Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

bobbymike

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
21 April 2009
Messages
14,356
Reaction score
9,446
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/rs-28-sarmat-future-us-nuclear-triad/
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/rs-28-sarmat-future-us-nuclear-triad/
Click to expand...

I disagree with the conclusion that should the US drop the land based ICBM in favor of dispersed B-21s there are no targets left to hit in the US. ICBMs are weapons of mass destruction.... What the US should do is bring back the Midgetman, immediately.
 
Airplane said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/rs-28-sarmat-future-us-nuclear-triad/
Click to expand...

I disagree with the conclusion that should the US drop the land based ICBM in favor of dispersed B-21s there are no targets left to hit in the US. ICBMs are weapons of mass destruction.... What the US should do is bring back the Midgetman, immediately.
Click to expand...

Yeah, dropping the land-based ICBM is about as dumb of an idea as there is.
 
Justo Miranda said:
I hope that this is only a political stance, the Polish leaders are too influenced by their unfortunate historical past to be reliable in a crisis such as the Cuban missile crisis.
Click to expand...
Fidel castro was even less stable and Khrushchev didn't find that out until it was far too late.
 
publiusr said:
Probably all they could afford.

Speaking of tests---in the 50's and 60's, nukes of all sizes were shot off left and right---about the same numbers as a limited India/Pak exchange---which Naftali and other historians assert would wreck planet Earth:
https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/IndiaPakistanBullAtomSci.pdf
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
The difference is that the tests were set up in areas with minimal immediate effects (as understood at the time), and with minimal fallout.

While an India-Pakistan exchange would deliberately maximize immediate effects and fallout.
 
Is there a thread in any of the forums dealing with the US atmospheric nuclear test? I think there is one for for the British atmospheric nuclear tests.
 
One under-discussed disadvantage of nuclear weapons that's probably an important reason why they haven't been used in war for the last 80 years: cost. Weapons grade uranium has to be enriched to 85% U-235. Finding a price for that is difficult for obvious reasons but High Assay Low Enriched Uranium, which is only 5-20% U-235, costs $23K per kilogram. TNT otoh only costs $13 per kg. Sure, nukes pack far more explosive power per pound, but who cares? If you're only trying to blow up an airbase, then being able to destroy everything within a mile of it is meaningless. During World War II, when bombing raids could only get a CEP of 1200 feet, the atomic bomb was very much an improvement, guaranteeing the destruction of the target even if it missed by a quarter mile. But now we have smart bombs that are so accurate they can fly through doorways or windows to destroy their targets, and so, in practice, using conventional bombs is far more cost effective.
 
Last edited:
The US for example during the Cold War had a massive buildup of U-235 enrichment capacity along with breeder-reactors for producing Pu-239 when the US nuclear stockpile exploded in size during the 1950s and 1960s, then when the large multi-megaton city-busters such as the Mk-36 were retired in the early 1960s (And going on into the 1970s as result of the SALT talks with the USSR). There was a huge glut of weapons-grade fissile material along Li6D from retired then dismantled and recycled thermonuclear warheads.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
One under-discussed disadvantage of nuclear weapons that's probably an important reason why they haven't been used in war for the last 80 years: cost. Weapons grade uranium has to be enriched to 85% U-235. Finding a price for that is difficult for obvious reasons but High Assay Low Enriched Uranium, which is only 5-20% U-235, costs $23K per kilogram. TNT otoh only costs $13 per kg. Sure, nukes pack far more explosive power per pound, but who cares? If you're only trying to blow up an airbase, then being able to destroy everything within a mile of it is meaningless. During World War II, when bombing raids could only get a CEP of 1200 feet, the atomic bomb was very much an improvement, guaranteeing the destruction of the target even if it missed by a quarter mile. But now we have smart bombs that are so accurate they can fly through doorways or windows to destroy their targets, and so, in practice, using conventional bombs is far more cost effective.
Click to expand...
There's still a need for precision nukes, like the B61Mod-12 and Mod-13. Because some targets do require 350kt through the door, and others require 50kt though the door.

And in terms of planetary protection there's a strong need for multi-megaton booms to nudge asteroids off course to miss Earth.
 
Has any work been done on overlapping fireballs?

The interaction between two or more nukes creating a scissor effect where things overlap?
 
publiusr said:
Has any work been done on overlapping fireballs?

The interaction between two or more nukes creating a scissor effect where things overlap?
Click to expand...

I'm sure such studies were done for the UGM-27C Polaris A3 which had three MRVs instead of a single RV like the Polaris A1 and A2, this was an implementation of the CLAW concept IIRC. The Polaris A3 had three Mk-2 RVs (Sphere/cylinder/flare configuration) with each RV carrying a 200KT W58 warhead.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the knowledge gained from development of fusion energy will make it possible to develop pure fusion explosives could make the dream of Project Plowshare a reality.
 
Scott Kenny said:
There's still a need for precision nukes, like the B61Mod-12 and Mod-13. Because some targets do require 350kt through the door, and others require 50kt though the door.

And in terms of planetary protection there's a strong need for multi-megaton booms to nudge asteroids off course to miss Earth.
Click to expand...
The bigger the explosion, the more difficult it will be for gravity to put the pieces back together, in the worst case, if part of them maintained the initial trajectory we would have a few nights of shooting stars while drinking champagne to Schrödinger's health: the box has been opened, and the cat is alive.
 
Justo Miranda said:
The bigger the explosion, the more difficult it will be for gravity to put the pieces back together, in the worst case, if part of them maintained the initial trajectory we would have a few nights of shooting stars while drinking champagne to Schrödinger's health: the box has been opened, and the cat is alive.
Click to expand...
Not to break up the asteroid. To shove it into a different orbit so it misses Earth. The idea is to catch some part of the asteroid in the fireball to vaporize some rock, using that as reaction mass.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not to break up the asteroid. To shove it into a different orbit so it misses Earth. The idea is to catch some part of the asteroid in the fireball to vaporize some rock, using that as reaction mass.
Click to expand...
We should explore massive nukes for this purpose. Invite our allies to join. Call it the “Save Humanity Project” who could be opposed to that?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not to break up the asteroid. To shove it into a different orbit so it misses Earth. The idea is to catch some part of the asteroid in the fireball to vaporize some rock, using that as reaction mass.
Click to expand...
Your theory can only be applied to Ni-Fe asteroids, which are the most dangerous, but numerically asteroids formed by the accretion of small granules of dust and whose composition resembles a pile of gravel joined by gravity are more abundant, it is not enough to give them a lateral push because they would rebuild themselves, it is necessary to disintegrate them without being able to put the pieces back together.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The problem then becomes who exactly owns said nukes.
Click to expand...
Oh we’ll own them the allied contribution is as much to build a political consensus than to include them for technical expertise. The French and Brits have some strong technical know how.
 
bobbymike said:
Oh we’ll own them the allied contribution is as much to build a political consensus than to include them for technical expertise. The French and Brits have some strong technical know how.
Click to expand...
Nuclear forces were designed as protection against invasions, but in practice they are used to preserve political systems, the one who has the bomb will remain in power, the one who does not can be persuaded to leave it. Hitler didn't have the bomb, Saddam didn't have the bomb, Gaddafi didn't have the bomb, Stalin had the bomb.

A great lesson for all the scoundrels in this world.

The nuclear forces of France and the UK were designed during the cold war as a last line of defense and are now only a curse for taxpayers and an escalator for greens.

If you are trying to persuade the enemy, all you need is a good chemical and bacteriological arsenal, try to catch a wasp with your hand and you will see what happens.
 
bobbymike said:
Oh we’ll own them the allied contribution is as much to build a political consensus than to include them for technical expertise. The French and Brits have some strong technical know how.
Click to expand...
I was assuming buying the Russian mega-yield weapons from their stockpiles and any Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani high-yield weapons as well.

A force dedicated to preventing the Earth from meeting Shoemaker-Levy [number] or Chicxulub would by necessity be a multinational, and ideally have all the weapons already in orbit to save launch prep and delta-vee.



Justo Miranda said:
Your theory can only be applied to Ni-Fe asteroids, which are the most dangerous, but numerically asteroids formed by the accretion of small granules of dust and whose composition resembles a pile of gravel joined by gravity are more abundant, it is not enough to give them a lateral push because they would rebuild themselves, it is necessary to disintegrate them without being able to put the pieces back together.
Click to expand...
Good point!

Gravel piles would require a nuke with ~100m+ vaporization range to be (gently) placed in contact before detonation.

Does anyone know how big a nuke that would be?
 
Scott Kenny said:
I was assuming buying the Russian mega-yield weapons from their stockpiles and any Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani high-yield weapons as well.

A force dedicated to preventing the Earth from meeting Shoemaker-Levy [number] or Chicxulub would by necessity be a multinational, and ideally have all the weapons already in orbit to save launch prep and delta-vee.




Good point!

Gravel piles would require a nuke with ~100m+ vaporization range to be (gently) placed in contact before detonation.

Does anyone know how big a nuke that would be?
Click to expand...
It depends on where it should explode, if it explodes outside it should be more powerful. I don't know well the ignition systems of the current bombs, the ones I have studied used a radar altimeter to detonate them in the air before reaching the ground, I remember reading that in the eighties there were tactical missiles capable of reaching very deep bunkers and I suppose they would have an inertial ignition system calculated to explode after impact.

The Pershing II missile, a solid-fueled two-stage intermediate-range ballistic missile, carried the W85 warhead. This variable-yield warhead had a selectable explosive power ranging from 5 to 50 kilotons of TNT. Originally, the Pershing II was also intended to use a ground-penetrator W86 warhead, but this was later cancelled

https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclearweapons/comments/sk1fey/some_details_on_the_w86_earth_penetrating_warhead
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclearweapons/comments/sk1fey/some_details_on_the_w86_earth_penetrating_warhead/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W86

It would be interesting to establish a grid of powers related to the composition, diameter and mass of the asteroid, although, when it comes to the fate of mankind, I would exaggerate the power and number of missiles as much as possible.

KABOUMMM …. and andiamo a mangiare.
 

Attachments

  • 710.jpg
    710.jpg
    14.7 MB · Views: 7
Last edited:
I'd rather overkill an asteroid with a nuke in contact than trying to stuff one into a gravel pile before detonation.
 
I just found out that we now have a vaccine for radiation sickness.

Pluri said that its PLX-R18 has been safely tested in both humans and animals. Results from a series of recent studies in animals of its stem cell therapy after radiation exposure demonstrated an increase in survival rates from 29% in the placebo group to 97% in the treated group.

The administration of PLX- R18 as a prophylactic measure 24 hours before radiation exposure, and again 72 hours after exposure, resulted in an increase in survival rates, from 4% in the placebo group to 74% in the treated group.
Click to expand...
That is a much more practical prospect for surviving nuclear war than asking people to build expedient fallout shelters and stock them with 2 weeks worth of food and water.
 
Seragina said:
Sounds good, although the old paper listed some unfortunate outcome they dismissed.PLX-R18 (Avoplacel)
Anyhow, there's also good old Prussian Blue (yeah, a paint color)
In any case both do well for the lower end of radiation doses. They are not miracles.
Click to expand...
It sounds like Prussian Blue only removes radioactive substances from the body, meaning it's useless for the external sources of radiation which are what pose the most danger.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
It sounds like Prussian Blue only removes radioactive substances from the body, meaning it's useless for the external sources of radiation which are what pose the most danger.
Click to expand...
That's totally upside down. It's far more troublesome and dangerous to deal with what's come inside you than what's outside.
The more your body accumulates the more dangerous it gets. On the other hand the outside radiation rate won't change no matter what.
With Perussian Blue and PLX-R18 you got two that perfectly complement each other. One removes the harmful stuff the other deals with the consequences.
 
Seragina said:
That's totally upside down. It's far more troublesome and dangerous to deal with what's come inside you than what's outside.
The more your body accumulates the more dangerous it gets. On the other hand the outside radiation rate won't change no matter what.
With Perussian Blue and PLX-R18 you got two that perfectly complement each other. One removes the harmful stuff the other deals with the consequences.
Click to expand...
Each radioactive particle that you ingest may be more dangerous but in total, far more radiation will come from radioactive sources outside the body.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
It sounds like Prussian Blue only removes radioactive substances from the body, meaning it's useless for the external sources of radiation which are what pose the most danger.
Click to expand...
It is much more important to purge internal sources of radiation.

Remember the iodine tablets to protect your thyroid? Those are to keep your thyroid from taking up radioactive iodine.



exclaimedleech8 said:
Each radioactive particle that you ingest may be more dangerous but in total, far more radiation will come from radioactive sources outside the body.
Click to expand...
Danger to you depends entirely on type of radiation.
  • Alpha particles are stopped by skin (but will cause all sorts of havoc if ingested)
  • Beta particles are stopped by clothes (but will cause all sorts of havoc if ingested).
  • Gamma will go straight through you and not hit much on the way through.
  • Neutrons will go straight through you and cause all sorts of wreckage on the way.
What you need are ways to remove the alpha and beta emitters from your body, and then just stay away from neutron sources.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It is much more important to purge internal sources of radiation.

Remember the iodine tablets to protect your thyroid? Those are to keep your thyroid from taking up radioactive iodine.




Danger to you depends entirely on type of radiation.
  • Alpha particles are stopped by skin (but will cause all sorts of havoc if ingested)
  • Beta particles are stopped by clothes (but will cause all sorts of havoc if ingested).
  • Gamma will go straight through you and not hit much on the way through.
  • Neutrons will go straight through you and cause all sorts of wreckage on the way.
What you need are ways to remove the alpha and beta emitters from your body, and then just stay away from neutron sources.
Click to expand...
Staying away from Neutron sources is a lot easier said than done
 
NMaude said:
That would be rather hard to do on a SSN or a SSBN, also to a lessor degree on a CVN.
Click to expand...
On subs or ships, the locations of neutron emitters were well known, and mostly well shielded so that there was zero exposure if you weren't an engineer, and engineers got minimal. I'm talking career doses of less than 1 REM/10mSv for the engineers, and that was for the guys taking primary loop samples!

On land, a good dust filter would keep the radionuclides out of your lungs and stomach.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom