those monkey with cymbals toys, except half the critical mass in each hand, rather than the cymbals... they'd just send them towards an enemy position and hope they only explode at the right time...

[Evil_Echo 11]

...

Course none of this is anything you can confirm or deny... So its a rather pointless argument to have with someone in your position... :p

Cannot discuss certain things in public nor anything starting to come too close to those things. Just have to take what I have said as good enough without asking why. Sorry.

I just think you are giving the Takistani's a bit too much credit on their warhead design abilities.

I never assumed those warheads were local designs. More likely bought or stolen from a more advanced country because of the difficulties previously mentioned.

[biggerdave 56]

I never assumed those warheads were local designs. More likely bought or stolen from a more advanced country because of the difficulties previously mentioned.

The Takistani nuclear effort was local, however aid, in form of both materials and knowledge was provided by ███ ███████ ████████ ██ █████, despite this, the first test (performed on ██/██/1999) resulted in an explosion of approximately ██kT, significantly higher than the expected yield of █.█kT, which managed to breach the surface of the underground test site, subjecting the area to what is, effectively a miniature version of the Chernobyl disaster (with radioactive dust being replaced with the dirt expelled from the explosion). At which point the entire area was abandoned until the arrival of UN inspectors and ION.inc personnel in ██/██/201█.

(Though the material in question is believed to originate from ███ ██████ █████)

(Facts complied from the PMC campaign and teasers, suitably censored to avoid major spoilers, cover up the fact I couldn't be arsed looking some things up and to look really legitimate and stuff!)