TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- How accurate is an inter-continental nuclear bomb/missile from us.
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

What a random thread.

This thread got me asking some questions on another forum and I was recommended (and just purchased) this book: http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Acc...y/dp/0262631474

Link to other thread?

Nope, its secret.

Aren't nukes detonated at a somewhat high altitude to maximize effectiveness (About a mile)?

EDIT: Nou, since you seem pretty studied on Nuclear weapons/energy. Would there be a minimization of nuclear fallout if there were still a way to have hydrogen bomb without the fission aspect involved. Essentially, if you were able to eliminate the Teller design and were able to start the fusion of Tritium/Dueterium, would it be a 'cleaner' than having Plutonium involved as the 'trigger'?

Sorry, I know this must be poorly worded, hopefully you'll understand the question.

EDIT 2: I understand that the fission of the plutonium keeps pushing the fusion process, so the elimination of it would reduce the yield. But would 1 mega-ton still be a possible yield without it?

quote:

Originally posted by cmay119 Aren't nukes detonated at a somewhat high altitude to maximize effectiveness (About a mile)?

Depends on the intended blast effects.

If you are striking a city or industrial center then an airburst will maximize damage from the pressure wave through a unique effect called a precursor wave, a separate shock front that detaches from initial shock wave and moves out much faster than the main wave. This is caused by shockwave reflection from the ground.

If you are busting bunkers/hardened structures like silos then ground burst is the way to go (these are what create the most fallout as well because they throw hundreds to thousands of tons of dirt into the air and irradiates it).

Since there are some random military questions asked here, i'll shoot mine.

How effective are the missiles/cruise missiles? Are they able to evade incoming anti missile fire?

This rises another question. How efficient are anti missiles against incoming warheads.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby The US and Russia could destroy each other, and a good chunk of the rest of the world in about 40 minutes.

42 minutes, to be precise.

quote:

Originally posted by knowhope Since there are some random military questions asked here, i'll shoot mine. How effective are the missiles/cruise missiles? Are they able to evade incoming anti missile fire? This rises another question. How efficient are anti missiles against incoming warheads.

The ALCM, ACM, and Tomahawk are able to evade most SAM threats due to their small size, but some of the more advanced Russian system like the SA-15 and SA-10 are able to detect and hit these cruise missiles. Beyond that they are very effective. The Tomahawk is one of the most widely used cruise missiles in the world and has been continuously upgraded since its initial debut. All are nuclear capable (but none are deployed as such).

Russian cruise missiles are even harder to shoot down, mainly because most of them, mainly their anti-shipping cruise missiles travel at super-sonic speeds (all US deployed are subsonic turbojets, most Russians are super-sonic ram engines).

Anti-missile missiles are "ok". Older systems relied on nuclear warheads to intercept the missile, usually in the bus or warhead phase (aka terminal), while newer ones rely on usually a boost or mid-course interception (larger, easier to see target).

The main problem with anti-ballistic missile systems is that either you will be saturated and not be able to intercept critical missiles (like ones being shot at the interceptor facilities) or you will blind yourself (if you are using nuclear tipped interceptors).

I've got a better war question.

There are more bachelors in China than there are soldiers in North Korea. Why won't the Chinese government just tell them that, if they take down the Korean dictatorship, they can marry as many Korean womens as they wish?

Of course, the Korean wives can also divorce their husbands afterwards, but no missile is more powerful than the force of testosterone!

quote:

Originally posted by cmay119 Aren't nukes detonated at a somewhat high altitude to maximize effectiveness (About a mile)? EDIT: Nou, since you seem pretty studied on Nuclear weapons/energy. Would there be a minimization of nuclear fallout if there were still a way to have hydrogen bomb without the fission aspect involved. Essentially, if you were able to eliminate the Teller design and were able to start the fusion of Tritium/Dueterium, would it be a 'cleaner' than having Plutonium involved as the 'trigger'? Sorry, I know this must be poorly worded, hopefully you'll understand the question. EDIT 2: I understand that the fission of the plutonium keeps pushing the fusion process, so the elimination of it would reduce the yield. But would 1 mega-ton still be a possible yield without it?

Didn't see the edits.

EDIT 1: Pure fusion weapons would not produce fallout (they would produce radiation though in the blast).

EDIT 2: Most very high yield weapons are suspected of all being at least three stages (fission primary, fusion secondary, and then a third fission stage). Mainly they use three stages because they more efficiently produce a higher yield. You can get a higher yield in a smaller physical package if you introduce a stage that undergoes fission from the fusion pressure/heat.

That being said, Tsar Bomba was only two stages, its third stage was made out of lead, and its yield was 57Mt. The intended design had a uranium third stage (btw this third stage is called the tamper) and was expected to be over 100Mt.

On a similar note, most modern variable yield weapons are expected to use a variable output neutron generator to increase/decrease yield.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I've got a better war question. There are more bachelors in China than there are soldiers in North Korea. Why won't the Chinese government just tell them that, if they take down the Korean dictatorship, they can marry as many Korean womens as they wish? Of course, the Korean wives can also divorce their husbands afterwards, but no missile is more powerful than the force of testosterone!

All the NK women have big heads and wonky bodies from years of famine. Who wants that?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I've got a better war question. There are more bachelors in China than there are soldiers in North Korea. Why won't the Chinese government just tell them that, if they take down the Korean dictatorship, they can marry as many Korean womens as they wish? Of course, the Korean wives can also divorce their husbands afterwards, but no missile is more powerful than the force of testosterone!

Good question...

Either way, China will never let anyone interfere in N. Korea's affair. They think of N. Korea as their distant stupid cousin.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira no missile is more powerful than the force of testosterone!

What about my testosterone missile?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby All the NK women have big heads and wonky bodies from years of famine. Who wants that?

If men in China suicide because they weren't able to get on with girl, i honestly don't think they bitch about those characteristics.

I bet anyone unable to find a partner would go Jong Ill on all these Kims:



We need to take this into consideration, Nou. How much time would it take for the power of love to free North Korea?

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk What about my testosterone missile?

Every rule has an exception. In this case, the Testusterone missile.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Didn't see the edits. EDIT 1: Pure fusion weapons would not produce fallout (they would produce radiation though in the blast). EDIT 2: Most very high yield weapons are suspected of all being at least three stages (fission primary, fusion secondary, and then a third fission stage). Mainly they use three stages because they more efficiently produce a higher yield. You can get a higher yield in a smaller physical package if you introduce a stage that undergoes fission from the fusion pressure/heat. That being said, Tsar Bomba was only two stages, its third stage was made out of lead, and its yield was 57Mt. The intended design had a uranium third stage (btw this third stage is called the tamper) and was expected to be over 100Mt. On a similar note, most modern variable yield weapons are expected to use a variable output neutron generator to increase/decrease yield.

Thank you, very interesting. Would there be a long half-life from the radiation in the blast? Or would it dissipate rather quickly?

Yes, I was aware of the original yield was supposed to be 100+ Megatons in the Czar Bomba, was the Lead used as a moderator to stop/slow the fission process, and bring down the yield? Certainly Lead is not a supportive material in Fission, unless I'm mistaken? Would Carbon be similarly effective in moderating the yield? I believe Carbon control rods are used in Boiling-Water & Pressurized-Water reactors, correct?

quote:

Originally posted by cmay119 Thank you, very interesting. Would there be a long half-life from the radiation in the blast? Or would it dissipate rather quickly? Yes, I was aware of the original yield was supposed to be 100+ Megatons in the Czar Bomba, was the Lead used as a moderator to stop/slow the fission process, and bring down the yield? Certainly Lead is not a supportive material in Fission, unless I'm mistaken? Would Carbon be similarly effective in moderating the yield? I believe Carbon control rods are used in Boiling-Water & Pressurized-Water reactors, correct?

Fusion creates free neutrons (part of the reason why its effective to use Uranium as the tamper material, since it undergoes fission from these free neutrons) that can possibly ionize other materials, so it depends on what is exposed to the radiation pulse from the blast.

As for Tsar Bomba, lead is actually a good neutron reflector, but it is not reactive like uranium is.

I forgot to mention that the uranium tamper is made of natural uranium, U-238, not the lighter isotope that primary cores are made of, U-235.

What's your theory on the nuclear power. The fact that we have enough nuclear bombs to destroy the earth multiple time, what's your prediction of the future for these bad boys? *I know i'm not only asking about missiles and such, but politics. I'm sure i'm not asking you much, since you seem knowledgeable.*

totally cracking man, I need help

BTW this thread sucks

quote:

Originally posted by knowhope What's your theory on the nuclear power. The fact that we have enough nuclear bombs to destroy the earth multiple time, what's your prediction of the future for these bad boys? *I know i'm not only asking about missiles and such, but politics. I'm sure i'm not asking you much, since you seem knowledgeable.*

Think of it like this, the big guys (US, Russia) have smartened up and are working against disarmament (though you have to nudge the republicans a bit to get them to fall in line). EU nations have a nuke or two just so that they can say that they have them, no danger there.

What you need to worry about are the axis of crazy countries. Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, throw in India as well. Problem here being, if theres a political disagreement there is a chance to talk it over. On the other hand if god is telling you to wipe the heathens out, there is no debate. Pakistan and India dont really like eachother. Outside of US nobody actuaqly likes or cares about israel, and at the moment the world is higly amused at Lil Kims antics until he shows he can do some real damage with his epic level of crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Think of it like this, the big guys (US, Russia) have smartened up and are working against disarmament (though you have to nudge the republicans a bit to get them to fall in line). EU nations have a nuke or two just so that they can say that they have them, no danger there. What you need to worry about are the axis of crazy countries. Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, throw in India as well. Problem here being, if theres a political disagreement there is a chance to talk it over. On the other hand if god is telling you to wipe the heathens out, there is no debate. Pakistan and India dont really like eachother. Outside of US nobody actuaqly likes or cares about israel, and at the moment the world is higly amused at Lil Kims antics until he shows he can do some real damage with his epic level of crazy.

Moongoose, i seriously lol'ed on the list of crazy countries.

I think the over all number of weapons will go down in to the future, but they will never be totally gone. Once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle its too late to stuff it all back in. People are too paranoid, and rightfully so, nuclear weapons are terrible terrible things.

You have to remember that a simple nuclear device is not hard to build, its incredibly simple. The hard part is aquiring the materials to build one, but Russia still has, 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, tons and tons of unsecured fissile material, and even fissionable material.

It is also not hard for any modern country to refine their own, its not a technology problem, but a money/resources problem.

As for power... Well that has to stick around. Right now there is no viable alternative for clean production of energy. If we can solve the nuclear waste issue then nuclear could easily provide the bulk of the worlds energy demands. Its too bad that people are scared easily by things they do not understand, like at Fukushima. Germany is making a huge mistake in committing to be nuclear free in the next 17 years. Total insanity in my book. They will probably end up just buying nuclear power from their neighbors, and strategically their interests will be compromised.

fuck accuracy. just drop an MIRV on an entire city and be done with it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.