Modern weapons of destruction

[Arkitech]

what type of weapons are the world powers currently using? i've been doing a little research on technology and war and I'm trying to gather some information.

I know this is kinda old but I was reading where they have certain neutron bombs that are roughly the size of a baseball that can wipe of hundreds of thousands of people but leave all structures and buildings intact.



How is it that cockroaches are the only things that can survive nuclear radiation?

 

[MadRat]

Weapons of mass destruction tend to refer to either wide-effect or long-range weapons. Here is a link for you: http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd.htm. From their standpoint the WMD programs are limited to nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and missiles/rockets.

From a military standpoint it includes cluster bombs, fuel-air explosives, grenade launchers, heavy artillery, smart munitions, landmines, and hundreds of other wide-effect weapons.

 

[b0mbrman]

It makes you wonder what's worse though...an atom bomb that can take out an entire city or a Roman army that can....

 

[Novgrod]

Interesting that you mention Romans because Roman armies were very good at razing cities, but they were really bad compared to an average famine or an average plague. The problem is that destroying crops with fire/swords is remarkably hard unless it's the right time of year. Green wheat just don't burn so good.

Only other thing is that a really bad battle now is hardly worse than a really bad battle during the civil war, particularly as a function of the population of a country.

 

[Random Variable]

<< It makes you wonder what's worse though...an atom bomb that can take out an entire city or a Roman army that can.... >>


I would have been more fearful of Genghis Kahn and the Mongols than the Romans.

 

[Hammer]

Actually the smallest is a sphere with a 24.5 cm diameter. Made in America too.

EDIT: its a regular nuke though.



<< I know this is kinda old but I was reading where they have certain neutron bombs that are roughly the size of a baseball that can wipe of hundreds of thousands of people but leave all structures and buildings intact.
>>

 

[HombrePequeno]

<< I know this is kinda old but I was reading where they have certain neutron bombs that are roughly the size of a baseball that can wipe of hundreds of thousands of people but leave all structures and buildings intact. >>



Yeah it is kind of old considering we've had them since the Carter era.

 

[AndrewR]

From a military standpoint it includes cluster bombs, fuel-air explosives, grenade launchers, heavy artillery, smart munitions, landmines, and hundreds of other wide-effect weapons.

Ah, once again spreading misinformation, are you? WMD, from a U.S. military standpoint, refers exclusively to CBRN weapons -- chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear. It has NOTHING to do with range and only references non-conventional destructive power (hence the name weapons of MASS destruction). Therefore, a SCUD mounting a conventional warhead is nothing but a large missile. On the other hand, put a chemical warhead on it, and you have a weapon of mass destruction (albeit a small one).

Grenade launchers are WMD? I bet U.S. soldiers would be tickled to know that every man porting an M203 under his M16 is a "weapon of mass destruction"! Let's leave the Starship Troopers nuclear mortars and rockets out of this, shall we?

I also care little about what those leftist FAS bastards have to say.

Yeah it is kind of old considering we've had them since the Carter era.

The United States never fielded neutron weapons, primarily for political reasons.

 

[Hammer]

The Lance missile (and the corresponding Neutron warhead) was fielded to West Germany in the 1980s.


<< The United States never fielded neutron weapons, primarily for political reasons. >>

 

[yomega]

I believe the most modern weapon of mass destruction (that the public is allowd to know about) would be anti-matter accelerated nukes. But these are supposedly still in the research stage.

As for non mass destruction that would be rail guns and microwave weapons. Though these have been around since the 70's, there just not opperational (yet).

 

[MadRat]

<<Grenade launchers are WMD?>>

On the battlefield level, yes they are weapons of mass destruction. WMD by the U.S. military is used to infer chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. I guess in AndrewR's little world THE military 'only' means the U.S. military.

<<It has NOTHING to do with range and only references non-conventional destructive power (hence the name weapons of MASS destruction). Therefore, a SCUD mounting a conventional warhead is nothing but a large missile.>>

FAS uses long-range missiles, with or without biochem warheads, as weapons of mass destruction because they can reach places outside the border of the aggressor state. Automatic grenade-launchers, chain guns, cluster bombs, etc. are weapons of mass destruction by every sense of the definition.

 

[AndrewR]

The Lance missile (and the corresponding Neutron warhead) was fielded to West Germany in the 1980s.

Do you have a source for that? Now that you mention it, something stirred in my memory about neutron warheads, and maybe I was thinking about why they were removed from the field. I would be interested in reading about it.

On the battlefield level, yes they are weapons of mass destruction. WMD by the U.S. military is used to infer chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. I guess in AndrewR's little world THE military 'only' means the U.S. military.

Very rich -- once again you prove how full of it you are. Since WMD is an English acronym, we can limit our examination to those countries which use English as their foremost language, which includes the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (for the major ones). Since I am well familiar with US doctrine and definitions and have heard the use of WMD from a British officer/instructor in the same manner, you must be referring to CAN, AUS, or NZL -- would you care to detail which country (any of them, even non-English speaking) defines WMD as including grenade launchers? No, please, do answer AND cite a source for your assertion.

FAS uses long-range missiles, with or without biochem warheads, as weapons of mass destruction because they can reach places outside the border of the aggressor state.

A 2,000lb bomb is a 2,000lb bomb whether it's mounted on a dumb bomb or on a missile. By your definition, an F-16 with a Mk-84 is a "weapon of mass destruction". Classic!

Are your pilots still safe at 12,000 feet from all missiles?

 

[Hammer]

You were partly right before though. Carter did stop production and did not deploy any, but Reagan reversed that in '81. The Lance missile was deployed along with the W70 Mod 3 ERW (enhanced radiation warhead aka neutron bomb). It had about a 1KT yield. The guys in the field did not what it was, they were told it was an ordinary nuke. It was deployed to West Germany in the 80s as a means to defeat Soviet armor. I'll see if I can find a source other than the one I have.



<< Do you have a source for that? Now that you mention it, something stirred in my memory about neutron warheads, and maybe I was thinking about why they were removed from the field. I would be interested in reading about it. >>

 

[Optimus]

We Canucks have Celine Dion.

Bow to us in fear! Bow or we have her sing!!!

Bwahahahahahaha!

 

[GasX]

For the curious, what is a Neutron bomb?

http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm
http://web2.iadfw.net/myself/secular/writing/n_bomb.htm

 

[Hammer]

Basically it releases most of its energy in the form of high energy neutrons while an ordinary nuke release most as blast and heat. Smaller bang, less damage to non-living things, more damage to living things.



<< For the curious, what is a Neutron bomb? >>

 

[CocaCola5]

How about cyberwarfare, mass destruction of server farms??

 

[MadRat]

<<Since WMD is an English acronym, we can limit our examination to those countries which use English as their foremost language, which includes the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (for the major ones).>>

Oh, boy. Here we go again. AndrewR once again breathes fire. Oh great one, oh dragon, oh leader mostly high, please forgive me for I am but a human being adrift on the sea of life. Weapons of mass destruction are limited to U.S. military doctrine because AndrewR says so...

But hark, multinational agreements regulating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction do more than include simple nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Ever hear of the Wassenaar Arrangement? Australia, UK, and the USA all list delivery vehicles along with the NBC's as weapons of mass destruction, which happens to include missiles.

During the Desert Storm operation the U.S. captured documents pointing to Iraqi weapons programs that detailed production of nerve gas, mustard gas, sarin, and anthrax weapons. The U.S. captured a few different stockpiles of weapons which included artillery shells, hand grenades, and missile warheads customized to launch chemical or biological weapons.

Weapons that deal wide-effect damage have been a concern of civilian peacemakers since before WWI. The Russians have wanted fuel-air explosives and cluster bombs regulated by treaty for more than a decade now, something the U.S. is against. Princess Diana, I'm sure you realize whom she was, talked on television about her concerns that landmines need to be regulated by international treaty as a weapon of mass destruction.

<<Are your pilots still safe at 12,000 feet from all missiles?>>

And yes, aircraft are generally safe from SAM defenses above 12000 feet when current operational procedures account for the defenses.

 

[Hammer]

I believe Francis Gary Powers and the former Soviet Union would disagree.



<< <<Are your pilots still safe at 12,000 feet from all missiles?>>

And yes, aircraft are generally safe from SAM defenses above 12000 feet when current operational procedures account for the defenses. >>

 

[UltraQuiet]

The most powerful weapon system ever designed Trident II D-5 .

For those that care, that is the USS Tennessee (SSBN 734).

 

[AndrewR]

You were partly right before though. Carter did stop production and did not deploy any, but Reagan reversed that in '81. The Lance missile was deployed along with the W70 Mod 3 ERW (enhanced radiation warhead aka neutron bomb). It had about a 1KT yield. The guys in the field did not what it was, they were told it was an ordinary nuke. It was deployed to West Germany in the 80s as a means to defeat Soviet armor. I'll see if I can find a source other than the one I have.

I still think it's a viable weapon despite it's political slant ("But it specifically targets people!" Quite unlike munitions designed to destroy armor and aircraft with crew inside, I suppose). Was the Lance taken offline for the Pershing and the GLCM?

...all list delivery vehicles along with the NBC's as weapons of mass destruction, which happens to include missiles.

During the Desert Storm operation the U.S. captured documents pointing to Iraqi weapons programs that detailed production of nerve gas, mustard gas, sarin, and anthrax weapons. The U.S. captured a few different stockpiles of weapons which included artillery shells, hand grenades, and missile warheads customized to launch chemical or biological weapons.

See, the key is that weapons are capable of mounting NBC warheads, not that they are delivery vehicles. Let me reiterate: A weapon that can carry an NBC payload is a weapon of mass destruction. Let me be more specific. U.S. nuclear doctrine states that any attack by a foreign power with WMD will be retaliated against with nuclear weapons. According to your first post, if an Iraqi had thrown a hand grenade, we could nuke them. Don't blame me if you don't understand.

And yes, aircraft are generally safe from SAM defenses above 12000 feet when current operational procedures account for the defenses.

LMAO!

The most powerful weapon system ever designed Trident II D-5 .

Amen to that. I remember doing some research awhile ago, and when I realized the amount of warheads that each of those could carry and the yield that it can deliver, I was just floored. No wonder the Soviets were always so scared of them.

Dave, do we still have any C-4s in the Navy?

 

[MadRat]

<<I believe Francis Gary Powers and the former Soviet Union would disagree.>>

Take my comment out of context.

Gary Powers was flying a spyplane at such a high altitude it was generally believed he was unreachable by the Soviet missiles. He flew in a straight line, at a consistent speed, and at a consistent altitude. The U-2 wasn't exactly designed for agility. Nor did the plane he flew carry counter-measures.

Its safe to say he was not using modern operational parameters in his mission. Even his superglider could have avoided damage from those missiles if it was equipped today's electronic warfare technology, chaff dispensers, he flew modern combat practices, and his plane was BUILT more rugged. He actually was not hit by the dozen missiles fired at him, rather the shockwaves bent a wing, the fuselage began to unravel, and the aircraft disintegrated; Powers somehow ejected on the way down.

AndrewR-

If you read his first post then you'd realize he never mentioned "weapons of mass destruction", but rather the thread was titled "modern weapons of destruction". Gee-whiz, I guess you missed that. You are so uptight perhaps you should see a doctor about your anxiety.

The Lance was not retired for Pershing II and GLCM programs. It served a different role, as "tactical" missile rather than "theatre" missile. The U.S. has pretty well retired its non-nuclear ballistic missile programs, but some stockpiles not covered in the disarmament treaties were sold off. I think Isreal still deploys around fifty or sixty of them.

 

[Cerebus451]

<< Its safe to say he was not using modern operational parameters in his mission. Even his superglider could have avoided damage from those missiles if it was equipped today's electronic warfare technology, chaff dispensers, he flew modern combat practices, and his plane was BUILT more rugged. He actually was not hit by the dozen missiles fired at him, rather the shockwaves bent a wing, the fuselage began to unravel, and the aircraft disintegrated; Powers somehow ejected on the way down. >>


I'd have to disagree here. Yes the countermeasures are better now than they were then, but so are the missiles. The SR-71 was built because it was proven that missiles could still hit the U-2 even though it was flying so high, so they tried to outrun the missiles. The XB-70 project was scrapped because it was supposed to outrun missiles, but before it could reach production the Soviets had anti-air missiles that could outrun it. Builder a better mouse trap, and you get a better mouse. Talk to any pilot that has to fly into a combat zone and they will tell you that they do not feel absolutely safe at any altitude. Yes the B-52s and B-1s felt pretty safe over Afghanistan, but the Afghanis don't have any SAMs that can reach altitude (AFAIK, they only have shoulder-fired variants).

Also, the reason a SCUD missile is listed as a WMD is because the delivery platform is capable of delivering a CBN warhead. Even though it may not be equipped with one in all configurations, it is still listed as a WMD. However, technically speaking, no delivery platform can ever be considered a WMD. It's the warhead that does the damage, not the missile/shell/grenade. And, to my knowledge, there are not any delivery platforms that can solely be used to deliver a CBN warhead. I seriously doubt that an ICBM would ever be equipped with a conventional warhead, but there is nothing technically stopping them from doing so.

 

[Hammer]

I don't know about most powerful, most effective maybe. Ok, best case, you fit the Trident II D-5 SLBM with the larger W88 warhead which is 475 KT. Let's say you max it out at 14 MIRVs (in violation of SALT II ) That's still only 6.65 MT.




<< The most powerful weapon system ever designed Trident II D-5 .

For those that care, that is the USS Tennessee (SSBN 734). >>



EDIT: Now if you meant a US 726 SSBN, then I'd have have to agree with you Chief.

 

[PsychoAndy]

<< I don't know about most powerful, most effective maybe. Ok, best case, you fit the Trident II D-5 SLBM with the larger W88 warhead which is 475 KT. Let's say you max it out at 14 MIRVs (in violation of SALT II ) That's still only 6.65 MT.




<< The most powerful weapon system ever designed Trident II D-5 .

For those that care, that is the USS Tennessee (SSBN 734). >>



EDIT: Now if you meant a US 726 SSBM, then I'd have have to agree with you Chief. >>




I agree. We have 10> mt nuclear weapons, which are way more powerful. But being able to nuke 14 targets with 1 missile at a time is insane. Multiply 14x24 (the number of missiles that an Ohio-Class submarine carries, if i'm not mistaken), and you have 336 MIRVs for 336 targets with a 475kt warhead :Q Of course, in real life, with SALT II, and the fact that they dont carry 14 MIRVs in each missile lessens the number