In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
a 700 ton weapon?
Txs
Member Posts: 18,801
How would this be deployed?
Nevada Weapons Test Plan Blasted
March 31, 2006
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- Plans for a Pentagon-led experiment that involves detonating 700 tons of explosives in the desert drew criticism from state leaders and a disarmament activist.
The explosion scheduled for June 2 at the Nevada Test Site is part of an effort to design a weapon that can penetrate solid rock formations in which a country might store nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.
"I am concerned that tests of this magnitude have been planned without providing Nevadans with any information about the possible impact on their health or safety," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid in a statement Thursday.
Nevada Test Site spokesman Darwin Morgan said the test will be conducted about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, near the center of the former nuclear testing site.
The test, named "Divine Strake," will involve nearly 40 times the amount of commercial ammonium nitrate and fuel oil explosive set off in the largest open-air, non-nuclear blast at the site to date. In 2002, 18 tons of explosives were set off at the Nevada Test Site.
"This is nothing that's out of the bounds for us. That's what our expertise is in," he said.
Morgan said the site obtained the required state approvals and air quality permits in January. Officials from the National Nuclear Security Administration, which operates the site, alerted the state's congressional delegation and state government in December.
The Nevada Department of Administration responded with a letter stating: "Your proposal is not in conflict with state plans, goals or objectives."
No elected officials responded to the notice until Thursday, Morgan said. The test site is not required to seek public comment, he said.
"Given the level of contamination in areas where nuclear tests were conducted, I have real concerns about the dust and other pollutants that will be released into the air as a result of this explosion," said U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley.
Disarmament activist Pete Litster said tests at the site violate international law. Litster, executive director of the Shundahai Network, said the site belongs to the Western Shoshone Indian tribe.
Nevada Weapons Test Plan Blasted
March 31, 2006
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- Plans for a Pentagon-led experiment that involves detonating 700 tons of explosives in the desert drew criticism from state leaders and a disarmament activist.
The explosion scheduled for June 2 at the Nevada Test Site is part of an effort to design a weapon that can penetrate solid rock formations in which a country might store nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.
"I am concerned that tests of this magnitude have been planned without providing Nevadans with any information about the possible impact on their health or safety," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid in a statement Thursday.
Nevada Test Site spokesman Darwin Morgan said the test will be conducted about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, near the center of the former nuclear testing site.
The test, named "Divine Strake," will involve nearly 40 times the amount of commercial ammonium nitrate and fuel oil explosive set off in the largest open-air, non-nuclear blast at the site to date. In 2002, 18 tons of explosives were set off at the Nevada Test Site.
"This is nothing that's out of the bounds for us. That's what our expertise is in," he said.
Morgan said the site obtained the required state approvals and air quality permits in January. Officials from the National Nuclear Security Administration, which operates the site, alerted the state's congressional delegation and state government in December.
The Nevada Department of Administration responded with a letter stating: "Your proposal is not in conflict with state plans, goals or objectives."
No elected officials responded to the notice until Thursday, Morgan said. The test site is not required to seek public comment, he said.
"Given the level of contamination in areas where nuclear tests were conducted, I have real concerns about the dust and other pollutants that will be released into the air as a result of this explosion," said U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley.
Disarmament activist Pete Litster said tests at the site violate international law. Litster, executive director of the Shundahai Network, said the site belongs to the Western Shoshone Indian tribe.
Comments
...I hope Dingy Reid, The Cape Cod Orca, Bubble Head Boxer, Screaming Dean, and the rest...just keep on talking...[^]
...love to see 700 ton weapon touched off...[;)]
Sounds like Dingy Reid is a Dumfart and has a great place in the scheme of American history! I only hope he and others like him can find their places, therein, MUCH sooner than later![:D][:D][:D]
someone stated in another thread about depleted uranium shells.. that the dust from the DU wasn't even harmfull.. or radioactive or..
Why so worried about a little radioactive dust in..
OH I GET IT.. because it's in YOUR OWN BACKYARD this time..
Uhhhh, yes. Ehhmmm, ahh, no... hmm yeah... maybe.. could be.. nah.. I'm not sure..
YIKES - I can't make up my mind.
I just don't see much difference between depleted uranium in shells used against tanks (a LOT of shells spreading local radiation on european soil) and dust being blown into the air, creating new fallout.
Radiation is radiation - noone want it in their backyard.
It's just a test to see how a massive conventional explosive would perform against underground targets - I don't think it's anything that would be deployed as it is. I suspect they are using ANFO sinply because it's probably more cost effective that other explosives.
In order for such a test to be valid you'd have to use material with the same explosive characteristics as what you intend to deploy.
ANFO is probably the least expensive option, but it works well for something like this. It's low detonation rate makes it particularly suited for cratering charges, it's just bulky and heavy.
Same size as my ex-wifes behind [:0].
How about dropping her from the stratosphere on to solid rock [:D].
I'll guar-an-tee it will bust rock clear to the inner core of the earth.
As far as I know, even the space shuttle can't pack that load.
Inquiring minds want to know.
[?]barto[?]
barto
I just don't see much difference between depleted uranium in shells used against tanks (a LOT of shells spreading local radiation on european soil) and dust being blown into the air, creating new fallout.
Radiation is radiation - noone want it in their backyard.
Ummm......ANFO isn't radioactive.
Anyone think that we might be trying to simulate a kiloton yield while using conventional explosives?
Let's see what is usually associated with yields in the kilo/magatons...?
And if we take out a nuclear site with a nuclear weapon, will anyone notice a little extra radiation??? Yeah, probably but one could always argue that the nuclear testing done at that site was well beyond what intelligence even suggested. And who could really prove otherwise?
Yes, I have corrected the statement with the kilo/mega clarification. The point is if the technology to bunker-bust needs a boost, then break out the atoms! Don't think for a minute this is't being considered in the broad scheme.
700 tons is one million, four hundred thousand pounds. Or 1.4 Megatons.
Anyone think that we might be trying to simulate a megaton yield while using conventional explosives?
Let's see what is usually associated with yields in the magatons...?
And if we take out a nuclear site with a nuclear weapon, will anyone notice a little extra radiation??? Yeah, probably but one could always argue that the nuclear testing done at that site was well beyond what intelligence even suggested. And who could really prove otherwise?
If they are exploding a 1.4 megaton-equivalent of conventional explosions, it makes sense to think they are trying to simulate a 1.4 megaton explosion...duh!
Of course the kind of bomb they would be using to bust the bunkers is not going to weigh 700 tons. Obviously they are gathering data for a bomb that has 1.4 megaton yield equivalent, but which is actually small enough to be delivered by plane or missile. What kind of weapon has those characteristics... 1.4 megaton yield, but is small enough to be delivered by plane or missile....?
They are doing tests to simulate the explosion of nuclear devices. They are not planning on dropping a 700-ton bombs on bunkers.
How can 700 tons equal 1.4 megatons? Seems to me it would equal 700 tons.
Depends on the type of explosive. Something with twice the energy of
TNT would have this effect.
quote:Originally posted by MT357
How can 700 tons equal 1.4 megatons? Seems to me it would equal 700 tons.
Depends on the type of explosive. Something with twice the energy of
TNT would have this effect.
You are correct. i dont know where the 1.4 comes from. One megaton is one thousand tons.
For example the Pershing II missile had a warhead yield of 5 to 50 kilotons. Some of the largest Soviet ICBM's claimed a yield of one Megaton. The conventional wisdom was that they were trying to make up for a lack of accuracy with higher yield.
Makes sense in a dark sort of way i guess.
quote:Originally posted by HappyNanoq
I just don't see much difference between depleted uranium in shells used against tanks (a LOT of shells spreading local radiation on european soil) and dust being blown into the air, creating new fallout.
Radiation is radiation - noone want it in their backyard.
Ummm......ANFO isn't radioactive.
No ANFO is not radioactive, I'm completely aware of that - but they're concerned about the blast of the ANFO lifting up soil from the previous nuclear tests - and how that old radioactive dust will effect people.
I don't get it.
While cool to watch maybe, it's stated purpose is to set up research data for devices that could penetrate deep, hardened, storage facilities. These facilities are stated to possibly hold WMD's.
So let me get this straight; we're developing a conventional bomb that can BLOW UP WMD's???? Hey, that sounds like a real rocket scientist sort of idea!!
Secondly, 700 tons, eh?? Well how would you ever deliver a bomb even half, or even a quarter this size? It ain't goin' on no plane, and not even a 'stealth' truck could haul it (????).
So....
BRILLIANT!!
[B)]
FCD, i think we've all agreed that they are not going to try to deliver a bunker busting bomb that weighs 700 tons. They want to simulate an explosion of 700 tons equivalent TNT or whatever. they want to gather data on the blast. I think the bomb they would actually use would be nuclear and weigh several tons but have the power in the range of 700 tons equiv.
I do think it is ironic that while some countries are not not "allowed" to have nuclear weapons, the US, the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in anger, would deem that not only is it OK for the US to have nukes, it's even OK for the US to use nukes to take out another country's nukes.
Trust me ther is a whole lot of nothing out there.
Quote: "I do think it is ironic that while some countries are not not "allowed" to have nuclear weapons, the US, the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in anger, would deem that not only is it OK for the US to have nukes, it's even OK for the US to use nukes to take out another country's nukes.". Granted guy, we did use 2 nukes on Japan. Thank God we did. Saved one hell of a lot of our, and Japanese azzes. Dont you think that with both the Japs and Krauts working on it have would have used it on us was possible? But now they are talking about 700 tons of convential explosives. Dont read more into it than that as of now unless you have TRUE FACTS. AND HAPPY: I think Rosie has you pegged correctly. Another Hairy in the making. But from another country who likes to go anti American. Lets hear Greenlands aid in past, recent, and ongoing wars.
Joe, I have nothing against the use of the atomic bomb against Japan and I wouldnt have anything against the use of nukes against Iran.
However, it is ironic that the country that let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, used nukes during wartime and which has more nukes than any other country in the world, is also the biggest crusader against nuclear proliferation. It's OK for us to have them, and some of our extra special friends can have them, but anybody else is just too dangerous.
I dont necessarily wish it were any other way, I'd rather have the security of being on top of the nuclear game and suffer the indignity of hypocrisy than to be at the mercy of any nation. I don't want rogue countries to have the bomb, but i'm not naive enough to think that we pull off the double standard for much longer.
Someday every developed nation will have nuclear weapons. maybe through the threat of annihilation we'll learn to get along better and be more tolerant. Or maybe we'll blow ourselves up.
The use of nuclear weapons by the US was not in anger. It was to reduce the anticipated huge death tole of an invasion of an already beaten Japan that was refusing to admit defeat.