Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!hropus!riccb!jmc
From: jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn )
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Plutonium, Water, Tactical vs. Strategic
Message-ID: <678@riccb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-May-86 07:25:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: riccb.678
Posted: Thu May  8 07:25:52 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 10-May-86 07:06:33 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Rockwell Telecommunications, Downers Grove,Il.
Lines: 227
Summary: Airbursts


>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.

This is not why airbursts wipe out larger areas then ground bursts or 
even why they are more desirable.  Ground bursts expend a great deal of
their energy digging a crater.  Most of the material from the crater is 
thrown into the atmosphere to become fallout.  Airbursts don't dig these
craters but rather spread less pressure over a wider area (still great
plenty to knock down buildings).  Ground bursts are only useful in
taking out missile silo's.

>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

A sunny day in the target area is when the most damage occurs.  This is
due to flash of bomb starting fires over a much larger area on a sunny day
then on a cloudy day.

>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.

Strategic weapons (the big ones) make the 3 mile craters.  We don't know
how to make bombs that can wipe out 100 mile radii areas in a single burst
(thank God).  The Big ones can wipe up to a 10 mile radius. Fires can
start out to 20miles on a sunny day.  Where the fires rage after that is
another topic.

>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.

What?  I've never heard this one before!

>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.

I think this article has digressed to flights of fancy.

>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.
 
Your math is OK however you've made invalid and over simplified assumptions
about how to calculate blast strength.  I think if you put some dimensions
in your equation you'll see that.  (i.e. 2KT/sq. mile which assumes the
blast strength is evenly distributed over the entire area).  
You need 5 lb/in2 to knock down buildings but I don't know how to convert
kilotons of TNT per sq. mile to pounds of force per sq. inch.

The bomb at Hiroshima by the way was an airburst.  Hiroshima was chosen for
it's geographical layout in that I believe it lies in a valley or bowl shaped
depression which tended to maximize destruction.  Also consider that not
everyone in the area was killed instantly.  People less then a mile from
ground zero at Hiroshima survived (and are alive today).

>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.

Finally, you said something that makes sense.  But pain and suffering are 
not limited to nuclear wars.  "Convensional" wars cause much pain and suffering
also.  One must remember that up until about 100 years ago (pre-WWI) wars were
fought between professional solders and rarely were there civilian casualties.
Now civilians live in target centers and nuclear or convensional many will die.
 
>Reguarding plutonium vs. water vapor risks, remember that it
>only takes a few ounces of plutonium to trigger the fusion bomb.

Thats bull.  Minimum critical mass for Pu239 is 500 grams and there
is no way you could make a bomb with minimum critical mass.  I believe
the smallest quantity you can make a bomb with is a pound but that is
not nearly a big enough bomb to produce fusion temperatures.

However you do have a good point here (pertaining to the main topic) in
that a 10 megaton bomb is not a fission device but rather a fusion bomb
which uses a substantually small fission weapon as a trigger.  What you
may not realize is that to produce more yield from a fission reaction the
object is to contain the blast long enough to convert as much mass to energy
as possible before the core blows apart as possible.  This does not imply
using more fissile material.  A small fission bomb may just be a more 
inefficient version of a larger bomb.  (I don't know if thats true or not
since bomb construction is not generally information that's easy to obtain)

>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

No nuclear warhead can ever be made small enough to fit in the volume
of ping-pong ball.  An 8" shell maybe.

>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.

We have non nuclear weopondry to be "irratating" with.

>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.
 
If that's a problem I wish we had a lot more of them.  The PROBLEM is not
how we can kill more efficiently,  the problem is how can we live together
peacefully.  We can already kill quite efficiently thank you!

>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?
 
At least our government still tries to stick to military targets and doesn't
try to wipe out population centers.  It is not possible to perform "surgical"
strikes using nuclear weapons.  Even small nuclear weapons will flatten an
unacceptably large area.  There are advanges to dropping many small bombs
over one large bomb.  You risk a few pilots (professional solders don't
forget) and spare population centers.
 
				Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around