no.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Smallest possible nuclear weapon
- Thread starter buka001
- Start date
no.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060217&articleId=1988
For what reason are you so curtain?
"If Saddam was arguably the highest value target in Iraq, then a good case could be made for using a nuclear weapon like the B61-11 to assure killing him and decapitating the regime" (.Defense News, December 8, 2003).
There is no documentary evidence, however, that the B61-11 was used against Iraq.
For what reason are you so curtain?
"If Saddam was arguably the highest value target in Iraq, then a good case could be made for using a nuclear weapon like the B61-11 to assure killing him and decapitating the regime" (.Defense News, December 8, 2003).
There is no documentary evidence, however, that the B61-11 was used against Iraq.
Drape it, you got us now.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Well, then you'd have seismic data revealing its presence, I'd think. Right?
Anyway, slightly changing topics... or rather, direction of topic, since I'm still referring to the conspiracy fantasy of mini/micro nukes: You see that stuff published about elevated levels of tritium being pushed by the fantasists? I'm just so continually disappointed in their ability to ignore facts in order to build their arguments. How can they push stuff like what's published here:
http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm
... and completely ignore the information in this paper:
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1678&context=lbnl
I mean, am I missing something in the analysis that makes the Rense article supercede the Lawrence Berkeley paper (Yeah, yeah, I know... it's Rense. I'm completely familiar with their "journalism". I'm just trying to make a rhetorical point)? DRBUZZO (or anybody else) you see anything wrong with my comparison of information here? Have I made any mistake in judging the Rense info by what I found in the Lawrence Berkeley paper? I mean... the information is so easily accessible that I can't believe it would merely be missed, I believe it would be out-and-out ignored in order to make the Rense article's point.
Anyway... half rant, half debunk, half
request for someone to review my comparison (I'm tellin ya, I always try to give 150% 
).nuclear explosions do have characteristic seismic signatures. These tend to be different than even conventional large blasts, because they occur faster. That having been said, if the nuke were very very small and there were no seismoniters especially closeby, it might be possible to have a situation where it is difficult to determine a nuclear blast has gone off by the seismic waves alone. I have also heard some talk in the past of how setting off a nuclear explosion and a large number of conventional explosions in the area simultaneously might be able to "hide" the provable nuclear blast pulse in all the "noise" Mining and excivating blasts also cause seismic activity, but they are distinct because they are usually staged into a series of pulses. Perhaps you could somehow combine this with a nuclear explosion to make it unclear.
As far as tritium. Tritium is generally very very low in the environment in general and 55x "Above average" is still much lower than you would ever expect as an indicator of fallout from any fusion weapon. Remember that radioisotopes can be measured at extremely minute levels, so if the general amount of tritium is very nearly zero than 55x is still a tiny tiny tiny itty bitty amount. The fact that they don't give an absolute amount of tritium (only "55X") is probably because it would look a lot less impressive if expressed in parts per billion or even parts per trillion.
Now as far as what could account for the increased tritium. Even before I read the report I immediately thought "radiolumonescent devices" because thats the most common use for tritium and would more than account for the amount found. Basically these are self-powered glowing items which glow brightly and continuously in the dark, even without the need for "charging" with light. The amount of tritium in the, in terms of curies is quite high. They are common in emergency signs in aircraft. I actually think the amount of 34ci on the aircraft is a tad bit lower than I would have thought.
Also, as mentioned, in the sites of weapons, tritium is commonly used. It's found in higher-end glowing watches, but I doubt that would be anything signifficant. I have an exit sign which is labeled as containing 80 Ci of tritium as of manufacture. That's actually a lot. Most emergency exit signs have 20-40 or something like that.
But that having been said, they are quite common for emergency exit signs, especially because they can be installed and meet qualifications for emergency lighting without the need for any wiring or drilling of holes etc..
I do not know of any in the WTC or surrounding buildings, but I would not be surprised if there were. You would not need many to account for these levels. Anyone can buy these things. They're common. They have them in the library in my town and the walmart. They range from $150 up, but that can still be cheaper than a standard battery-backed exit sign and an electrician to wire for it. So, if you look around you see them a lot.
The world trade center was a HUGE office complex and since you don't need to have any sort of special licence for one of these, there may have been some.
Add in the weapons sites. The tritium signs on the aircraft. Possible broken signs in nearby buildings. It can more than account for the modest increase.
As far as tritium. Tritium is generally very very low in the environment in general and 55x "Above average" is still much lower than you would ever expect as an indicator of fallout from any fusion weapon. Remember that radioisotopes can be measured at extremely minute levels, so if the general amount of tritium is very nearly zero than 55x is still a tiny tiny tiny itty bitty amount. The fact that they don't give an absolute amount of tritium (only "55X") is probably because it would look a lot less impressive if expressed in parts per billion or even parts per trillion.
Now as far as what could account for the increased tritium. Even before I read the report I immediately thought "radiolumonescent devices" because thats the most common use for tritium and would more than account for the amount found. Basically these are self-powered glowing items which glow brightly and continuously in the dark, even without the need for "charging" with light. The amount of tritium in the, in terms of curies is quite high. They are common in emergency signs in aircraft. I actually think the amount of 34ci on the aircraft is a tad bit lower than I would have thought.
Also, as mentioned, in the sites of weapons, tritium is commonly used. It's found in higher-end glowing watches, but I doubt that would be anything signifficant. I have an exit sign which is labeled as containing 80 Ci of tritium as of manufacture. That's actually a lot. Most emergency exit signs have 20-40 or something like that.
But that having been said, they are quite common for emergency exit signs, especially because they can be installed and meet qualifications for emergency lighting without the need for any wiring or drilling of holes etc..
I do not know of any in the WTC or surrounding buildings, but I would not be surprised if there were. You would not need many to account for these levels. Anyone can buy these things. They're common. They have them in the library in my town and the walmart. They range from $150 up, but that can still be cheaper than a standard battery-backed exit sign and an electrician to wire for it. So, if you look around you see them a lot.
The world trade center was a HUGE office complex and since you don't need to have any sort of special licence for one of these, there may have been some.
Add in the weapons sites. The tritium signs on the aircraft. Possible broken signs in nearby buildings. It can more than account for the modest increase.
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,423
A) You don't use any nuke on the battlefield because it might possibly be helpful. You set off a nuke and you've escillated things dramatically. It has not been done since 1945. It would cause an international uproar and it sets a president that you don't want to. You use nuclear weapons in war under the most extreme circumstances or in response to extreme attacks or in defense from extreme attacks with weapons of mass destruction.
B) If they had used nuclear weapons to get Sadam they would not have pulled him out of a "spider hole" a year into the invasion. You don't really need to know where someone is to get them with a nuclear weapon. You just need to know the general vicinity. Your aim can be off by a lot.
C) If the plan (or at least hope) of the operation was to try to come out looking like the liberators and hopefully be well received (granted this wasn't really what seems to have happened) then a nuclear weapon would pretty much destroy any hope of that or of any "hearts and minds" campaign
D) Are there any cities in iraq that aren't there anymore and have been replaced by a shallow crater and some scorch marks and glassified desert sand? No. Well then... are there any big radioactive glass craters in the desert? No. The only hope you could have of using a nuclear weapon without it being IMEDIATLY apparent is if it were very small and set off in the badlands of the Iraqi desert, away from perminant settlements. Hardly seems tactically useful.
E) Neighboring nations would know immediately. Probably would not be well received either. Fallout is easily detected often thousands of miles away. A nuclear weapon is about as subtle and low-profile as... um... a nuclear weapon. Honestly... I can't think of anything less low-profile.
The "nuclear bunker buster" you are talking about might be semi-contained by being partially underground, but it would still be obvious. The use of such a weapon is generally overkill for most bunkers. The places I've heard of it being potentially used would be very large deeply buried and protected structures of extremely high value, such as missile silos or chemical weapons stores. In this case a nuclear weapon might actually be the safest thing to do for the population downwind. If you are attacking a chemical weapons facility, the nuclear fallout may not be that bad compared to the possibility of releasing massive amounts of nerve gas. The nuclear option would assure that any chemical or biological weapons are thoroughly incinerated.
Comparatively speaking, a small semi-contained nuclear blast and the resulting fallout may be small price to pay, even for civilians downwind. That is, if the alternative is several thousand tons of nerve agent and a few hundred gallons of anthrax and smallpox culture.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
A weapon of mass distraction.