Directional nuclear warheads

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2002 @ 10:12 AM
link   
The US alluded to developing a special nuke warhead ( based on the B-61 ) which could be employed against cave systems and deeply buried structures. The warhead can supposedly direct the force of the blast rather like a shaped charge. The depth of penetration of the blast being able to destroy targets buried up to 500m.
If this is so; how is it possible to direct the energy of a nuclear warhead in one direction ?




posted on Aug, 29 2002 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Not possible without intense gravimetric effects.



posted on Sep, 3 2002 @ 04:14 PM
link   
As alluded to above, the power would simply be too great. A shaped charge puts great stress on it's casing/weapon and that is a non-nuclear muintion. A nuclear munition would vaporize the whole setup, thus making it a regular old nuclear weapon.



posted on Sep, 4 2002 @ 02:33 AM
link   
I meant it acted like a shape charge. It was not built like a conventoinal shaped charge as u stated above is not possible. However after 50 years on nuclear weapons development I would expect a development like this. How it is done I do not know but I suspect it is extremely highly classified. If other countries got a hold of the technology it could make nuclear war more possible.



posted on Sep, 4 2002 @ 08:21 PM
link   
A shaped nuclear expolsion wouldn't happen. The explosion would simply blow its casing. The notion of an explosion like this is physically impossible.



posted on Sep, 6 2002 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Grasshop is right. According to contemporary physics blast shaping is impossible. Yet it is theoretically possible using gravitational manipulation.

[Edited on 6-9-2002 by psypher]



posted on Sep, 13 2002 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I hate to break it to you but you can not control the blast of a nuclear weapon.


the talk about making nukes to strike caves is to make ground penetrating weapons that can go go underground before they exlode



it's just like some of the conventional bombs we have not that can penetrate bunkers before they explode because they have hardened steel casings.



posted on Sep, 14 2002 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I agree. madscientist, you are misunderstanding the article.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 05:15 AM
link   
enegry is what we are talking about here and enegry can be directedwe direct enegry all the time this is just on a biger scale hell you turn ur tv on from 50 feet away you directed a enegry source but a very week one but still you directed it



posted on Oct, 26 2002 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Riiiiight. Except you are talking about an infrared beam which is only electromagnetic energy at the very low end of the spectrum. Mr. madscientist over here is talking about a nuclear blast. There are many more factors involved such as: latent heat, seismic shockwave and high frequency electromagnetic radiation. All of which are significantly harder to control. So THEORETICALLY, yes it possible but we don't posses the tech needed to do it.



posted on Oct, 26 2002 @ 12:32 PM
link   
In other words, they've misrepresented the weapon...It doesn't direct the nuclear blast itself, it's only directing the warhead to penetrate deeper before exploding. They should have called it by a more accurate name, such as "Ground Penetrating Warhead" or something like that.

Oh well, what's in a name anyway? Well, this isn't the first (& very likely, far from the last) time that our government has misrepresented something...



posted on Jan, 4 2003 @ 07:47 PM
link   
In The Curve of Binding Energy, John McPhee quotes nuclear weapon designer Ted Taylor: "A one-kiloton fission device, shaped properly, could make a hole ten feet in diameter a thousand feet into solid rock." (p 115)

I do not know if the B-61 has this capability, but if a top designer could openly proclaim the possibility in a book published 29 years ago, I think that however counterintuitive the notion may be, we should assume that it can be done.



posted on Jan, 4 2003 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Thank you arcturus you beat me to it


What most here seem to forget, is classical physics NEVER APPLIES to technology.

If I wanted to have a microwave with the power of the sun, scramble my egg with exactly as much heat as is emitted by a supernova, without burning the outside, I COULD DO IT!

Just doing it is the hard part. But there's always away with technology.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 4 2003 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Thankyou Arcturus and Freemason, finally some people who know what they are talking about.



posted on Jan, 5 2003 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Thanks for the compliments. I should note that the context of the conversation in the book was a proposal to link US cities with high-speed underground trains, moving at hundreds or even thousands of miles per hour in evacuated tunnels. Taylor's comments strongly indicate that shaped-charge nukes were already feasible in the early '70s and that they were not thus employed due to attitudinal rather than technological barriers.
Again, it is not at all obvious to me how to make one of these things, and I'm not especially comfortable with argument from authority, but Ted Taylor was possibly the most ingenious nuclear explosives designer this country ever produced; he had a lot to do with Project Orion, with which I expect most of you are familiar.



posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The guy being quoted is talking THEORETICALLY!!!!!
If everything theoretical were PRACTICALLY true as well then we should be able to travel back in time, since the temporal paradox theory is sound as can be.


"A one-kiloton fission device, shaped properly, could make a hole ten feet in diameter a thousand feet into solid rock."

In practical reality, the only thing that can be "shaped" about nuclear weapons is the nuclear charge (the neutron source surrounded by plutonium, which in turn is surrounded by conventional explosives that propel the plutonium into the neutron source to create a chain reaction).

And incase anyone is interested, the weapon being refered to at the beginning of this topic is actually based on the GBU-28 bunker buster. Think GBU-28 with a 5 kiloton nuclear payload. This new mini-nuke bunker buster will be far more effective than the current B61-11 (currently the only nuclear bunker buster in the US arsenal).



posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I haven't heard of the GBU-28 with a nuclear payload. It must be some nuke as the bomb is only 8 inches wide.
As for your comments on blast shaping, you sound confident that you are right. Are you a nuclear physicist or similar ?



posted on Jan, 7 2003 @ 02:04 AM
link   
No, I'm a theoretical physicist by profession. But I do delve into the world of nuclear physics on occasion. Also several of my friends/colleagues are nuclear physicists so I do have some idea of what Im talking about.

As for the GBU-28 style nuclear bunker blaster see if you can get your hands on a copy of the October 2002 Popular Science magazine. The weapon Im talking about is the feature article in that issue.

PS- You might want to check your source info about the GBU-28. It quite a bit bigger than 8in wide, although I don't know its exact dimensions. In fact, its about twice the size of the million dollar a-piece AIM-54 Phoenix air2air missile. Which has a diameter of 15in, a length of 13ft, and a tactical weight of 1020 lb. If you consider that the GBU-28 is about twice that size then you'll see that it really aint as small as you might think.

[Edited on 7-1-2003 by psypher]



posted on Jan, 7 2003 @ 08:04 AM
link   
You are right the GBU-28 s 14.5 inches wide. However I mentioned 8 inches because the casings are actually surplus 8 inch artillery barrels. Therefore the internal space of the bomb would be 8 inches wide.
Will read the article in Popular Science, thanks.



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 11:59 PM
link   
i'm only 16, i'm just some teen metalhead type thing, so what i'm saying doesn't count as much, but it might make sense. is it really necessary to go cave fighting and stuff. i'm sure there are more dangerous enemies in the world.

i don't like war or anything, but i think the only way my country (usa) is going to be safe is to go for world domination. eventually someone will launch a nuke or worse and then that's gonna get all chain reaction as the victim retaliates. i'm not sure how many nukes russia has, chances are they aren't either. it's only a matter of who strikes first.

actually i have no idea, because i don't know what is "going on." i don't know what is up with nuclear defense systems or whatever. i don't like how the media publicizes whenever a new weapon or technology etc is planned or completed. there is obviously so much going on behind that, but normal us citizens aren't supposed to know it.

i started this rant with a purpose but my all curing anti-depressant pills are kicking in hard putting me to sleep, and my friends adderall wore off a long time ago.

OH YEAH - psypher - what did you do to become a theoretical physicist? college, classes in highschool, grades etc. i was thinking about persuing a career path close to that, i've still got a year and a half of high school left, and i guess i'm in tough classes. heh it's either that or i become a rock star, i'm in a band with some friends, we're awesome. anyways, it would be the # to be the first theoretical physicist/metal drummer. i'm saying this now, pardon my language, because i slip every once in a while, but usually nothing big.

i just came to these forums so i'm still trying to figure out what's going on.

seem like pretty smart group of people. sure beats counter-strike forums





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join