|
How accurate is an inter-continental nuclear bomb/missile from us. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| infiniteJEST |
| lol bush with a codpiece |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| What a random thread. |
|
|
| knowhope |
| Link to other thread? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| Nope, its secret. :D |
|
|
| 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? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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). |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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). |
|
|
| 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! |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
