[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Small Earth- Penetrating Nuclear Warhead - Lethal Side-Effect s
Jaroslav:
Your assessments are reasonbly accurate. One can specifically design a
device to perform within the specific parameters of its design, and to
compare its performance to another weapon of dissimilar design is
inappropriate.
I realize that in the world of science, open exchange of information is a
necessary part of the peer input, brainstorming and review process.
However, the specific discussion of weapons design details is not something
that I would openly exchange over a non-secure electronic information
transfer technology.
My personal opinions of course.
Jim Stokes
-----Original Message-----
From: Franta, Jaroslav
To: Radsafe (E-mail)
Sent: 4/20/01 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: Small Earth- Penetrating Nuclear Warhead - Lethal Side-Effect s
Sandy Perle's April 16, 2001 10:18 AM nuclear news list posting included
the following (my comments, in blue, follow) :
Subject: Russia to press ahead with Iran nuclear plant
Index:
Russia to press ahead with Iran nuclear plant
France Moves Chemical Weapons to Nuclear Storage Site, AFP Says
Small Earth- Penetrating Nuclear Warhead - Lethal Side-Effects
Bush Energy Group Won't Discuss Deliberations, Wash Post Says
===========================================
<SNIP>
Scientists: 'Clean' Nuclear Weapon Isn't; Small Earth- Penetrating
Nuclear Warhead Would Have Lethal Side-Effects
WASHINGTON, April 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Low-yield earth-penetrating
nuclear weapons, intended to threaten deep bunkers without killing
the surrounding population, would release dangerous fallout,
according to an analysis by the Federation of American Scientists.
Some nuclear weapons developers have advocated developing and testing
new small nuclear weapons as a way to destroy deeply buried bunkers
containing enemy leaders or biological weapons. Delivered by a bomb
or missile that would strike the ground a high speed and penetrate
deeply before exploding, the weapon is intended to destroy the bunker
but leave nearby civilians unharmed because the earth over the
explosion would contain it.
But the study, performed by Princeton University physicist Robert
Nelson, finds this to be technologically impossible. "No earth-
burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain
an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the
Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of
radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with
especially intense and deadly fallout," according to the study.
A 1-kiloton explosion, less than one tenth that of the Hiroshima
bomb, would need to be under 450 feet of earth to be fully contained.
But the U.S. B61-11 deep-penetrating bomb only penetrates about 20
feet. A tactical missile might possibly penetrate to 100 feet,
although it would be difficult for a nuclear warhead to function
after such an impact.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
COMMENT: where does that 1-kiloton figure come from ? ...if I recall
correctly, S. Glasstone's seminal book on the effects of nuclear weapons
includes references to bomb tests with yields much less than 1-kiloton.
Also, a number of weapons formerly in the US tactical arsenal - such as
the Davy Crockett jeep-launched A-bomb - had yields well below 1-kiloton
(i.e. whatever it took to do the prescribed task... possibly a hundred
tons-or-so equivalent). Secondly, like the penetration of armoured
vehicles (tanks) by Depleted Uranium (DU) ammunitions, depth-penetration
of bombs in earth is undoubtedly facilitated by high-density uranium
metal. Thirdly, it is no secret that depth-penetrating bombs actually
REQUIRE "such an impact" in order to function -- their "critical
assembly" is of the gun-barrel type, except that there is no chemical
explosive in the warhead to drive the mechanism - only the extremely
rapid deceleration on entry into the ground : in principle, its the
simplest type of nuclear weapon imaginable. I would agree however, that
no CHEMICAL explosive weapon could probably survive such an impact
without detonating closer to the surface... a lot depends on the
details.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
If an underground explosion is not contained, it becomes very
"dirty", in that the earth above it is made radioactive and thrown
over a large area.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
COMMENT: True -- but this does NOT happen if the weapon is designed
correctly...
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Thus, use of even a small earth-penetrating
warhead in a populated area would cause significant civilian
casualties, according to the study.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
COMMENT: Since when are chemical weapons depots built in "populated
areas" ?? [ the escaping chemical gas would probably be a worse threat
in the latter case..]
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Scientists who built the first atomic bomb founded the Federation of
American Scientists in 1945. More than half of the current American
Nobel Laureates today serve on the FAS Board of Sponsors.
<SNIP><><><><><><><><><><><><>
COMMENT: OK -- but if you're against nuclear weapons, why not simply say
so, instead of making up these phoney arguments ? ...the former is an
entirely different, mostly non-technical issue which may be debated
separately. Without going into any details (off-topic on this list),
off-hand I can think of a number of issues that make such debates
non-trivial, including, for instance, the "what if" scenario of some
western nations or their allies - who have destroyed all their stocks of
chemical weapons - being attacked massively by the chemical weapons of
countries like Iraq. Commentators have often stated that chemical
weapons are the "poor-man's nuclear bomb." What choice do countries
which have renounced the use of chemical weapons have, to respond in
kind when attacked ? A horrific scenario no doubt, but would it not be
preferable in such circumstances to have the option of "low-yield
earth-penetrating
nuclear weapons, intended to threaten deep [chemical weapons storage]
bunkers without killing the surrounding population" ? I would personally
like to see the FAS geniuses address this question !
End of rant.
Jaro
Personal opinions only
* frantaj@aecl.ca
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/