New nukes

[denoir 0]

I could understand NBC weapons, but mass destruction?  That's like saying a DU shell is a WMD because it's slightly radioactive.

DU's are neither fission nor fusion weapons. I think that is required for it to be a WMD.

If you check FAS WMD section, you'll see a link called "Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons". So at least they seem to be considering it as WMD.

[FSPilot 0]

I don't think there would be much danger of fallout. The nukes would be detonated underground so any fallout would be pretty easilly contained. Unless the building collapsed, then it would be a "maybe" situation.

The reason there's nuclear fallout in regular nuclear bombs is because of the giant tower radioactive mushroom cloud that spreads out for miles and miles after it's detonated. These bombs won't generate a giant mushroom cloud.

[ran 0]

Tovarish

Quote[/b] ]

These aren't "weapons of mass destruction".  They're extremely small yield nuclear weapons designed to fry chemical/biological/nuclear weapons stored in underground bunkers.

LOL I'd love to see if the same would be said if Iraq wound up with some of those Russian suitcase nukes that reportedly went missing during the breakup of the USSR  

Those are much larger yield weapons designed... well designed for mass destruction.  These are very small yield designed to destroy a single building.

1kt , that will have to be a damned big building

[Tovarish 0]

I looked this up, both the Russian devices and the ones the US are planning have a yield of roughly one kiloton. Funny though, how the US estimates that the Russian device is much more destructive

About the US device:

Quote[/b] ]In the jargon preferred by those in this business, they are called "small build" weapons - weapons of about one kiloton, 1,000 tonnes of explosive.

According to the leaked agenda, the "Future Arsenal" panel will examine "requirements for low-yield weapons, EPW's, enhanced radiation weapons, [and] agent defeat weapons."

A new form of warfare is coming - the extension into the nuclear field of the highly accurate conventional bombs and missiles already in use

Decoded, this means nuclear devices with that produce small amounts of radiation, earth-penetrating weapons to attack underground bunkers, larger devices with greater radiation effects and weapons to destroy chemical and biological agents.

And about the Russian one:

Quote[/b] ]In 1997, the public became aware of a Russian nuclear device they had not known even existed--the so-called suitcase bomb. These devices were made for the Soviet KGB. One of these bombs had an explosive charge of one kiloton, equivalent to one thousand tons of TNT. If a device like this made its way to the U.S. it could destroy everything within a half-mile radius of the Capitol in Washington, D.C. Within hours, prevailing winds would carry the nuclear fallout throughout Washington.

wow, one sounds much less malignant than the other....and yet they have the same yield?

[denoir 0]

I don't think there would be much danger of fallout.  The nukes would be detonated underground so any fallout would be pretty easilly contained.  Unless the building collapsed, then it would be a "maybe" situation.

The reason there's nuclear fallout in regular nuclear bombs is because of the giant tower radioactive mushroom cloud that spreads out for miles and miles after it's detonated.  These bombs won't generate a giant mushroom cloud.

You might find this article interesting: Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons

Quote[/b] ]

Just how deep must an underground nuclear explosion be buried in order for the blast and fallout to be contained?

The US conducted a series of underground nuclear explosions in the 1960s — the Plowshare tests — to investigate the possible use of nuclear explosives for excavation purposes. Those performed prior to the 1963 Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, such as the Sedan test shown in Figure 4, were buried at relatively shallow depths to maximize the size of the crater produced.

In addition to the immediate effects of blast, air shock, and thermal radiation, shallow nuclear explosions produce especially intense local radioactive fallout. The fireball breaks through the surface of the earth, carrying into the air large amounts of dirt and debris. This material has been exposed to the intense neutron flux from the nuclear detonation, which adds to the radioactivity from the fission products.

The cloud typically consists of a narrow column and a broad base surge of air filled with radioactive dust which expands to a radius of over a mile for a 5 kiloton explosion.1 In the Plowshare tests, roughly 50 percent of the total radioactivity produced in the explosion was distributed as local fallout — the other half being confined to the highly-radioactive crater.

In order to be fully contained, nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site must be buried at a depth of 650 feet for a 5 kiloton explosive — 1300 feet for a 100-kiloton explosive.2 Even then, there are many documented cases where carefully sealed shafts ruptured and released radioactivity to the local environment.

So the fallout is not at all very contained.  

[FSPilot 0]

wow, one sounds much less malignant than the other....and yet they have the same yield?  

One would be detonated underground and have little fallout, the other would be detonated on the surface and possible at a small altitude.

Anyway, accordign to denoir's link the fallout would be contained from a 1kt nuke at 130 feet. How deep are their bunkers?

[waffendennis 0]

Huh i am getting sick of this wanna now whats up with this?

If the older people cant handle it with talking ( like that phsyco "George W Bush" ) then they just start insulting people for things that they havent done or they havent any thing and from the first comes the next so.... If Bush cant's handle it now he just trows a nuke and hope they just shut up and he can write another victory!

People open your Eyes and see what that man is doing... If he continues with this mad things he just destroys the world with his War games so please...." This is just my little voice who saying this on a world of more then 6 billion people where we all killing eachoter only because he/she is insulting you for some thing.... Come one people if we continue like this and the worst will happen so just stop the war and destroy those Nukes and help those country's that need it! like africa or some thing!

But who am i   im just a small dude on this earth and no 1 is listening to me.

[ran 0]

wow, one sounds much less malignant than the other....and yet they have the same yield?  

One would be detonated underground and have little fallout, the other would be detonated on the surface and possible at a small altitude.

Anyway, accordign to denoir's link the fallout would be contained from a 1kt nuke at 130 feet.  How deep are their bunkers?

hmm , tht would make 40 meters deep bunkers ..... a bit deep in most of the cases i'd say , and not enough for several installations such as missile silos or Cheyenne mountain-like installs for exemple

[ran 0]

and add to that you can't use these devices on every soils , because there can be a quite important risk of polluting freatic water reserves due to the infiltration of radioactive elements in porous soils

and if the soil is not hard enough , the explosion could blow radioactive dusts in all the directions

i doubt 40 meters deep is enough to contain a 1kt explosion

1kt is the equivalent of the explosion of 1000 base dynamite sticks

and knowing we use a 3 basic sticks conbinations to blow a 10m3 rock wall .....

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Mini Nuke?

Is that a new GTI version from the old Rover car.

Mini Cooper Nuke SPORT 2.4 GTI DI

[denoir 0]

Anyway, accordign to denoir's link the fallout would be contained from a 1kt nuke at 130 feet.  How deep are their bunkers?

Quote[/b] ]In order to be fully contained, nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site must be buried at a depth of 650 feet for a 5 kiloton explosive — 1300 feet for a 100-kiloton explosive.2 Even then, there are many documented cases where carefully sealed shafts ruptured and released radioactivity to the local environment.

Therefore, even if an earth penetrating missile were somehow able to drill hundreds of feet into the ground and then detonate, the explosion would likely shower the surrounding region with highly radioactive dust and gas.

"Even a 0.1 KT burst must be buried at a depth of approximately 230 feet to be fully contained."

[ran 0]

denoir , what's the type of soil represented in your diagram ? because if it's a hard rocky soil (which i doubt could be penetrated that easily) , the results might not be the same

but i'm basing my assumptions on classical explosives

[Tamme 0]

I looked this up,  both the Russian devices and the ones the US are planning have a yield of roughly one kiloton. Funny though, how the US estimates that the Russian device is much more destructive

About the US device:

Quote[/b] ]In the jargon preferred by those in this business, they are called "small build" weapons - weapons of about one kiloton, 1,000 tonnes of explosive.

According to the leaked agenda, the "Future Arsenal" panel will examine "requirements for low-yield weapons, EPW's, enhanced radiation weapons, [and] agent defeat weapons."

 A new form of warfare is coming - the extension into the nuclear field of the highly accurate conventional bombs and missiles already in use

Decoded, this means nuclear devices with that produce small amounts of radiation, earth-penetrating weapons to attack underground bunkers, larger devices with greater radiation effects and weapons to destroy chemical and biological agents.

And about the Russian one:

Quote[/b] ]In 1997, the public became aware of a Russian nuclear device they had not known even existed--the so-called suitcase bomb. These devices were made for the Soviet KGB. One of these bombs had an explosive charge of one kiloton, equivalent to one thousand tons of TNT. If a device like this made its way to the U.S. it could destroy everything within a half-mile radius of the Capitol in Washington, D.C. Within hours, prevailing winds would carry the nuclear fallout throughout Washington.

 

wow, one sounds much less malignant than the other....and yet they have the same yield?  

Wow, I thought that it's a commonly known fact that everything that's russian is much worse than american. Guess I was wrong, that russian bomb is much more dangerous.

EDIT: j/k mmkay?

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]denoir , what's the type of soil represented in your diagram ? because if it's a hard rocky soil (which i doubt could be penetrated that easily) , the results might not be the same

but i'm basing my assumptions on classical explosives

They had a note about it in the article.

Quote[/b] ]The fundamental parameter R is the ratio of the projectile ram pressure to the yield strength of the material.3 The target material yields, and penetration occurs, when R is greater than one. For a steel rod to penetrate concrete, the minimum velocities for penetration is about one half a kilometer per second (1100 miles per hour). For ductile materials, the kinetic energy lost from the penetrator can deform the target and dig out a penetration crater.

Fundamentally, however, the depth of penetration is limited by the yield strength of the penetrator — in this case, the missile casing. Even for the strongest materials, impact velocities greater than a few kilometers per second will substantially deform and even melt the impactor.

An earth-penetrating nuclear weapon must protect the warhead and its associated electronics while it burrows into the ground. This severely limits the missile to impact velocities of less than about three kilometers per second for missile cases made from the very hardest steels. From the theory of "long-rod penetration," in this limit the maximum possible depth D of penetration is proportional to the length and density of the penetrator and inversely proportional to the density of the target. The maximum depth of penetration depends only weakly on the yield strength of the penetrator.4 For typical values for steel and concrete, we expect an upper bound to the penetration depth to be roughly 10 times the missile length, or about 100 feet for a 10 foot missile. In actual practice the impact velocity and penetration depth must be well below this to ensure the missile and its contents are not severely damaged.

Given these constraints, it is simply not possible for a kinetic energy weapon to penetrate deeply enough into the earth to contain a nuclear explosion.

Basically they're saying it's not possible to contain it when it hits hard materials as concrete.

[ran 0]

hmm ....

the more i read about it , the less i understand why it's being made .... i don't see any real use for these bombs , except if they want to attack Swiss ..... hehehe

[Tamme 0]

hmm ....

the more i read about it , the less i understand why it's being made .... i don't see any real use for these bombs , except if they want to attack Swiss ..... hehehe

hehehehehehehhe....uh.... no I don' get it...

[ran 0]

swiss is not only the land of chocolate , cow milk and cheese , it's also one of the most advanced defence networks worldwide

the whole country can be considered as a fortress , the Alps have been changed into huge bunkers and pillbox there

[Harnu 0]

What if they are used in co-ordination to get deeper. IE, drop a bunker buster or something of the kind to dig in the ground and blow up. Then drop the mini-nuke and it will get deeper?

It may require several bombs to get it all the way down, but would it work?

[FSPilot 0]

It would work but it would ruin the efficiency of the program.

Frankly I don't understand why we need a "mini-nuke". We've got 2000lb bunker-busting bombs. Why do we need a smaller one? All this is going to do is make us look even worse

[bn880 5]

I looked this up, both the Russian devices and the ones the US are planning have a yield of roughly one kiloton. Funny though, how the US estimates that the Russian device is much more destructive

About the US device:

Quote[/b] ]In the jargon preferred by those in this business, they are called "small build" weapons - weapons of about one kiloton, 1,000 tonnes of explosive.

According to the leaked agenda, the "Future Arsenal" panel will examine "requirements for low-yield weapons, EPW's, enhanced radiation weapons, [and] agent defeat weapons."

A new form of warfare is coming - the extension into the nuclear field of the highly accurate conventional bombs and missiles already in use

Decoded, this means nuclear devices with that produce small amounts of radiation, earth-penetrating weapons to attack underground bunkers, larger devices with greater radiation effects and weapons to destroy chemical and biological agents.

And about the Russian one:

Quote[/b] ]In 1997, the public became aware of a Russian nuclear device they had not known even existed--the so-called suitcase bomb. These devices were made for the Soviet KGB. One of these bombs had an explosive charge of one kiloton, equivalent to one thousand tons of TNT. If a device like this made its way to the U.S. it could destroy everything within a half-mile radius of the Capitol in Washington, D.C. Within hours, prevailing winds would carry the nuclear fallout throughout Washington.

wow, one sounds much less malignant than the other....and yet they have the same yield?

Yeah well because Russian nuclear blasts are not the same as American ones.

It is obvious, TBA has no concern with what all our predecessors have experienced and passed on from generation to generation. No regard whatsoever, lets just try everyhting from the beginning and see if we can do some damage.

[Necromancer- 0]

swiss is not only the land of chocolate , cow milk and cheese , it's also one of the most advanced defence networks worldwide

the whole country can be considered as a fortress , the Alps have been changed into huge bunkers and pillbox there

Yep...

i've seen bunkers integrated in a mountain... and fixed 200MM Defguns on pics somewhere...

why would someone attack Switzerland anyway??

the chocolate?

[ran 0]

why would someone attack Switzerland anyway??

the chocolate?

you got it

[ralphwiggum 6]

why would someone attack Switzerland anyway??

the chocolate?

you got it

one word: pondue

anyways, to get back on topic, even small amount of nuclear material within soil can contaminate area around it. not to mention years of radiation persisting there....

[Shashman 0]

why would someone attack Switzerland anyway??

the chocolate?

you got it

one word: pondue

anyways, to get back on topic, even small amount of nuclear material within soil can contaminate area around it. not to mention years of radiation persisting there....

Eh?

You must mean "fondue"

The Swiss Air Force have huge caverns where the aircraft (like the F/A-18) are hung from the ceiling

[Acecombat 0]

Didnt these guys ever heard of the phrase "Practise what you preach?"  

No, it's the other principle actually:

"Do what I tell you, not what I do!"

Ah i must be falling back in time then

So this is the new phrase then good maybe OFP 2 should have it in their "YOU ARE DEAD" screen