New nukes

[Major Gripe 0]

It's all hypothetical bullshit this really, as the article explains the mini nuke programme is only being established to keep the physicists and engineers busy, lest they go and work on something useful god forbid, like cold fusion.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Question, arn't there already smaller tactical nuclear warheads(I beg to differ the word of "tactical") already instead of the large country killers?

[Major Gripe 0]

Yup tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) makeup the majority of the US arsenal but are only regulated by an informal agreement. Designed first off I believe to knock out 'small' (LOL!!) targets such as a Soviet armoured division as it steamrolled across Germany.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Designed first off I believe to knock out 'small' (LOL!!) targets such as a Soviet armoured division as it steamrolled across Germany.

"Small". Jesus, I would hate to run into what the US would call a "big" target.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

"Small". Jesus, I would hate to run into what the US would call a "big" target.  

[Major Gripe 0]

@ Aug. 06 2003,01:57)]

"Small". Jesus, I would hate to run into what the US would call a "big" target.  

not a fan then tex!?!!

As for big targets;

A message for Dubya, take out that tache!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

yeah, just don't tell the PTA moms I said that

[Milkman 1]

Usually, I don't see a problem with military spending, but I must say, I see no use in having compact low-yield nukes.

Question:

What is worse? having (a) a bigass bomb with nuclear power, but not a fission device or (b) having a small fission bomb capable of the same force as that of the High-explosive bigass bomb?

[killagee 0]

Didnt the US already sell "Ostritch Egg" man-portable Nukes to Israel in the late 80's? And they already use Nuclear tipped Torpedo's...

Although I already have no respect for America's Military Industrial Complex, this will put it over (under?) the edge of sanity.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Im too tired to find t...edit

Anyway they are only considering this at the moment. My prediction is that the program will not be begun during the Bush administration (if at all). Admittedly this is partially based on a hope. Even if they do build this thing i cant see it being used (for all the reasons discussed here). They may end up brandishing the weapon whilst being too afraid to actually use it (except in extreme circumstances obviously- this is the Bush administration after all). A weapon to have but hopefully not to use yet without the deterrant effect of a serious nuke.

Seems a little superfluous. Unless they are serious about nuking any and all -e.g. terrorist strongholds- and other modern 21st century threats (rogue states, Osama Bin Laden, the middle east, Northern Ireland, Old Europe etc)

Like i said, im sure it wont happen (probably, i hope)    

[Major Fubar 0]

What about neutron bombs - how far along in research/development are they? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the French secret service had access to "briefcase bombs" that could wipe out the population of a city block without harming the buildings...

Actually, I found answers to most of my questions on this page, if it's info is accurate...

[FSPilot 0]

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....

Contaminate?  Yes.  To a dangerous level though?

There's radiation in a lot of places Ralph.  An average can of beer is more radioactive than cooling water from nuclear power plants.

[ran 0]

What about neutron bombs - how far along in research/development are they? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the French secret service had access to "briefcase bombs" that could wipe out the population of a city block without harming the buildings...

Actually, I found answers to most of my questions on this page, if it's info is accurate...

sssssssshhhhhhhhhhh

j/k

but afaik , a few of these equipments did survive to the coldwar

nobody knows who is operating or would be operating them , they've dissappeared from the official arsenal listings , but they are hidden somewhere in a safe place

[ran 0]

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....

Contaminate?  Yes.  To a dangerous level though?

There's radiation in a lot of places Ralph.  An average can of beer is more radioactive than cooling water from nuclear power plants.

a beer can isn't a 1kt nuclear explosion or explosive device

[Necromancer- 0]

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....

Contaminate?  Yes.  To a dangerous level though?

There's radiation in a lot of places Ralph.  An average can of beer is more radioactive than cooling water from nuclear power plants.

a beer can isn't a 1kt nuclear explosion or explosive device

Not if you drink 30 cans of beer and create one hella burp.

on topic:

Even if that beer is more radio-active than cooling water from nuclear power plants its still not above the level every living thing gets from the background universe radiation.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]An average can of beer is more radioactive than cooling water from nuclear power plants.

Who dirnks cannhed beer doesn´t deserve better.

Oh and FS have a nice swim. Will give you a nice tan.

For sure the radiation of cooling water in nuclear powerplants isn´t that big. Why ? Cause it doesn´t get in contact with nuclear material...

Go to your local nuclear power plant and ask them why they make such a fuzz about leaks and radiation in general.

[Kuja- 0]

I personally don't really have a problem with the use of low-yield nuclear weapons designed for penetration.  I think that that nuclear weapons have come to be regarded with an irrational fear.  Such a precedent, however, would be a nasty thing.

There's a sci.military.moderated thread on this topic, and they came to the conclusion that low-yield nukes designed to destroy buried bunkers would be of little use.  If they were intended to destroy 4C capabilities before an enemy launched a counter-attack, it would most likely fail because low-yield nukes wouldn't have a sufficient blast radius underground to completely disrupt communications out of a typical underground bunker.  They also came to the conclusion that the zone in which temperatures were hot enough to ensure complete destruction of biological weapons was insufficient.

Neutron bombs were not designed to be used against civilian targets.  Tanks provide significant radiation shielding and protection from overpressures for the crew.  Neutron bombs were designed to overcome this, by purposefully allowing huge numbers of high energy neutrons to escape during fission with the aim of giving tank crews a dose of at least 8000rads, which the US army considered 'lethally and permanently incapacitating' or along those lines.  The idea that neutron bombs can be used to clear out cities is incorrect.  

While this may not be 100% accurate, the gist is correct:  neutron weapons are all very low yield weapons, designed to fit in an artillery shell, and the neutrons produced + secondary radiation produced does not penetrate very far in air.  The lethal range for a typical neutron bomb is something in the area of 800-1000m, well within the destructive zone of such a weapon, and so anything within the lethal-radiation-dose zone is going to be levelled anyway.

[FSPilot 0]

a beer can isn't a 1kt nuclear explosion or explosive device

I know I was just using it as an illustration. Lots of radiation is bad, but a little bit wont hurt you. There's a little bit of radiation everywhere (even in beer).

[ran 0]

a beer can isn't a 1kt nuclear explosion or explosive device

I know I was just using it as an illustration.  Lots of radiation is bad, but a little bit wont hurt you.  There's a little bit of radiation everywhere (even in beer).

you're right , but a 1kt nuke won't make "a little bit of radiations"

[FSPilot 0]

Unless it's completely contained. Denoir's information is getting confusing. A 5kt detonation is contained under 650 feet of earth but a .1kt detonation needs 230 feet? Or maybe we need a lot more information.

[denoir 0]

a beer can isn't a 1kt nuclear explosion or explosive device

I know I was just using it as an illustration.  Lots of radiation is bad, but a little bit wont hurt you.  There's a little bit of radiation everywhere (even in beer).

Chernobyl had a fallout equivalent of a 3-4 kt airburst.

Also the underground detonation does not reduce radiation, it only puts it partially under ground where it is most likely to poison the ground water. And that's not just a problem of radiation. Plutonium is one of the most toxic subsances known to man. Less than a gram of it could kill every living thing in a large lake.

The worst thing is that it is long term damage. Even today Hiroshima has an above average number of leukemia cases per year; people are still dying from a bomb that was dropped 58 years ago. And that's Japan who has had the resources to decontaminate the area properly.

[Milkman 1]

Is 100 mega-tonnes the most powerful nuke ever detonated? I hear the Russians set one off in Siberia and shattered windows in Moscow and set off car alarms as far away as France, is that correct?

Think of what a One giga-tonne nuke could do.

[denoir 0]

Unless it's completely contained.  Denoir's information is getting confusing.  A 5kt detonation is contained under 650 feet of earth but a .1kt detonation needs 230 feet?  Or maybe we need a lot more information.

Why is it confusing? It's just not linear. And that's not strange either because radiation intensity as a function of material thickness is not linear.

[FSPilot 0]

Also the underground detonation does not reduce radiation, it only puts it partially under ground where it is most likely to poison the ground water.

I know it wouldn't reduce the radiation, but it would contain it. And yes there's a risk of contaminating underground lakes, but I'd think that we'd have the common sense to make sure there wasn't an underground lake (being used by humans at least) that would be contaminated by the device.

[ran 0]

Also the underground detonation does not reduce radiation, it only puts it partially under ground where it is most likely to poison the ground water.

I know it wouldn't reduce the radiation, but it would contain it.  And yes there's a risk of contaminating underground lakes, but I'd think that we'd have the common sense to make sure there wasn't an underground lake (being used by humans at least) that would be contaminated by the device.

you forget about infiltration waters