Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: celit!daemon@UCSD.EDU Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Size of Fuel Air Munitions Message-ID: <1991Jan15.021622.23422@cbnews.att.com> Date: 15 Jan 91 02:16:22 GMT References: <1991Jan14.011347.6684@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA Lines: 30 Approved: military@att.att.com From: celit!daemon@UCSD.EDU In article <1991Jan14.011347.6684@cbnews.att.com> jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Jeff Berkowitz) writes: > > >From: Jeff Berkowitz > >I recently recieved some secondhand information that the US now has >Fuel Air weapons in the kiloton range, that is, equivalent to small >(tactical) nuclear weapons. Supposedly, the detonation is capable >of producing an EMP pulse (an effect traditionally associated only >with nuclear weapons). Also supposedly, this weapon can be delivered >by cruise missile. This would seem to break down just on the physics of the situation. "Kiloton" range refers to something with the explosive effect of 1000 tons of TNT. With a FAM you can decrease the mass of the warhead because the oxidizer is in the atmosphere. Even a factor of 10 reduction in weigh of the warhead would leave you with a 100 ton warhead which is a lot more than any cruise missile is going to carry. The EMP is credible. Conventional explosives are used to simulate nuclear EMP for testing. -- David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celit!dave or dave@fps.com "You can"t build a national and international network using TCP/IP" --Laurie Bride, Boeing Computer Services