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 DJW001
"Red Mercury" is one of the many clues that this story is a fabrication. "Red Mercury" was a hoax invented by the BBC to investigate the black market nuclear trade. The OP does not understand what depleted uranium is. The development of the "neutron bomb" was terminated. (The proof of this is that Iran would not be acting so aggressively if they were not certain of this. The neutron bomb was conceived precisely to kill Iranians while leaving the oil infrastructure intact.) The OP should reflect on the dictum: "less is more."
Question: What Is Red Mercury?
Answer: The science newsgroups have been a-buzz with tales of a 2-kiloton yield Russian red mercury fusion device, theoretically in the possession of terrorists. This, of course, prompts the question: What Is Red Mercury? The answer to this question depends largely on whom you ask. Is red mercury real? Absolutely, but definitions vary. If you had asked me before I did a bit of Internet research, I would have given you the standard cinnabar/vermillion answer. However, the Russian tritium fusion bomb is more interesting...
Cinnabar is naturally-occurring mercuric sulfide (HgS), while vermillion is the name given to the red pigment derived from either natural or manufactured cinnabar.
Mercury (II) Iodide
The alpha crystalline form of mercury (II) iodide is called 'red mercury', which changes to the yellow beta form at 127°C.
Any Red-Colored Mercury Compound Originating in Russia
as in the cold war definition of 'Red'. I doubt anyone is using 'red mercury' in this manner, but it's a possible interpretation.
A Ballotechnic Mercury Compound
Presumably red in color. Ballotechnics are substances which react very energetically in response to high-pressure shock compression. Google's Sci.Chem group has had a lively ongoing discussion about the possiblity of a an explosive form of mercury antimony oxide. According to some reports, red mercury is a cherry red semi-liquid which is produced by irradiating elemental mercury with mercury antimony oxide in a Russian nuclear reactor. Some people think that red mercury is so explosive that it can be used to trigger a fusion reaction in tritium or deuterium-tritium mixture. Pure fusion devices don't require fissionable material, so it's easier to get the materials needed to make one and easier to transport said materials from one place to another. Other reports refer to a documentary in which is was possible to read a report on Hg2Sb207, in which the compound had a density of 20.20 Kg/dm3 (!). Personally, I find it plausible that mercury antimony oxide, as a low density (nonradioactive?) powder, may be of interest as a ballotechnic material. The high-density material seems unlikely. It would also seem unreasonably dangerous (to the maker) to use a ballotechnic material in a fusion device. One intriguing source mentions a liquid explosive, HgSbO, made by Du Pont laboratories and listed in the international chemical register as number 20720-76-7. Anyone care to look it up?
A Military Code Name for a New Nuclear Material
As I understand it, this definition originates from the extraordinarily high prices commanded and paid for a substance called 'red mercury', which was manufactured in Russia. The price ($200-300K per kilogram) and trade restrictions were consistent with a nuclear material as opposed to cinnabar.
Originally posted by airspoon
The military does not deny that DU is dangerous or has adverse affects on human health. In the Army, all soldiers have to go through courses on just how dangerous the substance actually is. Also, the Army has admitted that this is the reason I got cancer, as well as many others. I actually have paperwork from the Army, admitting that my sickness is the result of DU. They make no claims that it is safe and they know full well how dangerous it actually is.
If the military is detonating nuclear weapons in either Iraq or Afghanistan, then they sure have been very successful at keeping the soldiers and locals from finding out about it. ... Although, I don't think anything would surprise me anymore.
That's great. Because I clearly remember arguing with people in the past who would say that the DU rounds were not increasing cancer rates or anything else in the Mid-East, and these people seemed to believe they had research and military authorities to support this. Maybe they seemed to at one point in the past.
To be fair you know we are not talking about the kinds of bombs dropped on Japan or demonstrated in testing during the early years of the Cold War. We are talking modern tactical technology that would not be recognizable to laymen in the first place.
During a three week period of conflict in 2003 in Iraq, 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of DU munitions were used, mostly in cities.
Originally posted by MikeboydUS
A nuke on the other hand makes a real nasty EMP that knocks out power and communications for miles. The EMP can also be detected from orbit by satellites. Someone sets a nuke off, the whole world finds out real quick.
Maybe the op is confusing the use of DP (depleted uranium) shells against armour instead of the release of conventional (battlefield) nukes.
During testimony before the House in May, General John A. Gordon, director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, groused that for the past decade the Pentagon had not been able to actively pursue new weapons designs. He said he wanted to "reinvigorate" planning for a new generation of "advanced nuclear warheads".
"This is not a proposal to develop new weapons in the absence of requirements", Gordon told the committee in a gem of Pentagon doublespeak. "But I am not now exercising design capabilities, and because of that, I believe this capacity and capability is atrophying rapidly".
Gordon wasn't being truthful. Over the past decade the Pentagon and its weapons designers have been quietly busy crafting a variety of new weapons. Indeed, although the Clinton administration generated a lot of hoopla by supporting the comprehensive test ban treaty (which it promptly violated with a string of subcritical tests), the Department of Energy and the Pentagon were busy developing new breeds of weapons. In 1997, they unveiled and deployed the B61-11, described as a mere modification of the old B61-7 gravity bomb. In reality, it was largely a new "package", the prototype for the "low-yield" bunker blasting nuke that the weaponeers see as the future of the US arsenal.
Submitted to Congress on December 31, 2001, the neocon's follow-up CONPLAN 8022 would reverse the decades-old U.S. policy against “first use” of nuclear weapons by authorizing their rapid deployment to destroy 'time-urgent targets' anywhere in the world. ( People's Weekly World Newspaper Mar 16/02)[/url]
Recognizing that "low-yield nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war,” a 1994 law banned research and development on nuclear weapons of less than 5-kilotons in the United States.
But Bush's 2001 Defense Authorization Bill passed by a Republican Congress overturned these earlier restrictions. the nuclear version of the bunker-busting GBU-28 was rushed to Afghanistan to conduct remote field tests before the Taliban surrendered.
Soon after commencing aerial bombardment against Afghanistan, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told the press “he did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons." (Houston Chronicle Oct 20/01)
Still reeling from the relentlessly televised images of September 11, the American public was told that only nuclear blasts could safely vaporize caches of chemical, nuclear or biological weapons not authorized by Washington, which retained its own banned stockpiles of biological weapons, along with more than five-thousand nuclear warheads. (AP June 11/07)
With the resulting hard radiation supposedly sequestered underground, the 1,200-pound B61 was enthusiastically hailed by Bush and his backers as a “relatively safe” atomic bomb that would not kill too many innocent bystanders. (Philadelphia Inquirer Oct 16/00)
"When a bunker buster burrows in, the blast is directed downward," Hank explained. "It's a lens and it's focused straight down instead of outward."
Each of the four nuclear weapons dropped on Afghanistan set off a bedrock-amplified explosive force of 10,000 tons. The blasts in Tora Bora were immediately followed by a severe earthquake that “struck northern Afghanistan and was felt as far away as India,” the People's Weekly World reported. Even in this earthquake-prone region, the long-lasting and powerful tremors were unprecedented, killing 150 people killed and destroying 500 houses.
The nuclear version of the GBU-28 bunker buster is the B61-11. When American forces targeted Tora Bora in 2001, there were 150 B61-11s in the U.S. arsenal. Featuring nuclear warheads that could be dialed from 0.3 to 340 kilotons - equivalent of 300 to 340,000 tons of radioactive TNT - these new Earth Penetrating Weapons were, according to atomic scientists, capable of "destroying the deepest and most hardened of underground bunkers, which the conventional warheads are not capable of doing." (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists May/June 1997; Wired Oct 8/01)
As a preliminary to the first nuclear attack since the incineration of Nagasaki, at least one 15,000 pound fuel-air bomb was dropped in the Basra district on February 7, 1991. The resulting fireball covered two square miles. Outside the blast zone, oxygen consumed by what was essentially a gigantic gas explosion collapsed the lungs of all living creatures. One website warned: "Usage of the BLU-82 is the precursor to the next weapon that may be used... the bunker-busting nuclear weapons." (casi.org.uk)
Around this time, a British Special Air Service (SAS) team on a secret reconnaissance mission sighted a signature mushroom cloud from 110 miles away. The commandos radioed back to headquarters, "Sir, the blokes have just nuked Kuwait." (indymedia.nl; psywarrior.com)
In fact, the blokes had just nuked Iraq. According to U.S. military sources, the first detonation of a nuclear weapon against another country since 1945 took place approximately 11 miles east of Basra, sometime between February 2 and February 5, 1991.
I was on the Midway for Iraq War I with Bush I running the show- and I can tell you right now, the ship had nukes on board. While we had bombs, missiles, and what have you on the upper decks (like the hanger deck)- strange things were being brought up from below (around the mess deck levels). There were stations positioned along these areas with mirrored 1 way glass in them- and a marine behind each one. When a weapon was pulled from these areas- unlike the conventional stuff you could walk by and basically poke with a stick- this stuff was guarded like it was solid gold. It came up right from these areas, surrounded by Marines, and went right to the plane it was going on, no stopping at go, no getting $200. What threw me was how concealed these things were- draped in a tarp, usually. I asked someone about it- and he said pretty matter of factly, 'yup. They're nukes. Try not to spread that around.' Not to mention, these things were coming out of these areas in any great numbers- it was rare, and almost like a ceremony when these things were stuck on a plane.
Originally posted by DarkspARCS
So this was NOT a thermobaric weapon, BUT AN ADMITTED THERMONUCLEAR DEVICE THAT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AS HAVING THE POTENTIAL OF KILLING MILLIONS...
attacks using nuclear EPWs near urban areas could produce
thousands to over a million casualties, or hundreds to several hundred thousand for
attacks in rural areas
I rest this case gentlemen....
Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by Silk
Maybe the op is confusing the use of DP (depleted uranium) shells against armour instead of the release of conventional (battlefield) nukes.
I was on the Midway for Iraq War I with Bush I running the show- and I can tell you right now, the ship had nukes on board. While we had bombs, missiles, and what have you on the upper decks (like the hanger deck)- strange things were being brought up from below (around the mess deck levels). There were stations positioned along these areas with mirrored 1 way glass in them- and a marine behind each one. When a weapon was pulled from these areas- unlike the conventional stuff you could walk by and basically poke with a stick- this stuff was guarded like it was solid gold. It came up right from these areas, surrounded by Marines, and went right to the plane it was going on, no stopping at go, no getting $200. What threw me was how concealed these things were- draped in a tarp, usually. I asked someone about it- and he said pretty matter of factly, 'yup. We're carrying nukes. Try not to spread that around.' Not to mention, these things weren't coming out of these areas in any great numbers- it was rare, and almost like a ceremony when these things were stuck on a plane.
Originally posted by mattifikation
I think you get the idea. You have nothing but conjecture, some people who don't know what they're talking about, and a handful of supposed victims of an attack that would have affected thousands or millions of people. Oh yes, and one captain who probably talks out of his butt so that he doesn't have to taste the BS when it comes out of his mouth.
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i will summarise this thread [ and others like it ]
a gaggle of walts who have no idea whow fission / fusion weapons really work have misrepresented the use of other weapons to portary a fantasy that " nukes were used " they create a word salad to prop up thier fatasies - my favourite , from this thread = " neutron thermobaric weapon " .
lastly the blindingly obvious abcence of evidence , which precludes the use of atomic munitions in the situations claimed is `spun ` as evidence of fantasy " magic nukes " that fullfill thier fantsisies , physics be dammed