News U.S. Nuclear Weapon is a GAME CHANGER According to our Military Strategists.

originally posted by: carewemust
August 23, 2018

I can't understand or appreciate the technology, but it sounds like this is a Bomb that can programmed "on the fly" to be a battlefield baby nuke, or destroy a small city.

The Air Force’s B-2 Stealth bomber has test-dropped an upgraded, multi-function B61-12 nuclear bomb which improves accuracy, integrates various attack options into a single bomb and changes the strategic landscape with regard to nuclear weapons mission possibilities.

The B61-12 adds substantial new levels of precision targeting and consolidates several different kinds of attack options into a single weapon. Instead of needing separate variants of the weapon for different functions, the B61-12 by itself allows for earth-penetrating attacks, low-yield strikes, high-yield attacks, above surface detonation and bunker-buster options.

The latest version of the B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, which has origins as far back as the 1960s, is engineered as a low-to-medium yield strategic and tactical nuclear weapon, according to nuclearweaponsarchive.org, which also states the weapon has a “two-stage” radiation implosion design.

“The main advantage of the B61-12 is that it packs all the gravity bomb capabilities against all the targeting scenarios into one bomb. That spans from very low-yield tactical “clean” use with low fallout to more dirty attacks against underground targets,” Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists, told Warrior Maven.

MORE at: www.foxnews.com...

For those who understand warfare, is this new weapon as big a deal for the U.S., as it sounds?

-CareWeMust

Here's the deal. When the nuclear arms race started in the early 1950s there was minimal communication and practically no cooperation between the US and the USSR. Both sides viewed the other as mortal enemies and simply tried to outdo the other militarily, almost without limit. In the US, the nuclear weapons labs (Los Alamos, Livermore) were continually busy designing and testing new weapon designs. Not many people realize it, because it was highly classified, but nuclear weapons design was continually progressing in terms of new materials, new geometries, and new electronics from the time of the first explosion in 1945 until testing stopped in 1992. The objectives were: (1) to have a weapon design for every possible military application (both tactical and strategic) (2) to make every weapon as efficient as possible.

In the US, the drive for efficiency was defined as having the biggest possible energy release for the smallest, lightest weapon design. This minimized the amount of expensive nuclear material required and meant that smaller, lighter weapons could be delivered by smaller, cheaper delivery systems (airplanes and missiles). The US consistently had much better technology and manufacturing capabilities than the USSR, so US weapon designs were consistently more efficient than USSR weapons of the same yield. The way it was described to me by a weapon designer colleague of mine was that US weapon designs were like Ferraris and USSR designs were like Chevy pickup trucks.

At the peak of the arms race, the US had around 27,000 weapons in the inventory and the USSR had nearly 40,000. Nuclear weapons are expensive to maintain and guard--they require very specialized and large facilities, lots of guards and guns, etc. After the USSR went out of business in 1991, Russia--which inherited the nuclear stockpile--clearly did not have the budget to maintain a nuclear stockpile anywhere near as large as they had in the good old days. As far as that's concerned, neither did the US; there was a strong feeling in the US that we should have a "peace dividend" as a result of the end of the Cold War.

So both sides negotiated nuclear arms reductions on the number of warheads and delivery systems with the idea that neither side would have an incentive to strike first, but if a nuclear exchange did happen, there would at least be some limitation on the number of weapons exchanged. Currently, the number of allowed warheads is around 7,500 on each side (plus or minus) with the objective of getting that down to about half that number eventually. For comparison, the other nuclear powers of the world (France, China, Israel, etc.) each have around 100 to 300 warheads. They are not really structured to consider first strike, war fighting strategies against other nuclear powers the way the US and (theoretically) Russia are. They are primarily deterrent arsenals.

With the massive reductions in the nuclear weapon inventory, driven by budgets and treaties, that have occurred, the remaining weapons have to do more, and do it less expensively. Basically, we can't afford a fleet of Ferraris any more. Some years ago, the weapons labs were tasked to come up with designs that could have adjustable energy yields, were highly rugged, required minimal maintenance, and could be modified in the future (if needed) without having to be physically tested. Nuclear testing has advanced to the point that new designs can be verified by computer modeling and physical testing without having to produce a detectable blast.

This new warhead design is the result of that evolutionary process.

Ah! The more things change the more they stay the same!

what action do you think would merit the unleashing of the beast? Honestly, nuclear weapons even now seem so far advanced to other technologies that I wonder how in hell we developed one so many years ago. Security and defense are essential but one wonders beyond the occasional small isolated nation why would we want it. Really war is already fought daily with the financial markets. Very few countries would survive by world scorn of one's finances. Theres not many scenarios i can think that would arise that would merit utter destruction.

To add I think the us should anex mexico and canada and still i dont understand where we would need such horrid strength.

If Extremist use a weapon on us would we really punish the masses for the actions of a few?

a reply to: Gothmog

And you really dont want to debate that one with me....

I wasn't.

It's a new nuclear weapon. Right?

I was in Hiroshima for the anniversary a while back..

Some of the petitions questions were:

Q: Do nuclear weapons make the world safer?
Q: Have nuclear weapons stopped another World War?
Q: Should the nuclear weapon have been used?
Q: Will it be used again?

logically, i think you have to answer yes to every question.

I would much rather the US be the world leaders in this technology, instead of say... China or Sudan.

a reply to: Agit8dChop
We can kill them better than they can kill us.


Can you tell me please, who won?

I've been stuck reading old threads all day,
I thought antimatter positron laser beams were the next big thing!??

a reply to: Phage

No. It's a B61 with a JDAM kit on it, and a penetrator nose.

a reply to: Zaphod58

A new system. Take this, add that, and one of those. Viola!

Spoilsport.

a reply to: Phage

B61-12 Life Extension Program

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah. A tactical nuke.

Groovy.

a reply to: Phage

Same one we've had for 50 years or so.

a reply to: Zaphod58

But New! New! New!
Compared to 11.

a reply to: Phage

Well, if 11 is cool, 12 HAS to be cooler.

a reply to: carewemust

Tsar Bomba baby!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: andy06shake


That is a GREAT POINT! If you can dial-down the nuke yield, the military brass would indeed be more inclined to use that weapon.

Even more so when they can detonate it underground at a suitable depth. It won't pollute the atmosphere but just implode a volume of rock.

a reply to: stormcell

I think when it does go into the ground in bunker buster mode, even at very low yield, there would indeed be significant radioactive fall out produced just down to the very nature of the weapon.

Its still going to create radioactive dust and debris and pollute the atmosphere somewhat. Then there is also the water table to consider which could be significantly contaminated by this type of weapon.

The only safe nuke really is one that's been dismantled.

It means we can wipe out all the leadership in Russia and China with just two B2s, without killing all the people in the entire surrounding area. A population doesn't need to be decimated, just the infrastructure and leaders. It is meant to scare the sh*t out of them in a friendly way. BTW it doesn't have to be a B2, F-15s have a neat suicide function, and have a super afterburner which makes them go faster than an SR-71's publicly stated speed.

Callsign: Skidmark

a reply to: carewemust

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stormcell

I think when it does go into the ground in bunker buster mode, even at very low yield, there would indeed be significant radioactive fall out produced just down to the very nature of the weapon.

Its still going to create radioactive dust and debris and pollute the atmosphere somewhat. Then there is also the water table to consider which could be significantly contaminated by this type of weapon.

The only safe nuke really is one that's been dismantled.

But until we beat our swords into plowshares... Wouldn't you rather us have these than a bunch of SS-18's raining down all over the U.S.?
en.m.wikipedia.org...(missile)

originally posted by: gort51
Oh How wonderful...

A new Atomic bomb......just what the World needs....

I'll ask the plants and animals in nature what they think about it, next time I'm among nature.....I'm sure they will be thrilled.

I'm with you! Now they can "choose" to make it a weaker explosion?? No! We liked it better when they had to vaporize an entire city! This is SO DUMB!!! I want my grandkids to grow up having that magical Nagasaki feeling in their hearts, like I did! They wont be able to tell the WW3 coverage from a 4th of July fireworks display! You call That "devastation"?

You pm me and we will set up the "No small yield nukes" protest!