|
Ok...read the two articles.
All I can say is I am creeped out.
The ELF one was not as creepy as the "Trident Ploughshares" one. I actually chuckled when I read abotu the dude stealing cats....made me think of C.L.I.T. from Jay& Silent Bob Striek Back 
The anti-nuclear people are totally off their rockers if they think they can actually "disarm" a Trident sub. Just for "grins" I did a little refreshing on what the nuclear payload is on a typical Trident.
| quote: | Trident II (D5) - General Characteristics
Primary Function: Strategic Nuclear Deterrence
Contractor: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.
Unit Cost: $30.9 million
Power Plant: Three-stage solid-propellant rocket
Length: 44 feet (13.41 meters)
Weight: 130,000 pounds (58,500 kg)
Diameter: 83 inches (2.11 meters)
Range: Greater than 7400 kilometers (4,600 statute miles)
Guidance System: Inertial
Warhead: Nuclear MIRV. Up to eight W88 (475 kt) warheads (Mark 5).
Date Deployed: 1990 |
Let's see....2 people (who obviously have never even seen a movie set on a missle sub or they would know how dumb they are) are going to somehow get into the launch tube, remove the nose cone, and then somehow finaggle 8 "warheads" (which are roughly the size of a midget and weigh considerably more  ) out of the missle compartment. They are then going to do this 15 more times (the Vanguard class is equipped with 16 launch tubes) and somehow get all of this rather heavy and bulky hardware past security.
Now just for the sake of argument (because anyone short of superman would never be able to accomplish this) let us say hypothetically that they did get one of the MIRVs out of the sub. What are they going to do with it now? Probably try to dismantle it...in their flat in central london no doubt. Knowing that the US Department of Energy technicians who take apart nuclear weapons do it in a hardened bunker 1000 ft. below the earth in case something "goes awry" (these are experts in nuclear weapon deismantling) we should do a little math to see what would happen if these "environmentalists" were to cut the proverbial "blue wire" instead of the "red wire":
1 W88 warhead has a theorectial yield of 475 kT.
The London Metropolitan area is approximately 607 sq miles in size.
London has roughly 12 million people.
Comparative analysis to the largest Atomic event (of two) in history: Nagasaki, Japan - 9 Aug. 1945 11:01 AM.
"Fat Man" had theoretical yield of 22 kT.
The blast destroyed EVERYTHING within 3 square miles.
Nagasaki had 174,000 inhabitants at the time....40,000 of which were instantly killed (another 100,000 died within 5 years as a direct result). So 23% died instantly and 80% died within 5 years.
So if this hypothetical warhead were to "go off" in central London we could expect damage along these lines:
475 ÷ 22 = 21.6 times as powerful a blast.
21.6 x 3 sq miles = 64.77 sq miles destroyed by the blast. (11% of London)
.23 (23%) x 12,000,000 inhabitants = 2,758,621 instantly dead.
.80 (80%) x 12,000,000 inhabitants = 9,600,000 dead within 5 years.
Now, to be fair, Fat Man was detonated 1,650 ft. above the ground in 1945. An aerial event is more destructive than one would be on land so let's say the blast causes 1/3 the damage (though it will make a nice hole in the ground).
1/3 of my rough figues would still be 21 square miles devastated and almost 1 million people instantly dead.
I think my picture is clear, no?
Maybe I should send this math to those retards who want to disarm nuclear subs. A modern thermonuclear device is exponentially safer if it is left where it is (i.e. in the launch tube) rather than in the hands of unknowledgable civilians.
I am all for the dismantling of nuclear arsenals, but that does not mean I can conciously support the idea of disarming the world in a vigilante fashion.
So yeah occrider, these buffoons do risk doing infinitely more damage to the environment than the things they are trying to stop.
Sigh, that was "fun"
MrS
___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel
-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.
|
