It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CookieMonster000
about that gun....ive already heard about it from a friend....it was an experiment and was mounted on a firetruck due to its size....million rounds per second
Originally posted by Abatu
Your post shows a complete lack of knowledge in the area of nuclear arsenals.
First off all the Nuclear weapons in the world can't destroy all or even most human life.
Yes, they can. If you had even a close estimate to the total power of blast, electromagnetic, heat, and radiation damage a nuclear device could cause, you would know this.
There are at most some 20,000 opperational Strategic Nukes and that's even exagerating most likely.
Considering I don't wish to open the books nearest me- 'Weapons of Mass Destruction, by Robert Hutchinson' or 'Looking the Tiger in the Eye' but an author I cannot recall- I can stand to bet that the actual number is around 20,000, give or take several thousand. Also, as many countries don't so much destroy their weapons as dismantle them and place their still-operational parts in storage containers, several thousand, ten thousand, possibly hundred thousand more could be rebuilt within weeks, months, years respectively.
Most of these nukes are between 300kt - 750kt. Which means they can not even devestate a full 1 mile radius from the area hit. First of all, the world opted for 300kt-750kt warheads, due to the ability of MIRV. To fit multiple warheads, independantely targeted, on a missle. I believe there are systems out there with capabilities of holding eighteen, perhaps more, small warheads. Also, a 750 kiloton would devestate .. though I'm only using basic knowledge of what devices such as the 'Davery Crockett' atomic-rocket launcher device used since I've never directly found references to this.. most likely three to seven miles. Yes, at seven the damage would be minimal. Concrete structures would be barely damage, steel structures may collapse, or partially bend, but it would still require large economical fixes.
The largest Nuke made by the Russians which is 25 megatons could only devestate about 12 miles of area, after that it lost a lot of power fast.
Actually, this is what made me laugh. The Russians BUILT and designed a 100+ megaton bomb, but they set of a bomb of 58 megatons, so the radiation of the world did not increase several fold. And, also, the power of a nuclear device is infinite. As long as you have more fuel, you can continue the layer-cake design, among others. The only problem is delivery. And by the way, the Russian bomb, 'Boom' went the penninsula/island/landmass they were testing on. It was devestated.
The fall-out from a 1 megaton nuke in 45 mile an hour winds is 250 miles, where the fall out about 100 miles away on to 250 is non-lethal unless you make snow-angels in it (I used a "nuclear fall-out calculator" it was probably reliable since I tested it on raw data from smaller yields to see if it could predict them accurately.)
Your lack of grammar and english here confuses me, but let me point out .. napalm bombings on rural areas in Japan provided (500? 1500? Near one of the two) MPH winds. Thsi created HUMAN MISSLES. Now, a megaton weapons can create several times the heat of the sun. THAT, creates fast wind.
The only people who ever said Nuclear War may destroy human life on earth were a few scientists who proposed the idea of "nuclear winter" which consisted of nuking the entire world evenly. Even then it was stretching it and who is going to Nuke kenya or Antarctica or Argentina?
The idea of nuclear winter, is a mass of radioactive dust rising into the air. This occurs plenty of times with volcanoes, such as Mt. St. Helen's (How many times did the dust travel the Earth? I believe it was .. eh .. three or more?) and that same idea, sans radiation, is what leading scientists believe obliterated the dinosaur population, in case you forget. That and the resulting shock/fire wave from the hit.
Nukes because they are generally small (compared to what we're capable of USA can make 9 Megaton nukes) are usually much safer than conventional weapons.
USA no longer deploys nine megatons, it's worthless. Yes, if there was an enormous command center, base of operations, or hardened area, we could drop something that large- but attacking a military base or the military infrastructure requires very small yields. And no, they are not safer than conventional weapons, unless you count how poor the accuracy for conventional weaponry is. (Nukes do not rely on accuracy, if you are required to launch them at a target. So what if you miss by a mile, everything will be eradicated or blown away, anyway.)
Remember almost 10 million people were killed in WW2 to conventional bombs.
Not sure on the statistics of this .. thought I heard recently that the U.S. lost One million plus alone, so, I may have to doubt this ... though, you do only get a fraction of total deaths, to the 'By bombs' reference..
Nukes are used against hardened Strategic Weapons facilities and therefore not against populated areas, fall-out can be avoided and cleaned. And when the war's over, it's over, there is no resistence left because all strategic forces of one of them is completely whiped out.
Fallout requires extreme sand-blasting and other such measures to 'cure.' Radiation can last millions of years, the contamination, half-life of Uranium and plutonium is quite long I believe. Well, Uranium at least. Nukes are not used against anything. They were used against two large, civillian-military control centers in WWII.
Originally posted by John McCarthy
I do believe the super megaton bombs dropped on the atolls of the Pacific give a hint as to permanent destruction. There was a proposed 7 megaton bomb dropped on a vacated section of an atoll. Unfortunately, the actual yield of the damn thing was over 13 megatons. The plume downwind was so massive, it required further mass evacuation of all humans hundreds of miles downrange, to the east. No one can enter the area today, fifty years later. That was one bomb. We have multiple (MIRV) weapons with five to seven warheads each independently targeted (or the same target) each with a 10 megaton yield. And there are thousands of those. So, if you multiply the area denied to human habitat from the 1954 screwup by thousands you will have an idea of the vastness of denied areas of inhabitable land, NOT ocean. If you strike every major city on the west coast of the US, the fallout will be similar to the 10 megaton equivalent blast of Mt. St, Helen's' eruption which dropped ash as far away as Chicago. That was just ONE blast. So if you program five or six 10 megatons per major city on the west coast and throw a few into Denver, Dallas, Kansas City, Chicago, Memphis and Houston, the area of contamination would cover the US. Now, where are we to move?
Chairman of The Board of VERPA
Veterans Equal Rights Protection Advocacy
will be similar to the 10 megaton equivalent blast of Mt. St, Helen's' eruption which dropped ash as far away as Chicago.
Originally posted by John McCarthy
The half life for Depleted Uranium is 4.5 Billion years, older than our planet.
U238, DU, is 99.5% of what is left over (waste) from the process to extract .5% U235, the business end of nuclear weapons, from natural Uranium.
DU is used to harden warheads of weapons to enhance their penetration proficiency. It is also used as armor on tanks and such.
The problem occurs when DU is ignited or exploded. DU vaporizes into radiation gas containing nano (Billionths of a meter) sized particles that are omnicidal, they kill or contaminate every living thing, plants, animals, humans, the food chain and the water.
1000 tons of DU have been dropped on Afghanistan and over twice that much on Iraq, so far.
The initial Contamination Zones around Kabul and Baghdad is a radius of 1000 miles. When DU is inhaled, the Alfa and Beta particles attack the cellular structure and act like mini-nukes. This is slooooooooow death. There is no antidote for Radiation poisoning. Kiss it goodby. The generations to come of those infected today will suffer grave medical abnormalities. It will be passed on by the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Remember the phrase "gulf war syndrome"? That's right, DU was first used in 1991 on the "road of death" north of Kuwait.
How many vets of that conflict are on 100% disability? Try over 100K.
How many of their children were born horribly deformed? Try many thousands. DU is still being found in the urine samples of those vets.
DU was known to the US Government in 1942 when the Manhattan Project proposed using DU as a backup weapon of mass destruction in the event the atom bomb failed to function as designed. Is this some kind of idiocy?
Eventually, the DU will encircle the globe. We all have bulls eyes on our backs.
Don't think so?
Sleep well, my friend.
Chairman of The Board of VERPA
[Edited on 2-6-2004 by John McCarthy]
Originally posted by John McCarthy
Obviously, you attended a few lectures in your political science major classes. Also obvious, you never had the opportunity to debate. Your rudeness comes shining through. You have contempt for everything and everyone else's opinion.
Would it shock you terribly to know that the 15 KT bomb dropped on Hiroshima was detonated at an altitude of 5k feet? And only the bottom of the fireball touched the surface and that killed over 80K Japanese civilians?
So what if a 500KT 200 yards off target doesn't "kill" a concrete structure?
Who cares, YOU?
This is my last response as I see you have a knot in your knickers and are off to debunk my other posts. You must not have a life. Too bad.
Just for grins, are you male or female, and when were you born?
Too bad you find it necessary to hide behind your political aspirations. Don't you have a name?
Originally posted by kinglizard
It’s called Rods form God that is the link to my ATSNN story.
Originally posted by FreeMasonDU has some fractional amount of radiaton compared to Uranium that is present in the soil beneath your feet. If DU is a problem then we should all be dying from Uranium that has been scatered through out the soil. Especially those in the deserts where the Uranium content is much higher.
Originally posted by FreeMasonYeah and there's no evidence it has caused any problems, there is only speculation. But odd, the US government had been preparing and testing DU for 40 years before it was first used, and never did one of its tests reveal any cancinogenic or mutative problems.
Originally posted by FreeMasonNo DU is not. We have numerous friendly-fire victims who have significant amounts of DU in their bodies and are not affected by it. Those children in Iraq were not given proper health care by Saddam, nor food, and were growing-up in Saddam's old Chemical and bio weapons research areas.
Originally posted by FreeMasonNo it won't, DU is denser than air and de-aerosolizes very quickly, thus it is only aerosolized immediately after impact and then settles to the earth where it stays...forever.