PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear weapons question



Kebsis
2004-Feb-05, 06:56 AM
I was wondering why it is that after a nuclear blast, the radiation hangs around for so long. Since the radiation is moving shouldn't it just fly off in all different directions and dissapate rather quickly?

Thanks.

SAMU
2004-Feb-05, 07:15 AM
While you are correct that a lot of the energy produced in a nuclear explosion goes out in a pulse of radiation at the speed of light, much radioactive vapor is also produced from the material the bomb is made of and any air, water and earth nearby. Which, can and does, fall back to the earth and contaminates it.

In fact, most of the energy produced by the larger yield bombs, such as 20 megaton and above, is in the form of highly enrgetic plutonium vapor. It is produced in a fission fusion fission reaction where a fission explosion triggers a fusion explosion and the pulse of neutrons from the fusion explosion then enriches a case of uranium to instantly produce a lot of plutonium like an instant breeder reactor.

The plutonium is vaporized with thermonuclear force and spreads radioactive plutonium contamination over a wide area.

swansont
2004-Feb-05, 11:17 AM
In fact, most of the energy produced by the larger yield bombs, such as 20 megaton and above, is in the form of highly enrgetic plutonium vapor. It is produced in a fission fusion fission reaction where a fission explosion triggers a fusion explosion and the pulse of neutrons from the fusion explosion then enriches a case of uranium to instantly produce a lot of plutonium like an instant breeder reactor.


I'm pretty sure that the fusion involved occurs with tritium. Adding a neutron to U-238 gets you U-239. The steps to get to Pu-239 include readioactive decays, and these take a little time. Most of these bombs start with Pu, since that makes a more efficient bomb due to a higher neutron yield in the fission of Pu-239.

swansont
2004-Feb-05, 11:22 AM
I was wondering why it is that after a nuclear blast, the radiation hangs around for so long. Since the radiation is moving shouldn't it just fly off in all different directions and dissapate rather quickly?

Thanks.

The radiation that "hangs around" isn't the original. You have radioactive remnants (only a small fraction of the mass of the bomb material is converted to energy) and also activation of materials that make them radioactive. Collectively this is called "fallout," and can include some very long-lived isotopes.

Kaptain K
2004-Feb-05, 12:34 PM
Really long-lived isotopes are not very dangerous. U238 has a half life of 4+ billion years, but the radiation from it is barely above background level.

Very short-lived isotopes are very dangerous, but not for very long. If an isotope has a half life of one day, it is initially extremely dangerous, but after a week, over 99% of it is gone.

N C More
2004-Feb-05, 12:45 PM
Very short-lived isotopes are very dangerous, but not for very long. If an isotope has a half life of one day, it is initially extremely dangerous, but after a week, over 99% of it is gone.

This is exactly why, back in the time of the cold war, that people were building "fall out shelters" in their basements. Most were designed to be lived in for about one week, after that I guess you just took your chances!

Swift
2004-Feb-05, 01:31 PM
I also have a memory that because of your arguments about long and short term isotopes that the medium term, those with half-lives of weeks to maybe a couple of years, where considered the most dangerous.

Stuart
2004-Feb-05, 02:43 PM
I was wondering why it is that after a nuclear blast, the radiation hangs around for so long. Since the radiation is moving shouldn't it just fly off in all different directions and dissapate rather quickly? Thanks.

To some extent this is a "how long is a piece of string" question. The answers are very variable and depend on what sort of device has been initiated, how it has been initiated and the conditions under which it has been initiated. The amount of radioactive contamination produced by the device can change dramatically with even small shifts in basic parameters.

The primary thing we have to consider is whether we are initiating a fission device or a fusion device. Brief diversion here is in order. We express the power of a nuclear device as its yield which is defined in terms of its explosive power as measured by the equivalent in tons of trinitrotoluene (TNT). This is measured as Kilotons (thousands to tons of TNT) and megatons (millions of tons of TNT). However, the destructive power of a nuclear device is proportional to the cube root of its explosive power. Therefore, a 20 kiloton nuclear device is not twice as destructive as a 10 kiloton device. In addition, there are a confusing number of other variables involved, resulting mostly from the intercation of ground and air waves, primary and secondary effects etc. These can cause some very anomalous results. Finally, its possible to play with the design of devices to produce Really Strange Effects.

Let's start with fission devices. Radiation from a fission device comes from three primary sources. The first of these is primary radiation which is a mix of neutron radiation and gamma radiation released by the mecanism of the device initiating. The key point about these is that they are absorbed by the atmosphere, so they are a significant cause of casualty only relatively close to the initiation point (the thing called Ground Zero - the spot on the ground directly underneath the point where the device was initiated). Primary radiation causes biological injury at the cellular level and molecular level; massive does (over 1000 rem) are certain killers; the vctim will expire in hours or weeks at the most. Lesser doses (from 100 rem to 1000 rem) cause the disease now known as "radiation sickness". This can be fatal but may not be - the rule of thumb is, if you are alive 8 weeks after initiation, you won't die of radiation sickness. It should be noted that primary radiation is transient, its an effect of the initiation itself. It doesn't hang around.

The second cause of radiation is Secondary Radiation. This is caused by the primary radiation forming radioactive products in the surrounding areas. This is only appreciable close in to the Ground Zero. However, a particular danger is that these areas are also those that are burning and the combustion products may have been rendered radioactive and inhaled by the victims. The level of radioactivity isn't actually very high and is short-lived but the intimate consumption (breathing or by mouth) makes them peculiarly deadly. In another connection, I mentioned the futility of getting into water; if you are ever caught in a nuclear event, this is a BAD mistake to make. The water near a nuclear initiation is deadly, deadly poisonous. The river at Hiroshima was filled with bodies of people who'd drunk the water and died as a result.

Finally we have Initiation Products. This is material that is sucked (or starts life) in the fireball resulting from the initiation. It consists of the components of the device itself including the casing and unconsumed fissile (only four percent of the fissile material in the mark One device dropped on Hiroshima was consumed), air and water vapor in the immediate vicinity of the initiation and debris from the ground that is sucked into the fireball. If the fireball touches the ground (a groundburst), this is likely to be extensive however if it does not (an airburst) this final category is not significant.

The Initiation Products are blown into the air and descend over the target area over a period of a few hours. They cause injury by skin burns, by ingestion and by entering wounds and burns. However, this is a relatively limited effect , the radiation from Initiation products decays fairly quickly and, within a week to ten days, the threat has largely abated. It is also restricted in area affected unless some Really Strong Winds are blowing. Remember, fission devices are not really that powerful.

Fusion devices, though, are. Oddly, this solves some problems as well as causing others. Primary radiation is not a problem. The reason is that the fusion device produces so much blast and heat that anybody close enough to ground zero to be affected by primary radiation will have been killed by the other effects. Put another way, since blast and heat will have reduced you to the size, shape and consistency of a MacDonalds Hamburger, irradiating you as well is superfluous. That also applies to secondary radiation; close enough in to be affected by it, you'll be long dead from other effects before secodnary radiation gets to be a problem.

Initiation products are much more of a problem. The debris from the device is not so; fusion devices are much more efficient than fission ones (primarily because they consume fissile so efficiently; contrary to popular belief, most of the explosive yield from a fusion device comes from the fission component). It is possible to design fusion devices with efficiencies close to 100 percent - meaning they are clean. Clean devices are very good news for a lot of reasons (none of which have any connection with caring for the environment - we make devices as clean as possible for good military reasons, not for any other considerations). Initiation products from the atmosphere are greater than from a fission device, primarily because the fireball is so much greater. If its a groundburst, huge amounts of debris will be sucked into the fireball and produce a lot of initiation products. However, airburst produce virtually none - and airbursts are by far the most common form of initiation. Targets that require ground bursts are few and far between.

The problem with fusion devices is that they tend to blast the initiation products high into the atmosphere - stratospheric contamination is quite common. This is good news and bad news. The good news is that most (like 90 percent plus) of the radioactive product will have decayed and be harmless by the time it gets down. The bad news is that the bit that hasn't will be spread very far. If there have been a lot of ground bursts, then the contamination will be enough to cause severe problems for a year or more. If you are in the plume of fallout froma ground-burst you can expect to receive around 1000 - 5000 rems in a period of about a week to ten days. You won't need to worry after that.

However, the fiction stories about areas being contaminated beyond use for centuries are just that - fiction. A year after The Great Laydown, you should be able to visit Ground Zero with relative safety. Except for a few hot spots, the amount of fallout contamination will have decayed to relatively low levels.

constible
2004-Feb-05, 03:25 PM
stuff

Is that from memory or did you get that from a source?

If it's from memory, kudos to you. If it's a source, could I see the link?

Thanks in advance.

Kebsis
2004-Feb-05, 03:26 PM
Wow, great post, thanks. =D>

Now that we're on the subject, does anyone know how a nuetron bomb works?

Stuart
2004-Feb-05, 04:59 PM
If it's from memory, kudos to you. If it's a source, could I see the link? Thanks in advance.

Written from memory; its intimately concerned with what I do for a living.

Stuart
2004-Feb-05, 05:03 PM
does anyone know how a neutron bomb works?

Yes :D


To make one, take 1 oz. Beer, 1/3 oz. each; Vodka, Rum, Triple Sec, Amaretto, Sloe Gin & Galliano, Splash of Orange juice. Shake with ice, Strain into a chilled cocktail glass


Seriously, how a nuclear device works (ie is made) shouldn't be discussed in an open forum.

Kebsis
2004-Feb-05, 05:30 PM
Well I don't mean how is one made, I mean what does it do?

Stuart
2004-Feb-05, 05:39 PM
Well I don't mean how is one made, I mean what does it do?

It emits a large amount of high-energy radiation that is particularly lethal against people sheltering underneath armor plate. It is, therefore, peculiarly lethal against tank crews. On the other hand, its blast and thermal effects are depressed and the radiation it emits are absorbed by damp earth and concrete. Therefore, civilians sheltering in basements and troops in field fortifications are at much less risk.

Kebsis
2004-Feb-05, 06:50 PM
That's what I thought, thanks. Now, I need to know if it's possible to make one out of a microwave oven, a remote control, a toilet plunger and a 24 case of Dr.Pepper.

Heh, I've gotten myself into a bit of a jam, you see. #-o

ToSeek
2004-Feb-05, 08:19 PM
That's what I thought, thanks. Now, I need to know if it's possible to make one out of a microwave oven, a remote control, a toilet plunger and a 24 case of Dr.Pepper.


Only if you also have a deck of cards and a toothpick. Otherwise, forget it.

Oops
2004-Feb-05, 08:49 PM
What is a neutron bomb?

wedgebert
2004-Feb-05, 09:07 PM
A neutron bomb is basically a nuclear bomb without the heat and shockwave. You get a large blast of radiation, but little else. It's designed to kill off the personal of a target while leaving the buildings and equipment intact.

daver
2004-Feb-05, 09:19 PM
That's what I thought, thanks. Now, I need to know if it's possible to make one out of a microwave oven, a remote control, a toilet plunger and a 24 case of Dr.Pepper.

Heh, I've gotten myself into a bit of a jam, you see. #-o

The Journal of Irreproducible Results published plans for one several years ago. I don't remember the details, but I don't think you need the Dr. Pepper. You can go ahead and drink that now.

Glom
2004-Feb-05, 09:25 PM
Aren't neutron bombs banned by some treaty?

swansont
2004-Feb-05, 09:26 PM
fusion devices are much more efficient than fission ones (primarily because they consume fissile so efficiently; contrary to popular belief, most of the explosive yield from a fusion device comes from the fission component). It is possible to design fusion devices with efficiencies close to 100 percent - meaning they are clean.

How are you defining efficiency? The nucleon number will be conserved, so what kind of products are produced that you consider "clean?"

Kebsis
2004-Feb-05, 10:10 PM
Aren't neutron bombs banned by some treaty?

I don't think so. Although at one point the US gov't decided to stop producing them, but eventually they restarted the Neutron bomb program. Really, as far as nukes go neutron bombs are probably the least offensive so I dont know why anyone would ban them and not the fusion or fission bombs.

NGR
2004-Feb-05, 11:23 PM
Stuart, why exactly is the water deadly. Is it simply because of contamination?

TinFoilHat
2004-Feb-06, 12:26 AM
A neutron bomb is basically a nuclear bomb without the heat and shockwave. You get a large blast of radiation, but little else. It's designed to kill off the personal of a target while leaving the buildings and equipment intact.
This is the popular myth about neutron bombs. It's false. Neutron bombs were designed to kill personell in tanks and armored bunkers that might survive a near hit from an ordinary nuclear device. They're not designed or expected to kill off people while leaving buildings intact.

Jpax2003
2004-Feb-06, 04:11 AM
There are some who have claimed that Neutron bombs make nuclea war more likely. I think their idea is that they are limited surgical weapons rather than indiscriminate city-busters. The idea is that the lower civilian casualty counts may make their use more appealing. That seems to ignore the fact that many people would act on the basis of a Nuke is a Nuke is a Nuke and respond massively.

Besides, the anti-tank role has been taken over by other means, such as strike fighters and helos, artillery, and smaller anti-tank missiles. Of course, if someone took us by surprise and mounted several divisions of armor strength against us, neutron bombs might be the quickest way to stop the advance... assuming our satellites didn't see the buildup to begin with.

The origination of the idea was to defeat vast numbers of soviet tanks. That threat has largely evaporated. Even if the Russians wanted to invade Europe, would we defend them with nukes. Would we want to defend them at all? Maybe Russian hegemony over Europe would be a good thing. ;-)

Postmortem
2004-Feb-06, 07:02 AM
I have another question about nukes, what are the white lightning looking lines that sometimes form around a nuclear blast?

etLux
2004-Feb-06, 07:30 AM
I have another question about nukes, what are the white lightning looking lines that sometimes form around a nuclear blast?

To make one, take 1 oz. Beer, 1/3 oz. each; Vodka, Rum, Triple Sec, Amaretto, Sloe Gin & Galliano, Splash of Orange juice. Shake with ice, Strain into a chilled cocktail glass.
I would suspect it's the result of an horrendous hangover...

Charlie in Dayton
2004-Feb-06, 08:39 AM
I have another question about nukes, what are the white lightning looking lines that sometimes form around a nuclear blast?

Are you talking about something like this? (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/testpix/climaxb.jpg)

Those are actually smoke trails from rockets. They are launched a few seconds before the blast. Movies of the blast show the movement of shock waves and pressure waves through the atmosphere by movement of the smoke trails. Note that there are lots of them, and they're spaced so the shock wave moves down the 'picket fence' of smoke. If you ever watch a movie of a blast like this, you'll see the smoke trails are pretty much straight lines beforehand.

Charlie in Dayton
2004-Feb-06, 08:40 AM
I have another question about nukes, what are the white lightning looking lines that sometimes form around a nuclear blast?

Are you talking about something like this? (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/testpix/climaxb.jpg)

Those are actually smoke trails from rockets. They are launched a few seconds before the blast. Movies of the blast show the movement of shock waves and pressure waves through the atmosphere by movement of the smoke trails. Note that there are lots of them, and they're spaced so the shock wave moves down the 'picket fence' of smoke. If you ever watch a movie of a blast like this, you'll see the smoke trails are pretty much straight lines beforehand.

Postmortem
2004-Feb-06, 10:02 AM
cool thanks, I always kind of figured they were caused by the shockwave, I have seen many videos of atomic blasts but never noticed the lines forming before the blast

Glom
2004-Feb-06, 10:49 AM
Of course, the best way to stop a fleet of tanks would be to blast the area with an EMP.

Kaptain K
2004-Feb-06, 12:32 PM
Of course, the best way to stop a fleet of tanks would be to blast the area with an EMP.
I'm not sure how you figure that EMP would stop tanks. The Diesel engines use mechanical fuel injection. EMP would kill the electronics, but the tank would still run and I would assume that the guns have manual back-up modes.

Madcat
2004-Feb-06, 12:50 PM
Hmm. Would that stop a turbine engine? :-?

HAVOC451
2004-Feb-06, 01:08 PM
Hmm. Would that stop a turbine engine? :-?

If the fuel supply remains constant then no, it wouldn't stop a turbine. The electronic controls would probably be toast so you might loose it eventually.

Stuart
2004-Feb-06, 01:50 PM
Aren't neutron bombs banned by some treaty?

No, an enhanced radiation device (the correct name for a neutron bomb) is simply a standard device that's been rigged to give off an increased amount of primary radiation in comparison to its explosive yield. The design came out of the Zeus anti-ballistic missile program since devices initiated in LEO depend on primary radiation for their lethal effects. There's no way the devices can be banned withiout eliminating nuclear weapons as a class - and there has never been a case in the whole of human history where a weapon has been eliminated by treaty. By the way, nearly all the technical data wavailable on the web related to enhanced radiation devices is disinformation.


How are you defining efficiency? The nucleon number will be conserved, so what kind of products are produced that you consider "clean?"

I define it the way any weaponeer would define it. Efficiency is the amount of fissile material that is converted into explosive energy (blast, heat etc etc). In the Markl One dropped on Hiroshima, only 4 percent of the fissile was converted into explosive energy, the rest was distributed as contamination over the target area. In the Nagasaki Laydown, the Model 1561 used converted about 8 percent of the fissile into energy, the rest being distrubuted as contamination. A modern device will convert something like 97 - 99 percent of the fissile into explosive energy.


why exactly is the water deadly. Is it simply because of contamination?

That's right Water acts as a very efficient collection medium for a combination of contaminants that are both extremely radioactive and seriously toxic.


Of course, the best way to stop a fleet of tanks would be to blast the area with an EMP.

And this would work how? EMP is nowhere near the all-conquering killer it is made out to be. Most military systems are hardened against it. EMP won't knock out the propulsive power of a tank; the diesel is all-mechanical. You might, if the system is soft, knock out the ballistic computer but the tank crew simply revert to using the Stadiametric sight installed as a backup (ie go back to 1970s technology) . You might fry the radios if you are lucky but there are otherw ays of getting message saround (runners for example). EMP tends to get thrown around as the great dreaded threat and it is nasty against unhardened systems but they are rare in the military world.

Bob
2004-Feb-06, 07:35 PM
This is the article daver referred to from the Journal of Irreproducible results. You can decide for yourselves if it is still funny these days.

http://textfiles.sdf1.net/humor/atombomb.hum

swansont
2004-Feb-06, 09:05 PM
How are you defining efficiency? The nucleon number will be conserved, so what kind of products are produced that you consider "clean?"

I define it the way any weaponeer would define it. Efficiency is the amount of fissile material that is converted into explosive energy (blast, heat etc etc). In the Markl One dropped on Hiroshima, only 4 percent of the fissile was converted into explosive energy, the rest was distributed as contamination over the target area. In the Nagasaki Laydown, the Model 1561 used converted about 8 percent of the fissile into energy, the rest being distrubuted as contamination. A modern device will convert something like 97 - 99 percent of the fissile into explosive energy.



I still don't understand the link between this and "clean." If 100% of the fissile material undergoes fission- for sake of argument, say it's a mole of material - you have ~2 moles if fission product nuclei as a result. What happens to those fission products?

somerandomguy
2004-Feb-06, 11:17 PM
I still don't understand the link between this and "clean." If 100% of the fissile material undergoes fission- for sake of argument, say it's a mole of material - you have ~2 moles if fission product nuclei as a result. What happens to those fission products?

Energy. Right? Did I get this one right? :D

Zamzara
2004-Feb-07, 12:01 AM
That's what I thought, thanks. Now, I need to know if it's possible to make one out of a microwave oven, a remote control, a toilet plunger and a 24 case of Dr.Pepper.


I reckon a fellow could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

etLux
2004-Feb-07, 12:04 AM
That's what I thought, thanks. Now, I need to know if it's possible to make one out of a microwave oven, a remote control, a toilet plunger and a 24 case of Dr.Pepper.


I reckon a fellow could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

Or a good Reno bordello.

swansont
2004-Feb-07, 01:10 AM
I still don't understand the link between this and "clean." If 100% of the fissile material undergoes fission- for sake of argument, say it's a mole of material - you have ~2 moles if fission product nuclei as a result. What happens to those fission products?

Energy. Right? Did I get this one right? :D

No. Nucleon number is conserved - not all of the mass, or even most of the mass, is going to be converted into energy.

Jpax2003
2004-Feb-07, 02:44 AM
Of course, the best way to stop a fleet of tanks would be to blast the area with an EMP.
Isn't the easiest way to make an EMP bomb is to make a nuclear bomb? If I remember correctly there are actually two forms of EMP formed by a surface initiation. I think one form would take out even hardened electronics, but it's within the blast radius anyways so what point is there to it (except against launch silos, which might be empty anyways). There's the space scenario where a couple initiations in LEO might take out a continent's soft electronics, but that's not surgical.

Stuart, I was not sure what you meant by drinking the water as well. I thought you may have meant neutron activation of the water or something along those lines. By the way, what do you think of Sam Cohen, the so-called "father of the Neutron bomb," I see his name associated with neutron bombs on internet searches... I also see he writes about the dangers of red mercury, which I had read is a hoax. Sounds like irradiated cinnabar to me, but what do I know.

etLux
2004-Feb-08, 03:56 AM
Of course, the best way to stop a fleet of tanks would be to blast the area with an EMP.

Wrong, O nuclear-holocaust-breath!

The best way is with a peace treaty.

Kebsis
2004-Feb-08, 09:18 AM
Of course, the best way to stop a fleet of tanks would be to blast the area with an EMP.

Wrong, O nuclear-holocaust-breath!

The best way is with a peace treaty.

Well, I guess that sorta depends on who you're dealing with.


Of course, the best way to stop a fleet of tanks would be to blast the area with an EMP.

Don't EMP effects only last momentarily?

Kizarvexis
2004-Feb-08, 11:55 AM
Of course, the best way to stop a fleet of tanks would be to blast the area with an EMP.

Wrong, O nuclear-holocaust-breath!

The best way is with a peace treaty.

I don't know. To me that sounds like trusting the turn signal on an approaching car to make the car turn before it gets to you. Or a red stoplight to actually stop a car.

Kizarvexis

constible
2004-Feb-08, 01:59 PM
As to whether or not the weapons or banned, this is taken from the Geneva Convention:


PART III
METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE COMBATANT AND PRISONER-OF-WAR STATUS

SECTION I -- METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE

Article 35 -- Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.


This quote can be found here (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/G-3/62140.html#rid-62149)

The table of contents can be found here (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/G-3/)

The question is, do nuclear weapons pose a long term hazard to the environment and whether or not they cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Glom
2004-Feb-08, 08:07 PM
I wish I hadn't said that now. #-o

Stuart
2004-Feb-09, 02:05 PM
I still don't understand the link between this and "clean." If 100% of the fissile material undergoes fission- for sake of argument, say it's a mole of material - you have ~2 moles if fission product nuclei as a result. What happens to those fission products?

Let's start with some definitions.

A clean device is one that produces a minimum of radioactive contamination.

A dirty device is one that produces a maximum of radioactive contamination.

In the Model 1561 device initiated over Hiroshima, only 8 percent of the fissile material was consumed in the process - 92 percent was unconsumed and distributed as radioactive contamination over the ground. That eight percent was converted into energy which was distributed as heat, blast and primary radiation - all of which were transient effects and were gone. The only long-lasting contamination was from the debris of the device in question - the 92 percent of unconsumed material. Estimated vary, but that Model 1561 initiation is usually rated as having yielded between 15 and 21 kilotons.

With a modern device, upwards of 97 percent of the fissile material is converted into usuable destructive power - leaving barely three percent (and often less than that) to be distributed as contamination. The rest is gone, converted into energy and dissipated as heat, light, blast and primary radiation. The amount of long-term contamination is proportionately less - it'll never get quite to zero but we can get really close. A modern thermo-nuclear device can yield up to 100 megatons (in fact, there is no upper limit, you want a BIG device, we can build it for you) but an average is between 350 and 550 kilotons. And most of that comes from fission.

Why? Because most people make a serious mistake when dealing with thermonuclear devices (H-bombs). They assume that the fission component is there to initiate the fusion process and the fusion component is mostly responsible for the yield of the device. In reality, the fusion component simply super-compresses the fissile and ensures in gets consumed efficiently. To produce a clean device, the ideal is to have just enough of a fusion process to ensure that all the available fissile is consumed. The latest devices do just this - to the point where the fusion component of the overall yield is so low that it's hard to describe the device as "thermonuclear" at all.

The answer to your question is that they do not appear as radioactive contamination and that is all we care about.

Stuart
2004-Feb-09, 02:08 PM
Wrong, O nuclear-holocaust-breath! The best way is with a peace treaty.

Wrong, O poor naive deluded one. It takes one party to start a war but it takes two to end one. Your "peace treaty" is just a piece of paper being waved in the breeze until both parties to the conflict agree to its terms. The tanks have to be stopped first, then you sign a peace treaty.

Stuart
2004-Feb-09, 02:17 PM
The question is, do nuclear weapons pose a long term hazard to the environment and whether or not they cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Actually, that is not the question at all. In fact, the environmental bit its completely irrelevent.

The key determinant is proportionality. A military measure must be proportional to the objective intended. For example, nuking a town because there is a sniper in the church tower is not proportionate. On the other hand, if that town contains a deep-buried bunker that controls the defenses in the area and is impossible to get at any other way, then nuking that town is entirely legitimate.

I could give you a very long lecture on how we target nuclear weapons and what we intend to do with them; however that would abuse Dr Plait's hospitality (and this entire thread is already dangerously OT).

If you wish to take this point up further, may I suggest you come
Here (http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm9)

and we can carry on with this there.

Stuart
2004-Feb-09, 02:19 PM
I wish I hadn't said that now. #-o

Why? - you were right in spirit; it was just the type of device you chose to use was inappropriate. And chosing the right type and configuration of device is my responsibility, not yours. Just tell me what you want to achieve and where and we'll do the rest.......

Glom
2004-Feb-09, 03:29 PM
And chosing the right type and configuration of device is my responsibility, not yours. Just tell me what you want to achieve and where and we'll do the rest.......

A device that can take down the camera crew in jungle in Australia so we can be spared the torment of I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! on ITV.

Stuart
2004-Feb-09, 03:54 PM
A device that can take down the camera crew in jungle in Australia so we can be spared the torment of I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! on ITV.

W-81 high airburst. Initiate 210 meters into the air for a blast-and-fire destructive radius (near-total fatalities) of just under 350 meters. The 500 REM dose from the initiation will be fatal over a radius of roughly 1 kilometer. That's pretty much about it. There will be flash and burn injuries up to a kilometer from Gound Zero. Amount of fallout will be inconsequential

If you give me a precise point, we can dial the yield right back. At that point, primary radiation becomes the most effective killer. (Note that if we have a precise location of the camera team, precision-guided munitions are much more effective than small nukes). Even if there is a level of imprecision, a cluster bomb will do a better job.

By the way, clean devices are critical in space travel; we don't want to let off dirty ones to power spacecraft.

Glom
2004-Feb-09, 04:04 PM
Well I don't have the exact location. But ITV (http://www.itv.com/celebrity) will know. We might have to capture and torture various officials.

DreadCthulhu
2004-Feb-09, 04:43 PM
The question is, do nuclear weapons pose a long term hazard to the environment and whether or not they cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Well, a nuclear bomb does not cause much more unnecessary suffering than large scale conventional bombing of cities. And I personally do not think nuclear weapons (at least in limited numbers) pose a long term enviromental threat - right now Nagasaki and Hiroshima are thriving cities.

Demigrog
2004-Feb-09, 07:12 PM
By the way, clean devices are critical in space travel; we don't want to let off dirty ones to power spacecraft.
Way to get the thread on topic :)

I’d always dismissed Orion-style propulsion for getting into orbit because of radioactive byproducts. However, if the devices can be as clean as 97%-99%, maybe it is doable. However, does that “clean” merely refer to radioactive byproducts, or to all toxic materials? Even conventional spacecraft produce too much pollution for some environmental zealots, and I’d expect some heavy metals from a nuclear drive, even if non-radioactive. Plus, is 97% efficiency possible in small nukes, or only in large ones?

Not that it matters; the drive could be 100% clean and safe and the anti-nuke activists would still never let it happen.

Stuart
2004-Feb-09, 07:28 PM
I’d always dismissed Orion-style propulsion for getting into orbit because of radioactive byproducts. However, if the devices can be as clean as 97%-99%, maybe it is doable. However, does that “clean” merely refer to radioactive byproducts, or to all toxic materials?

In my context, clean refers purely to the amount of radioactive contamination produced. If we're going to use the devices to get a spacecraft into orbit, we may have to think about other toxic products; I'd have to consult with some colleagues on that one. Personally I'd have no qualms about letting off a couple of modern devices in the atmosphere today; the pollution resulting would be fairly limited - as long as we stay into kiloton yields (say 100 kiloton max) my guess would be that we wouldn't get widespread contamination.

Simple answer - do the launches from Alamagordo; its a little hot there but a few more won't make it that much less. By the way, its possible to buy some Trinitite on the web if anybody is interested.

Gsquare
2004-Feb-09, 08:42 PM
The question is, do nuclear weapons pose a long term hazard to the environment and whether or not they cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Well, a nuclear bomb does not cause much more unnecessary suffering than large scale conventional bombing of cities. .

Well, I have to agree; annihilation in milliseconds certainly reduces the time of unnecessary suffering. :lol:

Jpax2003
2004-Feb-09, 08:47 PM
By the way, its possible to buy some Trinitite on the web if anybody is interested.

Is it legal? And is it safe to handle without radiological precautions?

Stuart
2004-Feb-09, 08:55 PM
By the way, its possible to buy some Trinitite on the web if anybody is interested.

Is it legal? And is it safe to handle without radiological precautions?

Oh yes, perfectly safe and legal. Try Here (http://www.twoguysfossils.com/trinitite.htm)

swansont
2004-Feb-09, 10:33 PM
Let's start with some definitions.

A clean device is one that produces a minimum of radioactive contamination.

A dirty device is one that produces a maximum of radioactive contamination.

In the Model 1561 device initiated over Hiroshima, only 8 percent of the fissile material was consumed in the process - 92 percent was unconsumed and distributed as radioactive contamination over the ground. That eight percent was converted into energy which was distributed as heat, blast and primary radiation - all of which were transient effects and were gone. The only long-lasting contamination was from the debris of the device in question - the 92 percent of unconsumed material. Estimated vary, but that Model 1561 initiation is usually rated as having yielded between 15 and 21 kilotons.

With a modern device, upwards of 97 percent of the fissile material is converted into usuable destructive power - leaving barely three percent (and often less than that) to be distributed as contamination. The rest is gone, converted into energy and dissipated as heat, light, blast and primary radiation. The amount of long-term contamination is proportionately less - it'll never get quite to zero but we can get really close. A modern thermo-nuclear device can yield up to 100 megatons (in fact, there is no upper limit, you want a BIG device, we can build it for you) but an average is between 350 and 550 kilotons. And most of that comes from fission.

...

The answer to your question is that they do not appear as radioactive contamination and that is all we care about.

97% of the fissile material consumed is not the same as 97% of the mass coverted to energy, unless you're loading up a bunch of antimatter. The constituent nucleons are still there, in the form of smaller nuclei, and I don't see how they aren't going to be radioactive. In fact, if the amount of energy liberated by fusion is small, I don't see how these bombs can really be cleaner than a pure fission bomb that is less efficient.

Unlkess there's something very fundamental missing in the explanation, it sounds an awfully lot like a con job for how one uses the term "clean," since "minimum" contamination is not zero contamination, and it sounds like it can't be anywhere close to zero.

Kizarvexis
2004-Feb-10, 03:19 AM
Unlkess there's something very fundamental missing in the explanation, it sounds an awfully lot like a con job for how one uses the term "clean," since "minimum" contamination is not zero contamination, and it sounds like it can't be anywhere close to zero.

Well clean can be a relative term. If you wipe your kitchen counter with a soapy sponge, it is clean, but I would necessarily want to do surgery on it. An operating room is clean (usually) but you wouldn't want to build computer chips on it as the version of clean for computer chips is much higher than for surgery.

Kizarvexis

swansont
2004-Feb-10, 02:05 PM
Unlkess there's something very fundamental missing in the explanation, it sounds an awfully lot like a con job for how one uses the term "clean," since "minimum" contamination is not zero contamination, and it sounds like it can't be anywhere close to zero.

Well clean can be a relative term. If you wipe your kitchen counter with a soapy sponge, it is clean, but I would necessarily want to do surgery on it. An operating room is clean (usually) but you wouldn't want to build computer chips on it as the version of clean for computer chips is much higher than for surgery.

Kizarvexis

Yes, but this definition seems to be akin to "We haven't spread bubonic plague on the table, so it's clean. Bubonic plague is dirty"

Probably brought to you by the same ad people that came up with "clean coal."

constible
2004-Feb-10, 02:42 PM
I was hoping for more of a rhetorical question. I had no intentions of bringing this way off topic.

Stuart, I'd like to continue this conversation, and I will on your board. It probably won't happen until this weekend though. Also, my understand of nuclear devices is limited though.


I do agree that nuclear powered engines are the best thing for space travel, at least until we come up with anti-matter engines and warp speed. :D

Stuart
2004-Feb-10, 09:25 PM
97% of the fissile material consumed is not the same as 97% of the mass coverted to energy, unless you're loading up a bunch of antimatter. The constituent nucleons are still there, in the form of smaller nuclei, and I don't see how they aren't going to be radioactive. In fact, if the amount of energy liberated by fusion is small, I don't see how these bombs can really be cleaner than a pure fission bomb that is less efficient.

Unlkess there's something very fundamental missing in the explanation, it sounds an awfully lot like a con job for how one uses the term "clean," since "minimum" contamination is not zero contamination, and it sounds like it can't be anywhere close to zero.

What you are referring to are a group of things called fission products. As a rule of thumb, a device liberates around 60 grams of fission products for every kiloton of yield. The radioactive contamination resulting from the initiation of a device is that of the fission products plus the debris from the device itself - unconsumed fissile.

Now lets do some maths. This is a very highly classified area, there are a lot of fundamental things missing and they are going to stay that way. So this is indicative only. Lets start by taking the Mark One device initiatied over Hiroshima.

It yielded around 15 kilotons so the amount of fission products released is in the region of 15 x 60 = 900 grams of fission products. However, the device was only four percent efficient so the total amount of pure fissile was 900/4 x 100 = 22.5 kilograms. In fact that figure is wrong because there are some fundamental flaws in the calculation, but don't worry about that.

Now lets look at a modern, equivalent device. Same yield 15 kilotons and the same generation of fission products, to give 900 grams of them. But the device is 97 percent efficient so the amount of pure fissile used is 900/97 x 100 = 9.3 kilograms. So, right there, we have 13.2 kilograms of pure fissile uranium or plutonium that is NOT being distributed over the target area. when initiating a clean device.

Now lets look at the fission products themselves. You said


and I don't see how they aren't going to be radioactive.

The fission products will be but the big question is - how radioactive? Its a spectrum. Some of the fission products are viciously radioactive, dreadfully so, a few seconds exposure will kill you dead. The problem is that they have very short half-lives (that few seconds again) so they are not a real problem. If they are deposited soon enough to be dangerous, they are so close to ground zero that the people exposed to them will already be dead or dying from other things (some of which would make death by irradiation a merciful release) . If they are kept airborne long enough to be widely distributed, then by the time people are exposed to them, they will have decayed to irrelevence.

At the other end of the scale are the fission products that have very long half lives. The catch is that they are not actually very radioactive and in most cases don't lift radioactivity levels much above background. In other words, not a serious threat.

The danger ground is the stuff in the middle, the ones that have a high enough radioactivity level to be dangerous plus a half life long enough to get them distributed. The problem is that there isn't actually that much in that specific category. If we want a really, really dirty bomb, what we do is heavily jacket it with non-fissile material that will be converted by the initiation into fission products that are in that mid-range category. You can probably think of a few - if you do, keep them to yourself. We don't build devices that way because they have no real military utility.

The truth is (and forget theoretical musings and what you think and what you feel, I mean real world truth - we've initiated these things and we know what the products are and how they spread and what their risks are) that it is perfectly possible to build a clean nuclear device, one that produces very little (like insignificant) contamination. The trick is to have as little debris from the device as possible and to manipulate the fission products so they are as much to the ends of the spectrum as posisble and as, little as possible in the middle.

The key is, don't let that fireball touch the ground. The moment it does so, all bets are off.

crazy4space
2004-Feb-10, 10:48 PM
I find your last comment interesting because in the artillery we used to airburst to get a more effective radius.

snowcelt
2004-Feb-11, 09:03 AM
I find your last comment interesting because in the artillery we used to air-burst to get a more effective radius.

And of course you are correct, an air-burst is the most effective. In the case of a nuke, if the fireball touches the ground you end up with concentrated nuclear contamination, an air-burst would create more instant destruction; and would diffuse quickly. The only way one would use a ground burst is to take out a hardened target such as a missile silo. I forgot. If you are an out-of-control power you may use a ground burst type weapon.

Stuart
2004-Feb-11, 02:14 PM
I find your last comment interesting because in the artillery we used to airburst to get a more effective radius.

That would be correct, for about 90 percent of military requirements, airbursts are far more effective (sometimes an order of magnitude more effective) than surface bursts. The fact that airbursts are relatively clean is an added bonus albeit an important one.

The very bad news is that any terrorist initiation of a nuclear device is going to be a surface burst. That will cause a whole world of hurt. By the way, to put this in a frame of reference, the airliners that hit the WTC had an explosive yield about equivalent to one kiloton.

If we are going to use nuclear devices as a means of propelling a spacecraft, the problem is going to be the initial launch. We have to get the assembly high enough so that we can use an airburst as the first big kick upwards (as I said before, I have no real qualms about an atmospheric initiation; as long as it is a true airburst, there isn't a grave problem.)

etLux
2004-Feb-13, 12:12 AM
Wrong, O poor naive deluded one.

I really find that commend offensive, Stuart.

I am *not* deluded.

And you richly deserve to be corrected about this:

To think for even a moment that a treaty could actually work plainly diagnoses me as completely batty... lol.

Heavens! Just look at our dismal history...

Stuart
2004-Feb-13, 01:36 PM
Wrong, O poor naive deluded one.
I really find that commend offensive, Stuart.

Good. I would point out that you started the exchange with


Wrong, O nuclear-holocaust-breath!

You can take my response as either a reply in kind or being flippant,. Take your choice. Either way your complaint is groundless.


I am *not* deluded. And you richly deserve to be corrected about this: To think for even a moment that a treaty could actually work plainly diagnoses me as completely batty... lol. Heavens! Just look at our dismal history...

I am sorry to have to put this quite so bluntly but if you think you can stop a war-in-progress simply by waving a piece of paper at it then you are indeed sadly deluded. A peace treaty is the result of concluding hostilities, not the means by which hostilities are concluded. Under the circumstances presented (the requirement of stopping a major invasion) we are first faced with the task of stopping that invasion, only after that can we proceed to the point of coming to a peace treaty.

Look at in nice easy terms. Nation A wants to get something friom nation B (what doesn't matter). It decides that the most convenient way of getting it is to invade (with or without a declaration of war). Do you seriously believe that Nation A is going to stop because Nation B suddenly calls "Peace Treaty". That is absurd to the point of insanity. The first step is to either stop the invasion by Nation A or to make it so costly that Nation A understands that the costs will far outweight the potential gains. Only when that point is achieved does a peace treaty become a plausible option. The Peace Treaty is the end not the means. Like most naive people, you are confusing means and ends.

This is not, however, the area where these issues should be discussed. If you wish to discuss them further go to the site reference I gave.

russ_watters
2004-Feb-13, 06:20 PM
I am sorry to have to put this quite so bluntly but if you think you can stop a war-in-progress simply by waving a piece of paper at it then you are indeed sadly deluded. A peace treaty is the result of concluding hostilities, not the means by which hostilities are concluded. Under the circumstances presented (the requirement of stopping a major invasion) we are first faced with the task of stopping that invasion, only after that can we proceed to the point of coming to a peace treaty. Hitler signed several peace treaties right at the beginning of WWII. The most famous one is the one Neville Chaimberlain waved in the air after Germany took Austria and part of Czeckoslovakia and before taking Poland.

somerandomguy
2004-Feb-13, 10:22 PM
:o [newbie desperately attempts to salvage the thread ahead of locking]

Sooo... umm... Let's say you're in a conflict that involves tactical nuclear exchange. And at the end, a peace treaty is signed, and you "win." And you decide that the right thing to do is to help repair the damage you've done with your nukes.

What are the top priorities? What specifically would the US do after a tactical nuclear exchange to limit civilian casualties and restore normal life in the defeated adversary's population?

Kaptain K
2004-Feb-13, 11:13 PM
I doubt very seriously that there will ever be a "tactical exchange" of nukes. Stuart can say more on this (or correct me if I'm wrong), but basically, the unwritten doctrine is "one flys, they all fly". :o

daver
2004-Feb-13, 11:21 PM
This is getting way off topic and off charter.

If the US is in a position to offer aid, it probably hasn't been involved (or maybe it was involved to the extent that some baddy we'll call NK launched a missile which we determined to be nuclear at us, but for some reason the missile didn't cause any civilian casualties (it missed its mark, it fizzled but didn't explode, something)).

Maybe we could move any survivors out of the worst damaged areas and dedicate one such as the planet's designated Orion Launch Site.

[edit to fix parenthesis nesting]

Jpax2003
2004-Feb-14, 03:46 AM
I doubt very seriously that there will ever be a "tactical exchange" of nukes. Stuart can say more on this (or correct me if I'm wrong), but basically, the unwritten doctrine is "one flys, they all fly". :oI wonder how accurate that is. Everyone seems to demonize nukes. However, in a small nuclear attack the population would get a quick lesson in the real hazards of radiation. Once the population is no longer burdened by scaretactics, they may be more likely to support the actual use of them.

If terrorists popped a nuke here or somewhere else, where would your response fall? Would we nuke desert caves (chemical weapons might be more effective). Would we nuke the supporting countries, even if they had no knowledge of the actual plan? Would we nuke the country that supplied the fissiles, even if it were not authorized by the government? If the supplier were a biggie, like russia, that'd be a bad idea, easier to ask for reparations. If the supplier was NK, Nuclear Blackmail might be a better alternative.

Azerelus
2004-Feb-14, 06:08 PM
I was wondering why it is that after a nuclear blast, the radiation hangs around for so long. Since the radiation is moving shouldn't it just fly off in all different directions and dissapate rather quickly?

Thanks.

Only a small amount of fissionable material is converted to energy. The rest is pulverized, turned into dust, and spread through out the area of destruction, sent up into the sky, etc.

The primary effect is a burst of Alpha, beta and gamma particles. These are in the initial blast and do the most damage (radioactive not physical). This radiation will dissipate rapidly.

A secondary effect takes places were certain materials will absorb part of the radiation. Like metals. Due to the violence of the explosion, other materials will absorb and become radioactive at the initial blast.

Due to the heat and force, a good deal of material is turned into fine dust, that fine dust continues to emmit radio-particles for a considerable period of time.

The Dirty bomb capitalizes on the effects of nuclear fallout. In this case the explosion is from a chemical source. The radioactivity comes from a radioactive substance (usually depleted fissionables) which is pulverized and released as dust which again contaminates.

Some interesting links dealing with the subject:

http://www.ccr.jussieu.fr/radioactivite/english/what_is_radioactivity.htm

This one gives a good outline on what Alpha, Beta and Gamma particles are about.

http://www.radmeters4u.com/FEMA_book/Contents.htm

This one is the official handbook for surviving nuclear fallout.


http://www.serendipity.li/more/atomic.html

This last gives a lot of information on the Bomb:

Please read the disclaimer of this site:

"The information contained in this document is strictly for academic use alone. Outlaw Labs and all publishers of this document will bear no responsibility for any use otherwise. It would be wise to note that the personnel who design and construct these devices are skilled physicists and are more knowledgeable in these matters than any layperson can ever hope to be. Should a layperson attempt to build a device such as this, chances are s/he would probably kill his/herself not by a nuclear detonation, but rather through radiation exposure. We here at Outlaw Labs do not recommend using this document beyond the realm of casual or academic curiosity."

It gives you some idea of the subject covered at that site.

Az

Kaptain K
2004-Feb-14, 07:51 PM
-snip-
The radioactivity comes from a radioactive substance (usually depleted fissionables) which is pulverized and released as dust which again contaminates.
-snip-
Depleted fissionables (nearly pure U238) are not hazardous, since the half life of U238 is 4.7 billion years. U238 is only slightly more radioactive than dirt. As Stuart said earlier, long lived isotopes are not a danger, due to their low level of activity and very short lived isotopes are not very dangerous, since they either land in areas that are totally destroyed or decay before they come back down. It is the "middle ground" isotopes that are dangerous - long-lived enough to be scattered around the globe, but short-lived enough to still be "hot". This was the premise of the "ultimate dirty bomb" of the 60's, the dreaded cobalt bomb. Instead of a fissile sheath, the sheath was cobalt 59 which absorbed neutrons to become cobalt 60, which has a half life of 5 years - long enough to be spread around the world, but short enough to be deadly.

somerandomguy
2004-Feb-14, 09:43 PM
This was the premise of the "ultimate dirty bomb" of the 60's, the dreaded cobalt bomb. Instead of a fissile sheath, the sheath was cobalt 59 which absorbed neutrons to become cobalt 60, which has a half life of 5 years - long enough to be spread around the world, but short enough to be deadly.

You say "of the 60's," which I assume means we're not so worried about this one today. Why not?

JohnOwens
2004-Feb-14, 09:56 PM
This was the premise of the "ultimate dirty bomb" of the 60's, the dreaded cobalt bomb. Instead of a fissile sheath, the sheath was cobalt 59 which absorbed neutrons to become cobalt 60, which has a half life of 5 years - long enough to be spread around the world, but short enough to be deadly.

You say "of the 60's," which I assume means we're not so worried about this one today. Why not?
Ooo, pick me, pick me!

Umm, the Cold War ended?

somerandomguy
2004-Feb-14, 10:07 PM
Umm, the Cold War ended?

:o I KNEW I missed something!! Too much Pac-Man .... :lol:

EDIT: Anyway, to explain what I was trying to ask, I was wondering if the concept behind the device was later discovered to be unsound, or if the radiation damage it would cause would be easily remedied due to more recently-developed techniques, or what... probably a dumb question, but that's never stopped me before!

Kaptain K
2004-Feb-14, 11:04 PM
The reason that the cobalt bomb was never developed (at least, I hope it wasn't) is that, if it was used, the only survivors would be those with the means to stay in hermetially sealed underground bunkers for decades! At the very least, all outside air and water would have to be extremely well filtered. Kind of futile to "win" the war if you don't survive to savor your victory.

Stuart
2004-Feb-16, 02:23 PM
we're not so worried about this one today. Why not?

Lack of military utility. Extreme radioactive contamination is something we've explicitly been trying to avoid in designing devices for years now. The ideal is lots of bang, lots of primary radiation, immense destruction at ground zero and that's it. Pretty well any study of using these things shows that long-term radioactive fallout production is seriously counter-productive (again, measured from the viewpoint of strategic, operational and tactical utility).

The "doomsday device" popularized by Dr Strangelove, was never a serious proposition. The guy who was my mentor in these things, Dr Herman Kahn, proposed it as a reductio ab adsurdam comment on the mutual assured destruction (MAD) theorization. Some people who'd never read his books or met the guy then assumed he was being serious.


Sooo... umm... Let's say you're in a conflict that involves tactical nuclear exchange. And at the end, a peace treaty is signed, and you "win." And you decide that the right thing to do is to help repair the damage you've done with your nukes.

There is no such thing as a limited, tactical nuclear exchange. One flies, they all fly. The mechanics of the decision-making processes are such that its inevitable that any first use of a nuclear device will result in almost immediate escalation massive counter-strike. Obviously that is a simplified way of looking at things and its a broad-brush approach to a complex issue but if there are enough nuclear warheads so that some can be used tactically, then any such use will result in a full-scale exchange. We saw that in the Black Brandt incident where the threat of a single inbound resulted in the Russians preparing to fire back with everything they had. The "flexible response" promoted by Kennedy et al was a fraud and the proponents knew it.


What are the top priorities? What specifically would the US do after a tactical nuclear exchange to limit civilian casualties and restore normal life in the defeated adversary's population?

Nothing. There is nothing they can do. Because they are dead. Do you have any idea what sort of horror we are talking about here? Nuclear weapons are not just big bombs; they are devices that end civilization as we know it. After a nuclear exchange has been completed and the effects have worked through the system, the population of the US is unlikely to be more than around 20 - 50 million. Centralized government will have gone, internal communications will have gone, trade will have gone. Culturally we would be pushed back to the 17th Century and the living standards/technology base of the First Frontier Settlers.

Here are some references for you.

Nuclear War (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html) This is a very good (by which I mean professional quality - governments pay good money for this sort of thing) description of what a nuclear war would be like although its political lead-up is a bit questionable and its very much a best-case analysis. In doing this sort of thing one does three analyses. Best-case, worst-case and median-case.

Nuclear policy (http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm2.showMes sage?topicID=1.topic)

How to plan a nuclear strike (http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm2.showMes sage?topicID=23.topic)

The Aftermath (http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm2.showMes sage?topicID=22.topic)

I hope these help.

Jpax2003
2004-Feb-17, 07:12 AM
Stuart, are you saying that there is no nuclear scenario that might not result in total nukage?

What if one country invaded another country and the defenders used tactical nukes on their own soil to take out attacking armor concentrations. Would you expect the attacker to resort to nukes immediately? (assuming the attacker has nukes) Would this necessitate the larger powers getting into it?

God forbid terrorists pop a nuke in the US, but if they did, do you think the Russians might not give us a pass to take out the terrorist supporting state's capitol if we wanted? (assuming they didn't get the nuke from Russia) Or do you think Russia would automatically go on alert fearing we think the nuke might have come from them (intentionally or not) expecting our response aimed at them and then we have the Field of Camlan?

Honestly, I expect a nuclear "event" with North Korea within the next 10 years (more likely 5). I also expect a terrorist nuke or radiological attack within 3 years. I can, with my limited knowledge, think of seveal ways it could be done, and I know if I can think of it then the baddies can. My limited and ancient contacts in the Intel community always lamented the lack of humint for sigint. That's public knowledge, and I expect that they will and are using that against us. High concept, low tech. I think that it's not the contect of the chatter that is important, but the timing of it, irrespective of it's content.

Stuart
2004-Feb-17, 09:04 PM
Stuart, are you saying that there is no nuclear scenario that might not result in total nukage?

Not quite. What I am saying is that a nuclear exchange between two powers that have access to an arsenal of such weapons cannot be confined to a limited tactical level - under those circumstances it will escalate to a full-scale strategic nuclear exchange very quickly. By very quickly I mean within minutes.


What if one country invaded another country and the defenders used tactical nukes on their own soil to take out attacking armor concentrations. Would you expect the attacker to resort to nukes immediately? (assuming the attacker has nukes) Would this necessitate the larger powers getting into it?

If both sides have nukes, one flies, they all fly. Under the circumstances you postulate, we would have escalation to strategic change almost as quickly as you can read this post. Both sides know that so the initial limited exchange just doesn't happen. Try this for an analogy. A nuclear war is like two men fighting a duel with sawed-off shotguns at one pace range. Can you honestly imagine either man firing just one barrel of his shotgun?


God forbid terrorists pop a nuke in the US, but if they did, do you think the Russians might not give us a pass to take out the terrorist supporting state's capitol if we wanted? (assuming they didn't get the nuke from Russia) Or do you think Russia would automatically go on alert fearing we think the nuke might have come from them (intentionally or not) expecting our response aimed at them and then we have the Field of Camlan?

The first case would take a lot of negotiating because the chance of teh second is so high.


Honestly, I expect a nuclear "event" with North Korea within the next 10 years (more likely 5). I also expect a terrorist nuke or radiological attack within 3 years. I can, with my limited knowledge, think of seveal ways it could be done, and I know if I can think of it then the baddies can. My limited and ancient contacts in the Intel community always lamented the lack of humint for sigint. That's public knowledge, and I expect that they will and are using that against us. High concept, low tech. I think that it's not the contect of the chatter that is important, but the timing of it, irrespective of it's content.

I agree although the ways you have thought of probably wouldn't work. (if you and the bad guys can think of them, so can the good guys). But yes, I think your assessment is perfectly correct.

Jpax2003
2004-Feb-18, 04:35 AM
Honestly, I expect a nuclear "event" with North Korea within the next 10 years (more likely 5). I also expect a terrorist nuke or radiological attack within 3 years. I can, with my limited knowledge, think of seveal ways it could be done, and I know if I can think of it then the baddies can. My limited and ancient contacts in the Intel community always lamented the lack of humint for sigint. That's public knowledge, and I expect that they will and are using that against us. High concept, low tech. I think that it's not the contect of the chatter that is important, but the timing of it, irrespective of it's content.

I agree although the ways you have thought of probably wouldn't work. (if you and the bad guys can think of them, so can the good guys). But yes, I think your assessment is perfectly correct.

That's what I was afraid of. I think I'll start digging my fallout shelter. Actually bought the tools for it a while ago.

Maksutov
2004-Feb-18, 05:07 AM
we're not so worried about this one today. Why not?

[edit]

The "doomsday device" popularized by Dr Strangelove, was never a serious proposition. The guy who was my mentor in these things, Dr Herman Kahn, proposed it as a reductio ab adsurdam comment on the mutual assured destruction (MAD) theorization. Some people who'd never read his books or met the guy then assumed he was being serious.

[edit]



Kahn was your mentor? What incredible reading he suppied back in the early 1960s. I loved those diagrams with rooms wired to blow each other up, but with the wiring and armament options just slightly varied in each case. #-o

Azerelus
2004-Feb-18, 09:23 AM
-snip-
The radioactivity comes from a radioactive substance (usually depleted fissionables) which is pulverized and released as dust which again contaminates.
-snip-
Depleted fissionables (nearly pure U238) are not hazardous, since the half life of U238 is 4.7 billion years. U238 is only slightly more radioactive than dirt. As Stuart


On the subject of depleted fissionables:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/03/03uranium

http://www.uwire.com/content/topops010603001.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dirtybomb/ferg-030303.html

Not dangerous?

Cobalt bomb:

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/NuclearChemistry/NuclearWeapons/FirstChainReaction/TypesofNuclear/CobaltBombs.htm

Last Paragraph:

The British did test a bomb that incorporated cobalt as an experimental radiochemical tracer (Antler/Round 1, 14 September 1957). This 1 kt device was exploded at the Tadje site, Maralinga range, Australia. The experiment was regarded as a failure and not repeated.

That is a cobalt salted nuclear device a Cobalt Bomb.

Az

Azerelus
2004-Feb-18, 09:33 AM
Limited use of Nukes is possible - again.

During the Cold war we had MAD (Mutually assured destruction) but now we have small nations with one or two bombs. A limited exchange could take place between Pakistan and India. It is highly likely that the USA and Russia would NOT respond with nukes because both of them know and understand full well that if one responded with a nuke on either side they would have the other launching a full scale attack.

The Little Guys have a handful of nukes. The ones that hold the biggest stock of these weapons would not risk launching a nuclear response. Thus we could see a real life nuclear war being fought by two minor nuclear powers.

A strike against either Super Nuclear Nation by a nation with limited arsenal may trigger a full out nuclear MAD scenario - however both Russia and the USA have treaties which allow some room for error and take into account that it is only correct for a nuclear power to respond in kind (one nuke for a nuke).

War is hell, the rules of Nuclear war were set by the USSR and USA, but those rules are changing.

Az

Stuart
2004-Feb-18, 02:26 PM
On the subject of depleted fissionables:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/03/03uranium

http://www.uwire.com/content/topops010603001.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dirtybomb/ferg-030303.html

Not dangerous?

Your first two references relate to the use of depleted uranium as an anti-tank shot. This is a spurious non-issue that's been pretty thoroughly discredited. I don't want to be rude but the whole DU issue is on a par with the Planet X and HB sites. By the way I've handled a DU AP shot and I suspcet quite a few other people here have as well.

The last one is the so-called "dirty bomb" where radioactive material is scattered throughout an area by a conventional explosion. This is a grotesquely overstated problem - which is not to say that it isn't a problem at all. A dirty bomb (note - bomb not device) would be a swine to clean up and would create fear and panic out of all proportion to its actual effects - which is, of course, what the terrorists want. I would point out that PBS is hardly an expert source of strategic matters.

Stuart
2004-Feb-18, 02:56 PM
Limited use of Nukes is possible - again.No it isn't. I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by limited. The term is used to refer to an exchange in which only a small proportion of the devices available to the participants are initiated and a substantial number remain unused.


During the Cold war we had MAD (Mutually assured destruction) but now we have small nations with one or two bombs. A limited exchange could take place between Pakistan and India.
Actually, we didn't. MAD is not and never has been US policy nor was it ever Soviet policy. In fact, MAD isn't a policy at all, its a shorthand description of the effects of certain policies applied in certain ways. Its usually taken out of context which is something of a pity.

As to numbers of devices in arsenals, you appear to have no idea how many are around. Your estimate of one or two is wrong by more than two orders of magnitude. India actually has a low number of hundreds of devices, Pakistan a small number of dozens. If there is any sort of nuclear exchange between those two countries it will very quickly escalate to the whole lot being used. Have you any conception of what initiating a couple of hundred nuclear devices over a country the size of Pakistan will do?


It is highly likely that the USA and Russia would NOT respond with nukes because both of them know and understand full well that if one responded with a nuke on either side they would have the other launching a full scale attack.

Which is precisely my point. One flies, they all fly.


The Little Guys have a handful of nukes. The ones that hold the biggest stock of these weapons would not risk launching a nuclear response. Thus we could see a real life nuclear war being fought by two minor nuclear powers.

This simply does not make any kind of sense. The people you describe as "Little Guys " have substantially more than a handful of devices. The smallest nuclear arsenal around contains several dozen. The seconde sentence in this section of your post contradicts your first.


A strike against either Super Nuclear Nation by a nation with limited arsenal may trigger a full out nuclear MAD scenario - however both Russia and the USA have treaties which allow some room for error and take into account that it is only correct for a nuclear power to respond in kind (one nuke for a nuke).
That is complete and utter nonsense. The whole point is there is no chance whatsoever that countries will respond one-for-one. Any first use no matter how limited will quickly expand to a full-scale strategic nuclear exchange that won't stop until the arsenals are empty and the delivery systems gone. The mechanics of the decision-making process make that inevitable. So inevitable that nobody ever really believed that tactical use of nuclear weapons was possible (which is why, for example, they were withdrawn from deployment on warships). Flexible response (which is what your one-for-one scenario is really called) was fraudulent from the first day onwars - and everybody who propounded it knew that. As for treaties, they are bits of paper, nothing more. They burn quite nicely in a nuclear blast.


War is hell, the rules of Nuclear war were set by the USSR and USA, but those rules are changing.

Actually, you are wrong again. The "rules" as you call them are determined by the characteristics of decision making arcs and the characteristics of the weapons systems in question. They were quite different in the days of fission devices than in the days of fusion weapons. They were quite different in the days of bombers than they are in the era of missiles (in passing, its interesting to contemplate what would have happened if the US had pushed a head with ABM development in the late 1950s and early 1960s, resulting in a nuclear environment today that is dominated by bombers rather than missiles. The strategic calculations are very different). The "rules" have nothing to do with the desires of the US or Russia. Interestingly, they are adopted by other countries as they develop nuclear arsenals simply because they are expressions of the basic realities that underlie them.

Put in astronomical terms, the orbits of planets around the sun are determined by physical "rules" the wishes of Venusians, Humans and Martians have very little impact on the configuration of the orbit.

The only "real" changes in the "rules" are the result of the characteristics of delivery systems. The differences of mechanics in the India-Pakistan issue are the direct result of those countries delivering their devices by aircraft rather than by missile (which is unusual these days) . However, both countries are developing nuclear-capable missiles and those will bring them into line with other nuclear powers.

The big change now is terrorist access to nuclear weapons (terrorists are usually state players by proxy and thus can be regarded as a different form of delivery system). They do change the application of the rules since, as a delivery system they have their own characteristics (which can be compared in some senses to manned bombers) but they don't change the basic "rules" just how those rules are applied.

Kebsis
2004-Feb-18, 03:47 PM
I've always wondered, if you get hit by a Neutron bomb, do you melt or do you turn to dust?

Stuart
2004-Feb-18, 04:15 PM
I've always wondered, if you get hit by a Neutron bomb, do you melt or do you turn to dust?

Neither, you develop a fine healthy glow.

Azerelus
2004-Feb-18, 05:22 PM
Depleted Uranium:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/408122.stm

http://ccnr.org/du_hague.html

http://www.arps.org.au/DU.htm

http://www.ccnr.org/bertell_book.html

Note the authors are doctors in many cases.

There is enough reason to say that depleted fissionables (FISSIONABLES includes a large array of material not just uranium) are dangerous - far more dangerous than dirt.

Az

Azerelus
2004-Feb-18, 06:01 PM
I've always wondered, if you get hit by a Neutron bomb, do you melt or do you turn to dust?

There was a full accounting of the effects of different kinds of bombs (Humor?)

The Atom Bomb - The Fiss that blows.

The Hydrogen Bomb - A little Fuse that blows.

The Cobalt Bomb, the Fuse that blows and blows and blows.

The Neutron Bomb - It kills people and leaves buildings standing.

The Listron Bomb - kills the germs that cause bad breath.


On a more serious note, The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth.

Delivering a hefty amount of lethal radiation would destroy cells, but not melt or burn away the body.

az

Stuart
2004-Feb-18, 06:23 PM
Note the authors are doctors in many cases.
So what? I don't care who or what they are. They are wrong. Full stop. End of argument.

Only the first source on your list is of any importance; the rest are political advocacy groups.

A quote from the first site on your list.


The environmental effects of depleted uranium have been studied comprehensively by a wide range of governmental and non-governmental bodies both before and after the Gulf War. Burn tests and other evaluations performed under simulated battlefield conditions indicated that the health risks associated with the battlefield use of depleted uranium were minimal

There is a problem with Uranium, its a heavy metal and like all heavy metals its toxic. That toxicity is repsonsible for some problems - but so is the lead used in conventional bullets. The reality is that if you are sitting in a tank that gets hit by a DU shot, you will suffer adverse health effects. Very adverse. You'll be stone dead in an instant.

You can produce as many secondary sources and political advocacy sites as you like but the fact is that detailed examinations show that you are still wrong. The depleted uranium shot accusations are nothing more than that - unsubstantiated accusations that were politically-inspired and have been comprehensively discredited. That is the end of the matter. Its over, stick a fork in it, its done.

tracer
2004-Feb-18, 10:09 PM
Seriously, how a nuclear device works (ie is made) shouldn't be discussed in an open forum.
Why not? It's not exactly secret information anymore.

Russ
2004-Feb-18, 10:40 PM
My input to this conversation is based only on my military training from the early 70's, so it may be a little fuzzy. Here goes, anyway.

Outside of the first few hours, 24 to 72 depending on the devise used, radiation is not the primary concern. Collateral effects of the primary blast, fire, small terresterial material fallout (dust), induced sizemic (sp?) activity (earth quakes) and panic were the main concerns. After those, sanitation and food stuffs were the next biggest concerns.

"Super fires" were expected to burn from the east coast to the Ohio & Tennessee river vallies and from Georgia to Texas along the Gulf coast. These were also a problem all the other places you'd expect, Pac NW, Minn, Wisc. Mich, forrested Canada etc. Collapse of infrastructure, electric & gas power, fresh & waste water, interstate & local roads, entire agriculture system, petroleum fuel systems, all would be inoperable for months to years.

To give you a feel for just one of these problems....remember the power failure last summer when N. Ohio, Michigan, Ontario, "the North East" lost all power for a few days? Remember how screwed up everything was? That was just the electrical system.

As I recall radiation was not the big issue.

Stuart
2004-Feb-19, 01:20 PM
quote="Stuart"]Seriously, how a nuclear device works (ie is made) shouldn't be discussed in an open forum. Why not? It's not exactly secret information anymore.

The production of a crude gun-configuration nuclear device is (mostly) public domain. However, even there some of the fine details are not. Implosion devices are a step further down that road; there are still some tricks that are not public domain. As devices get more sophisticated still, there is more and more that isn't accessible to the public.

But, as a general rule, I believe that it is foolish to discuss the intimate details of the reproduction of nuclear devices in an open forum. The same extends to things like bombs and booby-traps; knowing how to make most of them is publically available if one knows where to look but I'm not going to print that information here.

Also be warned - there is a lot of disinformation out there - just because you've seen a report on how something works doesn't mean it really works that way.

Amadeus
2004-Feb-19, 01:59 PM
I saw a program a few years back (I think it was horizon) and they were looking into Russias decaying nuclear weapons program. It showed rusting subs etc. But the bit that scared me the most is that apparently they built a series of suitcase nukes and handed them to agents to keep safe in target countries. The program then went to imply that after glasnost et al not all of the bombs have been accounted for. :o

Anybody know any hard facts on suitcase bombs?

daver
2004-Feb-19, 05:56 PM
Anybody know any hard facts on suitcase bombs?
No hard facts; I saw a program that purported that the term "suitcase bomb" was a misnomer. The Soviet designs were pretty bulky--more of a "trunk bomb" than a "suitcase bomb"--two-man portable rather than one-man portable.

Emspak
2004-Feb-20, 08:30 PM
Way back int he late 70s an old teacher of mine -- David Weir -- did a long article for Mother Jones on the Nuclear Emergency Response Team and the problem of suitcase bombs.

A lot of it will be, of course, wildly out of date by now -- if for no other reason than the electronics involved would be far more sophisticated now for their size.

But the thrust is basically that, yes, the physicists he spoke to all say it is possible to build one. (He did not detail it in his piece for obvious reasons). At the time it was likely out of reach for garden-variety terrorists (remember this is 20 years ago). If someone really, really wanted to plant a bomb somewhere in a city, there is (or was, I don't know about nowadays) no realistic way to find it if you have no clue where it is and the guy says "You have an hour before I blow up central Newark."

Weir's sourcing is sound and he quotes real people who work(ed) in the field, whose credentials can also be verified (a google search on any of the names shows them at their relevant organizations, no real cranks). I wish I could link to it, but a search of Weir's name would probably show it somewhere else. There were a few unnamed sources, but not near as many as in the average piece by the Wall Street Journal.

At the time the worry was about foreign governments that might try it, because the expertise involved to build a suitcase bomb is much greater than for the Hiroshima type devices, which in design terms are pretty simple but have a minimum size that probably won't fit in your duffel bag. (I stress Hiroshima type devices, I am not talking about far more sophisticated designs that followed and exist today).

Jpax2003
2004-Feb-21, 06:25 AM
Anybody know any hard facts on suitcase bombs?
No hard facts; I saw a program that purported that the term "suitcase bomb" was a misnomer. The Soviet designs were pretty bulky--more of a "trunk bomb" than a "suitcase bomb"--two-man portable rather than one-man portable.
Well, if it is a pullman you can wheel it around unassisted.

Well I think the army made a nuke so small it would fit in a bazooka... or am I thinking of the Davy Crockett? Anyways, you can make them small, but they pack less of a punch. A small couple kiloton nuke might even be capable of taking down a building if the demolitions team knows where to put it. I think Stuart said that the WTC explosions were about 2kt. I suppose it would be similar to a Fuel Air Explosive. However, I think a nuke explodes with more efficiency and increased thermal effects (I don't know the thermal graph profile per yield, I'd have to consult my computer nuke programs, assuming they are correct-they don't code for small nukes).

There was a rumor, more than a rumor based on my intel, that someone tried, or pretended to try, to sneak a suitcase nuke into the NYC area around Christmas 2001. Guiliani was furious that he wasn't told about it at the time. Whatever it was they thought they were looking for they didn't find, or so I heard.

Which reminds me, I'm still thinking about making novelty minature suitcase nuke alarm clocks... kinda like those alarm clocks that look alike sticks of TNT... maybe a bad idea. :lol:

Kaptain K
2004-Feb-21, 10:58 AM
A friend of mine was in the army in the mid 70's. He did a tour in Germany. He told me that mountain passes had manholes at the top of the pass. He said that in the event of armor invasion, there were teams assigned to drop suitcase nukes in each manhole to blow the passes to stop the tanks.*


* Yes, this is all hearsay and I have no confirmation.

Kizarvexis
2004-Feb-21, 05:09 PM
Well I think the army made a nuke so small it would fit in a bazooka... or am I thinking of the Davy Crockett? Anyways, you can make them small, but they pack less of a punch. A small couple kiloton nuke might even be capable of taking down a building if the demolitions team knows where to put it. I think Stuart said that the WTC explosions were about 2kt. I suppose it would be similar to a Fuel Air Explosive. However, I think a nuke explodes with more efficiency and increased thermal effects (I don't know the thermal graph profile per yield, I'd have to consult my computer nuke programs, assuming they are correct-they don't code for small nukes).

I knew about nuclear shells for the 8 inch howitzer and 155mm howitzer, but I had not heard of a bazooka nuke. Evidently, a nuclear shell was developed for a recoilless rifle, which is the type of weapon that was called the bazooka in WWII. The following page from the Wikipedia Encyclopedia has basic descriptions of the artillery and suitcase nukes.

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



A friend of mine was in the army in the mid 70's. He did a tour in Germany. He told me that mountain passes had manholes at the top of the pass. He said that in the event of armor invasion, there were teams assigned to drop suitcase nukes in each manhole to blow the passes to stop the tanks.*


* Yes, this is all hearsay and I have no confirmation.

I don't know about this. I would expect that using a nuclear artillery shell as described above would be safer and less risky than having a 'suitcase' bomb discovered/disarmed. The scenario your friend described sounds like a military urban legend to me. :)


To get back on target, with nuclear devices this small, I wonder how useful they would be in space. They do not weigh too much and are really small. I wonder if they would be useful in construction or mining in space?

Kizarvexis

Uncle Sam
2004-Feb-21, 07:42 PM
I saw a program a few years back (I think it was horizon) and they were looking into Russias decaying nuclear weapons program. It showed rusting subs etc. But the bit that scared me the most is that apparently they built a series of suitcase nukes and handed them to agents to keep safe in target countries. The program then went to imply that after glasnost et al not all of the bombs have been accounted for. :o

Anybody know any hard facts on suitcase bombs?

Don't believe everything they said. Those rusting subs were written off long time ago. Russians do not show REAL things to the public.

But, yes, they are not in very good shape now.

I'm not pretending to be an expert in that area, but I know that our (Russian) military chiefs were very concerned about spread-out of nuclear toys during/after collapse of USSR.

But I don't believe that these suitcases were really deployed in USA, Germany - may be.
Because there was much cheaper way of assymetric responce to nuclear attack - biological weapon (plague, smallpox, you name it).
I am sure that Soviets had agents armed with this Language in all major US cities, waiting for command. That kind of weapon was virtually undetectible with technology of those times, and shelf time of bio stuff is much longer.

Rerevisionist
2012-Feb-20, 03:18 PM
I'm not sure how live this thread is, as the posts seem to be in non-date order. I'm just posting to recommend the site www.nukelies.com ... I wouldn't bother, except that the htread explicitly on the topic has been closed, despite the fact there are quite a few threads about nuclear weapons, and of course the universe is composed of things of which alleged 'nukes' play an important part.

I would have pointed this out to 'Swift', but I can't find a 'report' function anywhere.

Swift
2012-Feb-20, 06:18 PM
I'm not sure how live this thread is, as the posts seem to be in non-date order. I'm just posting to recommend the site www.nukelies.com ... I wouldn't bother, except that the htread explicitly on the topic has been closed, despite the fact there are quite a few threads about nuclear weapons, and of course the universe is composed of things of which alleged 'nukes' play an important part.

I would have pointed this out to 'Swift', but I can't find a 'report' function anywhere.
Rerevisionist

Digging up an old thread on an almost unrelated topic, and posting what I already told you not to post, is just about the worst way you can Report a post.

The Report function is in the bottom left corner of every post, you go to the little black triangle with the ! in it, click on that, and then say what you want to say in the pop-up box. You can also click on my name in the top left corner of the post, and select Personal Message from the list that pops up.

Yes, there are many threads about nuclear weapons on BAUT, but the Conspiracy Theory forum is much more limited than the rest of BAUT in its scope.

Now, I'm starting to think they you are just trying to promote what is your website. In any case, I've determined it is not a proper topic for the CT forum. If you would like to dispute that, do it the proper way and we will consider it. If you try some other method again, you will be infracted.

I also strongly suggest you review our rules if you wish to continue posting here.