New nukes

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Contamination of the environment by nuclear fallout, however small, is no issue to be sniffed at. Even the slightest contamination of the natural environment can lead to catastrophic and/or unforseen circumstances further up the food chain.

Anyway, heres a bit of interest: Hot pockets

[Tydium 0]

Quote[/b] ]

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?

I found some info about that bomb. According to it a scaled down 50 Megatons version of the bomb was detonated.

[denoir 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.

It's not a question of underground lakes but of what ran called "infiltration waters" and I called "ground water". Below the ground there are water currents that among other things connect the above-ground bodies of water. They go basically everywhere. Contaminating the ground water also results in all wells in the area to be contaminated.

This is very serious and that's why nuclear testing of underground detonation has been banned.

[ran 0]

but of what ran called "infiltration waters" and I called "ground water".

used the french term , sry ;)

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's not a question of underground lakes but of what ran called "infiltration waters" and I called "ground water". Below the ground there are water currents that among other things connect the above-ground bodies of water. They go basically everywhere. Contaminating the ground water also results in all wells in the area to be contaminated.

I'm sure they'd take the proper care to not contaminate these underground waters. Then again the whole operation of getting rid of WMDs is risky. It'd be safer to do it with a team of scientists than with a large explosion.

Quote[/b] ]This is very serious and that's why nuclear testing of underground detonation has been banned.

Banned by who?

[CosmicCastaway 0]

I'm sure they'd take the proper care to not contaminate these underground waters.  Then again the whole operation of getting rid of WMDs is risky.  It'd be safer to do it with a team of scientists than with a large explosion.

Quote[/b] ]This is very serious and that's why nuclear testing of underground detonation has been banned.

Banned by who?

Thats the problem though, you can't adequately guard against contamination. Look at all the problems you get from landfill sites filled with domestic rubbish, when they are not sealed properly. To adequately guard against contamination of ground water, would be like saying you were going to adequately shield all of North America from rainfall. You just can't do it.

The far reaching effects of potential contamination, surely far outweigh the benefits of developing one more WMD.

[ran 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is very serious and that's why nuclear testing of underground detonation has been banned.

Banned by who?

http://www.clw.org/control/ctbchron.html

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]July 3, 1974. The Threshold Test Ban Treaty is signed, prohibiting underground nuclear weapons tests with yields greater than 150 kilotons.

If it's under 150 kilotons it's not banned by the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, wihch is the only treaty relevant to underground testing. There are, however, lots of treatys against any nuclear tests.

[denoir 0]

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996) bans all nuclear testing including the underground. USA has signed it.

Besides the threshoald treaty there is one later ratified in 1976: full text

Quote[/b] ]2. Each Party undertakes to prohibit, to prevent and not to carry out at any place under its jurisdiction or control, and further undertakes not to carry out, participate or assist in carrying out anywhere:  

(a) any individual explosion having a yield exceeding 150 kilotons;  

(b) any group explosion:  

(1) having an aggregate yield exceeding 150 kilotons except in ways that will permit identification of each individual explosion and determination of the yield of each individual explosion in the group in accordance with the provisions of Article IV of and the Protocol to this Treaty;  

(2) having an aggregate yield exceeding one and one- half megatons;  

© any explosion which does not carry out a peaceful application;  

Soviet and USA agreed on test ban treaties because they didn't expect anybody would be crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on an operational level. So the situation will be that USA will be prohibited from testing the weapons, but not prohibited to use them.

I don't think this will come through though. They will sooner or later realize that nuclear weapons, regardless of yield are not operational, but strategic weapons with a strong political meaning.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]

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?

I found some info about that bomb. According to it a scaled down 50 Megatons version of the bomb was detonated.

I think the Russians lit off a 140MT weapon once.

Whoops! Just read the article. Somewhere I did read about a 140MT yield weapon once. Hope it wasn't a classified fact from the Navy!

[FSPilot 0]

So if we signed a tready 9 years ago banning nuclear testing why are we developing new nuclear weapons? We can't use them.

[denoir 0]

So if we signed a tready 9 years ago banning nuclear testing why are we developing new nuclear weapons?  We can't use them.

You can't test them but you can use them. A bit absurd ain't it?

Schoeler:

Quote[/b] ]Whoops! Just read the article. Somewhere I did read about a 140MT yield weapon once. Hope it wasn't a classified fact from the Navy!

Not likely. The detonation of the huge bombs was more a psychological matter than a military relevance. They wanted to show the world who has the biggest baddest bomb. It would go against their very objective to classify them.

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can't test them but you can use them. A bit absurd ain't it?

I doubt we'd use them if we hadn't tested them though.

Quote[/b] ]Not likely. The detonation of the huge bombs was more a psychological matter than a military relevance. They wanted to show the world who has the biggest baddest bomb. It would go against their very objective to classify them.

Then again you could probably say that about the entire arms race.

[Shashman 0]

India performed undergorund nuclear test explosions, and they got their arse embargoed although following their support in The War Against Terrorism these were lifted...

[USSoldier11B 0]

Somehow ths just doesn't strike me as starling news. We have had low yield tactical nukes on stand off type weapons platforms for quite a while.

15 kt (not really as small as what you are talking about) 280 mm nuclear artillery munition fired at the Nevada Test Site at a range of 10,000 meters in 1953. Only time this was ever tryed in the U.S. (AFIAK)

[denoir 0]

We have had low yield tactical nukes on stand off type weapons platforms for quite a while.

Yeah, but the difference is that thease new ones are supposed to be regularly used on tactical/operational level.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I don't get it- why not just use high-yield conventional explosives? It's better for international karma and it gives Fox news an excuse to say MOAB 300 times an hour.

[denoir 0]

According to FAS articles, the main proponents for the low-yield nukes have beeen various nuclear weapon laboratories in USA (doh! who would have thought that? )

As far as for why TBA is so fond of the idea - well, they seem to be very determined to piss off the world as much as they can. I suppose this is just another way of achieving that objective.