Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The science behind a small "expedient" weapon of small and dirty yield is not new. Opposing shaped charges directed at a small amount of U or PU could, under just the right conditions, produce a dirty fission "squirt". The fallout would be more lethal in the long run than the actiual explosion. Without going into any more detail than that, heres a bit from The Matrix...

Elevator "bomb"




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
what else were they go to do with all of those billions we gave them except build weapons to murder whitey - soon the whole world will be 3rd if the religion of slavery has it's way.

Allah is the NWO



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Nukes are so old fashioned.
I suppose, however, that's what kids these days are forced to resort to when they can't level up to space based weapons.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'd picked up on this too...and I HAD read about projects on the drawing boards in the 50's and 60's for...no kidding.. nuclear hand grenades. I never gave it much thought though, as the drawing boards were stuffed with stupid and bad ideas for nuclear technology those days.

Perhaps someone with more experience than reading a few books like me can chime in here??

Just what CAN actually be fit into a physics package this size?? The SADM or man portable atomic demolition charges the US made were man portable alright ..but MEN portable would be a better term, as it took two men to transport and assemble a charge that had the yield to erase a dam or similar strategic location...but a tennis ball??

I mean, seriously? Is it even possible to make an EMP that size? I'm thinking of effects that would carry beyond the range the tiny size suggests to make it worthwhile. This cannot possibly be an ACTUAL nuclear yield type detonation ....can it? Nothing THAT small could make a blast worth using it for ..and NOT kill the people using it..could it?
edit on 23-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Don't worry. No need to sweat.

Pakistanis love hyperbole.

Let them show the world that they can educate and feed their population, and lift it out of poverty and ignorance.
We shall believe them then.

There are plenty of nuclear weapons in this world. Nothing big is going to be achieved by Pakistan's.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
The US has a recent history of strikes against other nations, most of which were not really justified on the grounds that were given. I think many would agree with that statement. And although I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, nor a continued US presence there, I am starting to feel a bit differently regarding Pakistan. IF this is indeed true, what is written in the article, then Pakistan is basically claiming that they are willing to give handheld, or small, nuclear devices to Islamic extremists, most of which are either direct terrorists, or are associated in some way with terrorists.

Pakistan does claim it will do this "if it is attacked," but their admission that they would allow it in the first place suggests to me that it would not take a direct attack by an opposing country for them to unleash devices like this on the rest of the world. Granted, a nuclear device this small is probably considered more of a tactical nuke, in that it probably cannot decimate an entire city by itself, but I cannot say at this point, because I am not familiar with these types of devices that they claim to have constructed.

Regardless, devices of this nature in the hands of Islamic extremists, who have proven themselves capable of killing innocent civilians, and doing other horrendous acts, is not acceptable in the least. Even the possibility is not acceptable. So Pakistan's admission of EVER giving out these bombs, no matter what the circumstances, is not acceptable. Therefore, if ANY conflict or invasion has ever been justifiable, especially in recent years, the strategic bombing of Pakistani facilities producing these devices definitely is justifiable and necessary in my opinion.

I am all for countries sanctioning, bombing, or directly attacking other countries when those countries pose a threat to the rest of the world. Policing the world in cases such as those is actually necessary. I think most people get frustrated and angry at the US because there seems to be little discretion, or need, for the kind of policing that the government has become accustomed to. A totally isolationist policy by the US is not realistic in this day and age, as it was prior to WWI. So while there needs to be policing of other countries by the stronger militaries of the larger countries, when and how such acts are carried out is vital to enforcing what is "right."

I don't think so many people would be up in arms about the actions of the US government IF they showed more discretion, only getting involved in conflicts when it was truly necessary to the security of the greater part of the world, and the US itself. Knowing that Muslim extremists HATE the US with a passion is another aspect to consider in a case like this, because there is no question that there are groups out there who would use such nuclear devices against the US, on US soil, IF they had the chance. Knowing that the southern border is a gaping hole for anyone wishing to enter the US, it stands to reason that the potential threat in this case is great.

Something else to consider is the fact that MANY people in Pakistan are sympathetic to the misunderstood Islamic cause, and who also hate the US, and therefore who is to say that elements within the government or military or scientific departments of Pakistan will not release such devices to terrorists, even if Pakistan is not under direct attack from another nation? I say "misunderstood" Islamic cause simply because there are high-level Islamic teachers who claim that Islam is not a religion of war, and that Muslims are not supposed to kill infidels, basically anyone who is not a practicing Muslim. If this is true, ALL these extremist groups have no religious basis for their actions.

And even if it is not true, they still have no moral basis for their actions, and their actions could NEVER be justified. So as I said, IF these claims by Pakistan are accurate, I personally call for some type of military intervention in Pakistan itself. This would lead to a greater war with the Muslim world, but so be it. It is going to happen sooner or later regardless of whether the US starts it or the Muslims start it. It really is going to be the US and her allies against the Muslim world, because the vast majority of Muslims living in the Middle East hate Americans with a passion, just as they hate Israelis. The worst part of such a war will be the fact that Muslims living within European countries, and the US, are going to carry out attacks in those countries, bringing the war directly to the streets of these nations.

This is a good reason why religious tolerance is not acceptable in this day and age. What I mean is that ANY religion that claims to be hostile to peace, order, or the country in which its proponents are residing, should not be tolerated. We should only tolerate groups who are for peace and tolerance themselves. Why should we tolerate a group who cannot tolerate the mere existence of non-members?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Means nothing. Same rule applies: you use a nuke, you lose all allies and become world's public enemy No.1.

I dare the clitoris cutting, sand people to use one.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Jiggy, the USA is Pakistan's biggest ally and biggest weapons supplier.

The USA sent its carrier to India's coast last time India had a major war with Pakistan.

You have no idea how terrorism works in this world.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537
Now, do I want the new Xbox 1 for Christmas or a nuclear tennis ball???? Santa, can't I have both???

No.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Jiggy, the USA is Pakistan's biggest ally and biggest weapons supplier.

The USA sent its carrier to India's coast last time India had a major war with Pakistan.

You have no idea how terrorism works in this world.


Not entirely true


China’s arms exports in 2008-2012 grew by 162% compared to the previous five years, with most of them — 55% — going to Pakistan.


www.hindustantimes.com...



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I do believe that this is the old Red Mercury theory . I am pretty sure that it is not real .
A nuclear event doesn't have to have an explosion . The device can have a limited chain reaction or critical excursion that irradiates people nearby. I do believe that Sam Cohen the inventor of the Neutron bomb said these Neutron devices were possible to build as small as a baseball . That really makes me feel safe .



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Jiggy, the USA is Pakistan's biggest ally and biggest weapons supplier.

The USA sent its carrier to India's coast last time India had a major war with Pakistan.

You have no idea how terrorism works in this world.


Not entirely true


China’s arms exports in 2008-2012 grew by 162% compared to the previous five years, with most of them — 55% — going to Pakistan.


www.hindustantimes.com...


From the same article:

"General (retd) Talat Masood, a defence analyst, said that his belief was that US continues to remain the main source of Pakistan’s defence hardware.

“I think given the ongoing military arrangements with the US, it is still Pakistan’s No 1 source for military hardware. This also includes money spent on military programs by the US government.”
"



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   
well the US made a small one to fire out of a 155mm howitzer here are 2 links... the first,whom made it... www.brookings.edu... . The other one showing the history and when the last was, being dismantled in 2003 www.economicexpert.com...:artillery.htm from the link

A nuclear artillery shell is a limited yield nuclear weapon fired from artillery.

The US has dismantled its last one in 2003.

Shortly after the development of the first atomic bombs the USA and the USSR began investigations into devices with limited yield that could be used in sub-strategic situations, even tactically. This developed into a number of short-range delivery systems and low yield warheads from the late 1950s onwards. The weapons included landmines, depth charges, torpedoes, demolition munition s and artillery shells.
US nuclear artillery


The US development resulted in a number of test weapons. The first artillery test was on May 25, 1953 at the Nevada Test Site. Fired as part of Operation Upshot-Knothole and codenamed Shot GRABLE, a 280 mm shell with a gun-type fission warhead was fired 10,000 m and detonated 160 m above the ground with an estimated yield of 15 kilotons. This was the only nuclear artillery shell ever actually fired. The shell was 1384 mm long and weighed 365 kg; it was fired from a specially built artillery piece, nicknamed "Atomic Annie", by the Artillery Test Unit of Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Around 3,200 personnel were present. The warhead was designated the W-9 and 80 were produced from 1952-53 for the T-124 shell. It was retired in 1957.

Development work continued and resulted in the W-19. A 280 mm shell, it was a linear development of the W-9. Only 80 warheads were produced and the system was retired in 1963 with the development of the W-48 warhead. The W-48 was 846 mm long and weighed 58 kg; it could be fitted in a 155 mm M-45 AFAP (artillery fired atomic projectile) and used in a more standard 155 mm howitzer. The fission warhead was a linear implosion type, consisting of a long cylinder of subcritical mass which is compressed and shaped by explosive into a supercritical sphere. The W-48 yielded just 72 tons TNT equivalent.

The W-48 went into production from 1963; and 135 examples of the Mod 0 variant were built up to 1968 when it was retired. It was replaced by the Mod 1 which was manufactured from 1965 up until 1969; 925 of this type were made. Efforts were made to update the warheads: the 203 mm W-74 was developed from around 1970, intended to have a yield of 100 tons or higher; it was cancelled in 1973. A further development program began in the 1980s: the W-82, for the XM-785 (a 155 mm shell), was intended to yield up to 2 kt with an enhanced radiation capability. Development was halted in 1983. A W-82-1 fission only type was designed but finally cancelled in 1990.

Other developments also continued. In 1958 a fusion warhead was developed and tested, the UCRL Swift. It was 622 mm long, 127 mm diameter, and weighed 43.5 kg. At its test it yielded only 190 tons; it failed to achieve fusion and only the initial fission explosion worked correctly. As well as linear implosion devices, the US developed a spherical implosion device that was very close to the theoretical limit of nuclear weapons. The Mk-54 Davy Crockett was designed to be fired from the M-388 recoilless rifle. Weighing only 23 kg, the warhead in its casing was 400 mm by 273 mm. It was first tested in October 1958 as part of Operation Hardtack and yielded 10 tons, but later developments increased that to 1 kt. 400 Mk-54 warheads were produced from 1961-65 and the last was withdrawn in 1971. The warhead was also adapted for the Mk-54 SADM ( Special Atomic Demolition Munition), a cylinder 40 cm by 60 cm and weighing 68 kg. Fired by a mechanical timer, it had a variable yield from 10 tons up to 1 kt. 300 SADMs were made and they remained in the US arsenal until 1989.

Only one type of artillery round other than the W-48 was produced in large numbers, the W-33 for use in a 203 mm shell. Around 2,000 warheads of this type were manufactured from 1957-65, each 940 mm long and weighing around 109 kg. They were fitted in the T-317 AFAP and fired from a specialised howitzer. The warhead yield was greater than the W-48 and it was made in four types, three yielding 5 to 10 kt and one 40 kt.

In 1991 the US unilaterally withdrew its nuclear artillery shells from service, and Russia responded in kind in 1992. The US removed around 1,300 nuclear shells from Europe.
Nuclear weapons Artillery


the point of the links

Now if one was to play with the bottle that the genie lives in, size is of no consequence, that is to say, with the know who now, one could get a 500kt bomb out of a ping pong ball. would it work.... maybe?? but then whom would want to try other than mad men, and mad they are.
edit on 25-7-2013 by bekod because: line edit



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'd picked up on this too...and I HAD read about projects on the drawing boards in the 50's and 60's for...no kidding.. nuclear hand grenades. I never gave it much thought though, as the drawing boards were stuffed with stupid and bad ideas for nuclear technology those days.

Perhaps someone with more experience than reading a few books like me can chime in here??

Just what CAN actually be fit into a physics package this size?? The SADM or man portable atomic demolition charges the US made were man portable alright ..but MEN portable would be a better term, as it took two men to transport and assemble a charge that had the yield to erase a dam or similar strategic location...but a tennis ball??

I mean, seriously? Is it even possible to make an EMP that size? I'm thinking of effects that would carry beyond the range the tiny size suggests to make it worthwhile. This cannot possibly be an ACTUAL nuclear yield type detonation ....can it? Nothing THAT small could make a blast worth using it for ..and NOT kill the people using it..could it?
edit on 23-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Technically, one atom fissioning is itself a 100% efficient nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons can physically be any size. You just have to get the fuel dense enough for a supercritical reaction. To get a gram of uranium to go supercritical you may have to use a nuclear bomb to compress it, defeating the purpose. I've often wondered if the North Korean tests were not fissiles but actually achieved desired yields. What would North Korea need giant city killers for? Their weapons are for defeating regime change on the Korean battlefield and possibly selling to friends. You can make more weapons when the yields are really small. It's possible that Pakistan got this technology from North Korea since they've been researching nuclear weapons since the 1980s. How would they achieve the compression necessary? I think there is a way. Technology has advanced since Hiroshima. When you are dealing with North Korea or Pakistan it doesn't matter if the people using it die. Suicide operations are their specialty.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
reply to post by skuly
 


Pure BS! Israel,Russia or the U.S. maybe but Pakistan even with Chinese help could not make a nuke this small and have it worth anything. The smallest supposed Russian back pack or suite case nuke was still so large and heavy it had to be carried in a truck. Our American Davy Crockett was smaller and that was shot out of a huge cannon in a Artillery shell. Take away the shell and propellant and that is small by comparison.

If one hint of this hit the CIA or Military intelligence then they would rip Pakistan apart till they recovered every weapon. Russia would do the same because a weapon like this in Paki hands is not acceptable to anyone.


BS? Really? because it's brown people? These people are not stupid. Neither are the North Koreans. They can produce nuclear weapons that are as good as, if not better than US nuclear weapons. The smallest Russian back pack nuke had to be carried in a truck in 1983. You do realize it is 2013 don't you? They would rip Pakistan apart? A nuclear armed country? They would if they could. Why do you think the Pentagon has drawn up plans to seize Pakistan's nukes? A weapon like this is unacceptable in Pakistan's hands? Why are nuclear weapons acceptable in US hands? You need to lose your racist arrogance.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
By using a neutron reflector, only about 11 pounds (5 kilograms) of nearly pure or weapon's grade plutonium 239 or about 33 pounds (15 kilograms) uranium 235 is needed to achieve critical mass. That mass of Plutonium would be slightly larger than a baseball. Of course, it must be in several less-than-critical mass sizes before being imploded. It's the big shielding, imploding, and other parts that rule out hand grenade sized nuclear bombs. So ---No, they don't have such a weapon.
edit on 23-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)


You are assuming that greater compression cannot be achieved. I don't know if those numbers you gave are for bare spheres or the typical mass used in nuclear weapons. If greater compression can be achieved tennis ball size doesn't seem that small. Its possible that they are using magnetic flux compression generation techniques to compress the core rather than explosive lenses or two point implosion.
edit on 25-7-2013 by Adaluncatif because: grammar



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adaluncatif
BS? Really? because it's brown people?


Because of the experience level of the US when it comes to building nuclear weapons. Of course they're smart, no one has said anything else of the sort, except you, bashing people that say it's BS. Might want to get that chip on your shoulder looked at.
edit on 7/25/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Adaluncatif
 


What you describe here is really very scary and I suppose anything is possible here, isn't it? I mean, it was less than 100 years ago that the very concept of a Nuclear Explosion was pure theory and unknown to any real life capability. Science Fiction..until they figured it out. Could the Pakistani's have made breakthroughs in new directions others simply hadn't gotten creative enough to go yet?

I'm imagining the uses for something that small in both carry size and yield and it's not just disturbing, that's downright terrifying. walking down the sidewalk of Wall/Broad in New York City or strolling up Penn Ave in D.C. as another tourist by the White House .... that's not even getting into the true sleep losing ideas of what a $100 remote control airplane could do in positioning such an evil little gift where a man physically can't get for that instant in time.

Heck, I'll be honest... The more I've thought about THIS? Screw Iran or North Korea getting BIG nukes. Those are literally worthless outside of all out General War, which will likely never actually happen on Earth. THESE are much worse, aren't they? Simply because they CAN be used outside war and I doubt war would start over them BEING used, since...who would you go to war against? The bombers family? Tribe?
edit on 25-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I really think if such a weapon were made and EVER used anywhere, especially with knowledge of the country of origin, Russia and USA would be on top of it with gloves off. China, India, and Israel may be up in arms and wanting to help as well due to nuclear warfare threat, but the only two true nations that know of the result of a nuclear war are Russia and the US. KGB and CIA would immediately infiltrate Pakistan (if this is said country of origin) along with precise military strikes to create an intimidation factor for Pakistan to spill their guts in info or in physical sense.

It would be a weapon used no more than 2 or 3 times, although actual countries could perish due to its existence and use, but not from its use, that's what is scary.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81
 


Who would the powers attack? Pakistan is an obvious one for having made them and if they distribute them. After that cat is out of the bag though, do you attack Pakistan again every time one of their little tennis balls of death blows up a city block somewhere? I sincerely hope they are just talking tough and making themselves sound more capable than they are. If they actually sent these out into the world like that, it'd be a nightmare trying to find and account for them all later.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adaluncatif

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
By using a neutron reflector, only about 11 pounds (5 kilograms) of nearly pure or weapon's grade plutonium 239 or about 33 pounds (15 kilograms) uranium 235 is needed to achieve critical mass. That mass of Plutonium would be slightly larger than a baseball. Of course, it must be in several less-than-critical mass sizes before being imploded. It's the big shielding, imploding, and other parts that rule out hand grenade sized nuclear bombs. So ---No, they don't have such a weapon.
edit on 23-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)


You are assuming that greater compression cannot be achieved. I don't know if those numbers you gave are for bare spheres or the typical mass used in nuclear weapons. If greater compression can be achieved tennis ball size doesn't seem that small. Its possible that they are using magnetic flux compression generation techniques to compress the core rather than explosive lenses or two point implosion.
edit on 25-7-2013 by Adaluncatif because: grammar


It is most likely false claim. Pakistanis have a habit of making tall claims.

I do not intend to demean anybody, but this case looks like pure baloney.

However Pakistan does have nukes, and there is a real risk of that passed to other counties (like Saudi).

Chances of terrorists getting them are less as terrorists do not have the MONEY to purchase such a costly item.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join