[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I mean, what if there are aliens out there that we have to fight. We're gonna need some nukes to destroy their ships. Or what if there's a super big asteroid that we have to blow up before it hits Earth? I mean if we're ever going to colonize the galaxy, we're gonna need some nukes.

[XogGyux]

I mean, what if there are aliens out there that we have to fight. We're gonna need some nukes to destroy their ships. Or what if there's a super big asteroid that we have to blow up before it hits Earth? I mean if we're ever going to colonize the galaxy, we're gonna need some nukes.

You seriously think that an alien race that has interstellar travel is going to be in any way successfully fought off by humans if they are hostiles?
If a race of aliens were to show up, and they are hostile. With all the weapons in the world we would be far less successful than if a snail tries to fight a tank (unless we can make a virus in an old mac computer, fly it to the mother ship and screw up with their green shields).
Seriously if an alien race comes to us, we will only survive if they are friendly (even if they are we could perish to diseases brought by them unintentionally).

[foxdemon]

@foxdemon
Heard about the claimed testing, but never thought of reading about it or looking it up.
Doing so now.
Why ?

Ok. After some reading, didn't finish it but what got my attention is that the radioactive fallout though slight and didn't have much if any notable effects but managed to reach all the way up to Australia due to the wind.
That pretty much confirms what i stated and what many scientists state and what the entire concept of a nuclear winter is based on.
That the fallout usually cover large and extended range of surface.
Thats why i said that the fallout from a 100 megaton nuclear weapon specially if was detonated on the ground rather than an airbust bomb would be able to destroy much if not most of Europe or the US or China or good parts of Russia and same as for other countries.
The amount of the fallout which is highly radioactive is far larger in a ground explosion and if accompanied by strong enough wind and weather patterns like for examples the ones Europe has.
It would spread into most of Europe. And thus destroy it.

The interesting thing about the Vela Incident is the insight it provides to the mysterious Israeli nuclear program. They have been rumoured to have nukes for many years now. The Vela Incident is widely believed to have been an Israeli test. What it shows is that the likely nature of Israel's nukes is that they are neutron bombs. This tells us something about what they might want nukes for.


What is a neutron bomb and what strategies does it imply?

There are several forms of energy release which make up a nuclear explosion. The proportion of each to the total yield depends on design. Much is released as heat, physical blast, residual radiation and ionising radiation. The last is the neutrons emitted. That is a brief burst of short lived radiation, limited by air. A special design of thermonuclear warhead that maximises neutron emotion as a proportion of the yield results in a weapon that is lethal to organisms but with a much reduced blast radius for the other components of released energy.

Neutron bombs were originally by America to use against massed Soviet armour in German, allowing engagement with much reduced collateral damage. The Soviets, and today the Russians, use the principle in their ABM system. The neutrino blast can cause fission in near by warheads thus degrading their ability to reach critical mass and explode. The Russian A35 ABM system (replaced by A135 system) is designed to intercept incoming warheads with an endoatmospheric explosion to neutralise warhead before they can explode.

But what are the Israelis thinking? They started they nuclear program not long after Pakistan. Could it be they felt they needed an ABM system like the Russian's have? Neutron bombs could well be defensive. Alternatively, they might be thinking about stopping massed armour. Neutron bombs could be used immediately next to or even within Israel as the residual radiation, heat and blast are minimised.

Anyway, whatever the Israelis are up to, neutron bombs indicate a different strategy. Starategic nukes indicate a MAD doctrine (eg: Indian strategy versus China), tactical nukes show a doctrine of deterring large ground forces (eg: Pakistan strategy versus India, US 1950's 'first offset' strategy versus USSR). Neutron bombs are odd. Nobody else bothers with them apart from Russia's defensive application. If Israel was looking for weapons to target Iran, they would use a different warhead type.

It seems to me that Israel wants nukes for some defensive purpose.

[anasawad]

ok ?!?
Interesting info. Though 'm not sure how does it effect the argument.
'm not saying Iran would want to send a nuke to Europe or anywhere. Its not even building nukes to begin with.
What 'm arguing is that a single nuclear warhead with size of 20-100 Megaton would have catastrophic consequences not just to the area within the blast radius but also a massive fallout that would spread for 100s of kilometers out of the initial radius.
With the fallout, specially as said if it exploded on the ground, the buildings a few 100 KMs away may still stand but the people will either die out due to radiation or simply die out of cancer and other diseases caused by the fallout.
And that also includes life stock and the entire environment of the area.

[foxdemon]

:eh: ok ?!?
Interesting info. Though 'm not sure how does it effect the argument.
'm not saying Iran would want to send a nuke to Europe or anywhere. Its not even building nukes to begin with.
What 'm arguing is that a single nuclear warhead with size of 20-100 Megaton would have catastrophic consequences not just to the area within the blast radius but also a massive fallout that would spread for 100s of kilometers out of the initial radius.
With the fallout, specially as said if it exploded on the ground, the buildings a few 100 KMs away may still stand but the people will either die out due to radiation or simply die out of cancer and other diseases caused by the fallout.
And that also includes life stock and the entire environment of the area.

I'm not contributing to the argument with Rugoz. I just thought you'd find that info interesting.

A bit more on the subject, I was reading about the Pakistani nuclear program and I found a mention of US supplied F-16 fighters being used as a delivery platform. Apparently the US has to give their approval. So it was mentioned that America has only approved two nations to use F-16s to deliver nukes, one being Pakistan and the other being Israel. What this tells me is that Isaerl's neutron bombs are likely tak nukes, delivered by aircraft, rather than ABM wareheads. My guess is that their strategy is to use those neutron bombs within Israel as a weapon of last resort if they were about to be completely over run by an invading army.

Neutron bombs aren't the right nuke to use if one's strategy was to attack another country. The goods news here for Iranians is you don't have to worry about an Israel nuclear attack. If that was their intention, they'd have thermo nuclear warheads in the 100-200 kiloton range.

Regarding those multi megaton warheads, they came form the early nuclear age when ICBM's weren't that accurate. The increase in blast radius doesn't increase linearly with increased yield. To increase blast radius a little bit requires much bigger increases in yield. These days ICBMs are more reliable and accurate. Also they then to employ MIRVs rather than unitary warheads. Smaller yield warheads in the kiloton range are now typical. Increasingly we are seeing variable yield warheads (dial-a-yield), being adjustable form around 10 to 100 or so kilotons yield.

The very largest deployed warheads in the Cold War were intended to attack underground facilities, such as Cheyenne Mountain (US command facility deeply buried to survive nuclear attack). Those weapons would have the effects you are talking about. If we were to start banning nukes, that catagory would be a good place to start for the reasons you mention.

[Stormsmith]

I live in western Canada, north of Fort Lewis. North Korea is not making me feel particularly safe.

[MB.]

Nuclear weapons serve no function beyond retaliatory strikes designed to kill masses of civilians. They are a major liability to the safety of international relations and should be seriously reduced in quantity. They are hugely expensive to build and maintain and serve only as a deterrent to small non nuclear countries, although this is not always the case, as evidenced by the 1973 Arab Israeli war.

Ultimately, nuclear weapons are a result of the dominance of the airpower imperialism of the 20th century that believed that morale and terror bombing could prevent and win wars cheaply. They were wrong.

[Rugoz]

The amount of the fallout which is highly radioactive is far larger in a ground explosion and if accompanied by strong enough wind and weather patterns like for examples the ones Europe has.
It would spread into most of Europe. And thus destroy it.

Use the nukemap tool I provided. It shows the fallout for the 100Mt bomb when detonated on the surface (the fallout of an airburst is negligible). Note that the Tsar Bomb with 100Mt yield is particularly dirty since it has a high fission content (52% vs 3% of the normal Tsar Bomb).

When it comes to the chances of survival you can ignore the lower fallout contours (10 rads per hour and below), because fallout radiation decays exponentially. There's the 7/10 rule, meaning radiation will decrease by a factor 10 in 7 hours and by a factor 100 in 49 hours etc. The higher fallout contours are survivable in radiation shelters. After ~2 weeks 1000 rad per hour will have decreased to 1 rad per hour.

As for habitability, that depends on the cancer risk you are willing to take. If we assume a 5 rad per year limit, the 1 rad per hour contour should be habitable again after a few months. The 1000 rads per hour contour could stay uninhabitable for decades. At least without cleanup measures.

P.S. Your "would destroy Europe" is obviously still total nonsense since even the 1 rad per hour contour only covers a small fraction of Europe.

[quetzalcoatl]

So, I say thank Christ for the bomb.

[MB.]

This Rugorz character completely ignores that a 100 megaton bomb would have blown portions of the earth's surface into the upper atmosphere much like a volcanic eruption.

I'm not sure what point he is trying to make about the fallout, which undoubtedly have created an ionospheric radioactive cloud that would proceed to descend over large portions of the world. I suspect this character has been reading too much Kahn and not enough Kissinger.

[Rugoz]

This Rugorz character completely ignores that a 100 megaton bomb would have blown portions of the earth's surface into the upper atmosphere much like a volcanic eruption.

I'm not sure what point he is trying to make about the fallout, which undoubtedly have created an ionospheric radioactive cloud that would proceed to descend over large portions of the world. I suspect this character has been reading too much Kahn and not enough Kissinger.

Feel free to play with this tool

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

The fallout model:

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/faq/#fallout

If you think it is wrong provide a credible source.

[LehmanB]

EVERY COUNTRY IS LESS SAFE