U.S Has New Nukes; New Cold War Era Beginning??? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Points: 779,576, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%
    Otintx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    South of Texas
    Posts
    6,156
    Glock Armorer?
    No
    Glocks Owned
    Several
    Rep Power
    20
    The Center for Defense Information (CDI) claims that a detailed training replica–with dummy explosives and no fissionable material–was routinely concealed inside a briefcase and hand-carried on domestic airline flights in the early 1980s.

    While the explosive power of the W54–up to an equivalent of 6 kiloton of TNT (though the more common yield was much lower)–is not much by the normal standards of a nuclear weapon (the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were around 16 to 21 kilotons each), their value lies in their ability to be easily smuggled across borders, transported by means widely available, and placed as close to the target as possible.

    In nuclear weapon design, there is a trade-off in small weapons designs between weight and compact size.
    Extremely small (as small as 5 inches (13 cm) diameter and 24.4 inches (62 cm) long) linear implosion type weapons, which might conceivably fit in a large briefcase or typical suitcase, have been tested, but the lightest of those are nearly 100 pounds (45 kg) and had a maximum yield of only 0.19 kiloton.

    The largest yield of a relatively compact linear implosion device was under 2 kilotons for the cancelled (or never deployed, but apparently tested) US W82-1 artillery shell design, with yield under 2 kilotons for a 95 pounds (43 kg) artillery shell 6.1 inches (15 cm) in diameter and 34 inches (86 cm) long.


    wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device clik here

    Josey Wales: When I get to likin' someone, they ain't around long.
    Lone Watie: I notice when you get to DISlikin' someone they ain't around for long neither.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Points: 16,884, Level: 83
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 466
    Overall activity: 0%
    tim414's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    NorthTX, Lake Texoma
    Posts
    1,661
    Glocks Owned
    Yep
    Rep Power
    7
    @ Patton:

    Yeah, lots of variables. It would depend on the amount of radioactive contents and how well dispersed they become.

    Very basically: The implosion of weapons grade material-that is to smash it together-is what is needed to begin the 'chain' and the splitting of atoms which release energy and the dangerous radioactive 'pollution' (think of a cars tail-pipe-it's releasing pollution from the effects or combusting fossil fuel). Dirty bombs are not like this.

    Dirty bombs are packed with radioactive material, so the high explosives scatter that material. It would not have the fall-out pollution of a nuclear contribution. So, their effects are limited; but still, highly dangerous. It depends on the amount of both HE and "dirty" material packed within it.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Points: 16,884, Level: 83
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 466
    Overall activity: 0%
    tim414's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    NorthTX, Lake Texoma
    Posts
    1,661
    Glocks Owned
    Yep
    Rep Power
    7
    The W54 is what we removed if memory serves. It's shaped like a...well, never mind. But yeah, those lil bugers are dangerous. ONE well placed device could just about lay waste to NYC.

    Add; my memory says to me they yield up to 12 kt.....anyhow, whats important is we removed them. I suppose that study is why our military leaders decided to bring them back home way back when....my memory also tells me they can mate to torpedos and be planted under water. They had TWO types of triggering devices if I remember correctly.
    Last edited by tim414; 09-04-2015 at 01:43 PM.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    Glock.pro
    Advertisements
     

  5. #14
    Senior Member
    Points: 4,985, Level: 45
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 165
    Overall activity: 96.0%
    glocktoter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    300
    Glock Armorer?
    No
    Glocks Owned
    More than one
    Rep Power
    6
    New nukes? When something is 20 - 50 megatons, getting close to the target is good enough. Not trying to diminish the importance of your original post, but other than guidance systems or delivery platforms, how much "better" can a warhead get?
    Goodnight Chesty...wherever you are.

    USMC 83'-87'
    NRA Member
    Indiana & Utah CCW
    Member GSSF

  6. #15
    Senior Member
    Points: 32,467, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    billt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona
    Posts
    530
    Glock Armorer?
    No
    Glocks Owned
    21, 21-C, 30, 17-L, 17, 19, 26
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by tim414 View Post
    We have now new type nukes.............. This worlds just keeps getting more dangerous.
    Better weapons make the world safer, not more dangerous. I do agree with you about our "leader". We need one with the balls to use them. That equates to fear. Fear equates to compliance. I give you Kennedy / Khrushchev as my bona fides on that issue.
    I don't need my AR-15 "Assault Rifle" any more than Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus.

  7. #16
    Senior Member
    Points: 779,576, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%
    Otintx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    South of Texas
    Posts
    6,156
    Glock Armorer?
    No
    Glocks Owned
    Several
    Rep Power
    20
    Just one of the reasons they killed Kennedy ...










    Josey Wales: When I get to likin' someone, they ain't around long.
    Lone Watie: I notice when you get to DISlikin' someone they ain't around for long neither.

  8. #17
    Senior Member
    Points: 4,425, Level: 42
    Level completed: 38%, Points required for next Level: 125
    Overall activity: 0%
    blkh2o's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Tenn.
    Posts
    182
    Glock Armorer?
    No
    Glocks Owned
    G19, G23, G26, G27, G30SF
    Rep Power
    10
    I could see a refugee sneaking in anthrax a lot easier than the parts for making a dirty bomb. Kinda glad I don't live in a big city.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. cold weather care / advice on high quality lubricants
    By KenK in forum Glock Cleaning / Lubrication
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-30-2015, 09:15 AM
  2. A bit cold this morning
    By Joatmon in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-13-2015, 08:44 AM
  3. What to do on a cold rainy winter day??
    By Osageid in forum Reloading
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-15-2015, 01:29 PM
  4. Beginning Competition 2: The Gun
    By cohland in forum Competition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-23-2013, 03:58 PM
  5. The cold hard truth
    By blackriderhank in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-28-2011, 05:08 PM

Search tags for this page

linear implosion device

,

new cold war era

,

u.s. has best nukes