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.

 

Pentagon: Mini-Nukes are "Safe for the Surrounding Civilian Population"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
How can Weapons of Mass Destruction be Called "SAFE" For Surrounding Population is beyond Reason.


The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War

The Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine contains specific "guidelines" which allow for "preemptive" nuclear strikes against "rogue enemies" which "possess" or are "developing" weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The preemptive nuclear doctrine (DJNO), which applies to Iran and North Korea calls for "offensive and defensive integration". It explicitly allows the preemptive use of thermonuclear weapons in conventional war theaters.

The B61-11 is categorized as a "deep earth penetrating bomb" capable of "destroying the deepest and most hardened of underground bunkers, which the conventional warheads are not capable of doing". The B61-11s can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb, from a B-2. a 5B-2 stealth bomber or from an F-16 aircraft.


The B61-11 is casually described as causing an underground explosion without threatening "the surrounding civilian population".

Weapons of Mass Destruction - B61
"... In tests the bomb penetrates only 20 feet into dry earth,... But even this shallow penetration before detonation allows a much higher proportion of the explosion to be transferred into ground shock relative to a surface burst. It is not able to counter targets deeply buried under granite rock. Moreover, it has a high yield, in the hundreds of kilotons. If used in North Korea, the radioactive fallout could drift over nearby countries such as Japan"

if it were to be launched against Iran, it would result in radioactive contamination over a large part of the Middle East - Central Asian region, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, including US troops stationed in Iraq:

Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons
"The use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield [of a low yield B61-11] even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."

"The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited. ... Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. ... Any attempt to use it in an urban environment would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area "





“Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth - Penetrator Issues, FY2005 and FY2006
The B61 (Mk-61) Bomb

Mini Nukes are Safe for the Surrounding Civilian Population?

You have to be Kidding me!

Anyway, you all know the Story, that in 2005 president Bush blocked further research funding for this Project - yet, that does not make alot of Difference, since there are still existing in the arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11, which was developed under Clinton.

So it means that the Mini-Nukes are Primed and Full Operational and above all - Read to USE!

[edit on 18/2/06 by Souljah]




posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Souljah, The people developing these weapons are on levels of genius so far up and above you and I. Im sure they know exactly what they are doing. Plus, by having this weaponry, it is way in saying to any rogue country that even if you build super-deep underground bunkers, we can blow them to bits with this!

I love it, and think they should use em on Irans nuc facility.

Train



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   


Mini Nukes are Safe for the Surrounding Civilian Population?


It will be very hard for a President, any president to use any of this weapons and not get the uproar of the population. A possible scenario could be, new intelligence on plans by lets say North Korea to use its nuclear arsenal against the U.S. Even if this happens the president would have a very difficult decision to make. I beleive very soon the congress would take away the authority of the president to use nuclear weapons on foreign soil. Any kind of nuke used by the GOP would not be safe for their own political support.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Uh, because it is not a weapon of mass destruction?

There is a difference between a special waepon, which that is, and a weapon of mass destruction, which it is not.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Maybe im missing something, but where do you see anything about 'safe' in that text?



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Good thing they don't make them anymore..


Keep pulling Souljah

www.newscientist.com...


Controversial plans to research nuclear “bunker busters” have been abandoned by the by the US in the country's 2006’s budget.

The Bush administration and the Senate have agreed with the House of Representatives to scrap the funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) in the 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.

The Pentagon will instead focus on developing a conventional deep-earth penetrating bomb, said Senator Pete Domenici, chair of the Senate subcommittee dealing with the issue.


[edit on 2/18/2006 by QuietSoul]


rdx

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
20ft into dry earth from an altitude of 40,000ft?

Has anybody checked the physics of this?

I would expect a far greater depth of penetration. Existing bunker busters utilise tandem warhead technology, a precursor warhead followed by either another shaped charge warhead or a fragmenting warhead.

I wouldn't expect a nuclear device to simply be aft of say a tungsten penetrator nose, I'd expect some sort of precursor.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
So... Clinton did something useful after all.

I would love to see the scientific analysis for those estimates, a .3 Kt blast will create a huge crater that will send a radioactive cloud over hundreds of miles? Seems a bit much to me.

Also, if this weapon does indeed have a very low fallout blast then it should be used if necessary.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
QuietSoul

Are you sure they are not just going to substitute them for something else?

Taking in consideration the mess in Iraq after the attacks of US around the cities, many areas in Iraq are having radiation levels to high for pentagon comfort.

Funny that the type of weapons used by the US are not considered Weapons of mass destruction even when the amount of radioactive material would be.

I wonder who is going to pay for many Iraqi civilians health problems when the results of radioactive contamination starts to show in their bodies as they go by with normal life around the radioactive debris left behind.

www.csmonitor.com...




The depleted-uranium bullets are made of low-level radioactive nuclear-waste material, left over from the making of nuclear fuel and weapons. It is 1.7 times as dense as lead, and burns its way easily through armor. But it is controversial because it leaves a trail of contamination that has half-life of 4.5 billion years - the age of our solar system.



BigTrain

I agree that the people making these weapons are genius but what they are use for it if pure evil.

Specially when is disregard for the populations left behind to deal with the results of their usage.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Uh, because it is not a weapon of mass destruction?

There is a difference between a special waepon, which that is, and a weapon of mass destruction, which it is not.

Errmmm...

What Difference is that?

Oh I get it!

You mean the ONLY Difference is in the Nationality of the Country who has this WMD's - for, if the Country is also a World Superpower, then it is NOT a Weapon of Mass Destruction anymore - but just a Special Weapon which is completly SAFE FOR CIVILANS!



Sorry TC - but if you haven't heard, there are NO Weapons which are SAFE for CIVILIANS! Especially Not NUCLEAR bombs. So, when USA or Isreal threaten with Nuclear Bombs, that is OKEY and ofcourse Democratic.




Originally posted by QuietSoul
Good thing they don't make them anymore..


Well it is not that Good at all, since the Nuclera Arsenal has these Mini-Nukes primed and ready and waiting to be dropped somewhere in the desert.

From the Article:

While the US Congress has blocked further research funding in fiscal 2005 on new more robust tactical nuclear weapons, this decision does not affect the existing arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11, developed during the Clinton administration. The B61-11 bunker busters are fully operational, The B61-11 has apparently been tested "resulting in its acceptance as a standard stockpile item". It has been cleared for battlefield use.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Errmmm...

What Difference is that?

Oh I get it!

You mean the ONLY Difference is in the Nationality of the Country who has this WMD's - for, if the Country is also a World Superpower, then it is NOT a Weapon of Mass Destruction anymore - but just a Special Weapon which is completly SAFE FOR CIVILANS!



Sorry TC - but if you haven't heard, there are NO Weapons which are SAFE for CIVILIANS! Especially Not NUCLEAR bombs. So, when USA or Isreal threaten with Nuclear Bombs, that is OKEY and ofcourse Democratic.


No genius
He is saying the weapons intended purpose is to penetrate underground and destroy a bunker not a city. THAT is what makes the difference, it isnt meant to destroy a city and cause civillian casualties, it is meant for use on an underground MILITARY target. Thats why it isnt a WMD, dont turn this into a 'the US are hypocrites issue'.

and the 'safety' of it is probably due to the fact that when it detonates underground what the surounding soil falls into the hole and seals in some of the radiation, im sure some would probably leak out. This is why underground tests are prefered to atmospheric as far as enviromental concerns go.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
No genius
He is saying the weapons intended purpose is to penetrate underground and destroy a bunker not a city. THAT is what makes the difference, it isnt meant to destroy a city and cause civillian casualties, it is meant for use on an underground MILITARY target. Thats why it isnt a WMD, dont turn this into a 'the US are hypocrites issue'.

Excuse me, mister Know-It-all - I think you missed to read something:

"The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited. ... Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. ... Any attempt to use it in an urban environment would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area"

As you can see, this Weapon will (probably) destroy the underground target, but at the same time, the RADIOACTIVE effect will be the same, as dropping a nuclear bomb - for the Radioactive material is FREE and in the Air, waiting to be blow North, South, East or West, depends who is more Lucky. So, by dropping one of these babies on North Korea for example - the Radioactive Cloud could swim up to Japan; or WORSE - to CHINA!

Or if you drop it on Iran, it could float down to US military bases in Iraq!

Now, how would that make you feel?

[edit on 19/2/06 by Souljah]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   
That was probably why it was abandoned, that wasnt my point and I was trying to explain the general theory behind it. I was also trying to explain why it would NOT be classified as WMD.

and once again you take something and turn it into a political matter.I dont know about anyone else, but I'd like to read something else than souljah's attempt at propaganda.

[edit on 19-2-2006 by XphilesPhan]

[edit on 19-2-2006 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
That was probably why it was abandoned, that wasnt my point and I was trying to explain the general theory behind it. I was also trying to explain why it would NOT be classified as WMD.

IT IS A NUCLEAR WEAPON - therefore it is classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction, without any Mistakes. Even if you make a smaller Nuke, it is STILL a Nuke, and it will still create a Radioactive material, which will then go who-knows-where. Sadly you do not have a problem with Nuclear Holocaust, staged and performed by the US Goverment - you have a Problem with Sematnics.

NUKES are NUKES.

And as I said before - it really makes no difference if the further research for newer models of this WMD's are abandoned; the nuclera arsenal is full of this Mini-Nukes, which are ready for battlefield operations.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join