Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Nukes: The Next Generation 143

Posted by michael from the things-that-go-boom dept.
jonerik writes: "Following up on the weekend's posting on the revision of American nuclear war-fighting plans, the New York Times has this article on the difficulties in building a new generation of nukes. The American nuclear arms industry is much smaller now than it was ten years ago, testing the new, smaller "bunker busters" would be problematic, and no one's certain that a nuclear weapon with a tiny explosive yield that's capable of penetrating yards of reinforced concrete could actually be built."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nukes: The Next Generation More

Nukes: The Next Generation

Comments Filter:

  • what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mschachter ( 539568 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @10:50AM (#3149203)
    but i thought any nation that was amassing weapons of mass destruction was terrorist?
    • but i thought any nation that was amassing weapons of mass destruction was terrorist?

      No only the "rogue nations" that haven't joined "the club" yet. You know the ones that Bush pointed to in his speech a couple of weeks back. Bascially, if you are a country without nukes and you try to bust into the nuclear club, you are a rogue nation and likely harboring terrorists... Nations who already have the bomb can do whatever they want with them. Assuming they don't break any treaties. Oh wait, we can just pull out [bbc.co.uk] of any treaties [fas.org]that are too restrictive.
    • We are the terrorists now. Sooner or later we will misuse this technology and screw up, thus throwing us into the third world war. With the majority of nations of the world thrown against us we will have to resort to more terrorist like tactics. just a poorly thought out thought.
      • We are the terrorists now.

        Nah. We just want the rest of the world not to mess with us because of our nuclear arsenal and l33t military. We want to enforce our words with the terror they instill...

        ...oh, wait...

    • Get a grip! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      References to a "club" and America being labeled terroristic is absurd! If you ACT like a terrorist and support terroristic acts without even a facade of anti-terroristic belief, you are a TERRORIST.

      If you've been paying attention for the past hundred years or so you may have noticed that some people are more likely to invade neighboring countries or say, indiscriminately shoot over borders because of this or that belief. Sometimes I seriously wish we would just mind our own damn business and let all of Europe fall into another World War except this time the enemy has the power to obliterate those countries that ride the neutral line because they aren't directly involved...yet.

      Do NOT beat up America for trying to create plans to preserve itself and more than likely OTHER countries. When we start dropping nukes on Canada or Mexico then you can complain.

      A view of Iraq.
      Recently the VP of Iraq stated that UN arms inspectors were kicked out of Iraq for spying. Spying to me is the uncovering of hidden agendas and or plans. In this case spying was the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or their telltale signs of production. That's EXACTLY what they are supposed to be doing! It was a United Nations mandate to put inspectors there to make damned sure those weapons were removed! The entirety of the WORLD should be behind the obliteration of the existing Iraqi government who openly support terrorism and refuse to abide by UN mandates. The UN is a large body of wussies headed by a patholigical bystander. Britain and the US have been two of the few powers willing to stand up and take physical action against unstable cancers and those that do take flak from those that don't. How quickly people forget their histories!

      Whoever scored this guy as insightful is an IDIOT.

      When your country begins to worry about the US establishing military presence in or near your country think about WHY we are doing it because I can guarantee it's not because we want your land or require your resources. The American people as a whole would not stand for our government indiscriminately attacking other countries. We don't brainwash easily due to our crazy mixture of beliefs so there's no chance of a Hitler here. When we do things, we do it for what we believe to be the greater good of our country and the world. We have no unified or even predominant religious beliefs so don't expect a holy war from us! Like it or not, we aren't militant marauding bastards out to take over the world.

      Slashcrap at it's best.

      Mod this!

      Done ranting!

      • Re:Get a grip! (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If you've been paying attention for the past hundred years or so you may have noticed that some people are more likely to invade neighboring countries or say, indiscriminately shoot over borders because of this or that belief.

        Well, if you were familiar with US history, you'd know that that description applies to US history just as much as it does to the UK's, Japan's, Germany's, or Iraq's. Sorry, but the US isn't any holier than other countries, it's only bigger and its citizens are more ignorant.

      • If the U.S IS trying to take over the world, which they probably are, that is what you're meant to think.

      • Re:Get a grip! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The entirety of the WORLD should be behind the obliteration of the existing Iraqi government who openly support terrorism and refuse to abide by UN mandates.

        Hold on. You can't have it both ways. You can't invade a country unilaterally, in support of international law! If the USA wants to do this right, you've got to go thru the UN.

        And does ANYONE here have any idea how potentially dangerous invading Iraq might be? Saddam isn't going to pull any punches if he knows he's the target this time. He'll involve Israel if he can, but this time do it properly (a country with its own nukes BTW), Iran will certainly want to think about how to extend its influence into any power vacuum.

        Please, less smug ranting and a little more clear thinking!

        The UN is a large body of wussies headed by a patholigical bystander.

        You can diss the UN all you like but either you support international law - which means the UN - or you don't. No less an authority than Henry Kissinger once said that in geopolitical terms, the US is basically only an island off the coast of Eurasia. You CAN'T do it all yourself, and thinking you can is the kind of self-deluding nonsense that sucks countries into conflicts like Vietnam.

        > How quickly people forget their histories!

        Indeed, how quickly you forgot how painstakingly George Bush Sr built up a coalition against Iraq, how careful he was to get it through the UN, how carefully he got the arabs on side in the first Gulf War. None of this is happening at the moment.

        And right in the middle of it, he goes and starts a trade war with Europe! Bush sure knows how to pick a fight at the wrong time.
    • Nukes do not equal weapons of mass destruction any more than deCSS is equal to a pirating tool. Both have a wide range of applications. U235 just has that messy stuff it gets all over that you don't really want, so just about any application where you can do it with chemical explosives, the chemical alternative is better.

      FWIW, it is probably very safe to use nuclear weapons to reshape coastlines, level mountains for roadways, etc. Once. The problem is that when everybody does it all over the globe, you wind up with a RAD count that makes it equivelent to everybody living in Denver. OTOH, underground testing and usage is pretty safe - you're adding another radioactive spot to the geology (just like many natural ones).

      What it really boils down to is that nukes pros don't outweigh their cons in a theater of war, given that the managable ones are equivelent to chemical explosives, and chemical explosives don't have as much aftereffect on the destroyed area.

      --
      Evan

      • That's perfectly ridiculous. Of course, nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction; if they aren't, what is? And, in case you haven't been paying attention, the whole discussion is about nuclear weapons ("nuclear bunker busters", "Pentagon report", etc.), not about engineering applications of nuclear explosives.
        • Okay, perhaps you think a bayonet, being a weapon, is thus a de facto weapon of mass destruction, but it isn't. A grenade is not a weapon of mass destruction; a flight of B-52s carrying blockbusters is. They both operate on the same basic principle - one kills one or a few people you lob it at, the other flattens an entire city, wiping out all inhabitants.

          The point here is that most nuclear weapons to date have been weapons of mass destruction, yes. In the 50s, the focus was on bigger bombs that were more deadly to a larger area. More modern nuclear weapons have been focused on precision, smaller scale and specific applications (like collapsing caves in solid rock).

          If a mini-nuke is developed that takes out a single battleship, it is no more a weapon of mass destruction than a torpedo. Yes, it results in tremendous loss of life, but that's the nature of war. Weapons of mass destruction are designed to wipe out not your enemies' soldiers, but the entire enemy (or just kill indiscriminatly).

          War is hell. Weapons designed to kill other human are bad, and their use should be avoided. That does not mean that they are evil or wrong. Anything that limits the theater of war to just the interested participants is a good thing.

          --
          Evan

          • Small "nukes" may or may not be weapons of mass destruction. After all, the fallout can endanger a lot of people, and even subcritical dirty bombs have been talked about as "weapons of mass destruction" by US politicians. And I suspect that if Iraq had a kiloton nuclear device, Bush would be foaming at the mouth about "weapons of mass destruction".

            Be that as it may, you wrote "Nukes do not equal weapons of mass destruction". I take it that's not what you meant, then?

            • Put very simply:

              you wrote "Nukes do not equal weapons of mass destruction". I take it that's not what you meant, then?

              That is precisely what I meant. To date, most nukes were built using the "bigger=better" concept. Therefore, most nukes that we are used to dealing with are designed to wipe out a city. These *are* WoMD, aka "Deterance Weapons" (the "they are on our side" phrase for the smae thing). Just because most of the ones built to date *are* WoMD, does not mean that the only millitary application of a critial fission mass is a big explosion that kills lots of people in a wide radius.

              After all, the fallout can endanger a lot of people, and even subcritical dirty bombs have been talked about as "weapons of mass destruction" by US politicians.

              Yes, but a small nuke used underground to shatter caves doesn't have any wide fallout pattern and limits the destruction to military targets. And even surface explosions are not that bad. Fallout is a sideeffect, yes. It increases radioactivity related health issues - as opposed to "bits of metal passing through your body" health issues. I have a friend who came back from Viet Nam with pieces of an incindery grenade in his gut. They can still burst into flame. Bad Times. This is why war *really* *really* sucks.

              War weapons are designed to kill. They are designed to kill lots of soldiers on the other side so they can't kill your side. As many soldiers as possible. The key difference between these "ethical weapons of war" (yes, that's somewhat an oxymoron, deal with reality) and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is that WoMD are designed to kill the enemy... all of them: their families, their pets, their children, their elderly... their non-soldiers.

              And I suspect that if Iraq had a kiloton nuclear device, Bush would be foaming at the mouth about "weapons of mass destruction".

              That's because Iraq would be likely to use it on civilians or in the middle of a city. Saddam has repeatedly dumped chemical weapons on his own towns to quell dissent - and possibly just to test the stuff. With a nuke in hand, do you think he'll have a sudden surge of morality and confine its use to a battlefield?

              --
              Evan

  • Why do they need this? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PD ( 9577 ) <slashdotlinux@pdrap.org> on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @10:51AM (#3149216) Homepage Journal
    Are there bunkers in existence that are not vulnerable to the conventional bunker busters? Might those bunkers be in Iraq? I am mighty skeptical that there's a bunker in existence that can't be destroyed by a large precisely targeted conventional bomb. The only exception to this would be a bunker that's extremely deep, but a small nuke would also have trouble with this. Probably nothing that can't be solved with a larger nuke. Funny (not funny haha) how we all thought 5 years ago that since the Russians are our friends we didn't have to worry about nuclear war, and now our President might actually use nukes in an upcoming war.
    • 1 - Strap nuke to remote controlled robot

      2 - Drive robot deep into cave with hidden "bad-guys"

      3 - Duck!

      4 - Detonate nuke

      Problem solved.
      • Alternative that works just as well. I call this the "Cask of Amantilladobot".

        1) Roboticise a dump truck.
        2) Drive dump truck up to cave entrance with a pile of rocks.
        3) dump rocks, blocking entrance.

        No nukes required.
        • Or better yet, this is what we do...

          1. Build giant (hollow) wooden rabbit
          2. Place the wooden rabbit in front of the entrance to the bunker/cave/castle
          3. They will be immediately fooled into taking your giant wooden rabbit into their fortified area
          4. Wait until they're asleep... and then... hit them with a giant nuke anyway
          That isn't where you thought I was going with this, was it? Honestly, though, it seems a big waste to spend time thinking of "clever ways to use a nuke on a fortified enemy" -- I am of the opinion that a nuke is not the best weapon for every situation. There's probably a better, and more cost effective way to achieve the same results without rearranging the mountains.

          -Sou|cuttr
      • and of course, the problem will be even more solved when the cloud of radioactive dirt shot up into the air by this explosion kills thousands more around the immediate area. fallout from nuclear testing in the 50's, 60's and 70's has killed 11,000 people of cancer in the united states alone; tens of thousands more have probably died all over the world.

        radioactive fallout isn't anything to fuck with, and it's ridiculous to think that any problems can be solved by filling the atmosphere with radioactivity.

        but don't worry, terrorists won't get ahold of nuclear bombs and detonate them in the middle of a city in retribution. don't worry about taking responsibility for our government, they'll take the blame when thousands of civilians are killed, and monetarily compensate whoever is left. and your tax dollars won't go to pay for the treatment of the thousands more who get cancer, or for the environmental cleanup from the area. nuclear bombs are bad news, regardless of why the fuck these paranoid assholes in govnerment/military feel as though we need them. what, thousand pound bombs are good enough? don't they kill enough people? you can't give the same penetrating ability to conventional weapons? this makes no fucking sense.
        • Increased mutations are good for the genome.
          • Yes, Fallout help to solve that annoying biodiverity problem

            Most mutations have no end result, of those few that actually affect the organism, they usually have negative effects. The only time that mutations tend to be helpful are in response to drastic environmental change. So the only mutation that would become widespread would be that which increases radiation tolerance. The vast majority of organisms, along with their null and negatively mutagenic varieties, would die out.

            The very few remaining survivors wouldn't have nearly as much of that annoying biodiversity to deal with. Because variety is the spice to the ulcer of life. Human tissue is so much more pleasing when it is oxidized and blisering. And I look forward to seeing how the scrotum evolves in response to natural selection.
    • The Soviets bombed the Afgans for a decade - the Afgans went deep into the cave systems. The Americans bombs are just as useless as the Soviets at destroying military bases deep under a mountain (heck, the American "last rally point" is under Cheyenne Mountain). America wants as bloodless a war as possible, hitting only enemy military targets (and killing them, yes. That's why it's called warfare, and why it really really sucks. Deal with it). It's unlikely that anybody is in those bases in those caves that isn't on the opposing side to the people bombing them.

      --
      Evan

    • Are there bunkers in existence that are not vulnerable to the conventional bunker busters?

      Cheyenne Mountain?

  • How? (Score:1)

    by NWT ( 540003 )
    How do they want to penetrate deep into the earth with a nuke bunker-buster? hum, from what i've seen yet atomic bombs give away their force to the sides and upwards!?
    Anybody who's got a link to some technical details/explanations?
    • yeah, there's a big lead mirror in the warhead that reflects the blast skywards!

    • Re:How? (Score:2, Informative)

      by TrollMan 5000 ( 454685 )
      IIRC, the force of nuclear bombs is spherical in nature. It seems as if the force is spread upward, since the bombs hit the ground, providing resistance, so much debris is "bounced" upwards.

      Another tactical use of nukes is detonating them several miles up and flattening everything on the ground below.

      More info can be found here [howstuffworks.com].
    • I guess the idea is to have a bomb designed to penetrate far enough into the earth to contain the blast underground.

      I suspect that nukes are overkill, the RAF were dropping 10 ton conventional bombs during big mistake II which were destroying bunkers hundreds of feet underground and going through tens of feet of concrete to get there.

    • Any explosion (nuclear or otherwise) attempts to distribute energy in all directions equally. Any restrictions such as, you know, THE GROUND will direct the explosion. That directing ability is only as good as the ability of the directing device to withstand the initial shock and contain the energy.
    • I think the idea is that the bomb would dig in a few 10's of meters then detonate and the resulting shockwave would be powerful enough to collaps the underground fortification. The reason for using a nuke at all is to deliver a powerful enough shockwave in a can to the target area.
    • "hum, from what i've seen yet atomic bombs give away their force to the sides and upwards!?"

      1.) Shockwave and other properties brought about from popping off an explosive in a fluid do tend to travel upwards (basic fluid mechanics/thermodynamics). Other effects like the actual blast and the EM flash (which includes radiated heat) are medium independent and are spherical. This is why an air burst does more damage than a ground burst.

      2.) A nuke-pumped x-ray laser puts a metric fuckload of energy in any damned direction you please.

  • Hey, the american citizens! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by codexus ( 538087 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @11:04AM (#3149308)
    Couldn't you get rid of Bush before he starts a thermonuclear war?

    Cause I don't know about you, but the rest of the planet is getting a little bit scared.
    • that'd be nice, but i guess setting the stage for the destruction of the world isn't as bad as fucking an intern, so we can't impeach him.
      • Being disbarred means that he can't practice law... Clinton was not impeached. Illegal wiretapping of politically powerful people is is better recipe for impeachment than illicit sexual contact with politically subservient assistants. Perhaps a home movie of Bush snorting Coke off of Tipper Whor^d^d^d^dGore's genitals leaking onto Gnutella would have some interesting political repurcussions. "Parental Advisory Warning - Insufficient censoring of Tipper may induce nausea."

        As we have already seen, a few nukes will hardly destroy the world, though it may make life near ground zero distinctly unleasant for some time... especially without a nearby ocean to absorb most of the fallout. Global life expectancy may drop a few years for most populations. But censorship would still be rampant (Thanks Mrs Gore!) and easing the discomfort of radiation poisoning with Cannabis and narcotics would still be illegal. (Clinton, Bush, respectively should decriminalize or accept reprimand.)
        • Clinton was not impeached.

          Wrong. Impeachment means that the House votes to send the case for a trial in the Senate. Just like a grand jury. He was impeached [time.com], but the Senate voted [umich.edu] to not try him.

          The rest of your comments are simple flambait.
        • This is a nit, but I've got to pick it: Clinton was impeached. "Impeachment" is what happens when the House votes articles of impeachment (which they did) and brings someone to trial before the Senate (which they also did.) What didn't happen in Clinton's case (nor in the case of Andrew Johnson, the only other President ever to go through the full impeachment process) was conviction -- i.e., a guilty vote by the Senate, followed by removal from office of the guilty party. Clinton, like Johnson, was narrowly found not guilty.

          The case of Nixon is a little more complex, since, IIRC, the House did vote articles of impeachment, but he resigned before he could be brought to trial before the Senate. I'm not sure if you could say he was impeached or not.
          • Pretty close, it was the House Judiciary committee, chaired by Peter Rodino, that passed three articles of impeachment against Nixon. The resignation preceded the vote in the full House.
        • Clinton was not impeached.

          Uhm, hello...Clinton was impeached, he simply wasn't removed from office. Remind me to thank those Senators who lacked the testicular fortitude to do their constitutionally mandated duty.
    • We tried to stop him from even getting into office. Remember the 2000 elections? The next best opportunity is in a couple of years.
      • We tried to stop him from even getting into office.

        I woke up cynical today, so

        &ltCYNICISM&gt

        We obviously didn't try hard enough. The Democrats were wrong to only want recounts in areas that they knew would benefit Gore. The whole state should've been forced to recount, or have a revote. The Supremes are ultimately to blame. But then, how often does the judicial branch get the opportunity to select the next President?

        You think Bush isn't going to try riding the "axis of evil" to a second term? He learned from his daddy (and Clinton) that if the polls are down, bomb the Iraqis. Lucky for him, and horribly unlucky for the victims, the actions of the terrorists have given him a veneer of teflon. Criticism can't stick: you're a terrorist or terrorist lover if you criticize the President.

        That goes double for our Senators. Don't dare question the billions of dollars that are being pumped into our "just war," simply accept that you don't need to know what the parameters of our War on Terrorism are.

        If you pull away the veil of terrorism, what has the President (and his administration) done for the American people? Giant tax cuts to the rich, a pittance for the poor and working class (what did you do with your $300 check?), Dick "Undisclosed Location" Cheney stonewalling the GAO, claiming that we absolutely must drill in ANWR to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (with no mention of reducing our USAGE), backing out of the Kyoto treaty (it's not like Congress would have ratified it anyway!), backing out of the 1972 ABM treaty and developing a missile shield that is never going to work (unless angering the world is the goal).

        &lt/CYNICISM&gt

        Now I'm angry, and sad. It looks like the Pentagon wants to be ready to act upon the more unreasonable portion of the report (using nuclear arms in a conventional war). Of course, nobody will listen to the scientists (from the article):

        "The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout," Dr. Nelson wrote last year.

        • You think Bush isn't going to try riding the "axis of evil" to a second term? He learned from his daddy (and Clinton) that if the polls are down, bomb the Iraqis.

          Well, his Daddy was looking like a shoe-in for re-election during the Gulf War, but he ended up losing in 1992. So there's still a chance we can be rid of Dubya in 2004.
        • And people wonder why the American public is so disillusioned with politics, when the only ones able to get into office keep pulling these kinds of stunts.
    • Your fear is a result of your ignorance.

      Making "plans" for using nuclear weapons has been an everyday part of having nuclear weapons for every country since the 40's. Making plans to do something is a long way away from actually doing it. But having the weapon and the ability to use it is what has kept this planet safe and stable for 50 years.

      And none of any of this has anything to do with Bush; it has been standard practice in every previous administration.

      If you are honestly worried about nuclear war, you need to worry about India and Pakistan going at it. You need to worry about how Russia and China are selling nuclear technology. You need to worry about how Saddam Hussein - a man lacking in compunction who has already used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbors - is currently working to acquire a nuclear weapon that can be mounted on their modified SCUD launchers.

      • Your fear is a result of your ignorance.
        [...] But having the weapon and the ability to use it is what has kept this planet safe and stable for 50 years.

        I may be ignorant as you say, but at least I don't claim to be able to tell what the history of these past 50 years would have been without nuclear weapons. I think we barely escaped a nuclear war during the worst hours of the cold war but that's just speculation.

        And none of any of this has anything to do with Bush;

        The Bush administration has increased the military budgets in huge proportions, has withdrawn from the ABM treaty and is now threatening the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

        I'm worried about the nuclear power in the nations you mentioned. But may I remind you that the USA is the only country that has actually used this weapon?

        According to some historians, it seems that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been easily avoided as Japan was ready to surrender. It was not an unconditional surrender though. A detail that cost the lives of over 200'000 civilians.
        • ...USA is the only country that has actually used this weapon...

          And because we used it we saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Allied lives, and brought the war to an end much sooner than it would have otherwise.

          We also kept the Soviet Union from overrunning the rest of Europe, be cause they knew we had it, and would use it.

          [rant mode on]
          I am sick to the teeth of the ignorance and naivete displayed by most peacniks, on so many levels. They assume that all peoples of the world simply want the same things. They assume that all political, philosophical, and religious structures are morally equivalent. It's especially galling to hear these kind of complaints from Europeans. Who kept Britain free of German domination twice in the last century? That's right, WE DID. Who liberated you rifle-dropping French, twice? THat's right, WE DID.

          It's also quite depressing when this sort of rubbish comes from US citizens. The ignorance perpetrated by the liberal education system in the US has resulted in more than 2 generations of selfish, self-centerd whingers, who feel rather than think, and who have no understanding or gratitude for the sacrifice of those who have gone before. We have been given the most prosperous, moral, and brave country in the world. We ARE fit to be the world's policemen. The old nations proved they were unfit to the task.

          [rant mode off]

          I expect to get flamed, and modded down, but that's alright.

          • Part I

            "Who kept Britain free of German domination twice in the last century?"

            The question should bemore like "Who shows up in the end of the war and who then getts all the credit.

            France lost more soldiers in the batle of Verdan then the US sent to Europe in WWI. (France lost more people in the battle of Verdan then the US lost in both world wars.)

            England was saved in WWII not by the US of A but by an intense battle called "The Battle Of Britan", and Hitlers choice to invade Russia.

            Part II

            Lastly you point out that these bombs are used to "peotect us" from bad people. Really. And who gave chemical weapons to Iraq - The US of A. And who taught Bin Laodin to be a terorist - The US of A. And who gave both Pakistan and India the recators that can make nuke bombs - The US of A.

            And now the nation that gave chemical weapons to Sadam Hussain is going to have small portable nukes to give to thier "friends"

            Your worried about the Navite of Peaceniks?

            Jesus Fuck Man your the one who is naieve.

            I am a citizen of Canada. I do not want to be fucking policed.
            I don't wan't your fucking protection.
            If you really want to "police the world" STOP SELLING FUCKING WEAPONS.

            And yes I can not spell.....but at least I can think.
            • France lost more soldiers in the batle of Verdan then the US sent to Europe in WWI. (France lost more people in the battle of Verdan then the US lost in both world wars.)

              So, we're better fighters, whats your point? Hell, I would think it would be a point of shame to exemplify the fact that the germans were able to kill more French in a few weeks than they they were able to kill of Americans during the whole war.

              And who gave chemical weapons to Iraq - The US of A.

              Your ignor-arrogance is astounding - Iraq developed their own chemical weapons with help from Russia.

              And who taught Bin Laodin to be a terorist - The US of A.

              We taught the Mujahadeen to fight the Russians. The degree of separation between us and Bin Ladin is justifiably large, although I know it's fun to pin things on the worlds wealthiest and most powerful nation. Hey, everybody has to have a scapegoat.

              And who gave both Pakistan and India the recators that can make nuke bombs - The US of A.

              Wrong moron, the nuclear reactors we built were incapable of producing weapons grade material. The Russians were more than happy to help India, and the Chinese were gleefully eager to help the Pakistanis build plutonium processing plants. You'll also notice that the IRBM's they're building now use their respective sponsors engine technology.
        • I may be ignorant as you say, but at least I don't claim to be able to tell what the history of these past 50 years would have been without nuclear weapons

          No, but you pretend to know what the future brings if the US simply upgrades its nuclear stockpile. You'll sit there and preach all sorts of doom and gloom over what has in fact been going on for years without any ill effects. On the other hand, the advantage of hindsight is that we can know for a fact, from the very mouths of Soviet politbureau members and missile commanders that if not for the threat of the NATO nuclear umbrella of ICBM's and long range bombers, they would've unleased conventional warfare acrossed Europe.
          The Bush administration has increased the military budgets in huge proportions,

          Our military spending is less of a percentage of GNP than most other countries on the Earth, and these "huge proportions" you shreik over represent 1% growth - Growth that is only now occuring the in the face of a global threat of terror from rogue threats - growth that is only necessary because of the last decade of gutting the military has endured at the same time as an increase operational tempo has strained it to the limits fighting low intensity conflicts in such god-forsaken places as Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and others.

          has withdrawn from the ABM treaty

          There is the fallacy - that a treaty even exists any longer. The ABM was an agreement between us and the Soviet Union. News flash bucko, the Soviet Union no longer exists. The ABM treaty was a farce, and if anything was more dangerous in that it forced both countries to NOT develop defensive systems against ICBM's. The only reason the USSR pushed for an ABM is because we were light years beyond them in developing such systems, and they were already straining under the economics of maintaining their Imperialist military-industrial complex.

          and is now threatening the Non-Proliferation Treaty

          Anybody who thinks that upgrading the nuclear weapons we already have is somehow threatening non-proliferation quite frankly needs to switch to decaf, and grab a dictionary to find out what "proliferation" means. Meanwhile, we have china and russia selling nuclear missile technology to India, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and Libya. At best, your efforts are misplaced and at worst they are aimed at empowering third world thugs who can already build the equivalent of a 1960's nuclear arsenal while hiding in 20th century protective bunkers.

          According to some historians, it seems that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been easily avoided as Japan was ready to surrender. It was not an unconditional surrender though. A detail that cost the lives of over 200'000 civilians.

          When you don't revise history to support your leftist views, one thing becomes blatently obvious: The japenese made overtures of surrender and peace as a prelude to offensives. They never had any intention of surrendering. Dropping the bombs on those two cities was a painstaking decision done the maximize damage to industrial warfighting capacity while minimizing damage to centers japanese cultural heritage. The best figures of the time show that far more than 200,000 people would have died if a land invasion became necessary - that many people would've committed suicide.

          In the perspective of history, one lesson that has to be learned is that you don't make peace without victory. After raping and murdering millions throughout asia, japan deserved nothing more than unconditional surrender.
      • Making "plans" for using nuclear weapons has been an everyday part of having nuclear weapons for every country since the 40's. Making plans to do something is a long way away from actually doing it. But having the weapon and the ability to use it is what has kept this planet safe and stable for 50 years.

        No there is a huge difference this time. For the first time, the US goverment is drafting plans to deploy nuclear weapons against countries without any nuclear capability of their own. That is a long way from the madness of nuclear detterence during the cold war era.

        • No there is a huge difference this time. For the first time, the US goverment is drafting plans to deploy nuclear weapons against countries without any nuclear capability of their own. That is a long way from the madness of nuclear detterence during the cold war era.

          Every country on that list either has or is developing a nuclear/biological/chemical capability, so your argument is bullshit. Furthermore, we have long planned for using nukes in low intensity conflicts with countries we were even allied with. Your shrill paranoia is rooted in complete and utter ignorance, and your inability to grasp reality is apalling. It is the job of a military to prepare for all possible situations in the event of war, and every country does this whether they have nukes or not. Actually NOT DOING it is what is important.
      • Not "having the weapon and the ability to use it" kept this planet "safe", it was the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) [nuclearfiles.org] that did. Knowing that "Whoever shoots first, dies second."

        India and Pakistan are in a MAD situation, as are Israel and all of Arabia. Even Saddam Hussein didn't use his weapons of mass destruction in the (2nd) Gulf War, because he knew the answer would be devastating.

        Bush however thinks nobody can touch the US (as if 9/11 didn't prove that to be an illusion). Planing to use nuclear arms as tactical weapons or against non-(semi-)Superpowers goes against the MAD principle (as does that silly anti-missile system).

        • abm (Score:1)

          by olman ( 127310 )
          Oh, the anti-missile system is a perfectly decent piece of hardware. Okay, a plan for one.

          You can cap satellites, space ships (Anyone want to bet 1st people on Mars won't be caucasian?), Dr. Strangelove scenarios..

          It's just not much good against a strategic threat. I mean, all you have to do is to get some bombs inside a shipping container and once it's shipped to Redmont - Boom!

          Those sneaky rogue states might consider taking off AMD sites 1st, too.

  • Of course small munitions are possible! (Score:4, Informative)

    by JCMay ( 158033 ) <JeffMayNO@SPAMearthlink.net> on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @11:22AM (#3149445) Homepage
    This place [fas.org] has all you want to know about the "Golden Age" of American nuclear testing.

    This is a picture of the Hardtack II / De Baca test [fas.org], which was a small nuclear gravity bomb (11.3 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 66 lb). It had a "disappointing" 2.2 kTon yield.

    Even more interesting is Upshot-Knothole / Grable [fas.org] which was a nuclear cannon shell.

    How small did they get? Here's the W54 [fas.org] (Davey Crockett) warhead, normally used as a rocket mortar round [fas.org]. It weighs 50 pounds, and has a yield of 22 TONS. Not Kilotons. Not megatons. Tons.

    Of course small nuclear devices are possible, even workable. Not every miltary explosive needs to be like Castle [fas.org]/Bravo [fas.org] (the largest nuclear device the US has tested).
    • Of course small nuclear devices are possible, even workable.

      I don't think the article was questioning the size to which a nuclear device can be scaled down so much as there were questions as to whether such a device still stood a good chance of functioning after barreling through 60 feet or so of concrete, rebar, and rock.
      • I don't understand why it wouldn't; if they can make a chemical bomb that penetrates that much stuff and functions, I'm sure a fission device could. The physics of the impact would be the same, but the required explosive payload would be smaller for the fission device.

        That's the key: do more with less. Nuclear weapons weren't developed because of their Eeeevil factor, but because they can deliver such a large punch with such a relatively diminutive package. Before the Trinity test there was the "100 Ton" calibration experiment. 108 tons of high explosive was detonated to examine the effects of fission fallout and instrument calibration. 108 tons of high explosive was huge [fas.org] compared to the Trinity Gadget [fas.org], even though the Gadget was 185 times as powerful.
        • I don't understand why it wouldn't; if they can make a chemical bomb that penetrates that much stuff and functions, I'm sure a fission device could. The physics of the impact would be the same, but the required explosive payload would be smaller for the fission device.

          Because modern conventional explosives are incredibly sturdy: you can bang on them with hammers, light them on fire, etc. and they won't go off, but even after major abuse, they'll still detonate reliably if the right stimulus is applied. In contrast, nukes are delicate, tricky beasts: abuse them too much before detonation and you won't get a yield, or worse, you'll get a low yield and incredible amounts of fallout. Basically, nukes are mechanical devices; conventional bombs are solid-state.

          • Re:Of course small munitions are possible! (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            The problem goes beyond being delicate...modern nukes are implosion weapons...they rely on a prcisely shaped set of shockwaves to compress the plutonium core to supercritical density and (with the help of an initiator) start the reaction. The timing of the detonators on the conventional high explosives that make these shockwaves is critical as is their geometry. Even though you can make a stell (titanium, tungaten, whever) shell that will penetrate through to the bunker, I'd wager that it will be very difficult to keep things arranged precisely enough to work correctly given the vibration and G forces.
            • The trick would actually lie an an older system developed for bunker busting - the Leading Shot Sabot. In this system (and I've spent the last hour trying to find reference alas to no avail), a hardened shell is attached in front of the warhead (which, in all fairness, becomes a war ass?). As the device approaches the target, a sabot is cast off and the war-ass (okay, it's my word now) trails a few meters behind. The hardened projectile does the penetrating job, and the warass follows it through the new hole. Of course, the war-ass would still get jumbled around, but the shock from bouncing around would be significantly less than actually doing the job and I'm willing to bet the type of warheads used in Grable (being shot from a cannon can be quite traumatic) would suffice in both durability and yeild.
    • Great info, thanks!

      Just for comparison, the US's largest conventional bomb is the BLU-82B [fas.org] (aka Commando Vault in Vietnam and Daisy Cutter in Afghanistan). It weighs 7.5 tons, with 6.3 tons of explosive (84% bomb!). It's pushed out the back of a C130 cargo plane and is optimized for destruction and ground level without digging a crater (original purpose was to clear foliage to make helicopter landing pads). It costs $27,318 and 225 were produced (mostly in the 70's).

      If you want to build your own, you can get the explosive here [slurryexplosive.com]

      So, for comparison (aprox.) exposive/weight ratio of W54 davey crockett=880, of BLU-82B daisy cuttter=0.84

  • extremely disturbing (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Since 9/11 a few disturbing things have happened. Under the pretense of terrorist fighting the US defense budget has been raised by an insane amount of money; privacy and freedom of speech invading laws have been rubberstamped and now there's talk about developing and actually using new nuclear weapons. What's next? Precision bombardments with tons of antrax from a B52???

    WTF, we're supposed to be the good guys! Remember Hiroshima? Remember various non prolifiration treaties????

    The truth is even more disturbing. Nuclear weapons are an option because american casualties need to be avoided, at all cost. Compared to the loss of 1 american life the thousands of affected lives of local civilians(be they iraqis, afghanistani's) is acceptable and considered collatoral damage (thus irrelevant and not news worthy). So it is more convenient to deploy nuclear weapons than to accept a hand full of (american) losses and fight the war the conventional way. The indifference towards the hundreds of thousands of afghan fugitives (not to mention the tens of thousands babies, elderly and sick people that have died) is equally appalling. Somehow it seems like the tragic death of = 4000 New Yorkers outweighs any amount of Afhan collateral damage.

    Right now the American policy towards just about anything appears to be 'Nuke em 'cause we're superior.

    I am not at all surprised anti american feelings prosper in the middle east. I don't share those feelings (at least not entirely) but I understand them well. I also understand that deploy nukes is not going to contribute to a permanent solution (except perhaps for an end losung).

    • One American death is a tragedy. One million Afghan deaths is a statistic.
    • You're about an idiot. I have no idea why I'm compelled to respond to you, but its probably because you epitomize the stupidity of the left leaning little dweebs who frequent Internet bulletin boards like this spewing ignorance in between their field trips to the bathroom to see if they've got nuthair 1 growing in yet.

      US defense budget has been raised by an insane amount of money

      The "insane amount of money" you refer to is the typical catching up that has to be done with a Democratic administration guts the military. Military growth during the Clinton administration was at just about 1% while other government programs were grown at rates of up to 8 to 9%. The thing is, federal spending for midnight basketball doesn't do jack shit to defend this country from Tin-Pot dictators in the middle east who are trying to develop nukes he can lob in our direction, or even the lesser but obviously real threat of a small group of jihaddies crashing planes into buildings.

      privacy and freedom of speech invading laws have been rubberstamped

      Reeeaaally...and perhaps you can show me how our free speech has been "invaded". Last time I checked, I was free to walk around my apartment naked, and stand on the street corner and badmouth any politician I want.

      OH WAIT, I forgot about campaign finance reform. I'm not allowed to say anything bad about a politician for 60 days before an election. And that had nothing to do with 9/11.

      and now there's talk about developing and actually using new nuclear weapons

      Here's a brainfart for you: We are ALWAYS developing new nuclear weapons. Since 78 we have upgraded our stockpiles constistantly with newer designs which are safer to store and transport. As for using them, well this is where you have to actually get a clue about the real world: The genie is out of the bottle and in as much as you have uppity little neo-nazi dictators ringing asia and the middle east who have no qualms about using them, then you need to be willing and have the guts to use them. Bear in mind we are the only country to have ever used nukes in combat, and since then we have been the only country with them to not threaten to use them.

      Finally, try getting some facts. The number of Agfhans who have dies is still less than the number of Americans who died, and unlike the terrorists the overwhelming majority of the people who die by the hands of the American military were pointing guns back. "tens of thousands" of Afghans represent a sizeable portion of their population: We'd have to wipe out half of Kabul to get that kind of number.

      • uppity little neo-nazi dictators

        That would be Saddam Hussein, who received a great deal of support from the freedom-loving US, despite using chemical weapons against his own people.

        • It was before he used chemical weapons. Further, he actively pandered to us for support, and at the time he displayed great promise with his secular government and democratic reforms. You act like you never made a mistake before.
  • They don't need to test new weapons, they just need to get a copy of Worms Armageddon or Worms World Party [team17.com] and study the Gopher weapon. He burrows, then *BOOM!*, all gone, go bye-bye.

    -Adam
  • Here we go again. More, better ways of starting a nuclear war without the inconvenience of an obvious M.A.D-type scenario to dissuade crackpot presidents and dictators, at home or abroad. As if already being able to drop hundreds of megatonnes of death wasn't enough!

    I'd like to give all the scientists and engineers involved directly involved with this project a big 'fuck you'.

    Sigh....

    • I'd like to give all the scientists and engineers involved directly involved with this project a big 'fuck you'.

      We have big bombs, and we have little bombs... We have big nukes, and soon we will have small nukes... Use the right tool for the job, I say...

      As for all those scientists and engineers, would you rather have them quit so that only our enemies could come up with new war-making technology?? Personally, I'll sleep a lot better at night knowing that our top scientists and engineers are working on this stuff... War ain't pretty, but in this day and age it's still necessary, and I'd rather the US be in the lead than anyone else, ya know?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • If it were only 6 feet of concrete, it wouldn't be a bunker it'd be a typical building. Hardened bunkers designed to guard against most conventional and some nuclear attacks can have as much as 40 feet of steel reinforced concrete.

      As for fragility, the engineers who design these things make robust survivability as important as overall yield. Your average warhead can be dropped from space onto the parking lot in front of my house and not detonate. The trick is getting enough of the concrete out of the way that it detonates in the bunker and contains most of the blast.
      • average warhead can be dropped from space onto the parking lot in front of my house and not detonate

        That might be true, but then the kinetic energy released (I haven't done the math> at that point probably would make the payload redundant.
        • Even then, I'd be more worried about the dispersion of radioisotopes and the lead that would be kicked up.

          I'm just highly amused by the lack of education and paranoi surrounding nuclear issues. But then, I was amused when my neice made me stay with her the entire night because of the boogeyman in her closet.

  • 3D-Modelling? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by joe90 ( 48497 )
    So much for the simulations [slashdot.org] of nuclear detonations.

    Speaking from a completly ignorant position, surely it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to extend the simulation to determine the effects of the detonation on bunkers, subterranean caves etc?
  • In other news, Pentagon spending on a mobile Nuclear attack tank was revealed yesterday. The project code named "Metal Gear" will supposibly be equipped with a electromagnetic, nuclear weapon launching "rail gun".

    The proliferation of weapons like these just disgust me. They're going to destroy the world and these people call themselves "Patriots".

    Veramocor
  • What ever happened to the Neutron Bomb [lbl.gov]??

    It can be made very small, it produces neutrons that penetrate heavy armor/ bunkers. It doesn't produce long lingering radiation so it only kills the targets. And it doesn't make the drop zone uninhabitable.

    Imagine if we'd have used the neutron bomb in Afghanistan; same horribly dead victims, but the country wouldn't look so much like a blasted Martian landscape. Also, no depleted uranium shells littering the land, damaging people, babies, and crops for generations.

    Really, why aren't they developing this trusty old tech? Sure seems like the lesser evil.
    • The truth of the neutron bomb was that is was never that effective, and it still causes a great deal of destruction on the scale of the hiroshima bombs. It's biggest effect was psychological. Moreover, early in development it was already decided that sheilding against the neutron radiation would be available to the people we did want to kill (military commanders), and not to the people who we did'nt want to kill(the average joe on the street).
      • Hmmmm... what you say sounds reasonable. I have googled around quite a bit and can't verify any of it, although I do find recent articles such as this one [flonnet.com] that seem to say differently. Also, remember when the US was in an uproar not too long ago about China stealing our secrets and developing a neutron bomb? I'm sure it's obvious I'm no expert, nor even a very well informed laymen, so if you have any information to back up what you or the AC says I am interested in reading it. Thanks.
  • A new generation of nuclear weapons is one of the dumbest political ideas to come out of the Bush ADminstration. But it's technically possible, if enough money is thrown at the problem.

    Shaped-charge nuclear weapons are theoretically possible. See John McPhee's "The Curve of Binding Energy". There are many anti-armor weapons that put out most of their energy in a specific direction, and apparently that can be done for nukes, too. A bunker-buster that isn't a deep penetrator might be possible.

  • As soon as I saw the subject line I knew there'd be a boatload of posts from all the pseudointellectuals about the end of the world and nuclear armageddeon and all that. Your typical knee-jerk reaction.

    When all is said and done a nuclear bomb is one thing: a powerful explosive. A device that can generate more thermal energy than any conceivable chemical reaction. No more, no less. The typcal anti-nuke person feels the way they do because a nuke in their mind represents both the ability to destroy a city as well as a device primarily used against civillians.

    First off, I hate to break it to you but we've had the ability to wipe out a city for a very long time now. Ask the Romans about Carthage sometime. All technology has allowed us to do is accomplish that goal more easily. Examples range from Moscow to Atlanta to Dresden. Eliminating nuclear weapons from the equation doesn't make that capability go away, it just makes it slightly more difficult (fuel-air explosives, anyone?)

    And then there's the persistant vision haunting everyone's nightmares since 1945: using nuclear weapons against civillian targets. Sorry, but if your goal is to go after civillian targets there are weapons far more effective (and more terrifying) to use against a civillian population than nukes. Both chemical and biological weapons are very efficient at wiping out large numbers of civillians (moreso than nukes) and have the added advantage of leaving industrial infrastructure virtually unscathed. In fact, of the three accepted classifications of "weapons of mass destruction," the only one that has real uses that don't violate the Geneva Conventions are nukes. Chemical and biological agents are all but useless against a well-trained and well-equipped military force. Heck, I'm willing to bet the only reason nuclear weapons get more bad publicity than chemical and biological weapons put together is the fact that they're so shiny and visible and scary-looking compared to an invisible killer.

    Not that any of the above matters because what we're talking about is developing nuclear explosives that are tactically useful rather than stratiegicly. Low- and sub-kiloton explosives that are small enough to have their uses on a battlefield. In such a situation having a device with a blast radius that large is more damaging to your own forces almost as much as those of your target's. The main focus of weapons design (ANY weapon) for the past few decades has been on weapons that are capable of putting a lot of hurt in as small an area as possible, the so-called surgical strike. Take a look at what India and Pakistan are doing with their weapons development. They're so focused on developing tactical nuclear explosives that they couldn't care less about developing thermonuclear devices. Both of them have tested devices with below-kiloton blast yields with virtually no fallout.

    And speaking of fallout, fallout is both a tactical hinderance and a sign of inefficiency in the explosive. Unlike the "dirty bombs" the media is currently panicking over ("radiological" as opposed to "nuclear," if you will), those that are developing and those that are asking for tactical nuclear weapons want as little fallout as possible, preferably none. As it stands now, if a tactical nuke was used to open a hole in an enemy's defensive line, the only forces that could best exploit that hole are MBTs, and sending in tanks without infantry support can get quite ugly. Tacticians want something they can use against a designated target and still be able to capture that target with no ill effects.

    "Nuclear weapons" doesn't automatically mean ICBMs. A Minuteman III is just as able to carry mustard gas as well as it carries a thermonuclear warhead.

    "Nuclear weapons" doesn't automatically mean megaton-sized explosions capable of wiping out a city. We're probably nearing the point where we'll be able to use a kinetic-kill weapon to do the same thing.

    "Nuclear weapons" doesn't always mean the end of the world. Stratiegic weapons are all but useless in a tactical situation, but even if they weren't it IS possible to use just one and not unload the whole arsenal.

    The only thing, the ONLY thing that "nuclear weapons" always means is "explosive devices based on fissioning atomic nuclei." Just as "gun" could mean anything from a pistol to Jules Verne's Columbiad, a hollow Californium bullet is just as much a nuclear weapon as Fat Man.

    Hell, at this point I wish we'd start using some tactical nukes here and there just to stop the damned knee-jerk reaction everybody has to the word "nuclear." Maybe then we could actually focus on some real problems, like the willingness to wipe out civillian populations to begin with. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Amin and Milosevic did just fine without nukes, or hadn't you noticed?

    Moderators: Go on, I've got the karma to burn. Make my day.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close