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.

 

Pakistan develops smallest nuclear weapon the size of a tennis ball.

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnowledgeSeeker81
I think it's a hoax, simply because as stated to achieve a true nuclear explosion you need minimum amounts of plutuniom/uranium along with a precisely detonated pre-explosion to start the fusion/fission reaction. At most I think if there is any truth to this, it would be in a dirty-bomb sense. The other reason I think hoax is because if even one of these were to be used in a terror attack ANYWHERE in the world, well then we clearly know the origin of it. In such a case I could see Putin and Obama racing to call each other and argue over who gets to push their red button first, bye bye Pakistan.

Also, if such a technology were created as a weapon or possible weapon, I don't think any nuclear country would tell anyone a damn thing.


I also agree with KS81
The size would seem far too small for an ignition blast device. Were it true.... I would imagine the defenders against these devices would be all over it. And in the wrong hands........... well......... There are NO 'Right' hands with this sort of armament. Another reasion I doubt their handing these out like 'STP' stickers in the 70's is the cost. They will not be $59.00 bombs or two for $110.00....... they would likely be tens of thousands or more. I don't buy this story.....




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
While I seriously doubt there's any truth in this original story, it does cause one to wonder what we have out there now. I mean, the largest nuke ever tested, was 50 megatons, and this was back in '61. We can obviously make much larger yields now (rumored up to 300 megatons), and with that, larger yields with smaller and smaller bombs/missiles.

Back when the Cold War was on, the US and Russia acknowledged the capability of backpack and suitcase nukes, but these were a fraction of a kiloton in yield (maybe taking out a block or two). I imagine though, that the tech has quite improved since then, and it wouldn't surprise me if a modern suitcase nuke was capable of 10kt or more (which would take out about 8 city blocks).



edit on 24-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 

300 megatons?? What are they? Outright insane?? That reminds me of a scene described in the book I talked about spending about 20 hours listening to about the Manhattan Project. Their little chalk boards were full of all kinds of ideas, apparently, for what to make with their new war tech. On one, they described a few columns. First, the type of explosion/trigger to the device, 2, the expected or best target to use it and last, delivery method.

On one, the book said the delivery method was simply listed as "Back Yard". The reason was the expected yield was SO high for their math, they determined that it wouldn't make any difference where on Earth you detonated that one....it would still kill whatever you had intended to get. It couldn't miss, since it would kill everything else in the process. Obviously they never built the stupid thing and their theories sound to have gotten real wild in the early days.

300 megatons...isn't THAT far off to hear the Russians detail their concerns and fears for why they cut Tsar Bomba from 100 Megatons to 50 on the live detonation.

edit on 24-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The Russians are the ones who allegedly built it....though modern designs favor multiple warheads of , with 3-12 warheads in each ICBM. They are typically thought to be more like 200 kilotons per warhead, but it would not surprise me if modern methods increased this to 1 or 2 megatons per warhead.

The Russians were into big, big megaton yields. The largest we ever made "officially" was around 25 megatons. Keep in mind, the largest "official" Russian nuke was the Tsar Bomba (50 megaton one), but the 300 megaton one was within capabilities, and rumored at the time. It would long be obsolete, with modern methods making it impractical.

It has been a LONG time though, since we really heard anything official on yields. I'd wager the nuclear powers have some truly scary stuff we simply don't know about these days. They've had decades to improve them...and the pace of advancement was very rapid during the Cold War.





edit on 24-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


The W88 MIRV warhead is about 475 kilotons, it's used on one of the Trident II SLBMs. The W76, used on the Trident D-5 is about 100 kilotons. With the W76, they could theoretically fit 13 warheads on one D-5, although they're limited to 8 by treaty.

There were about 400 W88s built, prior to the FBI raid on Rocky Flats, that are still in the stockpile. There are over 3000 W76s in the stockpile.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The W88 MIRV was designed in the 70's though. I have to consider that we've made some vast improvements since then. (and we aren't exactly the best at following our treaties, especially if we can find a loophole that puts a project outside of the scope of what is exactly covered).

That's what I mean. We simply haven't seen anything official regarding nuclear design since the Cold War, due to treaties...so anything we have new is completely black. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the main advances were to the warhead itself, but then put in existing missiles, so the typical crews wouldn't even really be aware of the destructive power they carry.




edit on 24-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Actually the 88 was developed in the early to mid 80s. They began development engineering in 1984, with the production run starting and ending in 1989.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by skuly
 

Pretty grave.

Maybe in hindsight the "war on terror" as a pre-emptive strike on fundamentalist Islam in part to try to PREVENT the use of a nuclear weapon against the US homeland, wasn't such a good idea..



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Now, do I want the new Xbox 1 for Christmas or a nuclear tennis ball???? Santa, can't I have both???



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spacespider
The next would be a minigun that shoot small nukes
we are on the way to perfection


I saw a semi-automatic artillery shell cannon on that USA weapons show - can't remember the name exactly, Borax? But they just dropped the shells into a gravity-fed clip, pressed the foot-pedal down and boom, boom, boom, could demolish 100 metres of wall in 15 seconds.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The Russians are the ones who allegedly built it....though modern designs favor multiple warheads of , with 3-12 warheads in each ICBM. They are typically thought to be more like 200 kilotons per warhead, but it would not surprise me if modern methods increased this to 1 or 2 megatons per warhead.

The Russians were into big, big megaton yields. The largest we ever made "officially" was around 25 megatons. Keep in mind, the largest "official" Russian nuke was the Tsar Bomba (50 megaton one), but the 300 megaton one was within capabilities, and rumored at the time. It would long be obsolete, with modern methods making it impractical.

It has been a LONG time though, since we really heard anything official on yields. I'd wager the nuclear powers have some truly scary stuff we simply don't know about these days. They've had decades to improve them...and the pace of advancement was very rapid during the Cold War.

If you look at how fuel mileage has improved through simulation of combustion and fluid dynamics (>50 miles/gallon from 20 miles/gallon), that same technology would apply to the yields. But the Russians were big on megatons because their guidance systems weren't as accurate.



edit on 24-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
If you've got the few pounds of uranium or other fissionable material handy, why make a bomb at all? If you really want to kill and terrorize, poison someone's water supply. And really, what good is a tiny nuclear explosion compared to a similarly-sized regular bomb? Shock value? A bit of radioactivity at the cost of a much more difficult to find ingredient list?

NSA: Just sayin'; it's not like this option hasn't occurred to the great unwashed cave dwelling turrists....

And thanks to the poster who linked to the Louis Slotkin wiki; fascinating that a ball of fissionable material can go critical mass like that accidentally and without a preceding explosion. I just watched a BBC video about Oppenheimer and was surprised that that accident wasn't included in the history.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I have removed this as My point or view was extreme and angry so not rational.
edit on 24-7-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LABTECH767
 
nice thought but then whom to blame if one of them "balls " gets used say in Israel of god for bid the USA or any other western nation , where did it come from? Yes Pakistan developed it but then if you look at or into whom their allies are the list is long Afghanistan Iran Syria Egypt DPRK China Iraq this can be proved to whom buys Pakistan weapons or has weapon's trade agreements with them.

If one or more get used do we nuke all them nations or just the one that made it? Serious question, for if they are in the filed and are being sent to friendly nations of Pakistan it is a just a time before they fall in the wrong hands and do get used.

I can name 3 that would use now if they had them. Syria DPRK and Afghanistan 4 if you count Iraq.


edit on 24-7-2013 by bekod because: line edit



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I have removed this as My point or view was extreme and angry so not rational.

edit on 24-7-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by chr0naut
 

That. Not only but i think they are talking about the size of the pit in the weapon, not the weapon itself.



The article said the weapon was "hand picked" and so I was assuming that they are talking about the total weapon, not just the pit.

And no-one is going to be carrying an unshielded pit for very long, it ain't healthy!



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by skuly
 



well, this is not new. ok, maybe boasting the size of a tennis ball.. but right here in the good ol' USA we have heard of these in the not so mainstream news..

its a wild story.. here is a brief synopsis..

Delmart "Mike" Vreeland who worked for Office of Naval Intelligence went on a mission to track down a softball sized nuke that had been stolen.. he met his contact & some other shady people in Russia. His contact as murder so he fled hopping back home through Canada where a international warrant got him arrested in by Canadian authorities..

He was in custody the entire time & some of his undercover work was put up as the reason Canada should hand him over.. yet the US authorities swear he was not working for them..

here is where it gets weird.

while in court, his lawyer, called the pentagon.. perry mason style.. right then and there on speaker phone for the entire court to hear.. asking for Vreelands office.. which the operator connected the lawyer his voice mail that said he was "out of his office" hows that for proof? well, the US denied it saying..."he is a hacker who had access to a phone in the Canadian jail & hacked in, created fake voice mail account on the Pentagon switch board, to pull this scam for the court".. some super phone phreak..

realizing he was about to get screwed.. from his cell.. he requested pen & paper .. and proceeded to write down sensitive information retaliative to his mission retrieving the softball sized nuke.. which was sealed up.. none of this is disputed by the Canadian Courts & has a paper trial ..

his trial went on awhile & after sept 11th, in court.. he requested the sealed document be opened & entered into the record..
it mentions the World Trade Center, Pentagon, White House among others as targets..
and Bin Laden among others..

and the message "Let one happen.. stop the rest!!"



there is no doubt he wrote this months before 911 & that what he wrote happened..

so, OP..


Only those in the military will think this is a good idea the rest of us on the other hand might think handy pocket size nukes is a bad one.


I would like to point out that these types of hand held nukes have been around for a long time..
this seems to be a attempt to bring it to mainstream attention as a weapon developed by one of our "allies"..

also.. this note.. this device.. would explain why the towers were pulverized into dust.. explosions in the basement.. and molten steel for months under the rubble.. the sandbox pushed into the river..



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deny777

Originally posted by sulaw
Brings new fun and meaning to the game... Hot Potatoe....... A pockett sized (tennis ball) nuke... Could you actually throw it far enough so as not to be vaporized???


Brings a new meaning to Napalm bombings too.... Could you see 100's of these being dropped via fighter plane???

Look! Little rain drop..... errrr.... Run!


It could be easily deployed in a number of ways, including but not limited to: using launchers, concealed/timed or using small and cheap remote controlled drones. No need for suicide bombers really.


They could also put a lot of them in one delivery device ans spread them over an area. I don't see any major sources for this story though, so I'm skeptical of the whole thing. I'm calling B.S on this for now. We'll see if it's true or not.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Gu1tarJohn
 


Please god you are correct as the only reason someone would develop one is to use it and not as a deterrent.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I still stand by my position that if at all possible, all nuclear arms on the planet should - as closely to simultaneous as possible - be destroyed, buried, secured, eliminated, or what have you, and the science behind their creation either completely controlled or, ideally, erased entirely from human knowledge.

The reason for that position is this. Nuclear weapons will undoubtedly continue to become more advanced. More miniaturized. More destructive. More deployable. More portable. More concealable. And worst of all, easier to proliferate. The genie is out of the bottle, and so long as it is, no matter how hard or how effectively the world's disparate nations and defense apparatuses try to control and monitor it, it will without question in my opinion one day fall into the hands of those willing to indiscriminately use them.

And once that happens, it becomes inevitable. Not a question of if, but when. And what happens then in response to that is anyone's guess. The nightmare scenario that could emerge from that (and I do mean emerge, as in emergent behavior, e.g. unpredictable, unforeseeable, and not necessarily controllable) is unthinkable. Therefore I advocate destroying the source of that potential scenario. The sooner the better in my opinion.

Peace.


The science behind nukes is so widely known now, I think it is beyond any government to censor & hide it.

This particular genie will never go back into the bottle!



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join