Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!wanginst!ulowell!ci-dandelion!talcott!husc6!harvard!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccird1!rb From: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci Subject: Re: Plutonium, Water, Tactical vs. Strategic Message-ID: <393@ccird1.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-May-86 20:49:15 EDT Article-I.D.: ccird1.393 Posted: Thu May 1 20:49:15 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 6-May-86 07:27:35 EDT References: <358@drutx.UUCP> <1063@whuxl.UUCP> <2384@jhunix.UUCP> <708@whuts.UUCP> <796@ccird2.UUCP> <13439@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Organization: CCI Rochester Development, Rochester NY Lines: 173 Xref: watmath net.politics:15642 net.sci:797 Summary: Airbursts This article actually contains three parts. The response to the main question, "how can water vapor burn?", a conservative worse case scenario of what could happen, and a possible argument FOR small tactical nuclear weapons. Although much of this is political, I am leaving it in net.sci so as to allow those who might have the knowledge to refute some of the theories presented to do so. If my theories are wrong, please explain why, if the facts are wrong, please give the facts. I'm not a nuclear physicist (I can't even spell it). Most of my information comes from bits and pieces of information given in the general press including UPI, NPR, and network news, and various other general programs. In article <13439@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: >In article <796@ccird2.UUCP> rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >>>thousand pounds of plutonium. >> >>There are lots of other things to worry about.... Things like possible >>ignition of water vapor in the atmosphere.... > > Water vapor is the *product* of combustion. How could it be "ignited"?? Water vapor can be super-heated back into it's componant parts, hydrogen and oxygen, which can be re-cumbusted. The superheating can be generated by a fusion reaction. Under normal circumstances and tests, there is a limited chain reaction. This is why a nuclear airburst of a 20 Kiloton bomb can wipe out a larger area than a ground zero explosion. When we begin to talk about 3000 20 Megaton bombs in nuclear airburst configurations with targets spaced within a 200 mile radius of each other, preferably on a cloudy day, we could see a "blanket effect" of burning hydrogen/oxygen between the individual targets. Some small amount of hydrogen would be fused into helium, but more importantly, anything under that "blanket" would be "cooked", possibly to the melting point of steel, in a matter of seconds. Current tactical weapons (the small ones), leave craters in underground tests of up to 3 miles. The same weapons above ground, could wipe out a 100 mile radius in an airburst. Strategic weapons (the big ones) could wipe out a 300 mile radius. Of course, defensive nuclear weapons would try to stop offensive ones before they reach their targets, probably over the atlantic and pacific oceans, where there is lots of humidity. In addition, the pressure of the heated gas, the ionized gases, and changes in electromagnetic charges could expose much of the outer atmosphere to solar winds, which would blow away the outer layer of the atmosphere. If enough ozone were lost, most surface creatures would be exposed to excessive ultra-violet radiation, and at the same time possibly extreme cold do to the loss of the heat retaining ionisphere. This is great for plants, but not so good for mammals, I don't know about reptiles and insects. There is a possibility that if you were living in a nuclear submarine, capable of producing oxygen from the ocean, and lived off the deep sea for a few hundred years, you might be able to surface and return to a somewhat normal life. Of course, subs from the "other side" would be hunting for you, and you would be hunting for them. You would also have to have both men and women aboard the subs to perpetuate the species. Civilization would tend to digress into an almost ritualistic "religion" since few of the crew would know why the technology aboard the sub worked, but instead only knew how to keep it working. Just as a mathmatical excercise, the 20 Kiloton bomb dropped on Hirosima leveled a 3 mile radius. The field strength force of a bomb is 1/distance**2 right? Let's say n=f/(d*d). The force at the three mile point would have been 20/9 or about 2 KT. n=f/(d*d) (d*d)*n=f d*d=f/n d=sqrt(f/n) d=sqrt(20000/2) d=sqrt(10000) d=100 Is this math right? So in other words, a ground zero explosion of a 20 megaton bomb would level a 100 mile radius. The same bomb in an airburst would level an even larger radius (2X I think), without allowing for the "chain reaction" of a similar large bomb in a close proximity, say 400 miles away. Remember, this is only the folks who would be killed instantly. Many people would be blinded, radiation poisoned (from the fusion reaction, not the plutonium), burned only with 2nd degree burns over their bodies, and deafened by shock waves. Don't H-bombs make a big BOOM :-)? Of course most major hospitals would be fried, as would most power plants, communications centers, and trained workers. We could compound that by pointing out that flammable materials such as gas mains would follow the lines and cause lots of secondary fire-works. And of course little water to put them out. About the only thing worse than dying in a nuclear war would be surviving long enough to experience the pain and suffering with no hope of long term survival. Reguarding plutonium vs. water vapor risks, remember that it only takes a few ounces of plutonium to trigger the fusion bomb. When we speak of a 20 Megaton bomb, we are talking about the explosive force equivalant to 20 Million Tons of TNT, not a bomb that contains 20 million tons of plutonium. Some tactical weapons (the very small ones) are very small, only 1 or 2 Kilotons, enough to level a shopping center or (more likely) an airport. Their main advantage is that they are about the size of a ping-pong ball and are therefore easy to deliver but hard to shoot down. They can be installed in small "gliders" and can be flown "through the doors of the kremlin", assuming they aren't jammed before they get there. In lightly populated areas, the leveling of a 1000 foot radius would be irritating, but hardly destroy civilization as we know it. It is very important to determine which weapons are being discussed, where they would be used, and how many would be used at one time. Theoretically, IF these tactical "micro-bombs" could be used without escalating into a full scale exchange of Strategic weapons, they would be about as destructive as napalm or various conventional weapons. IF tactical weaponry did not lead to launch of strategic weaponry, use of such devices would substantially lower the cost of delivery systems, reduce the man-power needed to gain a strategic position, and reduce the risk to pilots who could drop such weaponry from relatively safe altitudes and positions. In fact, much of the research into delivery systems have been the subject of various jokes. When we had an H-bomb the size of a hand grenade, they couldn't find any volunteers to throw it :-), the government researched the possibilities of using "frisbies" as delivery systems. Estes was actually granted a small (<$1 million) grant to come up with a remote controllable model rocket. You can buy simplified versions of several of these delivery systems at your local hobby shop. The problem, for both sides, is that there is no such understanding. If such tactical weapons were actually used, tested, or deployed in an improper manner, it would be a violation of the various treaties, and grounds for counter assault using progressively larger weapons, with the eventual possibility of an all out exchange of strategic nuclear weapons. Naturally, the U.S. would like to be able to set a threshold of say 1 Kiloton, because we have smaller bombs in this size range, but the U.S.S.R. doesn't have much of anything under 8 kilotons (2 mile radius). Also, the U.S. would like to be able to use many micro-bombs to be sure of getting the desired target, however, if the U.S. sends 20 1 Kton bombs, why shouldn't the U.S.S.R. treat that as the equivilent of 1 20 Kton bomb, and respond with 1 20 Kton bomb on an equally populated area? The fact that both sides have used weapons such as napalm and special explosives with destructive power of a 1 Kton bomb doesn't seem to bother anyone. It's the fact that they are "nuclear" devices which sends everyone running for the "no nukes now" campaign. The fact that the delivery systems for this power are very expensive and vulnerable doesn't bother anyone. Would you rather have 20 jet fighters and an aircraft carrier delivering 5 Ktons worth of 200 pound missles, or 1 fighter dropping 5 Ktons worth of 5 pound "model rocket/gliders"? It would be nice if a 5 Kton attack using conventional weapons, such as the attack on Libya, were considered the equivilant to a 5 Kton attack using nuclear weapons. It might make both sides think twice before using any sort of explosive force. But, if we have to use that kind of force, shouldn't we do so in the most cost-efficient manner possible, costs being reckoned in both dollars and human lives? I haven't heard what the radiation levels would be for these <1 Kton fusion weapons. Would it be worse than other conventional weapons such as phosphorous bombs?