Not all nuclear weapons are "nukes". Lets educate ourselves a bit.

[rpgamerd00d]

There is a big difference between a full-on nuclear bomb ala Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and what is referred to as a Tactical Nuclear Weapon.

Tac-Nukes are not only far smaller as far as pure yield goes, but they are also placed into a different type of missile. Their purpose, what they were designed to do, is to be used on a battlefield that its own troops may be on or near.

Yes, technically its "nuclear". But that doesn't mean its gonna cause huge amounts of fallout and kill millions of innocent people and wreck the atmosphere of Earth and throw us into a nuclear winter. Its far too small to do that, plus its goal is to explode underground, just like a nuclear test. There will be no massive fallout, no nuclear winter, no mass death.

They are almost capable of doing this with a conventional weapon (moab) but not yet. So the Tac-Nuke is still the weapon of choice for this kind of thing.

Lets get our terminology right, and lets get our concept about what this really is right.

[annabanana]

1. Sorry. . If the explosion is the result of a nuclear reaction

it is a nuke...
"We have established what you are. We are merely quibbling about the price."

[bahrbearian]

2. I feel much better about it now ,,"Bomb's Away"

[TheBaldyMan]

3. they are both nukes, one can wipe out a county the other only kills a city.

they both churn radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and melt people's eyeballs, it is only a matter of scale.

[bananas]

4. Why don't you get your terminology right?

Tactical nuclear weapons have been called "tactical nukes" for decades.
They are nukes.
A "nuke" is ANY nuclear weapon.

[Jcrowley]

5. Cold comfort

Exploding the Myth About Low-Yield, Earth Penetrating Nuclear Weapons
I S S U E B R I E F

Volume 5, Number 7,
April 17, 2001


by Dr. Robert W. Nelson, Federation of American Scientists*

<snip>

Containment

In addition to the immediate effects of blast, air shock, and thermal radiation, shallow nuclear explosions produce especially intense local radioactive fallout. The fireball breaks through the surface of the earth, carrying into the air large amounts of dirt and debris. This material has been exposed to the intense neutron flux from the nuclear detonation, which adds to the radioactivity from the fission products. The cloud typically consists of a narrow column and a broad base surge of air filled with radioactive dust which expands to a radius of over a mile for a 5 kiloton explosion.

In order to be fully contained, nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site must be buried at a depth of 650 feet for a 5 kiloton explosive and 1300 feet for a 100-kiloton explosive. Even then, there are many documented cases where carefully sealed shafts ruptured and released radioactivity to the local environment. Even if an earth penetrating missile were somehow able to drill hundreds of feet into the ground and then detonate, the explosion would likely shower the surrounding region with highly radioactive dust and gas. Even a 0.1 kt burst must be buried at a depth of approximately 230 feet to be fully contained.

The most optimistic assumptions, however, limit the penetration depth of any earth-borrowing missile to less than a hundred feet or so — substantially less than the depth required to contain even a low-yield nuclear explosion. The missile must protect the warhead and its associated electronics from the impact shock while it burrows into the ground. This limit is based on fundamental physics and material properties that are unlikely to change significantly, even with additional research and development. It is simply not possible for a kinetic energy weapon to penetrate deep enough to prevent widespread and intense local radioactive fallout from the nuclear explosion.

http://www.clw.org/archive/coalition/briefv5n7.htm

[teryang]

24. Thanks for putting some facts on the record here

In as much as a B-61 is dial-a-yield many multiple times capable the yield of the WWII devices the original post here is non-sensical.

Yet, it is regarded as a "tactical nuke." It is capable of taking out an entire city and leaving a huge radioactive plume to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

[Jcrowley]

28. Ain't that grand?

Never have so many known so much about so little.

:hi:

[teryang]

38. The B-61 is a terrifying weapon...

...known in the trade as the "silver bullet."

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Uh, well, hmmm

nah, I call bullshit. A nuclear weapon ia a nuclear weapon. Calling it something else doesn't alter reality. Oh, and the bombs used against Japan didn't kill millions. Oh yes and we don't actually know how many Iranians will be killed by this madness, nor how much fallout will be produced, nor where it will end up.

[951-Riverside]

7. rpgamerd00d do you know something that we don't

...Are we headed for nuclear war?

I just find it a little strange you would post something like this.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Oh. Well, then.

I feel so much better. :sarcasm:

[roamer65]

9. The world community won't recognize a "difference".

First use of nuclear weapons will bring on a backlash of historical proportions.

[johnaries]

10. WRONG! If it results in a nuclear reaction, it is a nuke. The RNEP

(Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator) or "bunker buster" which are supposed to "burrow underground" to contain the fallout in reality do not dig anywhere near deep enough to contain the fallout. Also, there ARE conventional weapon that actualy perform better than RNEP nukes for their purpose.

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/bunkerbusters.html

Here is a fascinating animation:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

[originalpckelly]

14. The problem is that it will act like a gun with a blank in it.

Only instead of gun powder it's a nuke, and instead of hot gases and smoke, it'll be hot gases and radioactive soil. That will shoot up into the highest parts of the atmosphere, and it will rain down on the rest of the Earth.

[htuttle]

11. Yes, LET's edumacate ourselves!

A Hiroshima-sized bomb is anything BUT a 'full-on' nuclear bomb nowdays. That bomb was only about 15 kilotons, while the things sitting on top of missiles in silos are usually more like 1-30 megatons. In fact, the so-called 'bunker buster' nukes they are speaking of are anywhere from 10 kt to 1 megaton (1000 kt) in size. That's from just smaller, to many times larger than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

[bananas]

16. Good point - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the size of today's bunker-busters and tactical nukes. nt

[wtmusic]

25. Bunker busters are NOT nukes

they are low-yield tactical fissile weapons (beware of bullshit rebranding sure to come in the days ahead)

[Warren Stupidity]

27. wrong.

yield ranges from 10Kt to 340Kt and possibly in the low Mt range. Huge fallout problems. Unknown risk of civilian deaths from any use of these weapons in combat.

For reference the Hiroshima weapon was 15Kt.

[wtmusic]

31. When in doubt, read the post.

Or if you prefer, just the title. Whatever.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. I read it, not much there.

"The B61 nuclear bomb is the primary thermonuclear weapon in the U.S. Enduring Stockpile following the end of the Cold War."

The B61-11 is what is referred to as the bunker buster. What the heck is your point?

You seem to believe that a 'fissile weapon' is not a nuclear weapon. Please explain in what sense you think that the B61-11 bunker buster is not a nuclear weapon.

[Zhade]

37. No, you read it wrong - wtmusic was being sarcastic.

Reread it as what the rightwingers will soon be saying - that was his point.

[William769]

12. Sorry I disagree.

As fragile as mother Earth is, any nuclear explosion will off set her off balance even more.

[originalpckelly]

13. No, I'd beg to differ. It is not being used as intended.

As intended, tactical nukes are far less dangerous and produce far less fallout than a higher yield nuclear weapon, whether straight fission or fission/fusion combination.

On the other hand, in this case, it may generate as much or more fallout than a standard high yield or fission-fusion hybrid nuclear weapon. This is because soil at the impact/detonation site will be vaporized by the intense heat of the nuclear blast. This vaporized soil will be shot out of the hole in the ground, like the hot gases of a blank in a gun. Only the vaporized soil, will also be radioactive.

This means that there may be more fallout than a standard above ground blast.

If I were to design this, I would make a three stage weapon. One which was a conventional penetrator, one which was a low yield tactical nuke, and another conventional bomb which stop in the middle of the shaft generated by the original conventional earth penetrator, and then explode to close off the shaft.

But they are not planning on closing off the shaft, so if I and a whole bunch of scientists are right, this will act like a BIG radioactive blank.

This may be one of the biggest military blunders in world history, because of the environmental complications which will result. Let alone all the geopolitical/tactical ones.

[sandnsea]

15. How many little nukes make a big nuke??

Do you really think our military doesn't know exactly how many of these 'tac-nukes' are necessary to wipe out a city and how many bombers it'll take?

Why do we keep spending billions of dollars on weapons that we have to spend billions more to destroy 20 years later.

[jody]

17. "Not all nuclear weapons are 'nukes'" is completely false. Obviously you've never

worked with nuclear weapons.

[Rick Myers]

18. A NUKE is a NUKE if the damage is from a fission or fusion reaction!!!

The only difference is Fission is an A-bomb and Fusion is an H-bomb.

A NUKE IS A NUKE IS A NUKE!

There is no 'baby' nuke.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Leading candidate for Stupidest Post of 2007!

"Not all nuclear weapons are "nukes" "

:rofl: :rofl:

Where does DU find these nuke-loving, surreptitious-mass-murder-advocating people, anyways? Even freeperville would be bowled over.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114485399424716012


"How To Make A Tactical Nuclear Weapon

by tristero

The military scientists, engineers and war geeks have it all wrong. It really doesn't take much effort to make a tactical nuclear device. In fact, it's actually a rather straightforward two-step process:

1. Take one nuclear weapon with the destructive power of as many Hiroshima bombs as you like.

2. Add the word "tactical" to the description.

Voila! You now have a tactical nuclear weapon that magically always hits its target and only kills evil people, leaving all the good people alive and perfectly healthy."


(Let me know if this violates DU quoting rules. The quoted blogpost struck me as so short that quoting it in full wouldn't be a problem. I could be wrong in this.)

Lying bloodthirsty jackasses.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

20. I'm not OK with those types of nukes either

Just for the record.

[karlrschneider]

21. You probably shouldn't smoke that stuff, whatever it is.

:eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Yes indeed the B61-11 bunker buster likely has a larger yield

than the Hiroshima class bombs. So other than that small factual error you have an airtight case.

[uppityperson]

23. How about my microwave oven? Can I still call that process "nuking"?

by the way, a nuclear weapon is a nuke. Of course there is a difference in sizes and where they go nucular (sic) at, but if it nukes, it is a nuke. Now, about my microwave...

[originalpckelly]

26. No, I'm sorry to say, it's not a "nuke"

:-)

[uppityperson]

30. does my food get nuked then?

I mean, microwaving is too hard to say, too many syllables.

[frogcycle]

34. yes, virginia, your food glows in the dark

Wikipedia:

Nuke or nuking can refer to multiple things: <1>

* A colloquialism for a nuclear weapon, or the use of one
* A colloquialism for a nuclear power plant
* Terms referring to heating something in a microwave oven
...

[wtmusic]

32. If your microwave is truly nuclear

your could reheat your coffee very, very quickly

[piedmont]

29. dogpile on rpgamerd00d!!!

Yes, they're NUKES. They operate by nuclear fission, and cause radioactive fallout and a general shit-storm of bad P.R., at the least.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

36. Absolute bullshit.

If it causes a nuclear reaction, guess what? IT'S A FUCKNG NUKE.

Stop aiding the lying neocons in their goal.

[Rex]

39. A nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

Granted a neutron bomb has a different 'purpose' then a dirty bomb or a hydrogen bomb. Still, they all produce radiation to kill humans and should never be used as a weapon.