h a l f b a k e r yA few slices short of a loaf.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I read that the US has new language about first strike nuclear weapons I think The use of tactical nuclear missiles as bunker busters has been described
Like the sticky tape radiation tank neutralizer this idea prevents the use of tactical nuclear missiles
a slow lumbering cargo plane full of
Cobalt arrives at the predicted target just as the nuclear weapon arrives; this works as even at 1000 Km PH The defender has minutes to figure out which near target area the missile will strike
when the bunker buster missile reaches target plus the cobalt filled cargo plane it creates a huge plume of hyperlethal Co (the doomesday bomb scenario used cobalt bombs) which completely irritates the neighboring countries causing diplomatic fail plus huge fiscal reparations
thus making the tactical nukes Objectively useless
If you nuke one county even lightly the neighbors get poisoned ruining decades or centuries of possible diplomacy
A variant on this is to use very cheap sodium fluoride plus sodium chloride plus charcoal This combo when turned to plasma vicinal to a nuclear blast turns to a multiton ozone destroying greenhouse gas hyperemission If the nuke is predictable enough flying the NaFNaClC cargo just above the blast ejects the toxic ions to the stratosphere where they act as Ozone depleters plus greenhouse gases
Now arguably this is only a few dozen tons of of prechlorfluorocarbons per nuke yet the 2004 global output of CFCs was limited to just 70 tons Thus it might be possible to eject a full years worth of banned ozone destroyers per tactrical nuke intercepted They could describe this to defensive use as HalonDefenseShield
again each tactic nuke creates such global irritation as to make it more of an objectibe liability than objective benefit
There is the risk that a multiweapon nuclear war Together with predictable targets each wearing a halondefenseshield could destroy the earths ozone layer plus create severe greenhouse gas effects
Thus deterring even moderate dose nuclear war as MAD
Thus they could like lower taxes n we could spend all that military money on ice cream
[link]
|
| |
Here's an idea for you, [beanangel]: Punctuation. |
|
| |
To irritate the neighbors of the nuked country, you inflict
considerably more than irritation to the residents of your
own. If there was ever a good example of cutting off your
nose to spite your face, this is it. |
|
| |
You could also surround it with cars with the catalytic converters removed, which are presumably not supposed to be exported into rich countries, but that would get blasted around the world by the blast. So if the US or Europe nuked the bunker, they'd thereby "export" a banned car into the other and get trade sanctions applied, ruining their automobile export industry. |
|
| |
Not as effective as the cobalt I guess though. |
|
| |
just a thought; how many nukes, tactical or otherwise, have been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki? -- aside from test blasts, that is. |
|
| |
not a basalt conker buster buster then? |
|
| |
This won't stop bunker busting. |
|
| |
I'd simply use progressively larger non-nuclear weapons to disperse your anti-nuke agent(s) then drop the big one anyway. If I wanted the target badly enough, that is. |
|
| |
So that the locals are not affected by the attack, you could sell plastic wrap for people to put on their heads during a double nuke and buster buster attack, used as Plastic Wrap Cobalt Bunker Buster Buster Buster. |
|
| |
This *should* be a really bad idea, but, unfortunately, if this
is a bad idea, then so is mingling your military assets with
your civilian population. And that tactic seems popular and
effective. |
|
| |
Cobalt bombs supposedly work because the cobalt is located *at* the nuclear core. Neutron bombardment transmutes it to the radioactive isotope (Co-60 I beleive). |
|
| |
Even if you kamikaze'd the cargo plane into the incoming ICMB, *at* the detonation height, I doubt you'd get much transmutation going on. |
|
| |
I mean, theoretically, I you managed to encase the bomb with cobalt somehow, you'd get the maximum exposure of cobalt to the neutrons - which may or may not have a big effect. Like a lot of things about nuclear weapon design, I think you're underestimating how much design effort goes into optimising geometry, etc to make it do what you need. I imagine if anyone made a cobalt bomb it'd be se up very differently to a conventional warhead; most of which use a U-238 tamper, the so called fission-fusion-fission design, which I beleive does a good job of using the neutrons and doesn't emit very many at all, compared to a "naked" warhead. Or so I beleive. |
|
| |
// completely irritates //
sp. "irradiates" |
|
| |