Not really nukes? I call BULLSHIT

[Warren Stupidity]

We have seen a set of posts here claiming that tactical nuke 'bunker busters' are not 'real nukes' and are not even in the same class of weapon as the bomb we dropped on hiroshima.

This is of course a vile argument attempting to justify first strike use of nuclear weapons by claiming that these particular nuclear weapons are not really nuclear weapons. It is also wrong on the facts regarding the claim that the bunker buster weapon is not in the same class as the hiroshima weapon.

Now for some actual facts. First the Hiroshima weapon:
Accession Number : AD0627857

Title : YIELD OF THE HIROSHIMA WEAPON,

Corporate Author : NAVAL ORDNANCE LAB WHITE OAK MD

Personal Author(s) : Caudle, Kenneth F.

Report Date : 27 DEC 1965

Pagination or Media Count : 32

Abstract : The airborne microphone gage pressure record of the Hiroshima shot is used to determine the yield of the Little Boy weapon. The geometry of the Hiroshima mission is reconstructed and analyzed to determine the slant range between the burst point and the canister along which the shock traveled. The height of burst, slant range and peak pressure are used in the Naval Ordnance Laboratory-Nonhomogeneous Atmospheric Transmission code to determine the energy yield of the Hiroshima weapon. The result of this analysis is a plot of weapon yield as a function of slant range for the peak pressure observed at Hiroshima. The yield of the Hiroshima weapon, based on the slant range determination in this report, is 15.2 kt. This result should be of interest to those concerned with physical vulnerability analyses based on Hiroshima data. Some discussion is given on other methods of finding the yield of the Hiroshima weapon. (Author)

Descriptors : *EXPLOSION EFFECTS, EXPLOSIONS, NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS, AIRBURST, PRESSURE, NUCLEAR EXPLOSION DAMAGE, JAPAN.

Subject Categories : NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0627857

15.2KT, got that number?

Ok, now for the bunker buster.

"The B61 is a variable-yield, kiloton-range weapon. Tactical versions (Mods 3, 4, and 10) can be set to 0.3, 1.5, 5, 10, 60, 80, or 170 kiloton explosive yield (depending on version). The strategic version (B61 Mod 7) has four yield options, with a maximum of 340 kilotons. Sources conflict on the yield of the earth-penetrating Mod 11; the physics package or bomb core components of the Mod 11 are apparently unchanged from the earlier strategic Mod 7, however the public declassified 2001 Nuclear Posture Review <3> states that the B-61-11 has only a single yield; some sources indicate 10 KT, others suggest the 340 kiloton maximum yield as the Mod-7."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

The earth penetrating Mod 11 version of the B61 is the 'bunker buster'. Its yield is somewhere between 10 and 340 KT.

You people posting this crap about how these are not real nuclear weapons ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

[SaveElmer]

1. I haven't seen any of these posts...

But it seems to me a nuke is a nuke is a nuke...

On the face sure seems like a bogus thing to assert!

[LynnTheDem]

2. DUers?

DUers have posted saying "tactical nukes" aren't nukes??!

Bloody fucking hell...

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Sorry I should have posted links.

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3059927&mesg_id=3059927

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3059979&mesg_id=3059979

[LynnTheDem]

11. Response from a US military officer who is an NBC expert.

"a nuke is a nuke".

:shrug:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. Exactly

They all kill, they all poison the earth, they all are a threat to the world.

[bananas]

20. Those posts were within ten minutes of each other.

Coincidence? I think not!
:tinfoilhat:

[Tom Joad]

29. Our deluded friends are still among us. Regrettably.

[Richard Steele]

4. Ground-penetrating nukes are much worse, even at lower yields.

Because they detonate underground, rather than
hundreds of meters in the air, they will blast
many, many times more radioactive debris into
the atmosphere.

And all those tons of poisonous fallout don't STAY
up in the air, y'know.

I haven't seen any posts such as you mention, Warren;
I hope they are a very small (and quickly-corrected)
minority here at DU.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Yes indeed. I didn't have time to look up the rest of the

many problems with the bullshit that these are 'not really nukes'. Thanks for pointing out the fallout problem.

My guess is that the 'not really nukes' meme has been launched from the dark side and is making its rounds. We need to proactively put out this fire. If you have links to the fallout problem it would be good to get them documented as well.

[bananas]

18. Any idea where this "not really nukes" BS started?

Two posts within ten minutes of each other - did they hear this on the radio or tv, or was a fax sent out from dark side headquarters?

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Good question.

No answer. Who writes the endless rightwing email tomes of idiocy? Where do all these coordinated meme attacks come from? Inquiring minds want to know.

[TahitiNut]

6. Why start yet another thread? Why not respond in

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3059979&mesg_id=3059979

???

Do we really need more shit like this?
:eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Thanks for sharing. nt.

[madrchsod]

7. now this is what i call a nuke

i read what you are talking about...yes a nuke is a nuke

[johnaries]

8. Thanks, Waren! I missed that first thread, but I posted to the second.

BTW, the RNEP "bunker buster" that was referred to in my links was supposed to be 1.2 MEGATONS. A far cry from 15 kt.

[Nutmegger]

10. Thank you for this post Warren.

:kick:

5th Rec! :)

[frogcycle]

13. ok, you have a point, but be accurate

first off, i agree that the post you objected to seemed to minimize the use of tactical nukes, and that is inappropriate

BUT - it did not say they "are not real nukes"
It said they are nowhere near the strength of those used in WWII.

You looked up Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima, at 13.6 Kt. But Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki, was 36 Kt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

0.3 or 1.5 kt is a good deal less than 36

even with those clarifications, I agree that use of tactical nukes is not something to take lightly

[Warren Stupidity]

15. uh here is the title

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

[frogcycle]

21. yes

i found that thread after i posted mine. its stupid. i was referring to the one that spawned IT

[Warren Stupidity]

16. And 340Kt is a good deal larger.

So what exactly is your point?

[frogcycle]

22. that the assertion

that tactical nukes can be much smaller is valid. they choose to compare 0.3 to 36; you choose to compare 360 to 13

i agree with you they are full of it, but no need to "spin" your data hurt your own credibility

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Actually that is unfair as well.

"The earth penetrating Mod 11 version of the B61 is the 'bunker buster'. Its yield is somewhere between 10 and 340 KT."

I did not cherry-pick the high end, I cited the range. And the range I cited was exactly the range quoted from wiki as the best guesstimates for the current generation of the bunker buster. Earlier generations were as low as 0.3Kt.

[frogcycle]

27. ok, now i'm nitpicking, but

"The B61 is a variable-yield, kiloton-range weapon. Tactical versions (Mods 3, 4, and 10) can be set to 0.3, 1.5, 5, 10, 60, 80, or 170 kiloton explosive yield (depending on version). The strategic version (B61 Mod 7) has four yield options, with a maximum of 340 kilotons. Sources conflict on the yield of the earth-penetrating Mod 11; the physics package or bomb core components of the Mod 11 are apparently unchanged from the earlier strategic Mod 7, however the public declassified 2001 Nuclear Posture Review <3> states that the B-61-11 has only a single yield; some sources indicate 10 KT, others suggest the 340 kiloton maximum yield as the Mod-7.

The early Mods 0, 1, 2, and 5 have been retired (Mods 6, 8, and 9 were cancelled before production), and the Mod 10 has been moved to the inactive stockpile, leaving the Mods 3, 4, 7, and 11 as the only variants in active service."


The way I read it, the Tactical versions (Mods 3, 4, and 10) are in active service, and can be set as low as 0.3 Kt.

The post I read and was calling you out on stated "tactical nuclear weapons are not nearly as powerful as those used in WWII"

The ground-penetrating B11, of which we have supposedly made 50 (?) is the one from 10 to 340. And of course none of this tells us anything about what Israel has or would use in the posters hypothetical preemptive strike.

And the ground-penetrating casing could be used with the lower yield; hell, we have 5000 lb conventional bombs in a "bunker buster" configuration. it just doesn't read as if it is so packaged now.

Anyway, as I said, your reaction to the dismissive attitude was well founded.

amazing how so many people can be so cavalier about other people blowing up other people.

[karlrschneider]

14. The OP on that thread never replied to any responses that I saw.

Might have overlooked it but he/she was nailed pretty effectively.
:eyes:

[Canuckistanian]

17. Even the smallest Nuke would be a disaster

Critical mass demands that a bomb be a certain size.

And I don't think that can be much smaller than the Hiroshima or Nagasaki detonations.

[stillcool]

19. I did not dare click on any of those....

my head can only take so much fucking with. Especially after seeing the results of various uses of weaponry on Dahr Jamail's website http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/

[WiseButAngrySara]

24. THANK YOU! These posts represent insanity to me. Crap is

Crap (and I hate using that word, but you said it first and it SO fits the bill.)

:kick: and R... Send those posts to the I/P Dungeon where they belong! Are the Moderators asleep on this one?

[reprehensor]

26. Thank you.

What a nightmare.

[Tom Joad]

28. See this flash animation from Union of Concerned Scientist

and ignore the fools who deny nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons.

The flash is talking about a scenerio where the US attacks Iran, but of course applies to Israel as well. It ends with the statement that conventional bombs would work best. I don't think they are advocating conventional weapon attack, just saying it would work best (for these bombs to work, it would have to know precisely the targets, or it won't work)

the flash animation:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html
(need broadband for that, most likely)

Disturbing news:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535177,00.html

[PA Democrat]

30. Very disturbing video

The estimated casualties are 3,000,000 dead and 35,000,000 exposed to dangerous levels of radioactivity.

[Tom Joad]

31. And the other kind of fallout... what about the wrath this will engender across the globe

Will they ever forgive those that bomb them? Will they work doubletime to do all they can to seek "vengence" in response to this criminal act of aggression? Will each act of vengence/aggression be met by yet another act of aggression... a different kind of fallout, creating a different kind of "chain reaction".

I would be amazed anyone if anyone survives a decade after that. The ultimate result? global warming will be replaced by nuclear winter. I find no comfort in this strategy, whether persued by the US or Israel.

[johnaries]

33. Great minds think alike!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3059979&mesg_id=3060057

:hi:

Oh, and the flash works fine on dial-up, or did for me anyway.

[Tom Joad]

32. We have guided missiles and misguided men.

we are becoming spiritually bankrupt.

[Junkdrawer]

34. K&R

[FogerRox]

35. Nothing like a little science, eh?

Knr, thanks.

[Morgana LaFey]

36. Ashamed of themselves?

Hardly. They're doing their jobs, that's all.

What's a little disinformation among friends -- and political enemies?

[walldude]

37. Goddammit, you have to quit letting little things like FACTS

get in the way of a good bombing. With the Saddam video wearing out it's welcome Fox needs some new death and destruction stuff to keep it's people in line. Great post Warren, K&R.