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.

 

U.S. to test powerful explosive in Utah in preps for nuke on iran?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   


The US military plans to detonate a 700 tonne explosive charge in a test called "Divine Strake" that will send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas, a senior defense official said.


www.breitbart.com...

The US is planning to test large non nuclear explosive in an underground bunker in NV. 700 tons?? Although it's not new news, here's a story from a while ago...




Nuclear Bunker Busters, Mini-Nukes, and the US Nuclear Stockpile
The Bush administration is contemplating a new crop of nuclear weapons that could reduce the threat to civilian populations. However, they're still unlikely to work without producing massive radioactive fallout, and their development might require a return to underground nuclear testing.

In support of its request to repeal the 1994 law (banning mini nukes), the Bush administration is arguing that the US may need lower yield nuclear weapons to more credibly deter rogue regimes possessing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

www.aip.org...

So now they are testing an explosion with the force of a mini nuke, in an underground bunker, which they state is to test the results/damage to the hard granite bunker.

Does anyone besides me think that they've had these mini nukes for a while now, and now that they are getting close to this war with Iran, where they will probably use them, they need to perform a test to see exactly how effective they are.

If they use them to take out nuke/bio/chem facilities like they state, what happens if the explosion isn't contained underground. yay, now instead of just having radiation in the air, there is biological/chemical weapons as well...although with that sort of explosion there may be a chance that the bio/chem weapons would become innefective, as the arcticle says, i just don't buy it. but you never know.

It just sounds like really odd timing, the beginning of June...sounds like a rush rush job to test this out. Did that plan ever completely fall out to store nuclear waste in nevada bunkers? if so, i wouldnt' doubt it if they were using it a bunker already built for the waste =P

[edit on 30-3-2006 by xxvalheruxx]

[edit on 30-3-2006 by xxvalheruxx]




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Theres a big difference between so called ( nuclear like weapons) and nuclear weapons. There is nothing in any nuclear testing treaty that prevents you from testing large amounts of convential explosives which is exactly what they are doing.

There is absolutely no nuclear radiation produced from a test like this. Testing nuclear explosives is and has been banned for many years.

As for mini nukes they have had them for decades there is not secret about them. The W54 warhead for example with a yield equivalent to 10 tons of TNT ( 0.01 kilotons ). Far smaller then this non nuclear 700 ton test (0.7 kiloton).



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
On the otherhand we have to consider that they might actually be testing nuclear weapons and using "large conventional weapons" as a cover story. It's not as if it would be a good idea to start testing nuclear weapons just as we're telling Iran that they can't have any.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

On the otherhand we have to consider that they might actually be testing nuclear weapons and using "large conventional weapons" as a cover story.


That's highly unlikely as there is a big difference between a conventional explosion and a nuclear test, anyone with a Geiger counter can tell you that. If this was a nuclear test there is no way they could hide the radiation.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I'm not entirely sure about that. Because if it's an underground test then in theory you'd actually have to get the geiger counter relativly close to the blast site. And I strongly doubt that the DoD is just going to let anybody walk on to the Nevada Test Range.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Do underground tests produce mushroom clouds?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Sorry, i changed the title, what i meant by nuclear like, was the fact of how powrful the explosion would be, similar to that of many of the mini nukes.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Not sure where you got Utah from?

www.defensenews.com...
The U.S. military plans to detonate a 700 ton explosive charge in a test called “Divine Strake” that will send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas, a senior defense official said March 30.

He said the Russians have been notified of the test, which is scheduled for the first week of June at the Nevada test range.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Wonder how Nevada residents feel about sucking up the plume of a mushroom cloud? And they worry about cigarette smoke?

Now we must consider what can actually transport a 700 ton explosive device? Nothing that I am aware of, since a C-5's payload is only 135 tons. So what does the test actually represent?

What kind the name is Divine Strake anyway? Reminds me of Monty Python's Holy Hand Grenade.


King Bush: "Ready thy Divine Strake!"

Troops: "Ready!"

King Bush: "Then lobbest thou thy Divine Strake of USA towards thy foe,
who, being naughty in mine sight, shall snuff him and make glass of his ass."

Troops:"We cannot my lord, it's a bloody 700 tons!"

________________________

Divine indeed, divine foolery to believe it's not a siesmic blast test to aid computer modeling for a more transportable and compact device like a nuclear bunker buster.


Iran, Washington is calling and it's dial-a-nuke.

DTRA-Defense Threat Reduction Agency



[edit on 30-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
guess the MOAB wasnt destructive enough for the US they need even more power full weapon,



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
My bet is that it's one of the following;


  1. A coverup for an underground nuclear test.
  2. The closest we can get to performing a Tzar Bomb test without breaking the test-ban treaty.
  3. A way to make the military look really cool in hopes of recruiting kids who want to work with such large bombs.
  4. The Department of Defense has a surplus in the budget and want to make it look as though it's going towards something useful.
  5. A bunch of engineers got really bored one day.
  6. We've got a spare 700 tons of conventional explosives that we'd like to dispose of in the loudest way possible.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Or there testing if they can make an explosive that big IE non nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Ofcourse if you prefer the nuclear option just send your approval to the pentagon or your local recruiter office.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Links
Do underground tests produce mushroom clouds?


Nope.. They produce 'mushroom mounds'!


The surface depression depends on how deep the shaft is. Since we're talking about sub KT yields, here's a pic of a crater created by a sub kT nuclear detonation, carried out by India in May 98 at the end of its testing spree.



This is a shallow depth (don't how deep 'shallow is
but 100m+ is considered to be 'deep'') sub kT N-detonation crater which is about 3.5 to 4 meters across. THe yield is estimated to be a 'few hundreds of tons upwards depending on the depth'. Pretty small if you ask me!



India has released an image of one of these shots showing a surface crater in a sand dune. The dune crater, judging by the sand bags in the image is quite small, perhaps 3.5-4 meters from rim to rim. The yield for producing this feature could be anything from a few hundred kg of explosive yield upwards, depending on the depth of burial and the mechanism by which the surface crater was formed.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
During underground testing the US and Soviets were always able to tell when a test was done, because they would detect the seismic events from the blast. So if this *WAS* a nuclear test, they wouldn't be able to hide it for long.


The initial environmental impacts of an underground nuclear explosion are associated with the seismic shock wave that results from the release of a tremendous amount of energy to the Earth surrounding the point of explosion, and the radioactive elements produced during the nuclear explosion, which in some cases may escape into the atmosphere. We consider these two in turn.

About 1% or less of the energy released in an underground nuclear explosion is transmitted as a seismic wave. This produces temporary ground motions just like an earthquake. As with naturally occurring earthquakes, ground motion from seismic waves arising from nuclear detonations could damage buildings and other structures. Nuclear testing in the Pacific has also caused damage to coral reefs with consequences to fish and other marine life.

For example, high rise buildings in Las Vegas more than 160 km away from the Nevada test site in the United States have been known to sway following underground nuclear explosions. In July 1979, a French nuclear test in the Mururoa Atoll led to an underwater landslide. This in turn created a tidal wave causing at least one technician to be seriously injured. It has been reported that following the Indian nuclear tests in May 1998, some houses in the nearby village of Khetolai had sustained some damage.

www.geocities.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I agree with Zaphod58 man the Russians arent stupid. I wouldn't say it was likely you could pull a fast one and test a nuclear weapon without them knowing... and oh man if they caught you doing a secret test against the Test ban treaty there would be a firestorm of geopolitical poop comming your way.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   


What kind the name is Divine Strake anyway? Reminds me of Monty Python's Holy Hand Grenade.


King Bush: "Ready thy Divine Strake!"

Troops: "Ready!"

King Bush: "Then lobbest thou thy Divine Strake of USA towards thy foe,
who, being naughty in mine sight, shall snuff him and make glass of his ass."

Troops:"We cannot my lord, it's a bloody 700 tons!"


lmao, you just made my night. Sorry for the mixups, i guess i shouldn't post when in a weeks worth of time you can count the hours of sleep you've had with your fingers.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I'm not entirely sure about that. Because if it's an underground test then in theory you'd actually have to get the geiger counter relativly close to the blast site. And I strongly doubt that the DoD is just going to let anybody walk on to the Nevada Test Range.


Atmospheric satellites would detect a radiation signature, cyberdude78.
Also, a nuclear detonation, be it underground or above ground, has a distinct seismic signature versus say a large conventional explosion or volcano or earthquake. Easily discernable--all with no geiger counter needed.






seekerof



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
When I first read this story yesterday, I immediately wondered how an underground detonation could produce a mushroom cloud visible over a large distance?
700 tonnes is a big bomb. As has been mentioned already, there's nothing that could deliver a conventional bomb that big anyway except for a convoy of trucks (or, keeping with the Monty Python theme, a few C5's with the bomb strung between them, like African Swallows transporting a Coconut).

This sounds more and more like a low yield nuclear device all the time.
Also, with that part of the world sitting on so many geological fault lines, might it not have a knock on effect if detonated underground? It'd be one helluva big shockwave



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
During underground testing the US and Soviets were always able to tell when a test was done, because they would detect the seismic events from the blast. So if this *WAS* a nuclear test, they wouldn't be able to hide it for long.


Not to refute your claim, but how would a seismometer read a sub KT yield (700Tons here) of a nuclear detonation differently from a 700 ton non-nuclear explosion?


Esp if its a underground detonation (the above pic shows what little surface evidence presents itself at such yields), the only way would be to stick a geiger counter in and around the surface crater. You wouldn't get abnormal anywhere else.

And here's a pic of the damage to the Indian Village of Kheotlai after the 98' tests:




posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
It's not just the seismic signature though. There's a gamma burst that is detectable by sattelites. However, even during the sub KT test in India, US seismographs detected the test. They detect the waves that are put out by the device, which are different than those put out by a conventional explosion. Even the sub KT devices put out more energy than a conventional explosive does.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy

700 tonnes is a big bomb. As has been mentioned already, there's nothing that could deliver a conventional bomb that big anyway except for a convoy of trucks


Wait this is just a explosion equal to 700 tons of TNT a (.7KT) blast correct?

Theres are explosives you could use and produce a .7kt blast without 700 tons of material. For example C-4 is more powerful by weight.

Not too long ago they created a conventional explosive twice as powerful TNT Octanitrocubane So this stuff would only require 350 tons to create a .7KT blast.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join