Posted: 10/12/2016 7:27:08 PM EDT
|
I like to read about and learn about things, in general.
For starters, if anyone has any recommended books on modern nuclear warfare, please share them with me. Not so much interested in the history, I'm pretty well read on that. More interested in modern day strategy, arsenals, game theory, etc. I'd really love to read more about the Cobalt bombs. A horrid weapon, but interesting nonetheless. Secondly, I had some broad questions. What makes the decision to go air or ground burst? If making a first strike, is there a preferred delivery vehicle? (ICBM/Sub/Plane) How far do alliances go? If Britain is nuked, do we nuke the aggressor? Or is that up to the victim of the assault? Are we still MAD, or do we (meaning the world, current ideas) trade smaller, tactical strikes? What loads are used for what? Seems there are tons of varying degrees of power? (This plays into my previous question.) Football. I imagine it's not carried on White House grounds, since the President has access to options on site. How's that work? Is Dead Hand still a thing? If you have ANYTHING to add, please step on in. (Searched for Nuclear Weapon tech forum, came up empty.) 
|
|
The most important discussion lately is the one on how detrimental they are to the environment.
Many believe that the long-lasting effects were overrated, especially things like radioactive fallout. It's a thing, but how much of a thing is it really. The other big story that nobody talks about is what the Russians really had/have, and how much of a state of disrepair were their systems during the Soviet times, during the Yeltsin years, and where they are now. |
|
Quoted:
The most important discussion lately is the one on how detrimental they are to the environment. Many believe that the long-lasting effects were overrated, especially things like radioactive fallout. It's a thing, but how much of a thing is it really. The other big story that nobody talks about is what the Russians really had/have, and how much of a state of disrepair were their systems during the Soviet times, during the Yeltsin years, and where they are now. I've heard that too. Something like pseudo safe in a week or two? Meaning you may get long term issues, but you won't die of acute poisoning past that point. |
|
$70 book. Have you read it? If it's amazing and insightful, I may take a chance. If you found it and always wanted to buy it, it gets filed in the maybe pile. |
|
I've played with Nuke Map before. In fact, that spurred my air vs ground burst question. |
|
Quoted:
The most important discussion lately is the one on how detrimental they are to the environment. Many believe that the long-lasting effects were overrated, especially things like radioactive fallout. It's a thing, but how much of a thing is it really. The other big story that nobody talks about is what the Russians really had/have, and how much of a state of disrepair were their systems during the Soviet times, during the Yeltsin years, and where they are now. Yeah, but sooner or later you gotta eat - won't practically everything be irradiated? Animals outside probably won't fare that well, those that do will give you a healthy dose of vitamin-R. |
|
Quoted: Everything you said makes sense, except reducing fallout. Wouldn't an air bust spread out more radiation? Quoted: Quoted: Surface bursts are for hardened point targets. Air bursts give a wider radius of effects against soft targets and reduce fallout. Everything you said makes sense, except reducing fallout. Wouldn't an air bust spread out more radiation? |
|
That's the point of the Cobalt bomb.
For readers looking for information, here's the wiki entry: A cobalt bomb is a theoretical type of "salted bomb": a nuclear weapon designed to produce enhanced amounts of radioactive fallout, intended to contaminate a large area with radioactive material. The concept of a cobalt bomb was originally described in a radio program by physicist Leó Szilárd on February 26, 1950.[1] His intent was not to propose that such a weapon be built, but to show that nuclear weapon technology would soon reach the point where it could end human life on Earth, a doomsday device.[2][3] Such "salted" weapons were requested by the U.S. Air Force and seriously investigated, but not deployed.[citation needed] In the 1964 edition of the U.S. Department of Defense book The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, a new section titled radiological warfare clarified the "Doomsday device" issue.[4] As far as is publicly known, no cobalt bombs have ever been built. The Operation Antler/Round 1 test by the British at the Tadje site in the Maralinga range in Australia on September 14, 1957, tested a bomb using cobalt pellets as a radiochemical tracer for estimating yield. This was considered a failure and the experiment was not repeated. Fission products are more deadly than neutron-activated cobalt in the first few weeks following detonation. After one to six months, the fission products from even a large-yield thermonuclear weapon decay to levels tolerable by humans. The large-yield three-stage (fission-fusion-fission) thermonuclear weapon is thus automatically a weapon of radiological warfare, but its fallout decays much more rapidly than that of a cobalt bomb. Areas irradiated by fallout from even a large-yield thermonuclear weapon begin to increasingly become habitable again after one to six months; a cobalt bomb's fallout on the other hand would render affected areas effectively stuck in this interim state for decades, of habitable, but not safely so under constant habitation conditions. Initially, gamma radiation from the fission products of an equivalent size fission-fusion-fission bomb are much more intense than Co-60: 15,000 times more intense at 1 hour; 35 times more intense at 1 week; 5 times more intense at 1 month; and about equal at 6 months. Thereafter fission product fallout radiation levels drop off rapidly, so that Co-60 fallout is 8 times more intense than fission at 1 year and 150 times more intense at 5 years. The very long-lived isotopes produced by fission would overtake the 60Co again after about 75 years.[6] Theoretically, a device containing 510 tons of Co-60 can spread 1g of the material to each square km of the Earth's surface (510,000,000 km2). Radiation output from 1g of Co-60 over one half life is equivalent to 44000 GBq, which is sufficient to kill any inhabitants. If one assumes that all of the material is converted to Co-60 at 100 percent efficiency and if it is spread evenly across the Earth's surface, it is possible for a single bomb to kill every person on Earth. |
|
Quoted:
No, ground burst irradiates more of the dirt and debris, kicking it up into the air and turning into fallout that attaches to everything and gets breathed in. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surface bursts are for hardened point targets. Air bursts give a wider radius of effects against soft targets and reduce fallout. Everything you said makes sense, except reducing fallout. Wouldn't an air bust spread out more radiation? Okay, makes sense. Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
Everything you said makes sense, except reducing fallout. Wouldn't an air bust spread out more radiation? Quoted:
Quoted:
Surface bursts are for hardened point targets. Air bursts give a wider radius of effects against soft targets and reduce fallout. Everything you said makes sense, except reducing fallout. Wouldn't an air bust spread out more radiation? By nuking stuff up from the ground, you make it radioactive, the mushroom cloud includes those particulates, which fall. Air burst irradiates people instantly. ETA: Oops, already covered. |
|
Quoted:
What makes the decision to go air or ground burst? What target you are trying to destroy. If making a first strike, is there a preferred delivery vehicle? (ICBM/Sub/Plane) Cruise missiles would seem to be the best option if one wanted to make a first strike. Which is probably why the GLCM in the 80's was what drove the Soviets to an arms reduction treaty. What loads are used for what? Seems there are tons of varying degrees of power? (This plays into my previous question.) What target you are trying to destroy. Football. I imagine it's not carried on White House grounds, since the President has access to options on site. How's that work? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3724014/Hillary-fears-Trump-having-finger-nuclear-button-1-no-button-s-football-2-Bill-Clinton-risked-nuclear-annihilation-lost-authentication-codes.html |
|
Quoted:
$70 book. Have you read it? If it's amazing and insightful, I may take a chance. If you found it and always wanted to buy it, it gets filed in the maybe pile. Quoted:
$70 book. Have you read it? If it's amazing and insightful, I may take a chance. If you found it and always wanted to buy it, it gets filed in the maybe pile. I bought and read it while in college (late 70's). Excellent reference. It is old but nuclear weapons still work the same way. I don't think that the US has done much unclassified research since it was written. |
|
I wish I could remember the name of a guy that gave a talk about the nuclear triad a few years back who came to one of the northern tier bases and gave a lecture on the Nuclear Triad and how ICBMs still fit. I'll try and paraphrase but bear with me cause it's been a few years.
What makes the decision to go air or ground burst? - Depending on what's being targeted and the weapon system begin fired. Are we trying to clear out an area that has land based (rail, vehicle-based, airborne) ICBMs on their mobile launchers and have a general idea of where they're at or are we trying to move a bunch of dirt and get at the enemy version of Cheyenne Mountain. Also, do you want to do thermal / blast damage to the target or just do a high altitude EMP burst and let them worry about fallout / electronic system damage? If making a first strike, is there a preferred delivery vehicle? (ICBM/Sub/Plane) - This was where that Los Alamos guy was really helpful, it really depends. Are we posturing and using the implied threat to back them down (B-2 doing figure 8s right outside your airspace) vs the fact that we can fling an ICBM at you any time, or are we gearing up for a first strike and if so, what are we aiming at and how quick do we want it to get there (sub launched in your AO vs travel time from the northern US). How far do alliances go? If Britain is nuked, do we nuke the aggressor? Or is that up to the victim of the assault? - It depends, we have treaties with some nations for non-proliferation where we put to them as we've got you under our "nuclear umbrella" and if somebody is threatening some sort of strike we have the option to respond in kind on your behalf, think NATO Article 5 on steroids. Somebody who's a nuclear power like the UK, they probably have their own but similar theory on how they'd use them. I don't think they'd be willing to let us unilaterally dictate to them how to employ their assets. Are we still MAD, or do we (meaning the world, current ideas) trade smaller, tactical strikes? - Unknown, there's still a component of this since if they're out there, we want to be able to respond in kind. It's one of those things though where if you want to make a point, more than likely a MOAB will put the same sort of period on your sentence without everybody collectively losing their shit over it and wanting to light off their weapon systems as well. What loads are used for what? Seems there are tons of varying degrees of power? (This plays into my previous question.) - Don't know enough about it to talk to this. Football. I imagine it's not carried on White House grounds, since the President has access to options on site. How's that work? - Don't know enough about it to talk to this. Is Dead Hand still a thing? - Nobody is entirely sure, the lead Russian strategic missile guy supposedly confirmed it in 2011 but take that for what it's worth, there's some speculation that the UBV-76 signal is somehow tied into that. Kinda cool to watch too if you haven't seen it: Minuteman III Firing Cycle |
|
Quoted:
I wish I could remember the name of a guy that gave a talk about the nuclear triad a few years back who came to one of the northern tier bases and gave a lecture on the Nuclear Triad and how ICBMs still fit. I'll try and paraphrase but bear with me cause it's been a few years. What makes the decision to go air or ground burst? - Depending on what's being targeted and the weapon system begin fired. Are we trying to clear out an area that has land based (rail, vehicle-based, airborne) ICBMs on their mobile launchers and have a general idea of where they're at or are we trying to move a bunch of dirt and get at the enemy version of Cheyenne Mountain. Also, do you want to do thermal / blast damage to the target or just do a high altitude EMP burst and let them worry about fallout / electronic system damage? If making a first strike, is there a preferred delivery vehicle? (ICBM/Sub/Plane) - This was where that Los Alamos guy was really helpful, it really depends. Are we posturing and using the implied threat to back them down (B-2 doing figure 8s right outside your airspace) vs the fact that we can fling an ICBM at you any time, or are we gearing up for a first strike and if so, what are we aiming at and how quick do we want it to get there (sub launched in your AO vs travel time from the northern US). How far do alliances go? If Britain is nuked, do we nuke the aggressor? Or is that up to the victim of the assault? - It depends, we have treaties with some nations for non-proliferation where we put to them as we've got you under our "nuclear umbrella" and if somebody is threatening some sort of strike we have the option to respond in kind on your behalf, think NATO Article 5 on steroids. Somebody who's a nuclear power like the UK, they probably have their own but similar theory on how they'd use them. I don't think they'd be willing to let us unilaterally dictate to them how to employ their assets. Are we still MAD, or do we (meaning the world, current ideas) trade smaller, tactical strikes? - Unknown, there's still a component of this since if they're out there, we want to be able to respond in kind. It's one of those things though where if you want to make a point, more than likely a MOAB will put the same sort of period on your sentence without everybody collectively losing their shit over it and wanting to light off their weapon systems as well. What loads are used for what? Seems there are tons of varying degrees of power? (This plays into my previous question.) - Don't know enough about it to talk to this. Football. I imagine it's not carried on White House grounds, since the President has access to options on site. How's that work? - Don't know enough about it to talk to this. Is Dead Hand still a thing? - Nobody is entirely sure, the lead Russian strategic missile guy supposedly confirmed it in 2011 but take that for what it's worth, there's some speculation that the UBV-76 signal is somehow tied into that. Kinda cool to watch too if you haven't seen it: Minuteman III Firing Cycle Great post. Thanks! Damn that's a lot of stages. |
|
Quoted:
There will be as much damage from all the runaway nuke plants after a nuclear exchange as anything. they are timebombs without constant power and support and you just cant turn them off. Quoted:
There will be as much damage from all the runaway nuke plants after a nuclear exchange as anything. they are timebombs without constant power and support and you just cant turn them off. No Quoted:
Quoted:
Get this book, if you can find it- U.S. Nuclear Weapons the Secret History by Chuck Hansen Hmm. Interested. Please tell me it's not just more Los Alamos info? That's easy to read about. I'm really more interested in the modern stuff. Hansen's book is the gold standard of technical data on nuclear weapon systems outside the fence. It's not easy to read about Los Alamos; the good stuff takes some digging or someone who will sherpa you. There is no 'modern stuff' technically. The last deployed design was in 1989-1990. There may have been upgrades and life extension programs, but if you want to understand nucs on a technical level, you're gonna spend some time from the 50's to the 70's. I'll give you a start. Alamos is the home for ancient and round is beautiful. For topology changers you'll need to look at Livermore. Sandia drove a lot of the requirements for the other parts. |
|
Quoted:
No Hansen's book is the gold standard of technical data on nuclear weapon systems outside the fence. It's not easy to read about Los Alamos; the good stuff takes some digging or someone who will sherpa you. There is no 'modern stuff' technically. The last deployed design was in 1989-1990. There may have been upgrades and life extension programs, but if you want to understand nucs on a technical level, you're gonna spend some time from the 50's to the 70's. I'll give you a start. Alamos is the home for ancient and round is beautiful. For topology changers you'll need to look at Livermore. Sandia drove a lot of the requirements for the other parts. Quoted:
Quoted:
There will be as much damage from all the runaway nuke plants after a nuclear exchange as anything. they are timebombs without constant power and support and you just cant turn them off. No Quoted:
Quoted:
Get this book, if you can find it- U.S. Nuclear Weapons the Secret History by Chuck Hansen Hmm. Interested. Please tell me it's not just more Los Alamos info? That's easy to read about. I'm really more interested in the modern stuff. Hansen's book is the gold standard of technical data on nuclear weapon systems outside the fence. It's not easy to read about Los Alamos; the good stuff takes some digging or someone who will sherpa you. There is no 'modern stuff' technically. The last deployed design was in 1989-1990. There may have been upgrades and life extension programs, but if you want to understand nucs on a technical level, you're gonna spend some time from the 50's to the 70's. I'll give you a start. Alamos is the home for ancient and round is beautiful. For topology changers you'll need to look at Livermore. Sandia drove a lot of the requirements for the other parts. Okay, fair enough. I'll dig deeper. No huge advancements after fission and fusion? That's what interests me on the Cobalt weapons. It's a next step. A terrible next step, but an evolution nonetheless. |
|
Quoted:
Everything you said makes sense, except reducing fallout. Wouldn't an air bust spread out more radiation? Quoted:
Quoted:
Surface bursts are for hardened point targets. Air bursts give a wider radius of effects against soft targets and reduce fallout. Everything you said makes sense, except reducing fallout. Wouldn't an air bust spread out more radiation? Fallout comes from sucking up particles into the fireall. Air bursts don't kick up as much dust that gets sucked up through the fireball. |
|
Quoted:
I've heard that too. Something like pseudo safe in a week or two? Meaning you may get long term issues, but you won't die of acute poisoning past that point. Quoted:
Quoted:
The most important discussion lately is the one on how detrimental they are to the environment. Many believe that the long-lasting effects were overrated, especially things like radioactive fallout. It's a thing, but how much of a thing is it really. The other big story that nobody talks about is what the Russians really had/have, and how much of a state of disrepair were their systems during the Soviet times, during the Yeltsin years, and where they are now. I've heard that too. Something like pseudo safe in a week or two? Meaning you may get long term issues, but you won't die of acute poisoning past that point. Yep. The longer you can stay in shelter, the better. |
|
Quoted: $70 book. Have you read it? If it's amazing and insightful, I may take a chance. If you found it and always wanted to buy it, it gets filed in the maybe pile. Quoted: $70 book. Have you read it? If it's amazing and insightful, I may take a chance. If you found it and always wanted to buy it, it gets filed in the maybe pile. Free PDF |
Glasstone's book is THE reference for nuclear weapons effects. He surveyed EVERY. SINGLE. YIELD. the US produced from Trinity into the 1970s to write that book. Double bonus if it comes with the whiz-wheel in the back (like mine does  ).
Managing Nuclear Operations, by Ashton Carter (current SecDef, then fellow at the Brookings Institute). Awesome overview of some of the challenges of nuclear command and control. Even though it was written in the early 80s, the general concepts of positive control, the challenges of execution and termination, and the discussion on some deterrence theory is even more relevant than it was in the 1980s. Chuck Hansen's book (US Nuclear Weapons, A Secret History) is a must-have. Be prepared to pay for it. Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War. Nuclear deterrence theory 101, taught by a master of the craft. Richard Rhodes two books (The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb) are superbly written, impeccably documented histories of both phases of the nuclear arms race (race to the atomic bomb, race to the hydrogen bomb). The first book covers a lot of the scientific and resource challenges of the Manhattan Project, the second goes more into the espionage war over the hydrogen bomb. Eric Schlusser's Command and Control. With the exception of the fact that he wrote it to demonstrate how dangerous and evil nukes are, it's an incredibly well documented history of some of the nuclear weapon accidents & incidents that have occurred over the years, coupled with the policy and doctrine discussion at the highest levels. Outstanding read. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
$70 book. Have you read it? If it's amazing and insightful, I may take a chance. If you found it and always wanted to buy it, it gets filed in the maybe pile. Free PDF 
Thanks! |
|
Quoted:
Glasstone's book is THE reference for nuclear weapons effects. He surveyed EVERY. SINGLE. YIELD. the US produced from Trinity into the 1970s to write that book. Double bonus if it comes with the whiz-wheel in the back (like mine does ).
Managing Nuclear Operations, by Ashton Carter (current SecDef, then fellow at the Brookings Institute). Awesome overview of some of the challenges of nuclear command and control. Even though it was written in the early 80s, the general concepts of positive control, the challenges of execution and termination, and the discussion on some deterrence theory is even more relevant than it was in the 1980s. Chuck Hansen's book (US Nuclear Weapons, A Secret History) is a must-have. Be prepared to pay for it. Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War. Nuclear deterrence theory 101, taught by a master of the craft. Richard Rhodes two books (The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb) are superbly written, impeccably documented histories of both phases of the nuclear arms race (race to the atomic bomb, race to the hydrogen bomb). The first book covers a lot of the scientific and resource challenges of the Manhattan Project, the second goes more into the espionage war over the hydrogen bomb. Eric Schlusser's Command and Control. With the exception of the fact that he wrote it to demonstrate how dangerous and evil nukes are, it's an incredibly well documented history of some of the nuclear weapon accidents & incidents that have occurred over the years, coupled with the policy and doctrine discussion at the highest levels. Outstanding read. Thanks! Considering I just downloaded a 600 page PDF I must ask; while I'm reading that, anything that stood out to you from your recommended reading? |
|
Quoted:
Hmm. Interested. Please tell me it's not just more Los Alamos info? That's easy to read about. I'm really more interested in the modern stuff. Quoted:
Quoted:
Get this book, if you can find it- U.S. Nuclear Weapons the Secret History by Chuck Hansen Hmm. Interested. Please tell me it's not just more Los Alamos info? That's easy to read about. I'm really more interested in the modern stuff. For obvious reasons, you aren't going to get that. |
|
Quoted:
Everything you said makes sense, except reducing fallout. Wouldn't an air bust spread out more radiation? Quoted:
Quoted:
Surface bursts are for hardened point targets. Air bursts give a wider radius of effects against soft targets and reduce fallout. Everything you said makes sense, except reducing fallout. Wouldn't an air bust spread out more radiation? You can, and people have, stand underneath a nuclear warhead detonated in the atmosphere. However, a surface detonation throws a lot of irradiated dirt and debris into the air. |
|
Quoted:
For obvious reasons, you aren't going to get that. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Get this book, if you can find it- U.S. Nuclear Weapons the Secret History by Chuck Hansen Hmm. Interested. Please tell me it's not just more Los Alamos info? That's easy to read about. I'm really more interested in the modern stuff. For obvious reasons, you aren't going to get that. I understand, but I was hoping modern game theory, strategy, etc. I feel a guy smarter than I, or someone who has dedicated more time to watching political maneuvers might offer insight. I realize I'm not getting modern secrets. |
| I didn't say the plants would explode. Most plants can run one to two weeks on generator power only, once the ability to circulate and cool down the reactor core is lost, the plants will all be like fukishima. Considering how many nuke plants there are in the country that's a lot of radiation pouring out in a continual basis from the melting cores. over time it would exceed that of the bombs dropped. I'm not anti nuclear plant btw. Just stating fact. just look what Fukishima is doing to Japan as we speak. Already mutations in plants and fast replicating insects, animals. |
|
Quoted:
That's what interests me on the Cobalt weapons. It's a next step. A terrible next step, but an evolution nonetheless. Quoted:
That's what interests me on the Cobalt weapons. It's a next step. A terrible next step, but an evolution nonetheless. This is something for a novelist or maybe videogame designer to talk about, not someone who is actually interested in actual nuclear weapons or policies. It's not an evolution at all. Evolution is a pure fusion weapon or antimatter. Good luck figuring those out. Quoted:
I didn't say the plants would explode. Most plants can run one to two weeks on generator power only, once the ability to circulate and cool down the reactor core is lost, the plants will all be like fukishima. Considering how many nuke plants there are in the country that's a lot of radiation pouring out in a continual basis from the melting cores. over time it would exceed that of the bombs dropped. I'm not anti nuclear plant btw. Just stating fact. just look what Fukishima is doing to Japan as we speak. Already mutations in plants and fast replicating insects, animals. Please stop reading wacko anti-nuclear activists. |
|
Forgot about this. This guy's website is some GeoCities looking mess but it goes into the Minuteman II system. He's been reported a few times for OPSEC violations but apparenltly he skates just on the right side of "phased out weapon system" and "open source".
Captain Swoop This is also pretty boss, ICBM launch from C-5. This is what killed the Ground Launched Cruise Missile program. Video |
|
Quoted:
Glasstone's book is THE reference for nuclear weapons effects. He surveyed EVERY. SINGLE. YIELD. the US produced from Trinity into the 1970s to write that book. Double bonus if it comes with the whiz-wheel in the back (like mine does ).
Managing Nuclear Operations, by Ashton Carter (current SecDef, then fellow at the Brookings Institute). Awesome overview of some of the challenges of nuclear command and control. Even though it was written in the early 80s, the general concepts of positive control, the challenges of execution and termination, and the discussion on some deterrence theory is even more relevant than it was in the 1980s. Chuck Hansen's book (US Nuclear Weapons, A Secret History) is a must-have. Be prepared to pay for it. Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War. Nuclear deterrence theory 101, taught by a master of the craft. Richard Rhodes two books (The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb) are superbly written, impeccably documented histories of both phases of the nuclear arms race (race to the atomic bomb, race to the hydrogen bomb). The first book covers a lot of the scientific and resource challenges of the Manhattan Project, the second goes more into the espionage war over the hydrogen bomb. Eric Schlusser's Command and Control. With the exception of the fact that he wrote it to demonstrate how dangerous and evil nukes are, it's an incredibly well documented history of some of the nuclear weapon accidents & incidents that have occurred over the years, coupled with the policy and doctrine discussion at the highest levels. Outstanding read. Command and Control was fantastic. |
|
Quoted:
I didn't say the plants would explode. Most plants can run one to two weeks on generator power only, once the ability to circulate and cool down the reactor core is lost, the plants will all be like fukishima. Considering how many nuke plants there are in the country that's a lot of radiation pouring out in a continual basis from the melting cores. over time it would exceed that of the bombs dropped. I'm not anti nuclear plant btw. Just stating fact. just look what Fukishima is doing to Japan as we speak. Already mutations in plants and fast replicating insects, animals. Quoted:
I didn't say the plants would explode. Most plants can run one to two weeks on generator power only, once the ability to circulate and cool down the reactor core is lost, the plants will all be like fukishima. Considering how many nuke plants there are in the country that's a lot of radiation pouring out in a continual basis from the melting cores. over time it would exceed that of the bombs dropped. I'm not anti nuclear plant btw. Just stating fact. just look what Fukishima is doing to Japan as we speak. Already mutations in plants and fast replicating insects, animals. No Quoted:
Okay, fair enough. I'll dig deeper. No huge advancements after fission and fusion? That's what interests me on the Cobalt weapons. It's a next step. A terrible next step, but an evolution nonetheless. They can have a system spew green paint if they want. Tuning outputs is a mature science. I can't say no one is pursuing systems that create long-term contamination fields, but it's not really discussed in the literature. In fact, most is about the opposite: short term area denial or destruction of infrastructure. Far as advancements, our systems are exactly as they were in the 60's-90's when they were designed. There has been no major changes to the physics packages that have been publicly discussed, and I feel fairly confident in guessing there hasn't. They haven't even had a capability to make the pits for a long time, and the current ones have dozens of waivers. The best sources to learn more about fission and fusion concepts and implementation is to get access to a college online research source. The Chinese especially have a body of work that is telling. You'll want to look for pulsed power, high energy physics and inertial confinement fusion for keyword searching. Another place to mine is the DOE OpenNet. |
|
Quoted:
No They can have a system spew green paint if they want. Tuning outputs is a mature science. I can't say no one is pursuing systems that create long-term contamination fields, but it's not really discussed in the literature. In fact, most is about the opposite: short term area denial or destruction of infrastructure. Far as advancements, our systems are exactly as they were in the 60's-90's when they were designed. There has been no major changes to the physics packages that have been publicly discussed, and I feel fairly confident in guessing there hasn't. They haven't even had a capability to make the pits for a long time, and the current ones have dozens of waivers. The best sources to learn more about fission and fusion concepts and implementation is to get access to a college online research source. The Chinese especially have a body of work that is telling. You'll want to look for pulsed power, high energy physics and inertial confinement fusion for keyword searching. Another place to mine is the DOE OpenNet. Quoted:
Quoted:
I didn't say the plants would explode. Most plants can run one to two weeks on generator power only, once the ability to circulate and cool down the reactor core is lost, the plants will all be like fukishima. Considering how many nuke plants there are in the country that's a lot of radiation pouring out in a continual basis from the melting cores. over time it would exceed that of the bombs dropped. I'm not anti nuclear plant btw. Just stating fact. just look what Fukishima is doing to Japan as we speak. Already mutations in plants and fast replicating insects, animals. No Quoted:
Okay, fair enough. I'll dig deeper. No huge advancements after fission and fusion? That's what interests me on the Cobalt weapons. It's a next step. A terrible next step, but an evolution nonetheless. They can have a system spew green paint if they want. Tuning outputs is a mature science. I can't say no one is pursuing systems that create long-term contamination fields, but it's not really discussed in the literature. In fact, most is about the opposite: short term area denial or destruction of infrastructure. Far as advancements, our systems are exactly as they were in the 60's-90's when they were designed. There has been no major changes to the physics packages that have been publicly discussed, and I feel fairly confident in guessing there hasn't. They haven't even had a capability to make the pits for a long time, and the current ones have dozens of waivers. The best sources to learn more about fission and fusion concepts and implementation is to get access to a college online research source. The Chinese especially have a body of work that is telling. You'll want to look for pulsed power, high energy physics and inertial confinement fusion for keyword searching. Another place to mine is the DOE OpenNet. You don't post much, but when you do it's interesting |
|
Quoted:
I like to read about and learn about things, in general. For starters, if anyone has any recommended books on modern nuclear warfare, please share them with me. Not so much interested in the history, I'm pretty well read on that. More interested in modern day strategy, arsenals, game theory, etc. I'd really love to read more about the Cobalt bombs. A horrid weapon, but interesting nonetheless. Secondly, I had some broad questions. What makes the decision to go air or ground burst? If making a first strike, is there a preferred delivery vehicle? (ICBM/Sub/Plane) How far do alliances go? If Britain is nuked, do we nuke the aggressor? Or is that up to the victim of the assault? Are we still MAD, or do we (meaning the world, current ideas) trade smaller, tactical strikes? What loads are used for what? Seems there are tons of varying degrees of power? (This plays into my previous question.) Football. I imagine it's not carried on White House grounds, since the President has access to options on site. How's that work? Is Dead Hand still a thing? If you have ANYTHING to add, please step on in. (Searched for Nuclear Weapon tech forum, came up empty.) 1) USAF doctine manuals. 2) Almost always air burst. Otherwise you are having the ground absorb a good deal of the energy that could be used to blow shit up. Ground contact only for weird stuff like nuclear bunker busters. 3) First strike vehicles? Subs are really a second-strike capability and nobody can shoot down ICBM's, so likely the ICBM's. *Maybe* air-launched cruise missiles and bombs, 4) Alliances: if enough nukes are in flight, we launch to avoid getting hit by surprise. World ends. 5) MAD is still a go. It's what we plan on, and why we have so many nukes spread out and hardened in their silos. First moron to try a tactical nuke risks ending the world. 6) Im not well versed in warhead and payload size selection 7) One officer from each service, cuffed to the football, they rotate shifts. Even USCG, too. Get to ride around with POTUS. 8) No. Dead hand is stupid and automatically-launched nukes are a quadmire. Did the Russians do it? At some points, yes. Are we lucky to be here? As long as there isn't an earthquake, no. 9) Misc: World War III will last about 40 minutes and none of us will survive. Nukes are intended to exist but not be used. |
|
Quoted: 7) One officer from each service, cuffed to the football, they rotate shifts. Even USCG, too. Get to ride around with POTUS. Quoted: Quoted: I like to read about and learn about things, in general. For starters, if anyone has any recommended books on modern nuclear warfare, please share them with me. Not so much interested in the history, I'm pretty well read on that. More interested in modern day strategy, arsenals, game theory, etc. I'd really love to read more about the Cobalt bombs. A horrid weapon, but interesting nonetheless. Secondly, I had some broad questions. What makes the decision to go air or ground burst? If making a first strike, is there a preferred delivery vehicle? (ICBM/Sub/Plane) How far do alliances go? If Britain is nuked, do we nuke the aggressor? Or is that up to the victim of the assault? Are we still MAD, or do we (meaning the world, current ideas) trade smaller, tactical strikes? What loads are used for what? Seems there are tons of varying degrees of power? (This plays into my previous question.) Football. I imagine it's not carried on White House grounds, since the President has access to options on site. How's that work? Is Dead Hand still a thing? If you have ANYTHING to add, please step on in. (Searched for Nuclear Weapon tech forum, came up empty.) 7) One officer from each service, cuffed to the football, they rotate shifts. Even USCG, too. Get to ride around with POTUS. Its amusing when the pseudo-experts show up and make up BS to appear authoritative. |