posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 02:28 AM
Originally posted by FreiMaurer
...designing a new warhead has NOTHING to do with designing actual yield.
Why would a modern Nuclear weapon be any greater yield than a 1960s yield weapon?
Nuclear war is an "Artillery duel" and has nothing to do with killing civilians, therefore the
best yield is about 350-750 kilo tons.
'Morons', you say?
Frie, gimme a break. Have you heard of 'Counter Force' and 'Counter Value' doctrines? Do you know the difference? Seem you're talking through
your hat! What do you know about nuclear weapons that I don't? Studying nuclear doctrines and theater NW deployment is something that I've been into
for more than a couple of decades. So don't yarn me dude! There's something more than meets the not too discerning eye here!
I agree in principle that the new models envisaged in the "Reliable Replacement Warheads (RRW) Program", could eventually replace
warheads, probably not add
to them. But the U.S. is conducting nuclear research with the intent of developing next-generation nuclear warheads.
Research of new, exotic approaches is proceeding on several tracks, for example, "microfusion" weapons and "isomer" bombs.
That apart, another component of next-generation nuclear rearmament is new infrastructure for producing refurbished or new-type nuclear
The centerpiece of that new capability will be the "Modern Pit Facility" (MPF). MPF production capacity will dwarf current
production rates when it becomes operational in 2018. (If substantial nuclear disarmament were envisioned to be in progress by mid-century, this huge
investment in expanded nuclear weapons infrastructure would hardly seem justified.
Better guidance systems resulting in smaller CEPs, and greater thrust to weight ratios will result in enhanced yield delivery at predesignated
targets, and therefore more casualties in a 'counter Value' scenario, which can be measured from an ADT (Atomic Damage Template). Even a 500m
difference in ground zero could result in thousands of additional casualties with the same nominal yield.
And finally, the capacity already exists to destroy the world six times over! How many more times do we need with the new capability?