4/29/2004: Baker detonates underwater

[xoxoxoBruce]

Human shields or waiting for the pigs to cook?

[onetrack]

Granted, there are simplistic terrorist means to inflict damage .. but the terrorists desire is for a ''high impact" hit on America .. could you imagine the rejoicing in Muslim terrorist centres if they managed to pull off a nuclear hit in the heartland of America??

Give me a list of weaponry that has not been captured and used against it's makers and builders .. and the list wouldn't run to three headings ..

I find the following gentlemans site, quite fascinating, too ..

http://www.mmmfiles.com/archive/pantex.htm

Particularly, the part about an estimated US$300 Billion just to clean up the radioactive waste generated from plutonium production alone ..

The construction and operation of nuclear devices seems to be quite within the realm of terrorists .. who can buy items needed to repair PC's .. and nuclear weapons .. off many of the willing shadowy worldwide sellers who can supply them with all the technology they need ..

[wolf]

Originally Posted by BigV

Even the tiny thumbnails in the gallery here are powerful. I am simultaneously filled with revulsion and unable to tear away my gaze. What have we wrought?

http://www.michaellight.net/100suns/

Well that's just cool. I ordered it. I'll let you guys know what it's like.

My father was in the Air Force in the 1950s. He was based in Hawaii and was responsible for testing of cloud samples to determine when the Soviets were doing testing, as well as, I suppose, to see what the distribution patterns of fallout for our own nuclear blasts were.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

Not so frightening. Such weapons are easily detected by routine scanning equipment.

Somehow I am not comforted by tw's reassurances.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Smoke detectors for the home contain a minute particle of radioactive material.
Every once in a while, the local “Trash-to-Steam” plant (think incinerator heating water) has an alert. One of their radioactive material scanners will find a smoke detector in an incoming trash truck and sound the alarm.

This buoys my hopes that the proper authorities have the same or even better detectors to find any radioactive material big enough to hurt anyone.
Of course Homeland Security would handle that information expediently and in the proper manner to thwart any evil intent.

[Elspode]

Having had my curiosity aroused by what appears to be an excellent book (if you get the mad notion to scan the whole tome, Wolf, count me in for a .pdf file copy of it...), I spent some time looking for info on space-based nuclear testing. It seems there's a video out on this topic, and my local library system has it, so I'm going to be reserving that very soon, along with some of the other videos by the same group of documentarians.

[wolf]

I have a poster leftover from college of an atomic test. I never did know which one. This book may help me identify it. I really need to get that framed and hung.

The poster leftover from college of the rabbit that looks best under blacklight I will probably leave in the tube for now.

[chrisinhouston]

[CharlieG]

Originally Posted by onetrack

The scary parts about the nuclear programs are ...

snip....

"1120 - Nuclear depth charges .. the mind boggles .. they need a Nuke to nail a sub??? ) ..

"1125 - Nuclear demolition charges .. the mind boggles again .. "What are we scorching today, Sarge??" .. "Oh, I think we'll just blow Washington off the face of the map, to deny any usefulness to the enemy" .. (hmm .. maybe not such a bad idea .. .. )

...snip...

RE Nuke Depth charges - they "went away" fairly quickly from what I understand. Remember, Sonar was NOT as good then as it is now, and the idea was that if you had a general idea where an boomer was, you could take it out "pre launch"

As for the Demolition Charges - those are the ones they usually call "Backpack nukes" - you can see them at the National Atomic Museaum in Albuqurque (sp) The exhibit explained that the initial idea was that IF the US was invaded, they wanted to be able to destroy the Hoover Dam and some others to deny the enemy the use of the water/and or electricity.

Just remember, most of the really "odd" nukes have been pulled from service, because the percieved need is gone, either because the threat isn't there anymore (Invasion - yeah, right) OR because we have come up with technology to do the same job with a lot smaller bang

One "interesting" then you can see in looking at "western" militaries, at least since the 1960s. They have been spending a LOT of money to develop SMALLER weapons that have less "collateral" damage. I mean, you've seen pictures of the "MOAB" and the "Bunker Busters" - they replace nukes to do the same job.

Just a point of view of someone who studies military history for fun

[glatt]

I've never heard of nuclear testing in space before. Not detonations of bombs anyway. I would be surprised if it is true.

I HAVE heard that electromagnetic pulses caused by a bomb detonated in orbit are strong enough to destroy all electric equipment on the continent below where the detonation occurred. Military equipment is hardened to shield it from such a pulse, but civilian equipment is not. One bomb, detonated in orbit at the correct altitude, would bring all of North America to its knees.

I don't recall hearing of that happenng in the past, so I am skeptical that detonations have ever occured in space. I'd be interested to hear what that video says.

[Bitman]

Funny, I have tons of responses to this stuff, none of it very insightful. Oh well.

• W-54 suitcase at the 100suns site: http://www.michaellight.net/100suns/images_08.html
• EMP effects can be huge. According to Wikipedia, "An air burst at the right altitude could produce continent-wide effects." But I've heard EMP guns are almost impossible, due to the excessively high energy they'd require.
• Supposedly, President Shrub is (or was) looking to develop nuclear bunker busters. Haven't heard that rumor in a while now.
• Biggest test I've heard of is a Soviet 50 megaton bomb. If the number doesn't look like much, go look at yields on the 100suns site, then read this again.
• Piccy: http://www.zvis.com/nuclear/dimg.php3?tzarbo1,tzar
• Just occurred to me: If it weren't for the radiation, we'd probably all be alot more personally familiar with nukes.