Mini Nukes and the New World Order

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Mon May 26, 2003 3:41 am

How effective would an FAE be in a small enclosed space? Without a lot of air to ignite, they'd lose a lot of their boom.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Mon May 26, 2003 3:45 am

In an enclosed space, you're adding fuel vapor to the existing atmosphere, increasing pressure and temperature. The increased pressure forces more rapid burning of the fuel (remember, the oxygen that was in the target is still there), creating a more destructive wave which is then refocussed back into the room by the surrounding earth and structure.

Very effective.

Douglass MacArthur · Post by **Douglass MacArthur** » Tue May 27, 2003 6:39 am

A late note on the smaller is better idea for nukes...

There was something I was reading a while ago that was talking about nuke efficiency. It is much more devestating to use a small bomb tesselation than one enormus bomb. For example, seven bombs in a hexagonal pattern (6 for the hex, one in the center) will make a bigger shockwave because less energy is lost in the earth. Having a whole crapload of smaller, more accurate nukes lumped together would cause much more carnage than a few huge ones. I think that 5kt law is to prevent from making a casual nuke an easy option for a general.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Tue May 27, 2003 5:46 pm

Right, Martin, chunky salsa effect. Knew that. Stupid.

Douglass MacArthur · Post by **Douglass MacArthur** » Tue May 27, 2003 5:49 pm

That was how they cleared a lot of those terrorist caves in Afghanistan. Pump in a stoichiometric mixture and drop in a match.

Bjarni Herjolfsson · Post by **Bjarni Herjolfsson** » Tue May 27, 2003 11:31 pm

We have very little money, our ecenomy is in ruins, and we already have enough nukes to kill everyone on this planet 26 times. We dont need anymore nukes.

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Wed May 28, 2003 7:29 pm

[quote="Brim Mar";p="82404"]Well whats the purpose of using a so-called 'Tactical-Nuke' if its just against terrorists. Im sure a barage of Daisy-Cutters, Bunker-Busters or Cluster Bombs would be far more cost efficient and would cause far less damage to the surrounding region (environmentally and structurally). I think a Tactical-Nuke would be overkill if it were used against these Terrorists you speak of.
Standard missiles or bombs would be much more effective.[/quote]
How about a nuclear weapon that only destroys a 100 meter radius instead of a 10 mile radius?

How about combining this technology to a burrowing warhead to dig several hundred feet below the ground and then detonate, thereby eliminating an underground bunker with no unusual aboveground radiation?

How about a nuclear warhead that does not have a long-term radioactive effect after detonation?

These things would be nice to have in the American arsenal, but no one knows if they will work. I believe the US should be allowed to research into these weapons to see if they are possible.

Douglass MacArthur · Post by **Douglass MacArthur** » Wed May 28, 2003 10:47 pm

The problem is a tiny nuke may be found, and the military may choose to include them in their arsenal. 5 years down the road, a general would be able to casually use one of these bombs, which the US population would not like, but would use their military lawyers to stop dissent.

Phong · Post by **Phong** » Thu May 29, 2003 2:31 am

I agree with Fixer, and lets understand that the amount of money being put into this project should it go through is only 15 mil. Thats not alot of money when it comes to nuclear research, especially when the military (caugh airfarce caugh) is involved.

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Fri May 30, 2003 12:31 pm

[quote="Douglass MacArthur";p="85458"]The problem is a tiny nuke may be found, and the military may choose to include them in their arsenal. 5 years down the road, a general would be able to casually use one of these bombs, which the US population would not like, but would use their military lawyers to stop dissent.[/quote]
You make several assumptions:
1) That such a tiny nuclear weapon is possible.
2) That it will become a mass-produced weapon or at least easily used.
3) That a general or commander in charge of such a weapon will use it inappropriately.
4) That word of its use will reach the civilian population.
5) That the fact of its use will anger the majority of the American people.

All 5 of these must occur for your situation to be true, and I see at least three of them that are not very likely (you can just guess which ones). Therefore, I recognize your fears, but I disagree on the above reasoning.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sat May 31, 2003 12:28 am

[quote="Fixer";p="85284"]How about a nuclear weapon that only destroys a 100 meter radius instead of a 10 mile radius?[/quote]
Why would you use a very expensive weapon that would get the international community all pissed off instead of a very cheap one that everyone's okay with?

How about combining this technology to a burrowing warhead to dig several hundred feet below the ground and then detonate, thereby eliminating an underground bunker with no unusual aboveground radiation?

How about a nuclear warhead that does not have a long-term radioactive effect after detonation?

Tactial nuclear weapons already have very limited fallout patterns.

These things would be nice to have in the American arsenal, but no one knows if they will work. I believe the US should be allowed to research into these weapons to see if they are possible.

They aren't necessary. Once you get under five kilotons, conventional weapons do the same amount of damage for far less cost. If it ain't broke...

Douglass MacArthur · Post by **Douglass MacArthur** » Sat May 31, 2003 5:12 am

1) That such a tiny nuclear weapon is possible.

Likely. Nuclear technology has significantly advanced since the 60's.

2) That it will become a mass-produced weapon or at least easily used.

Also likely. There are tons of targets for these things.

3) That a general or commander in charge of such a weapon will use it inappropriately.

Could happen. The real MacArthur wanted to use nukes in the Korean war.

4) That word of its use will reach the civilian population.

That's a certainty.

5) That the fact of its use will anger the majority of the American people.

Given the government can't transport nuclear waste across the country without causing a huge uproar with the anti-nike people, using a bomb, even a small one, will probably spark protests.

Brim Mar · Post by **Brim Mar** » Sat May 31, 2003 3:48 pm

[quote="Salvation122";p="87225"]
Why would you use a very expensive weapon that would get the international community all pissed off instead of a very cheap one that everyone's okay with?
[/quote]

Exactly.

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:23 am

I'm more worried about someone making a COBALT bomb, tiny or otherwise. I know the old "burn up our own atmosphere" fear was applied to the hydrogen bomb as well, but with the cobalt system it actually has more clout.

And heaven help us if anyone ever figures out how to design a kenetic warhead system.

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 12:55 pm

Kinetic warheads? As in 'dropping a safe from space'? Simple in principle, all you need is a guidance system and you have one.

Real Life Forums

Mini Nukes and the New World Order

Re: Mini Nukes and the New World Order

Who is online