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.

 

Davy Crockett.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   


man aint she a beauty, until she blows up.


www.guntruck.com...

"The Davy Crockett Atomic Battle Group Delivery System was born of a time where the US Army felt it needed some 151,000 nuclear weapons for deployment in a protracted conflict with the Soviet Union. Of this total, 106,000 would be for tactical battlefield use, 25,000 for air defense of US Army units and installations, and 20,000 to support our Allies. All of this was predicated on the thought at the US Army would use an estimated 423 atomic warheads in a single day of intense atomic combat - not to include surface-to-air missiles. This is mind-boggling when you sit back and ponder this.

This vision was never realized, but the US Army would field some 11,500 nuclear weapons from 1954 until denuclearization in 1992 - around 16% of the entire US nuclear arsenal."


man 151,000 nukes is a little bit too much.




posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
You got to love the thinking back then, 151,000 nukes of the army another 20,000 ICBM’s for the Air Force and a couple of thousand of nuclear missiles for the Navy. Thats over kill but accuracy sucked back then.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Erm, since when did anyone need "accuracy" when nuclear weapons, be they tactical or strategic, were utilized or required?




seekerof



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Oh no, I’m saying that nukes today have pin point accuracy and therefore you can do the same thing with less nukes and lower yields.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
"Davy Crockett"
____________________

Gives new meaning to "King of the wild frontier"......



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
And they try to tell us that suitcase nukes are not feasible



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
lol where and for how much can i buy one



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
And they try to tell us that suitcase nukes are not feasible


Yeah, it's a scary thought that something that powerful could possibly be put in something as small and nondescript as a suitcase.

What worries me are those grapefruit sized Neutron Bombs...death in a quarter mile radius if I'm correct with a bomb that size, and easier to construct as the Uranium shell is stripped away. If a terrorist ever got his hands on one of those he could probably put it in something the size of a lunchbag and set it off somewhere in a major city


[edit on 19-6-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by zhangmaster

What worries me are those grapefruit sized Neutron Bombs...death in a quarter mile radius if I'm correct with a bomb that size, and easier to construct as the Uranium shell is stripped away.


I am not aware of any design that could feasably be much smaller than the W50 shown. Circular compressive designs promise to make very slim weapons but the amount of fissile material vs. reflector thickness ratios remain unchaged.

Grapefruit sized ? Do you have a link of any kind


[edit on 19-6-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Did some research on these a while back, mininukes that sole role was to inspire sheer fear and to demotivate enemy troops.

Fun stuff.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
eh..scary whats out there but i mean look at a tiny lil atom could do to japan back in the ww2..killd about 150,000 each bomb..so i mean the tiny stuff cant be ignored ...just like previous post..fear...intimidation..all equals strategy to win



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Sure Weev, got the links and an exerpt below. For a short history of the bomb, it was made in the 70's by Sam Cohen. It's basically a nuclear bomb with the neutron absorbing materials like Uranium taken out so that massive amounts of neutrons can be emitted. This also means that the explosive effects are smaller. The bomb is designed to destroy flesh, but leave buildings and other structures intact. I was reading somewhere that at close range with a powerful neutron bomb, your eyes, tongue, and all soft flesh suddenly melts, and people just drop dead instantly. They were set up in the Soviet Union's satellite states during the cold war as a deterrent for a possible Blitzkrieg. While normal nuclear bombs might not always incapacitate tanks (of course this wouldn't be true at very close range), neutron bombs penetrate the armor and kill all those inside, stopping the invasion.



Most frightening for Cohen is the relative ease by which neutron bombs can be created with a substance called red mercury. Red mercury is a compound containing mercury that has undergone massive irradiation. When exploded, it creates tremendous heat and pressure - the same type needed to trigger a fusion device such as a mini-neutron bomb. Cohen said that when U.N. inspectors went to Iraq to examine the Iraqis' nuclear weapons capabilities, the U.N. team found documents showing that they had purchased quantities of red mercury. The material means a neutron bomb can be built "the size of baseball" but able to kill everyone within several square blocks.


www.thewednesdayreport.com...
www.findterm.net...

[edit on 19-6-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Strange as it may seem; nukes in the age of terroism are obselete.
The reason I say this is because bio weapons are much cheaper to make, easier to make, smaller thus easier to deliver. as effective [depending on wind] and psychologicaly devistating. I think we should use more bio and chemical wepons on the enemy. Nukes are just to clean. Strike terror into their hearts while they bleed from every orifice. War isn't meant to be pretty. If it's about killing; make it hurt. Just a thought.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Red mercury is an urban legend, one that is believed by many.

www.nti.org...

[edit on 20-6-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Erm, since when did anyone need "accuracy" when nuclear weapons, be they tactical or strategic, were utilized or required?




seekerof


In the case of the weapon listed in this thread - accuracy is needed - as the warhead is so small - 0.01kiloton variable to 1 kiloton (watch trinity and beyond - the IVY FLATS shot(s) shows one of the warheads that was going to be used)

the hard kill for this weapon ISN`T the blast per se - it is the hard radiation - the blast itself is quite small - fatal/ serious injury only to about 100m or so for the usual 0.01 kiloton or 0,02kiloton - but the hard radiation , would give fatal doses out to 400m (which is the minimum range for the weapon)

A version of the warhead - the B54 was used up to 1989 in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) - yes a nuclear landmine.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Thanks for the information Simon666. I was searching for articles late last night, and just briefly glanced at the name of the site and thought it sounded legit. Maybe it is a legitimate site, but one that fooled by the myth of Red Mercury. What I was really trying to find was this news article written by one of those sources like MSNBC. One of them had an interesting and informatve article on the next likely terrorist attacks, and among others such as bioagents in water supplies was a descripton a grapefruit sized neutron bomb that would be detonated in a large city.

If you think about size, without the uranium shell, you can make a weapon smaller than a conventional nuclear bomb, and you know how small those are getting. I did find another article that I swear I read on MSN once before, and it might have been copied on a site called Zealllic...the link is listed below. It's actually a very poor comparison between NASDAQ and the neutron bomb in an attempt to show how bad the market is doing...but the article is very informative and indepth about the bomb and its effects in the first half, so check it out if you're interested Weev, or Simon. It also mentions the size of a mini-neutron bomb being around the size of a baseball.

www.zealllc.com...

[edit on 20-6-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
That link does have some complete rubbish in it:


Neutron bombs are also much cleaner than conventional nukes. A neutron blast only kills living things, leaving all buildings and weapons intact. It is the ultimate weapon to use against massed troops and armor, as all the enemies die instantly, no structures or vehicles are damaged, and, most importantly, no radioactive fallout is left behind. Unlike fission or fusion nukes, neutron bombsites are safe to walk into immediately after the explosion.


ANY nuclear explosion leaves behind radiation - and they seem to forget the core of ANY enhanced radiation device (be that neutron enhanced or xray enhanced) is an H-Bomb - which do make a BIG bang!

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
That link does have some complete rubbish in it. ANY nuclear explosion leaves behind radiation - and they seem to forget the core of ANY enhanced radiation device (be that neutron enhanced or xray enhanced) is an H-Bomb - which do make a BIG bang! en.wikipedia.org...

It is true that it leaves behind radioactive fall out - although US, UK, Russian and Chinese troops have been made to walk under or very near to ground zero soon enough after the explosion to my knowledge - but the extent is believed to be rather small. This is easily explainable by the low yield of such a device which indicates little fission. At the core of a neutron bomb there is believed to be a small amount of tritium, it is NOT a true H bomb but rather an radiation enhanced A bomb. The tritium in it also makes it unsuable after a short time, due to the halflife of tritium which is just a few years, as well as a potent emitter of easily detectable gamma radiation, which makes the threat of terrorists obtaining and using this pretty unlikely if you ask me.



[edit on 20-6-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Yes Harlrquin, that is true. It's very hard to find a link on neutron bombs that contains ALL the accurate details. The author of the article apparently took a little knowledge too far, and mistook the bombs original purpose to mean that absolutely NO buildings would be damaged. Obviously there will be an explosion, but that's really a secondary property of the bomb. The lethal neutron radiation extends far beyone the blast radius,



Thanks to the DNC/Chinagate scandal, however, China is now known to possess neutron devices, and several other countries are rumored to be actively pursuing this technology. Many global intelligence analysts believe that small neutron bombs may unfortunately become the weapon of choice for the discerning terrorist in the 21st century.


I've heard this mentioned a lot actually, and there must be some way to get it into the country if people are getting worried about it. That is interesting information though Simon, I didn't know they were that detectable. Now I admit my knowledge in this area isn't that great, but if you take into consideration the smaller size of the bomb, and the fact that Lead is used to absorb gamma rays, wouldn't it be possible to house the bomb in a large lead container to avoid detection? If it's only the size of a grapefruit or baseball, a thick layer of lead could feasibly be used. Do you know if there scans for gamma ray emission and such at the US/Mexico border Simon?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
most enhanced radiation devices are in the multi kiloton class (were taking about 100kt here) or , the W54 is a 1MT device!







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join