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