It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

As U S Modernizes Nuclear Weapons, Smaller Leaves Some Uneasy

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
As U.S. Modernizes Nuclear Weapons, ‘Smaller’ Leaves Some Uneasy




A jet fighter drops a mock B61 model 12 bomb that zeroes in on the target zone, as part of a $10 billion United States government program that seeks to build a smart atom bomb of great precision..


So why does this make many uneasy you might ask? For one it could bring about a nuclear confrontation. Imagine that this fighter was a full stealth fighter. It means the US could mo into a country undetected and set off a small precision guided nuke like this device. By the time the fallout settles we could be engaged in a nuclear war. When it comes to nukes small means more likely to be used as a first strike weapon.

Added Source: New York Times


edit on 01am2016-01-13T10:18:48-06:0010181America/Chicago18131 by machineintelligence because: more sources




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

I thought that the radiation signature could point back to the source of the nuclear material?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
This will likely trigger another nuclear arms race of sorts.

What happens to this disarmament agreement so many signed up to?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: machineintelligence

I thought that the radiation signature could point back to the source of the nuclear material?




Unless its built to North Korean specification, or Russian, or Indian, or Pakistan, or British, french, Chinese, or...



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

These are B61's with a tail package. It's not smaller. Or new.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

The test wasn't of a smaller weapon, it was a GPS guidance kit for existing weapons. The B61-12 is the same size as previous B61s. They're still developing the new weapons.

Funny that Russia and China developing new weapons is perfectly fine, but the US developing new weapons is a Bad Thing.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

That would require Russian, or Chinese, or Pakistani, or whoever's material.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Reading the NYT link, neither Sanger nor Broad actually seem to have a clue what they mean by 'smaller' in that context. 3/4 of the way down they begin whining that downsizing the nuclear arsenal is bad, because maybe we will be more likely to nuke someone if we can deliver the weapon a bit more accurately. Which is sort of nuts. Also they sort of conflate CEP with dial-a-yield, as if dial-a-yield is new for a B61.

"As a family, the weapons and their delivery systems move toward the small, the stealthy and the precise." Um, no. Same size as always, same dial-a-yield as always. More precise. Not stealthy. Although that would be a nice package to add as well.

The issue, and it's one they're not sound biting, is that you have to deliver a small nuke with a very low miss distance in order to take out many hardened installations. If you use bigger nukes, you have a lot more collateral damage.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
The issue, and it's one they're not sound biting, is that you have to deliver a small nuke with a very low miss distance in order to take out many hardened installations. If you use bigger nukes, you have a lot more collateral damage.


That's what they mean. With lower CEP, you need smaller yield and hence less fallout, and therefore are less self-deterred.

But sometimes somebody with bad hair just is asking to be served a good protean 'n' plasma shake.

edit on 13-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
But sometimes somebody with bad hair just is asking to be served a good protean 'n' plasma shake.


Nothing like putting all your eggheads in one basket. or 'gang.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Why don't they get nukes are old hat and we have worse?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Why is it an issue that the US has done this yet people remain mysteriously quiet when Russia did this? Our nukes were upgraded because of Russias nuke modernization program, including nuclear cruise missiles and their threat to use them (as N. Korea has done).
edit on 13-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I think it's just called a Ryan now 😂



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
But sometimes somebody with bad hair just is asking to be served a good protean 'n' plasma shake.


I guarantee if either front runner gets in, that beautiful shiny red jolly candy-like button is going to be a big temptation.




posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: machineintelligence

These are B61's with a tail package. It's not smaller. Or new.


What he said!!!

What scares the hell out of me is Obama has them sitting in Turkey just waiting for Turkey to over run our base and STEAL THEM.

I am more worried about that than anything let alone one being stronger than the other.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
i wonder if the author of that twaddle is aware that Russia is now building high megaton yield cobalt enhanced nuclear munitions and three very hard to defeat means of delivering them. Such weapons are more of a threat for first strike use because once a nuclear foe decides to follow suit cobalt weapons ca be online in days or weeks. This means the advantage of having them disappears as soon as a rational foe becomes aware of them. billions of rubles down the drain.

These weapons are real doomsday weapons capable of almost completely sterilizing a continent of all life. not just human life all life. all of it. and there is no going into a survival shelter and waiting it out. you cannot pack enough food, water and all other necessities for the amount of time it takes the radiation levels to be livable. the land itself is lethal for perhaps three decades and is a land of cancer and mutation for a hundred years after that.
edit on 14-1-2016 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Having been head honcho at State, THAT front runner would likely already be aware of P****** right? (I mean, if wizzywig knew about it...)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Tajlakz

P*o*e**.. Can I solve the puzzle?
edit on 15-1-2016 by B2StealthBomber because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I think all these governments are full of #. Who in their right mind would use such a pointless weapon that makes anywhere uninhabitable for hundreds of years? Let alone the environmental impacts of more nuke tests. Its a horrible tactical move in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
A smaller yield weapon is a good thing, boggles my mind that people think it could be anything else...

As long as countries use chase nukes and use them in diplomacy I would prefer if you drop a nuke it makes a city uninhabitable versus a state or 2 uninhabitable.

I hope they are never used again... but ill take low yield over some of what russia has any day of the week.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join