Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LTK007 who wrote (2847)	10/5/2001 7:15:12 PM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Another offering for thought--i heard one foreign affairs professional state there is actually some question as to who rules Afghanistan,the Taliban or Osama bin Laden and went on to talk of the non-Afghan Arab Units in Afghanistan that he suggested answer only to Osama bin Laden. When the Taliban say they will not turn over bin Laden could they not be hiding the possibility that they couldn't even if they wanted to??? max

To: LTK007 who wrote (2847)	10/5/2001 8:47:54 PM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

what is the destructive range and fall-out of the SMALLEST strategic nuclear device The range and fallout could vary widely, depending on the design. The smallest tactical nuke might have a yield as low as a few tenths of a kiloton. This makes the smallest nuke in the ballpark of the total energy release from the WTC disaster (around .25 kt), which makes me wonder why that attack is not considered a weapon of mass destruction, deserving of a commensurate response. Destructive range and fallout depends on many factors, altitude, type of bomb, etc. If used for an airburst, and the weather conditions are favorable, the immediate lethal range might be kept to a few km and the fallout can be kept to a few tens of km. If used against an underground facility, fallout is more of a problem, because of the contaminated dust cloud that would be raised, but even there the range it depends on many factors. With care, the lethal radiation might be kept to under 100 km. Radiation enhanced devices (neutron bombs) are much cleaner, but are useful mainly for airbursts against exposed forces, as they depend on prompt radiation effects for their lethality. A neutron bomb might have radiation effects restricted to a few hundred meters. Whether we have any such devices in the stockpile I don't know.

To: LTK007 who wrote (2847)	10/5/2001 10:09:30 PM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

Small Atomic Weapons Here are a few things I found using Google and (smallest fission weapon) search pattern. Had a lot of hits -- all pretty interesting. ---------------- bullatomsci.org The smallest atomic weapon The Davy Crockett fission bomb, fielded by the United States in Europe from 1961 to 1971, is the smallest confirmed nuclear weapon. Its miniature warhead weighed only 51 pounds, had a yield of 0.1 kilotons and a maximum range of 2.49 miles, and could be launched from a recoilless rifle or a jeep. It was deployed by U.S. Army forces in Europe for use against advancing Soviet troops. In September 1997, reports emerged that the Soviet military intelligence agency (the GRU) had developed numerous "suitcase bombs." These reports alleged that the bombs measured 24 x 16 x 8 inches (60 x 40 x 20 centimeters), and were to be used by intelligence agents in Western cities in the event of a superpower war. Though doubts have been raised as to the credibility of the reports, a bomb this small is theoretically possible. Carey Sublette of the Federation of American Scientists notes that the smallest critical mass for plutonium is a 10.5 kg sphere 10.1 cm across. While this minimal critical mass alone could not cause an explosion, as little as 10 percent more plutonium could produce a .01-.02 kiloton explosion (10-20 tons of TNT), while 20 percent more plutonium could produce a .2 kt (200 ton) explosion. Not only would the explosions themselves be deadly, but the resulting radiation, especially in heavily populated areas, would be catastrophic. To fit this type of device into a suitcase only eight inches wide would probably require that the device use a linear implosion technology that would "squish" the plutonium together to into a large critical mass, allowing it to explode. --------------------------- PHOTOS of the Davy Crockett device (pretty darn small!): brook.edu --------------------------- Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons fas.org ---------------------------- Atomic Mines for Blowing up Bridges and such Devices weight from 150 to 500 pounds brook.edu -------------------------- The Atomic Cannon roadsideamerica.com The atomic cannon was a huge piece of ordnance built by the United States in the mid-1950s to hurl nuclear shells far enough that they wouldn't kill the people who fired them. The Only Test Firing of the Atomic Cannon angelfire.com Test firing of the Atomic Cannon(and many other photos too): XX-12 GRABLE was fired on May 25, 1953 at the Nevada Test Site. A 280mm artillery gun fired the 15 kiloton nuclear shell. This was the only time a nuclear artillery shell was ever fired. nv.doe.gov ------------------------------ PBS Frontline Program Do "backpack" nuclear weapons exist? pbs.org -----------------------