US considering use of Nuclear Weapons

[Zwingle]

What?

Atom bomb.....the atom is split...nothing more.......

Nuclear bombs split the nuleus of the atoms....splitting it at another level.....more power is released. The radiation life is longer....
The fallout is not "absorbed into the atmosphere....radiation covers the ground....what do you think we can do? Maybe bring in a huge vacuum cleaner and just clean it up? The radiation goes up and floats and moves with the wind and rain can drop the radiation wherever the cloud goes. Yes, we do have "low yeild" nuclear weapons....but the same can result from them. Hmmmm, I haven't heard of radiation free nukes yet....maybe someone should come up with that idea. This is why we did underground testing....nothing gets into the air up here. They learned this after poisoning around 750,000 in Arizona and Nevada.



<< Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the atomic bomb split uranium or plutonium? Looking at the definition of a nuke in dictionary.com it says nuke is a nuclear device. Since the atomic bomb used nuclear fission, it qualifies as a nuke. >>



OK definitions are the same....but they are truly different things. The nukes we have in our arsenal, fit the description of the second item.

 

[HombrePequeno]

<< Nuclear bombs split the nuleus of the atoms....splitting it at another level.....more power is released. The radiation life is longer.... >>



Exactly what level are the atoms in nukes being split at? You only have the nucleus and electrons. Does a nuke split atoms at the subatomic level? Can you provide any links to back your statements up?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Some links:

How atom bomb works

How stuf works: Nukes

 

[jehh]

The apparent total lack of knowlage of nuclear devices is amazing...

If you don't know what you're really talking about, don't say anything, ask questions first...

Cliff's Notes version...

Fission devices split heavy atoms like uranium or plutonium.

Fusion devices combine light atoms like hydrogen.

All are atomic, all are nuclear... the latter are often called "thermonuclear" because they are much, much hotter than fission devices.

They are used to be called H-Bombs because of course they used hydrogen.

Fission devices produce large amounts of radaition...

Fusion devices produce very little, but often have a cap of heavy metal around the device called a booster which boosts the output by 30%, but triples the amount of radaition...

Clean bombs do exist that put out very little radaition, but they are not deployed much because they are not as powerful, but of course this makes no sense to me since even a reduced power nuclear device would be most unpleasant...

End of Cliff's Notes version...

Jason

 

[dbcrossfire]

ohhh not a good idea, the second the us uses a weapon like that some country like iraq is going to be like 'here you go afghan, why don't you take a few gallons of anthrax... what? you want some small pox with that?'



<< << if it gets to nukes, we are all gone one way or another >> >>



so true.

 

[Syringer]

That would not be a good idea! I would not recommend it at all. These nukes are dangerous stuff. You dont' want anything to happen similar to the ending of DR. STRANGELOVE!!
That was aweful!

Anyways...we could always use other bombs instead...like the Tomahawk missles...

We could use the Hydrogen bomb...but I dont' think that would be very wise either....

 

[flyfish]

<< Hmmmm, I haven't heard of radiation free nukes yet....maybe someone should come up with that idea. . >>



It's called an Fuel Air Bomb or a Vacuum Bomb. It's a bad mutha with out all that unwanted radiation!How FAEs Work

A typical fuel air explosive device consists of a container of fuel and two separate explosive charges. After the munition is dropped or fired, the first explosive charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and disperses the fuel in a cloud that mixes with atmospheric oxygen (the size of the cloud varies with the size of the munition). The cloud of fuel flows around objects and into structures. The second charge then detonates the cloud, creating a massive blast wave. The blast wave destroys unreinforced buildings and equipment and kills and injures personnel. The antipersonnel effect of the blast wave is more severe in foxholes, on personnel with body armor, and in enclosed spaces such as caves, buildings, and bunkers.


In addition, he stated that "fuel-air explosives are capable?of completely destroying in a given area vegetation and agricultural crops that have been planted." "In its destructive capability, it is comparable to low-yield nuclear munitions."(3)

 

[jehh]

<<
It's called an Fuel Air Bomb or a Vacuum Bomb. It's a bad mutha with out all that unwanted radiation!How FAEs Work

In addition, he stated that "fuel-air explosives are capable?of completely destroying in a given area vegetation and agricultural crops that have been planted." "In its destructive capability, it is comparable to low-yield nuclear munitions."(3) >>



Sure, but FAE's don't scale...

You can make a 5 ton nuclear bomb yield 10 kilotons, or 10 megatons... Nothing you do to a 5 ton FAE will make that large of a blast...

Shame, because it would be really, really cool...

Actually, that isn't true... An Anti-matter bomb would do it, but we yet don't have the ability to make a containment device small enough to be airlifted... And only about 2000 atoms of anti-matter a day are being produced at CERN, the only place on Earth known to be making anti-matter. You would need trillions of atoms to make a useful weapon...

Jason

 

[Bitek]

what part of the atom is split when you split the atom in an atomic bomb? omg you gonna bombard them with high energy electrons that get absorbed by the atmosphere?

<< what part of the atom is split when you split the atom in an atomic bomb? omg you gonna bombard them with high energy electrons that get absorbed by the atmosphere? >>



There are two basic types, fission and fusion.

the early bombs are fission that split the atoms of uranium or Pu into smaller (and more importantly more stable, ie lower energy) atomic weight atoms (like lead) The cluster of protons and neutrons is broken in to two smaller clusters, and the energy released is the energy that was holding them together (the strong or weak force I don't remember), plus the resulting loss of mass (which is very small, maybe the mass of a few protons for the entire bomb, but E=mc2 makes the energy output huge) . This is the same process that occurs in nuclear power plants.

Fusion bombs fuse two protons ( ie hydrogen nuclei) to create helium. This reaction has a higher activation energy, but yields a greater net release of energy. This is why fusion bombs are ignited by fission explosions. There is also a small net loss in mass between the two hydrogen nuclei into the single helium nucleus, which is converted into energy, which is the explosion. This is the process that occurs in the sun.

Im not sure what a Nuetron bomb is. Im guessing that you are splitting a nuetron into its sub-atomic constituents, namely a proton and an electron (and a nuetrino) I know this process also involves a net loss in mass which is converted to E.

 

[HombrePequeno]

<< An Anti-matter bomb would do it, but we yet don't have the ability to make a containment device small enough to be airlifted... >>



Actually when matter and anti-matter meet they annihilate each other and create pure radiation.

 

[HombrePequeno]

<< Im not sure what a Nuetron bomb is. Im guessing that you are splitting a nuetron into its sub-atomic constituents, namely a proton and an electron (and a nuetrino) I know this process also involves a net loss in mass which is converted to E. >>



It's actually an explosion of mostly neutrons. Neutrons are highly radioactive. A neutron bomb will basically kill all life but leave all the buildings standing.

Edit: Neutron bomb

 

[burnedout]

No !!

No usage of nuclear weapons.

As much of an outspoken 'hawk' as I've become of late, I cannot agree with employment of such weapons unless absolutely necessary. This is nothing to take with a grain of salt. We are talking about very serious implications should we engage in first strike implementation of nukes.

I've worked before in this area of national defense. Even though I'm out of the military, to this day I refuse to discuss specifics other than what can be researched from public information sources.

Do not jump on this bandwagon. Bomb them with HE, Napalm or whatever. But not with nuclear weapons.

 

[iamshady]

Nukes = End of the World... PRAY it doesn't come to that...

 

[Unclemo]

fine... just nuke canada and I will shut up

i hope everyone that does not want to do mass destruction is personally dedicating their lives by going in there on foot. outa here.

 

[HombrePequeno]

<< i hope everyone that does not want to do mass destruction is personally dedicating their lives by going in there on foot. outa here. >>



Okay, how aboot you go live in Afghanistan and the US will nuke near you. We'll see then how you like weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Elledan]

Mmmm.... radioactive fall-out.....

 

[Cooltech2k]

I THink that just blasting the Crap out of the country non stop for about a month is in order... Than when thats done with send massive amounts of troops in to take out any remaining garbage....

Result... we win & we dont die of radioactive spider bites...

 

[CyrixMII333]

I think the biggest mistake we make is inventing nukes in the first place. Not to mention gun powder. Is this really neccesarily?!
Haven't we all learned from war? That this will go on forever and ever until only one nation stand. And it look like that to me so far that we are never satisfy until all nation are united. We live in a small world where a little mistake can spell WAR because you see in the future earth will become a wasteland and only then will we be satisfy.
Why do I think that earth will become wasteland in the near future? Because most nation these day have nukes stored somewhere and if you nuke them they will nuke back and then the chain reaction start from there as if the world has gone out of control. Also who is willing to get rid of nukes and how can you when you already aquire this technology from Einstein. I mean getting rid of it does you no good, they just make another one from scratch. I hate to say this but it is a very difficult world we live in because all want it for themselve and they can't stand having limited resources and limited land.
Also winning by nuke is a wimpy way to win. Use that as a only last resort only if they are undefeatable by land. If they had any nukes they would have use it on us, apparently they don't.

 

[SinNisTeR]

what is the most destructive bomb? atomic, neutron, hydrogen...etc.. (considering they all have the same amount of plutonium or whatever they use.)

 

[jehh]

<< what is the most destructive bomb? atomic, neutron, hydrogen...etc.. (considering they all have the same amount of plutonium or whatever they use.) >>



Fusion is the most powerful.

Atomic applies to all of them...

Neutron is a special type of bomb that makes a very, very small blast, more like a 2,000 pound HE bomb... But it releases many fast moving neutrons that kill people, but don't destroy stuff... If you set one off in NYC, you'd kill 5 million people, but leave the city standing...

Hydrogen is used (a special version of it) in Fusion devices...

The amount of plutonium is NOT the same in all devices, some have lots, some have very little, some have none at all... (using U-238 instead)

Jason

 

[jehh]

<<

<< An Anti-matter bomb would do it, but we yet don't have the ability to make a containment device small enough to be airlifted... >>



Actually when matter and anti-matter meet they annihilate each other and create pure radiation. >>



Yes, but so does a match... Radiation is not the same as radioactive...

You have radiation coming out of your body right now, does that make you deadly?

What it really does it make pure energy, and if done right, heat and blast...

But it shouldn't be radioactive, no reason to be...

Jason

 

[rudder]

A typical fuel air explosive device consists of a container of fuel and two separate explosive charges. After the munition is dropped or fired, the first explosive charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and disperses the fuel in a cloud that mixes with atmospheric oxygen (the size of the cloud varies with the size of the munition). The cloud of fuel flows around objects and into structures. The second charge then detonates the cloud, creating a massive blast wave. The blast wave destroys unreinforced buildings and equipment and kills and injures personnel. The antipersonnel effect of the blast wave is more severe in foxholes, on personnel with body armor, and in enclosed spaces such as caves, buildings, and bunkers.

ahh yes, these worked very well against fortified bunkers in Iraq. They will rok wonders in the cavernous countryside of Afghanistan. Not only does the blast kill you, but I've heard the resulting fire ball will suck the oxygen out of your lungs if your close enough.

 

[RSI]

"there is nothing wrong with killing millions of people there. they don't matter and we would be able to feel safe again.
damn, kill em all"

Oh, no, nothing wrong with killing millions of innocent people, eh?

"fine... just nuke canada and I will shut up"

How about you shut up right now? Yeah, that's a good idea.

-RSI

 

[RSI]

To comment on the thread,

<< ? Nuclear Weapons
The use of one or more low-yield tactical nuclear weapons.

abcnews

NUTS! >>

It would be nuts, but I doubt that will happen. That is merely one of the options available. If the U.S. launches nukes though, you can be sure that nukes will be flying back towards the U.S., and it could possibly be the end of the world for all of us, or at least the end of the world as we know it.

Lots of good info in this thread. Seems we have a few members who are quite informed about how nukes work! Sure, you can call an A-Bomb and a Nuke a different thing, but you can call it the same thing too - you could just say there are different types of nuclear devices. In any case, minor things like that are unimportant. What you call it really does not matter, cause it will kill people either way. Let's hope the situation doesn't fall to nuclear warfare.

-RSI

 

[kami]

<< there is nothing wrong with killing millions of people there. they don't matter and we would be able to feel safe again.
damn, kill em all.
I hope all of you are planning on going over there if we have to send in troops. Sending in troops and fighting convention warfare will be bloody and horrific. We would be better of just being their bitch for the rest of time.
Let's crap all over there sand box. >>


Once again, you have demonstrated that you are the most worthless human being on these forums. You are NARROW MINDED. You just want revenge (we all do), but you don't think of the consequences of nuclear warfare. You're a fvcking idiot and have the brain capacity of an 11 year old. Innocent people who aren't involved with the terrorists don't deserve to die. Look at who did the Oklahoma City bombing...since he was american, should all americans be punished? Wake up you sack of rotting sh*t.